Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2006, 05:53:09 PM

Title: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2006, 05:53:09 PM

Woof All:

Well, lets dive right in:

Marc
=====================

Is Israel in America's Interest?
By Martin Kramer
Azure | October 13, 2006


The question of whether Israel is or is not an asset to the United States is
one we rarely bother to ask ourselves. Time and again, we see prominent
Americans -- presidents of the United States at the forefront -- emphasizing
their special relationship with Israel. In polls of American public opinion,
Israel scores very high marks, while sympathy for the Palestinians, never
very high, continues to drop. Why should we even ask ourselves whether
Israel is an asset or a liability to the United States? Isn't the answer
obvious?

Most supporters of Israel, when pressed to go a bit deeper, will give two
prime rationales for why the United States should back Israel. One is a
moral obligation to the Jewish people, grounded in the history of Jewish
persecution and culminating in the Holocaust. Israel, so this thinking goes,
is something the civilized world owes to the Jewish people, having inflicted
an unprecedented genocide upon it. This is a potent rationale, but it is not
clear why that would make Israel an asset to the United States. If
supporting Israel is an obligation, then it could be described as a
liability -- a burden to be borne. And of course, as time passes, that sense
of obligation is bound to diminish.

Another powerful rationale is the fact that Israel is a democracy, even an
outpost of democracy, in a benighted part of the world. But the fact is that
there are many non-democratic states that have been allies of the United
States, and important assets as well. Quite arguably, the Saudi monarchy is
an asset to the United States, because it assures the flow of oil at
reasonable prices, a key American interest. In contrast, the Palestinian
Authority and Iran, which have many more democratic practices than Saudi
Arabia, are headaches to the United States, for having empowered the likes
of Hamas and Ahmadinejad through elections. So the fact that Israel is a
democracy is not proof positive that it is an American asset.

Nevertheless, the Holocaust argument and the democracy argument are more
than sufficient for the vast majority of Americans. On this basis alone,
they would extend to Israel support, even unqualified support. And there is
an important segment of opinion in America, comprising evangelical
Christians, who probably do not even need these arguments. Israel is, for
them, the manifestation of a divine plan, and they support it as a matter of
faith.

But everywhere in the West, there is a sliver of elite opinion that is not
satisfied with these rationales. It includes policymakers and analysts,
journalists, and academics. By habit and by preference, they have a tendency
to view any consensus with skepticism. In their opinion, the American people
cannot possibly be wiser than them -- after all, look whom they elect -- and
so they deliberately take a contrary position on issues around which there
is broad agreement. In this spirit, many of them view U.S. support for
Israel as a prime focal point for skepticism.

In March, two American professors subjected the U.S.-Israel relationship to
a skeptic's examination. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the former from
the University of Chicago, the latter from Harvard, published a paper under
the title "The Israel Lobby: Israel in U.S. Foreign Policy." One version
appeared in the London Review of Books; a longer, footnoted version was
posted on the website of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The
paper caused a firestorm.

Mearsheimer and Walt are academic oracles of the so-called realist school in
international relations. Realism, in its policy application, is an approach
that seeks to isolate the conduct of foreign affairs from sentimental moral
considerations and special interests like ethnic and commercial lobbies, and
to base it instead on a pure concept of the national interest. Realists are
not interested in historical obligations, or in whether this or that
potential ally respects human rights. They see themselves as coldly weighing
U.S. interests, winnowing out extraneous considerations, and ending up with
policies that look out solely for number one: The United States.

Realist thinkers are not isolationists, but they are extremely reluctant to
see U.S. power expended on projects and allies that do not directly serve
some U.S. interest as they define it -- and they define these interests
quite narrowly. Generally, they oppose visionary ideas of global
transformation, which they see as American empire in disguise. And empire,
they believe, is a drain on American resources. They are particularly
reluctant to commit American troops, preferring that the United States
follow a policy of "offshore balancing" wherever possible -- that is,
playing rivals off one another.

These were the principles that guided Mearsheimer and Walt when they
examined the United States-Israel relationship. And this was their finding:
By any "objective" measure, American support for Israel is a liability. It
causes Arabs and Muslims to hate America, and that hate in turn generates
terrorism. The prime interest of the United States in the Middle East is the
cultivation of cooperation with Arabs and Muslims, many of whom detest
Israel, its policies, or both. The less the United States is identified as a
supporter and friend of Israel's five million Jews, the easier it will be
for it to find local proxies to keep order among the billion or so Muslims.
And the only thing that has prevented the United States from seeing this
clearly is the pro-Israel lobby, operating through fronts as diverse as the
American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, and so on.

This "Israel Lobby," with a capital L, has effectively hijacked U.S. policy
in the Middle East so that it serves Israel's, not America's, interests. In
one of their most provocative claims, the authors argue that Israel spurred
its neo-conservative allies in Washington to press for the Iraq war -- a war
that served no identifiable U.S. interest, but which was waged largely for
Israeli security. And, they continue, the growing drumbeat for an attack on
Iran also has its ultimate source in the Lobby. A nuclear Iran would not
constitute a threat to the United States, they argue, and military action
against Iran would not be in America's interest, since it would inflame the
Arab and Muslim worlds yet again, producing a wave of anti-American terror
and damaging the American economy.

The Mearsheimer-Walt thesis is not a new one. What is new is the prestige
that they lent to these ideas. Because their paper appeared on the Kennedy
School website, it soon became know as the "Harvard study" on the Israel
lobby. Harvard is one of the most recognizable names in the world, familiar
to every American from high school on up. Their study could not be ignored,
and the responses came fast and furious.

Many of them took the form of reiterating the two arguments I mentioned
earlier: Israel as a moral obligation of the West, and Israel as a
democracy. These arguments are compelling, or at least they are compelling
when made well. But for argument's sake, let us set aside the claim that
Israel and the United States share democratic values, rooted in a common
Judeo-Christian tradition. Let us set aside the fact that the American
public has a deep regard for Israel, shown in poll after poll. Let us just
ask a simple question: Is Israel a strategic asset or a strategic liability
for the United States, in realist terms?

My answer, to anticipate my conclusion, is this: United States support for
Israel is not primarily the result of Holocaust guilt or shared democratic
values; nor is it produced by the machinations of the "Israel Lobby."
American support for Israel -- indeed, the illusion of its
unconditionality - underpins the pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean.
It has compelled Israel's key Arab neighbors to reach peace with Israel and
to enter the American orbit. The fact that there has not been a general
Arab-Israeli war since 1973 is proof that this pax Americana, based on the
United States-Israel alliance, has been a success. From a realist point of
view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of
the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the
commitment of any force. It is, simply, the ideal realist alliance.

In contrast, the problems the United States faces in the Persian Gulf stem
from the fact that it does not have an Israel equivalent there, and so it
must massively deploy its own force at tremendous cost. Since no one in the
Gulf is sure that the United States has the staying power to maintain such a
presence over time, the Gulf keeps producing defiers of America, from
Khomeini to Saddam to Bin Laden to Ahmadinejad. The United States has to
counter them, not in the interests of Israel, but to keep the world's great
reserves of oil out of the grip of the West's sworn enemies.

Allow me to substantiate my conclusion with a brief dash through the history
of Israel's relationship with the United States. Between 1948 and 1967, the
United States largely adhered to a zero-sum concept of Middle Eastern
politics. The United States recognized Israel in 1948, but it did not do
much to help it defend itself for fear of alienating Arab monarchs, oil
sheikhs, and the "Arab street." That was the heyday of the sentimental State
Department Arabists and the profit-driven oil companies. It did not matter
that the memory of the Holocaust was fresh: The United States remained
cautious, and attempted to appear "evenhanded." This meant that the United
States embargoed arms both to Israel and to the Arabs.

So Israel went elsewhere. It bought guns from the Soviet bloc, and fighter
aircraft and a nuclear reactor from France. It even cut a deal with its old
adversary Britain at the time of the Suez adventure in 1956. Israel was not
in the U.S. orbit, and it did not get significant American aid.

Nevertheless, the radical Arab states gravitated toward the Soviet Union for
weapons and aid. Israel felt vulnerable, and the Arab countries still
believed they could eliminate Israel by war. In every decade, this
insecurity indeed produced war: 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. The United
States was not invested heavily enough to prevent these wars; its diplomacy
simply kicked in to stop them after the initial energy was spent.

Only in June 1967, with Israel's lightning victory over three of its
neighbors, did the United States begin to see Israel differently, as a
military power in its own right. The Arab-Israeli war that erupted in
October 1973 did even more to persuade the United States of Israel's power.
Although Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel, Israel
bounded back to achieve what military analysts have called its greatest
victory, repulsing an enemy that might have overwhelmed a less determined
and resourceful people.

It was then that the United States began to look at Israel as a potential
strategic ally. Israel appeared to be the strongest, most reliable, and most
cost-effective bulwark against Soviet penetration of the Middle East. It
could defeat any combination of Soviet clients on its own, and in so doing,
humiliate the Soviet Union and drive thinking Arabs out of the Soviet camp.

The 1973 war had another impact on American thinking. Until then,
Arab-Israeli wars did not threaten the oil flow, but that war led to an Arab
oil embargo. Another Arab-Israeli war might have the same impact or worse,
so the United States therefore resolved to prevent such wars by creating a
security architecture -- a pax Americana.

One way to build it would have been to squeeze Israel relentlessly. But the
United States understood that making Israel feel less secure would only
increase the likelihood of another war and encourage the Arab states to
prepare for yet another round. Instead, the American solution was to show
such strong support for Israel as to make Arab states despair of defeating
it, and fearful of the cost of trying. To this purpose, the United States
brought Israel entirely into its orbit, making of it a dependent client
through arms and aid.

That strategy worked. Expanded American support for Israel persuaded Egypt
to switch camps and abandon its Soviet alliance, winning the Cold War for
the United States in the Middle East. Egypt thus became an American ally
alongside Israel, and not instead of Israel. The zero-sum theory of the
Arabists -- Israel or the Arabs, but not both -- collapsed. American Middle
East policy underwent its Copernican revolution.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2006, 05:53:54 PM

Part Two

Before 1973, the Arab states thought they might defeat or destroy Israel by
some stroke of luck, and they tried their hand at it repeatedly. Since 1973,
the Arab states have understood not only that Israel is strong, but that the
United States is fully behind it.

As a result, there have been no more general Arab-Israeli wars, and Israel's
Arab neighbors have either made peace with it (Egypt, Jordan), or kept their
border quiet (Syria). The corner of the Middle East along the eastern
Mediterranean has been free of crises requiring direct American military
intervention. This is due to American support for Israel -- a support that
appears so unequivocal to the Arabs that they have despaired of overturning
it.

United States support for Israel has also enhanced its standing in another
way, as the only force, in Arab eyes, that can possibly persuade Israel to
cede territory it has occupied since 1967. In a paradoxical way, the United
States has been a major beneficiary of the Israeli occupation of Arab
territories: Arab leaders who wish to regain lost territory must pass an
American test. When they do, the United States rewards them, and the result
has been a network of American-endorsed agreements based on
American-mediated Israeli concessions.

It is this "peace process" that has turned even revolutionary Arab leaders
into supplicants at the White House door. They would not be there if a
strong Israel did not hold something they want, and if the United States was
not in a position to deliver it.

Compare this to the situation in the Persian Gulf, where American allies are
weak. There, the absence of a strong ally has bedeviled American policy and
forced the United States to intervene repeatedly. The irresolute Iranian
shah, once deemed a United States "pillar," collapsed in the face of an
anti-American upsurge, producing the humiliation of the embassy seizure and
a hostile, entrenched, terror-sponsoring regime still bent on driving the
United States out of the Gulf. Saddam Hussein, for some years America's
ally, launched a bloody eight-year war against Iran that produced waves of
anti-American terror (think Lebanon), only to turn against the United States
by occupying Kuwait and threatening the defenseless Saudi Arabia.

Absent a strong ally in the region, the United States has had to deploy,
deploy, and deploy again. In the Kuwait and Iraq wars, it has put something
like a million sets of boots on the ground in the Gulf, at a cost that
surely exceeds a trillion dollars.

It is precisely because the Gulf does not have an Israel -- a strong,
capable local ally -- that the United States cannot balance from offshore.
If the United States is not perceived to be willing to send troops there -- 
and it will only be perceived as such if it does sometimes send them -- then
big, nationalist states (formerly Iraq, today Iran) will attempt to muscle
Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab Gulf states, which have the larger
reserves of oil. In the Gulf, the United States has no true allies. It has
only dependencies, and their defense will continue to drain American
resources until the day Americans give up their SUVs.

In Israel, by contrast, the United States is allied to a militarily adept,
economically vibrant state that keeps its part of the Middle East in
balance. The United States has to help maintain that balance with military
aid, peace plans, and diplomatic initiatives. But this is at relatively low
cost, and many of the costs flow back to the United States in the form of
arms sales and useful Israeli technological innovations.

In the overall scheme of the pax Americana, then, American policy toward
Israel and its neighbors over the past thirty years has been a tremendous
success. Has the United States brought about a final
lamb-lies-down-with-lion peace? No; the issues are too complex. Are the
Arabs reconciled to American support for Israel? No; they are highly
critical of it. But according to the realist model, a policy that upholds
American interests without the dispatch of American troops is a success by
definition. American support of Israel has achieved precisely that.

Then there is the argument that American support for Israel is the source of
popular resentment, propelling recruits to al-Qaida. I do not know of any
unbiased terrorism expert who subscribes to this notion. Israel has been
around for almost sixty years, and it has always faced terrorism. Countless
groups are devoted to it. But never has a terror group emerged that is
devoted solely or even primarily to attacking the United States for its
support of Israel. Terrorists devoted to killing Americans emerged only
after the United States began to enlarge its own military footprint in the
Gulf. Al-Qaida emerged from the American deployment in Saudi Arabia. And
even when al-Qaida and its affiliates mention Palestine as a grievance, it
is as one grievance among many, the other grievances being American support
for authoritarian Arab regimes, and now the American presence in Iraq.

And speaking of Iraq, we are left with the argument that the United States
went to war there at the impetus of Israel and the "Israel Lobby." This is
simply a falsehood, and has no foundation in fact. It is not difficult to
show that in the year preceding the Iraq war, Israel time and again
disagreed with the United States, arguing that Iran posed the greater
threat. Israel shed no tears over Saddam's demise, and it gave full support
to the United States once the Bush administration made its choice. But the
assertion that the Iraq war is being waged on behalf of Israel is pure
fiction.

As for the suggestion that only Israel is threatened by an Iranian nuclear
capability, no assumption could be more na?ve. True, Iran has threatened
Israel, and it is a threat Israel cannot afford to ignore. But it is not the
first threat of its kind. In the spring before Saddam Hussein invaded
Kuwait, he declared that "we will make fire eat up half of Israel if it
tries to do anything against Iraq." The threat was meant to win him
Arab-Muslim support, but his real objective was to stand like a colossus
astride the oil-soaked Gulf. And so while he threatened strong Israel, he
actually attacked and invaded weak Kuwait.

This is unquestionably the first ambition of Iran: The wresting of the
Persian Gulf from United States domination. A nuclear Iran -- the
nuclearization of the world's great oil reservoir -- could allow Iran to
foment and manage crises almost at will. Iran, without invading any other
country, or using a nuclear weapon, could fill its coffers to overflowing
simply by rattling a nuclear sabre. Remember that Iran derives more than
eighty percent of its export revenue from oil, and its intensified nuclear
talk has already contributed to windfall revenues. This year Iran will make
$55 billion from oil; it made only a little more than half that in 2004.
Every rise of a dollar in price is a billion dollars in revenue for Iran. A
nuclear Iran could rattle nerves even more convincingly, and drive the price
to $100 a barrel.

So Iran has a structural interest in Gulf volatility; the rest of the
developed and developing world, which depends on oil, has the opposite
interest. The world wants the pax Americana perpetuated, not undermined.
That is why the Europeans have worked so closely with the United States over
Iran -- not for Israel's sake, but for their own.

A nuclear Iran would also be a realist's nightmare, because it could push
the Saudis and other Arabs in the nuclear direction. Israel has a nuclear
deterrent, but Saudi Arabia does not. To prevent it from seeking one, the
United States would have to put it under an American nuclear umbrella. Other
Arab states might demand the same. And so the United States might be
compelled to extend nato-like status to its Arab dependencies, promising to
go to war to defend them. If it did not, the full nuclearization of the Gulf
would be only a matter of time.

In summation, American support for Israel -- again, the illusion of its
unconditionality -- has compelled Israel's Arab neighbors to join the pax
Americana or at least acquiesce in it. I would expect realists, of all
people, to appreciate the success of this policy. After all, the United
States manages the pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean from offshore,
out of the line of sight. Is this not precisely where realists think the
United States should stand? A true realist, I would think, would recoil from
any policy shift that might threaten to undermine this structure.

Among the many perplexing things in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, certainly
none is so perplexing as this. After all, if the United States were to adopt
what they call a more "evenhanded" policy, Israeli insecurity would increase
and Arab ambitions would be stoked. Were such a policy to overshoot its
mark, it could raise the likelihood of an Arab-Israeli war that could
endanger access to oil. Why would anyone tempt fate -- and endanger an
absolutely vital American interest -- by embarking on such a policy?

That is why I see the Mearsheimer-Walt paper as a betrayal of the hard-nosed
realism the authors supposedly represent. Sometimes I wonder whether they
are realists after all. Mearsheimer and Walt urge "using American power to
achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians." Is this realism,
or romanticism? After all, "just peace" is purely subjective, and its
definition is contested between and among Palestinians and Israelis. Its
blind pursuit might be destabilizing in ways which damage American
interests. This hardly seems like a cautious and prudent use of American
power. The aim of American policy should be the construction of an American
peace, one that serves American interests, not the unstable claims of
"justice."

The arguments for supporting Israel are many and varied, and no one argument
is decisive. Morality- and values-based arguments are crucial, but a
compelling realist argument can also be made for viewing Israel as an asset
to the West. It does not take a "Lobby" to explain this to the hard-nosed
strategic thinkers in the White House and the Pentagon. Of course, Israel
always welcomes help from friends, but it does not need the whole array of
organizations that claim to work on its behalf. The rationale for keeping
Israel strong is hardwired in the realities of the Middle East. The United
States does not have an alternative ally of comparable power. And if the
institutions of the lobby were to disappear tomorrow, it is quite likely
that American and other Western support would continue unabated.

That Israel looms so large as a valuable ally and asset, in a Middle East of
failed and failing states, is an achievement in which Israel can rightly
take pride. But it must never be taken for granted. Israel has come
perilously close to doing so in recent years, by unilaterally evacuating
occupied territory -- first in Lebanon, but more importantly in Gaza.
Whatever the merits of "disengagement" in its various forms, it effectively
cuts out the United States as a broker, and has created the impression that
Arabs can regain territory by force, outside the framework of the pax
Americana.

The main beneficiaries of this Israeli strategy have been Hezbollah and
Hamas, which are the strike forces of anti-Americanism in the region. It is
true that American democracy promotion has also been responsible for the
rising fortunes of such groups. But Israeli ceding of territory outside the
framework of American mediation has marginalized U.S. diplomacy. Israel has
made Hamas and Hezbollah, which claim to have seized territory through
"resistance," appear stronger than America's Arab clients, who had to sign
American-mediated peace deals to restore their territory. If Israel is to
preserve its value as a client, its territorial concessions must appear to
be made in Washington.

For Israel to remain a strategic asset, it must also win on the battlefield.
If Israel's power and prowess are ever cast into doubt, it will not only
undercut Israel's deterrence vis-?-vis its hostile neighbors. It will
undermine Israel's value to the United States as the dependable stabilizer
of the Levant. Israel's lackluster performance in its battle with Hezbollah
in the summer of 2006 left its many admirers in Washington shaking their
heads in disappointment. The United States, which has seen faceless
insurgents shred its own plans for Iraq, knows what it is to be surprised by
the force of "resistance." But Washington expected more of Israel, battling
a familiar adversary in its own backyard.

If Walt and Mearsheimer were right, the disappointment would hardly matter,
since the legendary Lobby would make up the difference between American
expectations and Israeli performance. But since the professors are wrong,
Israel needs to begin the work of repair. Preserving American support comes
at a price: The highest possible degree of military preparedness and
political resolve, leaving no doubt in Washington that Israel can keep its
neighborhood in line. The United States-Israel relationship rests on Israel's
willingness to pay that price. No lobby, however effective, can mitigate the
damage if the United States ever concludes that Israel suffers from a
systemic, permanent weakness.

While many Arabs have rushed to that conclusion since the summer war,
Americans have not. But a question hangs over Israel, and it will be posed
to Israel again, probably sooner rather than later. When it is, Israel must
replace the question mark with an exclamation point.


"We're all going to die, but three of us are going to do something"--Tom
Burnett, citizen-warrior KIA 9/11/01 engaging the enemy on Flight 93

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Bandolero on October 14, 2006, 05:00:52 AM

At the risk of getting myself in trouble on my first post, nonetheless, there will never be peace for Israel with its nighbors.  Israel's neighbors seek nothing less than the destruction of Israel, if not the outright extermination of all Jews.  The best Israel can ever hope for is a detente, the type that exists with Egypt (bought and paid for by the USA every year).  This detente exists only because of Israel's military prowess demonstrated several times over the past half century.  However, with the recent survival success of Hizballah against the fury of the IDF, the invincibility of Israel had taken a serious shot, and the contenders may start lining up once again.

The fact that Israel is a democracy is of no moment whatsover to its Arab neighbors.  Democracy is not a concept they value or appear to even be capable of valuing when so many have thrown their lot in with a 6th century mindset.  Their basic religion does not tolerate any other religious views whatsoever.  Women, at least in the Islamic dominated cultures, are relegated to the status of a dog.  True democracy (that which gives rise to true individual rights recognition) cannot even start to exist with such an imbalance.  The failure of democracy to take true hold in Iraq speaks volumes.  The closest Islam dominated states in the mid-East will ever come to democracy is the pseudo-democracy that exists in Egypt, which is not much better than the strongman runs the show political system in Syria.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2006, 05:54:12 AM

CWS:

Good to see you here.

Two questions:  Is Turkey a democracy?  Does Iran have the capacity to grow into a democracy?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Bandolero on October 14, 2006, 07:51:57 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2006, 05:54:12 AM

CWS:

Good to see you here.

Two questions:? Is Turkey a democracy?? Does Iran have the capacity to grow into a democracy?

IMHO Iran is for all practical purposes, if not outright so, a theocracy at the present time.  There is little likelihood anytime soon of changing that political situation.  The mere fact that elections were held made these elections no more "muti-opportunity" than elections in the former USSR were.  Back when the Shah was running the show he was one of the middle-East "strongmen", as was Hussein, and as are Assad, Mubarak and the Saudi royal family.  It seems to me that benevolent despots are about as close to democracy as it gets in the mid-east.

Turkey has a significant history of actively pursuing secularism.  I believe the government may even go so far as to control religion.  It would certainly appear that Turkey has a more solid grip on activist religion than in a number of other mid-East countries.  Keeping in mind that Turkey is seeking EU admission, has been a member of NATO for about 50 or so years, and is even geographically located as it is, I think the fairer question could almost be "is Turkey even a part of the mid-East?"

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2006, 09:10:12 AM

I have seen an article (I'll see if I can find it) which intelligently suggested that we should think more in terms of Arab than Muslim.  Turkey is not Arab, Iran is not Arab, Pakistan (which has had bouts of democracy) is not Arab. 

Speaking of Iran, there is the matter of the US aided disruption of the election of Mossadegh in 1953 (can anyone fill in intelligent background on this?) and the interlude of Iranian movement towards fuller democracy.  There seems to be a concensus that the Iranian people want democracy (and have pro-US feelings?) and the Iraqi people have voted three times for democracy under scary conditions.

Anyway, we digress from the theme of the thread (which is allowed around here  :-) ) 

Concerning Israel, I would offer that Hamas's election now ends the two-faced game that used to be played before and now as a government instead of a non-state entity, Hamas can be held accountable.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Bandolero on October 14, 2006, 10:51:48 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2006, 09:10:12 AM

I have seen an article (I'll see if I can find it) which intelligently suggested that we should think more in terms of Arab than Muslim.  Turkey is not Arab, Iran is not Arab, Pakistan (which has had bouts of democracy) is not Arab.?

As I was preparing that last response I found myself with a nagging thought about both Iran and Turkey that I could not put my finger on.  That both of these nations had reached a level of advancement (at least by Western standards) that other mid-east players had not arrived at.  Perhaps you just answered my internal question.

Regarding Pakistan, my only thought at the moment is thank God Musharraf is its leader.  He strikes me as somebody who is able to think globally at a level that rivals or exceeds many other national leaders, including of the Western world.  Frankly I wish my President were as bright as him.  :-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2006, 12:12:34 AM

I think that Turkey's secularism is nearing extinction. The long term trends don't look good.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 15, 2006, 05:37:22 AM

GM:

I've taken the liberty of moving your interesting post on Turkey to the "Islam in Islamic Countries" thread.

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2006, 09:38:35 PM

Abba Olmert
By MICHAEL B. OREN
November 16, 2006; Page A18

"Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone." With these words, Lyndon B. Johnson greeted Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban at the White House on May 26, 1967. The Middle East was in the throes of an escalating crisis. Gamal Abdul Nasser had evicted U.N. peacekeepers from Egypt's border with Israel, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and called on the Arab world to "throw the Jews into the sea." Israel had no intention of waiting to see if Nasser would carry out his pledge, or of keeping its troops on the permanent state of alert that was bankrupting the country. And so the Israeli government sent its foreign minister to seek Johnson's approval for mounting a pre-emptive strike. But LBJ only disappointed Eban. Though hostile to Nasser and firmly supportive of Israel, the president was hamstrung by America's imbroglio in Vietnam and by the drop in his domestic support. The most he offered the Israelis was Washington's help in mobilizing international action against Egypt. Beyond that, there was only that repeated, cryptic phrase, "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone."

Perhaps a similar message was imparted by George W. Bush in his meeting earlier this week with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Much like 1967, Israel faces a Middle Eastern leader who has repeatedly sworn to wipe it off the map, and to that end is assiduously trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Nasser, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can cripple Israel economically by keeping it in a state of alert, driving away foreign investment and tourism. In the absence of international commitment to thwart Iran's nuclear plans, Israel has no choice but to consider striking pre-emptively. Doing so, however, requires explicit U.S. support, or at the very least, an indication that the U.S. will not oppose such action. Like Eban 40 years earlier, Mr. Olmert came to Washington in search of a green light.

But the U.S. is hardly in the position to sanction an Israeli attack. Bogged down in Iraq and hemorrhaging political capital at home, Mr. Bush resembles Johnson in his inability to approve risky military initiatives. As inimical to Mr. Ahmadinejad as his predecessor was to Nasser, and at least as sympathetic to the Jewish state, Mr. Bush is nevertheless unable to undertake a unilateral attack against Iran or even to endorse an Israeli one.

This was bad news for Mr. Olmert. The Israeli prime minister hoped to secure a hard-and-fast timetable for interdicting Iran's nuclear program first by diplomacy and then, if that failed, by force. Instead, he heard that the U.S. would only support measures to isolate Iran economically and balked at the use of bombs. Though he and his administration have routinely stated a determination to prevent Iran from obtaining strategic capabilities, Mr. Bush, in the aftermath of his party's electoral defeats, avoided all public mention of armed power as a means of achieving that goal.

The only option for the U.S., then, is international sanctions. These, however, have proven singularly inadequate in quashing the nuclear aspirations of North Korea -- a country far more financially fragile than Iran -- and lack the vital support of Russia, China and France. Iran has also threatened to retaliate for sanctions by cutting back oil production and increasing its support for terror.

Back in 1967, Johnson also tried to apply international pressure on Egypt. He planned to issue a multilateral declaration condemning the closure of Tiran and to create a convoy of ships from 26 nations to physically challenge the blockade. But fearing for their oil supplies, European countries refused to cooperate with Johnson's d?marche, while Egypt threatened violence against any attempt to reopen the straits. In the end, only four countries were willing to sign the declaration and only two volunteered ships for the convoy.

Mr. Bush is unlikely to be more successful than Johnson in marshalling international strictures against a defiant Middle Eastern regime. Nor was Mr. Olmert liable to extract from Mr. Bush more concrete backing for pre-emptive action than Eban did from LBJ. At most, Mr. Bush could have signaled his sympathy for Israel's plight and for the steps it must take to ensure its survival. The light Mr. Olmert received in Washington was probably not green, but neither was it flashing red.

Eban left the White House disappointed and confused. Neither he nor the Israeli government could decipher the meaning of the message "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone." Was the president opposed to an assault against Egypt, as some of the ministers believed, or was he indicating his willingness to look the other way while Israel attacked? Ultimately, Israeli leaders concluded that, while the U.S. might condemn the action, it would probably do nothing to stop it. Johnson, for his part, understood that the Israelis had lost faith in international diplomacy and would interpret his words as a go. "They're going to hit," the president sighed, "and there's nothing we can do about it."

Lyndon Johnson indeed did little to prevent Israel from launching its surprise attack against Egypt on June 5 or, after Jordan and Syria joined the war, from advancing into the West Bank and the Golan Heights. The Six-Day War was a seismic event that profoundly altered the Middle East, with reverberations that continue to convulse the region. An Israeli strike at Iran's nuclear facilities could well have a similar impact, especially as Mr. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are certain to react violently.

Mr. Olmert and his government must consider such consequences as they decide on Israel's next moves. The ramifications of that decision are certain to affect America as well. Many Arabs to this day believe that the U.S. was complicit in the Six-Day War, and even that American pilots flew Israeli planes. Such rumors will again be rife if Israel attacks Iran, and especially if Israeli jets pass through Iraq's American-controlled airspace. Israel may indeed act alone, but in the minds of a great many people in the Middle East, the U.S. acts with it.

Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present," forthcoming from W.W. Norton.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2006, 11:05:45 AM

NYTimes today

ROAD 60, West Bank, Nov. 14 ? For four years, the separation barrier Israel has been building just inside the West Bank boundary has drawn protests from Palestinians and international censure for the hardship it imposes on their movement and access to jobs and land.

Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times

But getting much less notice have been parallel and perhaps even more restrictive measures imposed by the Israeli military much deeper inside the West Bank. The internal checkpoints and barriers on roads have increasingly limited movement, something Palestinians say they find especially grating, because they are not trying to enter Israel, only to go from one Palestinian area to another.

On a two-day, 75-mile trip along Road 60, the main north-south highway that runs along the hilly spine of the West Bank, a reporter and a photographer for The New York Times examined the daily friction between Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers.

In one of the more sweeping restrictions, men under 35 from the northern West Bank are generally not allowed to leave the area. The rules often change, but this one has been enforced most days for the last four months, Palestinians say.

?My main job now is waiting in line,? Hakim Abu Shamli, 40, said during a two-hour delay at a teeming checkpoint. Mr. Abu Shamli, an electrical engineer, lives in Tubas near the city of Nablus, and for years his commute to work was a 20-minute taxi ride. Now he leaves home at 5:30 a.m. to reach his job by 8, and he is often late. There are always two checkpoints, and one recent day there were seven, he said.

The Israeli military says that the web of travel restrictions was imposed in response to the Palestinian uprising that erupted in 2000 and that the measures have greatly reduced the number of deadly attacks by Palestinians.

?We?re seeing an increasing fragmentation of the West Bank,? said David Shearer, head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which monitors the West Bank. ?The whole fabric of life for the Palestinians has been disrupted.?

His office says Palestinians traveling within the West Bank now face 542 obstacles, 83 of which are guarded by soldiers, compared with fewer than 400 a year ago. The obstacles have effectively divided the West Bank into three sectors ? northern, central and southern ? and limited movement among them.

?We know these measures harm the quality of life of the Palestinians, but they save the lives of Israelis,? said Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the government department that deals with the Palestinians.

As Palestinians make their way through dozens of military checkpoints, they are delayed for hours, rerouted to dirt roads and sometimes turned back altogether on their way to jobs, schools and family visits. They also face hundreds of unattended obstacles that include earth mounds, concrete blocks and trenches that have cut many roads, forcing lengthy detours.

?I used to work as a laborer in Israel,? said Mutie Milhem, 33, a taxi driver near Jenin who had just endured a lengthy wait at a checkpoint. ?When that became difficult, I thought it would be easier to be a driver in the West Bank. But every day here becomes harder. We never know what we are going to face.?

Jenin has the reputation as the most radical West Bank town, a center for militancy, and Israel has increasingly isolated it. Israel?s separation barrier, which consists of fences and walls, blocks travel in three directions, and the only way out of Jenin to another city is Road 60 to the south.

The town?s economy has been hit hard, and the main taxi stand overflows with frustrated drivers working their way through packs of cheap cigarettes. The drivers write their names on a blackboard and wait, sometimes for a day or more, before they are called to take passengers outside Jenin. Then they begin hitting obstacles well before reaching the closest Palestinian city, Nablus, less than 20 miles away.

Road 60 is closed to Palestinians for a short stretch that passes by Shavei Shomron, one of many Jewish settlements built on hilltops overlooking the road. To circumvent the blockade there, Palestinian taxi and truck drivers created a rutted path that travels across open fields for several miles.


---
By the western entrance to Nablus, at the Beit Iba checkpoint where Mr. Abu Shamli, the engineer, was stuck, the Israeli soldiers grew angry as the Palestinian crowd began bunching around them. The soldiers began confiscating identity documents as a punishment, though they later returned them.

Along Road 60 Israel says the multiple layers of security not only keep Palestinian attackers out of Israel but also protect the 250,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Before the Palestinian uprising began in 2000, obstacles in the West Bank were relatively few.

?Route 60, used both by the Israeli and Palestinian populations, is a designated location for terrorist attacks against Israelis,? the Israeli military said in a statement. ?If it were not for Palestinian terrorism, the crossings would not have been established.?

The Israeli military listed 13 actual or attempted Palestinian attacks on Road 60 in the last year, with four Israelis killed. In addition, Palestinians threw stones or fired on cars dozens of times.

In the northern West Bank, jobs are extremely scarce and the movement restriction on men under 35 has made it virtually impossible for them to look elsewhere in the West Bank for work. University students, most of them commuters, also face a tough time with changing rules.

?Sometimes I can?t make it to the university,? said Ala Suboh, 21, an engineering student at Al Najah University in Nablus. ?Other times I make it but I?m not allowed to leave the city and have to spend the night on the floor of a friend?s house.?

The Hawara checkpoint, on the southeastern edge of Nablus, is about 15 miles from the closest West Bank boundary, and a few years back it consisted of several soldiers on the side of the road checking identity documents. Now it resembles an international border.

Israel says internal checkpoints like the one at Hawara are crucial. Numerous would-be suicide bombers have been stopped there.

In 2002, West Bank Palestinians carried out more than 50 suicide bombings; this year there have been two that killed Israelis.

Many Palestinians going through the checkpoint are commuting to Nablus from their homes in surrounding villages. Yet Palestinians must go through turnstiles and metal detectors, while soldiers work on computers in glass booths.

It routinely takes an hour or more to pass during the morning and evening rush hours. Cars cannot pass unless they have permits from Israel. Some taxis and trucks have them, but private Palestinian cars on Road 60 are rare, because the permits are so hard to obtain.

The next major city along the road is Ramallah, the de facto political capital. Traditionally Palestinians have regarded the contiguous cities of Ramallah, Jerusalem and Bethlehem as one metropolitan area.

But now Israel does not allow the vast majority of West Bank Palestinians to enter Jerusalem. So they can no longer take Road 60 to Bethlehem and the south, but instead must take a lengthy detour on a narrow, winding road through the barren hills east of the city, which also includes a checkpoint.

Gabriel Jacoman, 50, was raised in a house on Road 60 as it enters Bethlehem. In 1994 he opened a chicken restaurant that thrived by serving the tourists who came from Jerusalem to visit the tomb of Rachel, the biblical matriarch.

Today his home and neighboring restaurant, now shuttered, are sandwiched between 25-foot concrete walls built across Road 60. One wall is several hundred yards north of his home and serves as the border between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The second wall is a few paces south of his front door, part of the wall built around Rachel?s Tomb.

?This was the road everyone took from Jerusalem to the southern West Bank,? Mr. Jacoman said. ?Now you can?t take it in either direction.?

In the 1990s, Israel rerouted parts of Road 60 so that it looped around some Palestinian towns. Those bypasses allowed Jewish settlers to travel the West Bank without having to go through Palestinian towns, where they often faced stones or worse.

The center of Hebron, the southernmost West Bank town on Road 60, is ghostly quiet. Aside from occasional pedestrians, the only activity consists of Israeli security forces patrolling near the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Several hundred Jewish settlers live in the city. Israel has imposed some of its most severe restrictions on roughly 30,000 Palestinians who used to live in the center; many have moved out, at least temporarily.

?The whole area is completely dead,? said Talib Karaki, 50, who lives with more than 100 members of his extended family in a two-house compound near the tomb.

Last month Mr. Karaki?s 3-year-old grandson, Walid, picked up gravel and started tossing it toward a soldier at the checkpoint, Mr. Karaki said. The soldier came to complain, and a big argument ensued.

?The whole thing was ridiculous,? the grandfather said. ?But it shows how crazy our life has become.?

Title: Israeli Map
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 21, 2006, 04:58:22 AM

Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land
               
By STEVEN ERLANGER
NY Times
Published: November 21, 2006

JERUSALEM, Nov. 20 ? An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.

Settlements on Privately-Owned Palestinian Land Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.

If big sections of those settlements are indeed privately held Palestinian land, that is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace. The data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.

The new claims regarding Palestinian property are said to come from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel?s presence in the West Bank. Peace Now, an Israeli group that advocates Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plans to publish the information on Tuesday. An advance copy was made available to The New York Times.

The data ? maps that show the government?s registry of the land by category ? was given to Peace Now by someone who obtained it from an official inside the Civil Administration. The Times spoke to the person who received it from the Civil Administration official and agreed not to identify him because of the delicate nature of the material.

That person, who has frequent contact with the Civil Administration, said he and the official wanted to expose what they consider to be wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and settlers. The government has refused to give the material directly to Peace Now, which requested it under Israel?s freedom of information law.

Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Civil Administration, said he could not comment on the data without studying it.

He said there was a committee, called the blue line committee, that had been investigating these issues of land ownership for three years. ?We haven?t finished checking everything,? he said.

Mr. Dror also said that sometimes Palestinians would sell land to Israelis but be unwilling to admit to the sale publicly because they feared retribution as collaborators.

Within prominent settlements that Israel has said it plans to keep in any final border agreement, the data show, for example, that some 86.4 percent of Maale Adumim, a large Jerusalem suburb, is private; and 35.1 percent of Ariel is.

The maps indicate that beyond the private land, 5.8 percent is so-called survey land, meaning of unclear ownership, and 1.3 percent private Jewish land. The rest, about 54 percent, is considered ?state land? or has no designation, though Palestinians say that at least some of it represents agricultural land expropriated by the state.

The figures, together with detailed maps of the land distribution in every Israeli settlement in the West Bank, were put together by the Settlement Watch Project of Peace Now, led by Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran, and has a record of careful and accurate reporting on settlement growth.

The report does not include Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed and does not consider part of the West Bank, although much of the world regards East Jerusalem as occupied. Much of the world also considers Israeli settlements on occupied land to be illegal under international law. International law requires an occupying power to protect private property, and Israel has always asserted that it does not take land without legal justification.

One case in a settlement Israel intends to keep is in Givat Zeev, barely five miles north of Jerusalem. At the southern edge is the Ayelet Hashachar synagogue. Rabah Abdellatif, a Palestinian who lives in the nearby village of Al Jib, says the land belongs to him.

Papers he has filed with the Israeli military court, which runs the West Bank, seem to favor Mr. Abdellatif. In 1999, Israeli officials confirmed, he was even granted a judgment ordering the demolition of the synagogue because it had been built without permits. But for the last seven years, the Israeli system has done little to enforce its legal judgments. The synagogue stands, and Mr. Abdellatif has no access to his land.
----------

Ram Kovarsky, the town council secretary, said the synagogue was outside the boundaries of Givat Zeev, although there is no obvious separation. Israeli officials confirm that the land is privately owned, though they refuse to say by whom.

Settlements on Privately-Owned Palestinian Land Mr. Abdellatif, 65, said: ?I feel stuck, angry. Why would they do that? I don?t know who to go to anymore.?

He pointed to his corduroy trousers and said, in the English he learned in Paterson, N.J., where his son is a police detective: ?These are my pants. And those are your pants. And you should not take my pants. This is mine, and that is yours! I never took anyone?s land.?

According to the Peace Now figures, 44.3 percent of Givat Zeev is on private Palestinian land.

Miri Eisin, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that Israeli officials would have to see the data and the maps and added that ownership is complicated and delicate. Baruch Spiegel, a reserve general who just left the Ministry of Defense and dealt with the separation barrier being built near the boundary with the West Bank, also said he would have to see the data in detail in order to judge it.

The definitions of private and state land are complicated, given different administrations of the West Bank going back to the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan and now Israel. During the Ottoman Empire, only small areas of the West Bank were registered to specific owners, and often villagers would hold land in common to avoid taxes. The British began a more formal land registry based on land use, taxation or house ownership that continued through the Jordanian period.

Large areas of agricultural land are registered as state land; other areas were requisitioned or seized by the Israeli military after 1967 for security purposes, but such requisitions are meant to be temporary and must be renewed, and do not change the legal ownership of the land, Mr. Dror, the Civil Administration spokesman, said.

But the issue of property is one that Israeli officials are familiar with, even if the percentages here may come as a surprise and may be challenged after the publication of the report.

Asked about Israeli seizure of private Palestinian land in an interview with The Times last summer, before these figures were available, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: ?Now I don?t deny anything, I don?t ignore anything. I?m just ready to sit down and talk. And resolve it. And resolve it in a generous manner for all sides.?

He said the 1967 war was a one of self-defense. Later, he said: ?Many things happened. Life is not frozen. Things occur. So many things happened, and as a result of this many innocent individuals on both sides suffered, were killed, lost their lives, became crippled for life, lost their family members, their loved ones, thousands of them. And also private property suffered. By the way, on all sides.?

Mr. Olmert says Israel will keep some 10 percent of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, possibly in a swap for land elsewhere. The area Israel intends to keep is roughly marked by the route of the unfinished separation barrier, which cuts through the West Bank and is intended, Israel says, to stop suicide bombers. Mr. Olmert, however, describes it as a putative border. Nearly 80,000 Jews live in settlements beyond the route of the barrier, but some 180,000 live in settlements within the barrier, while another 200,000 live in East Jerusalem.

But these land-ownership figures show that even in the settlements that Israel intends to keep, there will be a considerable problem of restitution that goes beyond the issue of refugee return.

Mr. Olmert was elected on a pledge to withdraw Israeli settlers living east of the barrier. But after the war with Hezbollah and with fighting ongoing in Gaza, from which Israel withdrew its settlers in the summer of 2005, his withdrawal plan has been suspended.

In March 2005, a report requested by the government found a number of illegal Israeli outposts built on private Palestinian land, and officials promised to destroy them. But only nine houses of only one outpost, Amona, were dismantled after a court case brought by Peace Now.

There is a court case pending over Migron, which began as a group of trailers on a windy hilltop around a set of cellphone antennas in May 1999 and is now a flourishing community of 50 families, said Avi Teksler, an official of the Migron council. But Migron, too, according to the data, is built on private Palestinian land.

Mr. Teksler said that the land was deserted, and that its ownership would be settled in court. Migron, where some children of noted settlement leaders live, has had ?the support of every Israeli government,? he said. ?The government has been a partner to every single move we?ve made.?

Mr. Teksler added: ?This is how the state of Israel was created. And this is all the land of Israel. We?re like the kibbutzim. The only real difference is that we?re after 1967, not before.?

But in the Palestinian village of Burqa, Youssef Moussa Abdel Raziq Nabboud, 85, says that some of the land of Migron, and the land on which Israel built a road for settlers, belongs to him and his family, who once grew wheat and beans there. He said he had tax documents from the pre-1967 authorities.

?They have the power to put the settlement there and we can do nothing,? he said. ?They have a fence around the settlement and dogs there.?

Mr. Nabboud went to the Israeli authorities with the mayor, Abu Maher, but they were told he needed an Israeli lawyer and surveyor. ?I have no money for that,? he said. What began as an outpost taking 5 acres has now taken 125, the mayor said.

Mr. Nabboud wears a traditional head covering; his grandson, Khaled, 27, wears a Yankees cap. ?The land is my inheritance,? he said. ?I feel sad I can?t go there. And angry. The army protects them.?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 07, 2006, 10:08:09 AM

Jewish World Review Dec. 1, 2006 / 10 Kislev, 5767

These terror busters mix motorcycles and swagger

By Ned Warwick

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"No one messes with Yasam, especially the ones on the bikes," says an East Jerusalem Arab


JewishWorldReview.com | (MCT)

 
 

ERUSALEM — What looms suddenly in your rearview mirror and is past you in a streak on the stone slip of a darkened street is crime-fighting Israeli-style: two men, dressed in black, bent low on a dark motorcycle, the one behind with his automatic rifle angled off his back, the bike darting quick as a bat.


A moment later up ahead, near the Ben Yehuda shopping area in the center of Jerusalem, a man is up against a wall, dressed in clothes that resemble what a Hasidic Jew would wear, but in a faintly raffish way that doesn't quite square with the sober probity of Hasidism. The backseat rider from the motorcycle is frisking him; the driver, still atop his bike, is reaching for the man's identification.


The man is eventually let go but not before he is closely questioned. He has just had his first, and he hopes his last, brush with the motorcycle unit of Yasam, an elite police unit.


In a city that has experienced war, terrorism, and its share of crime, the sight of these fast-moving patrols elicits little reaction. But for newcomers, the first impression is of something straight from a thriller or a gritty science-fiction tale.


Their low-slung KLE 550 motorcycles are powerful and highly maneuverable, the right specs for threading the clogged and narrow streets of this edgy city at high speed.


And speed was of the essence one night in the summer of 2002, when, at the height of the intifada, a Palestinian militant started firing automatic weapons at pedestrians on busy Jaffa Street. A two-man Yasam team, blocks away, heard the gunfire and raced to the scene.


Jumping off their bike, the officers confronted the gunman. Shots were exchanged as pedestrians flattened on the sidewalk; the gunman was killed.


Tzvika Hassia, the superintendent of the Jerusalem Yasam force, said 24 members of his 80-person unit "ride and fight from motorbikes and are meant to answer (to) special criminal or terrorist acts quickly, getting to where cars can't go." Israel is divided into six police districts, and each has a Yasam unit.


To even be considered for the Yasam unit, applicants must have served in one of Israel's military combat units and been highly rated. Given that Israel has had precious few days without conflict, that means nearly all have seen action.


Their dark clothes, their no-nonsense bikes, and a certain common swagger make them stand out in a country where many people wear uniforms and carry guns.


"In my opinion, they are awesome," said Ya'akov Brod, 24, a security guard for the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf coffeehouse on Jaffa Street near Zion Square. "They are like the best of the best. Although they are police - if you ask me - they are part of the army."


On the narrow, twisting streets of hilly Jerusalem, accidents on the bikes are unavoidable.


"At the speeds we go, there is no way to avoid them," said Alon Weinstein, 31, who joined Yasam 2 ½ years ago after serving in an army reconnaissance unit.


"You have to like motorcycles. You live your life on them," he said, grinning and cradling his M-16. "But this is the best place to be."


The men on each team rotate as the driver and the firepower on the back. They carry M-16s and 9mm handguns. While the units were created - beginning in Jerusalem - during the 1990s to deal with terrorism and then the intifada and the upsurge in suicide bombers, they are no less busy since the intifada gave out and the suicide attacks became rare, a police spokesman said.


While declining to give statistics, spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said, the units are still stopping militant Palestinians trying to commit terrorist acts. Much of the units' activity on that front takes place without publicity, he said.


In Arab East Jerusalem, feelings toward the Yasam unit are not as warm as those held elsewhere. In fact, none of the shopkeepers interviewed along Salah Eddin Street had a good word for the unit, calling it anti-Arab.


"No one messes with Yasam, especially the ones on the bikes," said Amr Sandouka, 25, who works in the family business selling electronics equipment. "They are rude, violent, and have a license to kill."


"It is shocking to hear those words," Rosenfeld said. "Yasam is the most advanced operational unit in the police that has stopped tens of terrorist attacks and hundreds of criminal acts."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 08, 2006, 10:46:18 AM

There is a huge amount the US can learn from Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2006, 08:46:10 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress Doubles US Weapons Storage in Israel
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 / 22 Kislev 5767

In the last day before its recess Friday, the US House of Representatives and Senate approved loan guarantees to Israel and the doubling of US arms stored in Israel for emergency use.


The new Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 adds three years to the US provision of loan guarantees to Israel (until 2011), also including an aid package for Israel separate from the annual US aid package to the Jewish state.

In 2002 Israel requested loan guarantees from the United States to help it deal with the economic affects of the Oslo War and to prepare for the US war in Iraq. In 2003, Congress approved $9 billion in guarantees over three years.

Loan guarantees are not grants, rather the US is merely cosigning loans for Israel in the event that Israel were to default. This results in better terms on the loans, but has come at a price. Israel sends most of the money directly back into the US economy.

Additionally, a condition of the guarantees is that the money may not be spent on development of any of the areas Israel liberated in the 1967 Six Day War, meaning Judea, Samaria and half of Jerusalem. In addition, whatever the amount of government funds Israel decides to spend in those areas is deducted from the guarantees.

So far, Israel has used $4.6 billion of the $9 billion in US loan guarantees, which were first extended until 2008 and now until 2011.

The Act serves the US as well, doubling the funds allotted to the existing program whereby America stores arms and equipment in classified US facilities in Israel, called War Reserve Stockpiles (WRS).

A WRS is a collection of war materials held in reserve in pre-positioned storage to be used if needed in wartime. America maintains war reserve stocks around the world, mainly in NATO countries, but in some major non-NATO allies as well.

With Friday’s approval, the bill still requires the signature of US President George W. Bush, which should not be a problem, as the move was initiated by his administration.

Title: Hamas v. Fatah
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 17, 2006, 09:48:31 AM

Interesting tidbits re the escalating violence between Hamas and Fatah, including two pieces posted below, can be found here:

http://debka.com/

DEBKAfile: Friday, Hamas escalated its internecine feud with Fatah to jihad

December 16, 2006, 10:24 PM (GMT+02:00)


Hamas leaders said Friday: “Abu Mazen and Fatah have declared war on Allah. Whoever joins them is a shahid.” They authorized the assassination of Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, accusing him of orchestrating an attempt on the life of Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya, as his convoy entered Gaza Thursday night, Dec. 14. A bodyguard was killed and five members of his party injured, including Haniya’s son. Hamas vowed “to even the score”.

The Hamas prime minister returned home from a two-week absence carrying $31 million of the quarter of a billion dollars Iran donated to bankroll his organization's buildup for jihadist war. After Israel ordered the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza closed, hundreds of Hamas militiamen seized control of the terminal directing heavy gunfire at the European monitors and Abu Mazen’s Force 17 presidential guard. Both fled. Thursday night, Haniya was finally allowed to enter Gaza after leaving the suitcases packed with cash behind in Sinai. It was then that Force 17 shot up the convoy.

In the Palestinian prime minister’s party was a senior Hamas military delegation led by Abu Obeida al Jerat, who signed military pacts with the heads of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards providing advanced combat training for Hamas terrorists. DEBKAfile’s military sources say Israel should have prevented Haniya’s entry with his party, even without the cash, to prevent the Iranian military training program from getting started in the Gaza Strip.

December 17, 2006, 8:14 AM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that last week, US and Israel transferred a quantity of automatic rifles to Abu Mazen’s Fatah forces

The guns reached Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan who handed them over to the faction’s suicide wing, al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Abbas’ only reliable strike force. Dahlan is now in command of the armed campaign against Hamas from presidential headquarters in Ramallah. Israeli officials are turning a blind eye to transfer of the arms into the hands of the most badly-wanted masterminds of Fatah suicide killings, such as Jemal Tirawi from Nablus.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2006, 10:40:33 AM

I refuse to read Debka anymore.   My experience of them is that with just enough fact to bait you in, ultimately they are an airport spy novel acid trip.  Highly UNreliable and for me, to even read them muddies the mind.  YMMV.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2006, 08:43:08 AM

Geopolitical Diary: The Palestinian Struggles

Hamas and Fatah struck a cease-fire agreement Sunday in an attempt to end one of the bloodiest weeks of feuding in the Palestinian territories. The violence was touched off Dec. 11 after suspected Hamas gunmen killed the children of one of Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' top aides. It culminated in Hamas supporters firing rockets and mortars at Abbas' residence, Palestinian television stations and members of the presidential guard.

However politically necessary the cease-fire agreement might have been, the struggle is still far from over. Since taking office in January, the Hamas-led government has been suffering under economic sanctions -- and the suitcases of cash smuggled in from Iran and other donors in the Arab world have done little to ease the pain. As intended by Israel and the Western powers, the sanctions have steadily whittled away at Hamas' support base: A recent poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah showed that 61 percent of Palestinians favor holding early elections -- as Abbas recently suggested. Fatah would get 42 percent of the vote and Hamas would get 36 percent.

That said, it is not a foregone conclusion, even within the Fatah leadership, that early elections would bring the Hamas government down. Despite the financial desperation, there is a pervasive belief within the territories that the outside world never gave the Hamas leadership a chance to govern effectively. The party's populist image and hard-line stance against Israel still appeal deeply to large segments of the Palestinian population. Should Abbas force an early election, Hamas would encourage its supporters to boycott the polls. This certainly would give Fatah the numbers it needs to reclaim the government, but the party would be hampered by perceptions of illegitimacy.

At the same time, Hamas knows that the longer the political and economic stalemate continues, the more disillusioned the populace will become.

For economic sanctions to be lifted, the Quartet has demanded that Hamas disarm and politically recognize the state of Israel. But both are anathema to Hamas: It cannot disarm because, like Hezbollah, it needs to maintain its legitimacy as a militant resistance movement -- and Israel is the state whose existence it resists.

The geography of Israel is key here. So long as the Jewish state refrains from formally demarcating its borders, any recognition of Israel in its current shape by Hamas would be an implicit admission that Israel has a rightful claim to territory seized during the Six-Day War of 1967 -- the war that carved up the region in such a way as to prevent the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. For this reason, Hamas has insisted that a return to the pre-1967 borders is a precondition for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

For the Israelis, of course, this precondition is a nonstarter. In their view, the religious and historical significance of the land Israel occupies in the West Bank outweighs the value of any concessions in the name of a truce. Israel's reluctance to acknowledge its own pre-1967 borders came to light this month in a textbook controversy, when Education Minister Yuli Tamir -- a Labor Party member who advocates dismantling Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories -- ordered that maps in all future textbooks show the Green Line, an armistice boundary that separated Israel from the West Bank and Gaza Strip before the 1967 war. The move generated a storm among Israel's political conservatives, who argue that the Israeli position should be defined as complete rejection of any return to the pre-1967 borders.

Intransigence is an all too common theme in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Neither side has the means to discard the political constraints that keep significant negotiations from taking place. With the understanding that the peace process will remain in a stalemate, then, Israel benefits from the frictions between Hamas and Fatah. So long as the Palestinians are busy fighting each other, they will be less concerned with orchestrating attacks against Israel. Any talk of a power-sharing agreement between Hamas and Fatah, therefore, likely will meet with an Israeli military offensive or assassination attempt designed to exacerbate intra-Palestinian feuding.

www.stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2007, 07:15:39 AM

Don't Play With Maps
By DENNIS ROSS
Published: January 9, 2007
NY Times
Washington

I BECAME embroiled in a controversy with former President Jimmy Carter over the use of two maps in his recent book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” While some criticized what appeared to be the misappropriation of maps I had commissioned for my book, “The Missing Peace,” my concern was always different.

I was concerned less with where the maps had originally come from — Mr. Carter has said that he used an atlas that was published after my book appeared — and more with how they were labeled. To my mind, Mr. Carter’s presentation badly misrepresents the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000, and in so doing undermines, in a small but important way, efforts to bring peace to the region.

In his book, Mr. Carter juxtaposes two maps labeled the “Palestinian Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal 2000” and “Israeli Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal 2000.”

The problem is that the “Palestinian interpretation” is actually taken from an Israeli map presented during the Camp David summit meeting in July 2000, while the “Israeli interpretation” is an approximation of what President Clinton subsequently proposed in December of that year. Without knowing this, the reader is left to conclude that the Clinton proposals must have been so ambiguous and unfair that Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was justified in rejecting them. But that is simply untrue.

In actuality, President Clinton offered two different proposals at two different times. In July, he offered a partial proposal on territory and control of Jerusalem. Five months later, at the request of Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, and Mr. Arafat, Mr. Clinton presented a comprehensive proposal on borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and security. The December proposals became known as the Clinton ideas or parameters.

Put simply, the Clinton parameters would have produced an independent Palestinian state with 100 percent of Gaza, roughly 97 percent of the West Bank and an elevated train or highway to connect them. Jerusalem’s status would have been guided by the principle that what is currently Jewish will be Israeli and what is currently Arab will be Palestinian, meaning that Jewish Jerusalem — East and West — would be united, while Arab East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state.

The Palestinian state would have been “nonmilitarized,” with internal security forces but no army and an international military presence led by the United States to prevent terrorist infiltration and smuggling. Palestinian refugees would have had the right of return to their state, but not to Israel, and a fund of $30 billion would have been created to compensate those refugees who chose not to exercise their right of return to the Palestinian state.

When I decided to write the story of what had happened in the negotiations, I commissioned maps to illustrate what the proposals would have meant for a prospective Palestinian state. If the Clinton proposals in December 2000 had been Israeli or Palestinian ideas and I was interpreting them, others could certainly question my interpretation. But they were American ideas, created at the request of the Palestinians and the Israelis, and I was the principal author of them. I know what they were and so do the parties.

It is certainly legitimate to debate whether President Clinton’s proposal could have settled the conflict. It is not legitimate, however, to rewrite history and misrepresent what the Clinton ideas were.

Indeed, since the talks fell apart, there has emerged a mythology that seeks to defend Mr. Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton ideas by suggesting they weren’t real or they were too vague or that Palestinians would have received far less than what had been advertised. Mr. Arafat himself tried to defend his rejection of the Clinton proposals by later saying he was not offered even 90 percent of the West Bank or any of East Jerusalem. But that was myth, not reality.

Why is it important to set the record straight? Nothing has done more to perpetuate the conflict between Arabs and Israelis than the mythologies on each side. The mythologies about who is responsible for the conflict (and about its core issues) have taken on a life of their own. They shape perception. They allow each side to blame the other while avoiding the need to face up to its own mistakes. So long as myths are perpetuated, no one will have to face reality.

===========

And yet peace can never be built on these myths. Instead it can come only once the two sides accept and adjust to reality. Perpetuating a myth about what was offered to justify the Arafat rejection serves neither Palestinian interests nor the cause of peace.

I would go a step further. If, as I believe, the Clinton ideas embody the basic trade-offs that will be required in any peace deal, it is essential to understand them for what they were and not to misrepresent them. This is especially true now that the Bush administration, for the first time, seems to be contemplating a serious effort to deal with the core issues of the conflict.

Of course, one might ask if trying to address the core issues is appropriate at a moment when Palestinians are locked in an internal stalemate and the Israeli public lacks confidence in its government. Can politically weak leaders make compromises on the issues that go to the heart of the conflict? Can the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, compromise on the right of return and tell his public that refugees will not go back to Israel? Can Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, tell his public that demography and practicality mean that the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem will have Palestinian and not Israeli sovereignty?

The basic trade-offs require meeting Israeli needs on security and refugees on the one hand and Palestinian needs on territory and a capital in Arab East Jerusalem on the other. But producing such trade-offs won’t simply come from calling for them. Instead, an environment must be created in which each side believes the other can act on peace and is willing to condition its public for the difficult compromises that will be necessary.

So long as mythologies can’t be cast aside, and so long as the trade-offs on the core issues can’t be embraced by Israelis or Palestinians, peace will remain forever on the horizon. If history tells us anything, it is that for peace-making to work, it must proceed on the basis of fact, not fiction.

« Previous Page1 2
Dennis Ross, envoy to the Middle East in the Clinton administration, is counselor of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2007, 06:11:54 AM

stratfor.com

Geopolitical Diary: Back-Channel Negotiations Between Israel and Syria

Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Tuesday that Syria and Israel held secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006, and that the two have developed a framework for a peace agreement. Highlights of the deal include Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights to pre-1967 borders -- in exchange for retaining control over the use of water from the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret -- and an end to Syrian support for Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Syrian moves to distance the country from Iran. The report said the meetings were conducted primarily by academics, with the full knowledge of senior Israeli and Syrian authorities. A few hours after the story was released, officials from both countries issued denials, labeling the report "absolute nonsense," a "bluff" and "completely false."

That Syria and Israel have been holding back-channel talks should hardly come as a surprise. Lacking the strategic depth to sufficiently ensure its national security, Israel has long been in the business of quiet diplomacy with its Arab neighbors. Jordan and Egypt both engaged in secret meetings with Israel well before their respective peace agreements were made public. An Israeli-Syrian deal, however, is still far off in the distance.

Ruled by Alawites -- who practice an offshoot of Shiite Islam -- Syria is a minority-based regime in the Sunni Arab world. The Syrian government has a history of keeping its distance from its Arab neighbors, despite its calls for Arab nationalism, seeking instead a closer relationship with its Shiite allies in Tehran. The Syrians have developed a strong alliance with Iran through Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which serves Syrian interests by keeping pressure on Israel as well as keeping the Lebanese political, security and intelligence apparatus under Syrian control. Hezbollah's ability to gridlock the Lebanese government through mass protests and block any moves to hold Syrian leadership accountable for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri is a current case in point.

Syria's insurance policy against Israel comes through its support for nonstate militant assets in the region, namely Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Syria's sponsorship of these groups also allows it to maintain leverage in the region by making itself an integral part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and any flare-ups in Lebanon. Without a sufficient deterrent capability, Syria is unwilling to surrender this leverage -- and the Israelis know this.

At the same time, Israel is not ready to let go of the Golan Heights, a 15-by-32-mile territory seized by Israeli troops during the 1967 Six Day War. The Golan is of enormous strategic value to Israeli defenses, as its boundaries encompass the 7,296-foot Mount Hermon. Prior to Israel's creation in 1948, Syrian forces used this highland to attack northern Jewish villages. After Israel seized the Golan in 1967, Mount Hermon became a key observation post for Israel to use to point its guns at any hostile invader approaching the country's northeastern border. Apart from its military importance, the Golan Heights also provides Israel with roughly one-third of its water supply.

Syrian President Bashar al Assad inherited his foreign policy agenda from his father, Hafez al Assad. It stipulates that Syria must consolidate its control over Lebanon, maintain its influence over the Arab-Israeli conflict, preserve its regional status and regain the Golan Heights from Israel. Carefully managing Syria's relations with the United States to avoid provoking regime change also was a key part of al Assad's strategy to ensure Syrian national security. Though Syria is keenly interested in retaking the Golan, it will not sacrifice its militant assets without sufficient security guarantees from the United States and Israel.

The atmosphere of distrust between Syria and Israel has been exacerbated by the intensifying U.S.-Iranian standoff over Iraq. With Iran well on its way to joining the nuclear club and consolidating its gains in Iraq, the Syrians see Iran as an attractive ally in the region. Tehran is just as eager to develop Syria into an Iranian satellite, and has greatly expanded its military and economic assistance for the country in an effort to earn the Syrians' trust.

But the ruling clerics in Tehran are well aware that Syria's loyalties are flexible, and that the al Assad regime will look after its own interests before sticking its neck out for Iran. This was exemplified in the summer conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, during which Syria was extremely careful to avoid getting caught in the crossfire. Iran's distrust of the al Assad regime will become particularly critical as Iran moves deeper into hot water with its plans for Iraq and its nuclear program. The Iranians fear that, should it face a serious threat to the survival of the al Assad regime, Syria could switch loyalties down the road and join the fold of Arab states making peace with Israel.

It is this weakness in the Syrian-Iranian alliance that Western governments will try to exploit, and the Haaretz report on the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations appears to work toward that objective. In conjunction with the revised U.S. strategy on Iraq, the Israelis have carefully timed a series of leaks about Israeli military plans to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities as part of a psychological warfare strategy to undermine Iranian confidence. In order to beef up this campaign, Israel can fuel distrust between Iran and Syria by publicizing its back-channel dealings with the al Assad regime. These leaks will be met with a downpour of denials, but the intended damage already will have been done; Iran and Syria will continue to second-guess each other as the risk of pursuing an increasingly belligerent policy reaches dangerous levels.

Title: Israel & Syria in secret negotiations?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2007, 05:38:51 AM

What if Israel and Syria Find Common Ground?
               E-Mail
 
By MICHAEL B. OREN
Published: January 24, 2007
NY Times

ISRAEL’S newspapers are rife with reports of a peace agreement secretly forged between Israeli and Syrian negotiators. Though both the Syrian and Israeli governments have denied any involvement in the talks, past experience shows that such disavowals are often the first indication of truth behind the rumors.

Certainly, there is nothing new about the details of the purported plan, which involves a staged Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, occupied since 1967, and the full normalization of relations between Damascus and Jerusalem. Nor is there a precedent in the willingness of Israeli and Arab leaders to enter into direct discussions without the participation or knowledge of the United States.

What is new is the Bush administration’s apparent opposition to a Syrian-Israeli accord and the possibility that Israel, by seeking peace with one of its Arab neighbors, risks precipitating a crisis with the United States.

On more than one occasion, Israeli and Arab leaders have engaged in clandestine talks without informing the White House. In 1977, the envoys of Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt quietly met and laid the groundwork for Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem and for the advent of the Egyptian-Israeli peace process. Only later, when negotiations snagged, did the parties turn to the United States and request presidential mediation.

In 1993, Israeli and Palestinian interlocutors, convening in Oslo, worked out the details of a peace arrangement and requested President Bill Clinton’s imprimatur on the accord only days before its signing. Jordan and Israel also asked Mr. Clinton to sponsor their peace treaty, initialed the following year, after they had independently agreed on its terms.

And in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel unilaterally ordered the evacuation of the Gaza Strip, a move widely welcomed as a stepping stone toward peace but from which the Bush administration, committed to the multilateral process stipulated by the “road map,” kept its distance. Syria and Israel have also exchanged peace proposals in the past, sometimes under American auspices, as in the 1991 conference in Madrid.

Yet even when the two sides negotiated bilaterally, as during the secret exchanges between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hafez al-Assad of Syria in the late 1990s, Washington approved of the contacts. American leaders agreed that the Syrian-Israeli track offered a promising alternative to the perennially stalled Israeli-Palestinian talks, and that achieving peace between the Syrian and Israeli enemies would open the door to regional reconciliation.

All that was before Sept. 11, however, and Syria’s inclusion, alongside Iran and North Korea, in President Bush’s “axis of evil.” Once regarded as a possible partner in a Middle East peace process, the Baathist regime of Bashar al-Assad was suddenly viewed as a source of Middle East instability, a state sponsor of terrorist groups and an implacable foe of the United States.

Hostility toward Damascus intensified after the incursion into Iraq, during which administration officials accused the Syrians of abetting the insurgency and concealing unconventional weapons in Iraq. More recently, the United States has accused Mr. Assad of plotting to undermine Lebanon’s efforts to achieve independence from Syria, of assassinating anti-Syrian Lebanese and of acting as an Iranian agent in the Western Arab world.

The last thing Washington wants is a Syrian-Israeli treaty that would transform Mr. Assad from pariah to peacemaker and lend him greater latitude in promoting terrorism and quashing Lebanon’s freedom. Some Israeli officials, by contrast, see substantive benefits in ending their nation’s 60-year conflict with Syria. An accord would invariably provide for the cessation of Syrian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, which endanger Israel’s northern and southern sectors.

More crucial still, by detaching Syria from Iran’s orbit, Israel will be able to address the Iranian nuclear threat — perhaps by military means — without fear of retribution from Syrian ground forces and missiles. Forfeiting the Golan Heights, for these Israelis, seems to be a sufferable price to pay to avoid conventional and ballistic attacks across most of Israel’s borders.

The potentially disparate positions of Israel and the United States on the question of peace with Syria could trigger a significant crisis between the two countries — the first of Mr. Bush’s expressly pro-Israel presidency. And yet, facing opposition from a peace-minded Democratic Congress and from members of his own party who have advocated a more robust American role in Middle East mediation, Mr. Bush would have difficulty in withholding approval from a comprehensive Syrian-Israeli agreement.

Mr. Bush may not have to make that decision for some time, if ever. For all his talk of good will, Mr. Assad has made no Sadat-like gestures to Israel, and many Israelis agree with Mr. Bush that Syria should not be rewarded for its assistance to terrorism and its denial of Lebanese liberty.

But if trust is established on both sides and the conditions are conducive to peace, a settlement between Syria and Israel may yet be attained — and a clash between Israel and Washington ignited.

Michael B. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author of “Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.”

Title: This holocaust will be different
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2007, 07:15:52 PM

Second post of the day:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1167467762531&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 02, 2007, 05:35:37 AM

Geopolitical Diary: Israeli Covert Operations in Iran

French President Jacques Chirac started quite the uproar with his apparent faux pas made public on Thursday in which he downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat. Chirac says he thought he was speaking off the record when, during an interview with The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, he said an Iranian nuclear weapon would not be much of a threat because "Tehran would be razed to the ground" if it ever tried to deploy such a device.

Chirac's comments (which were quickly retracted) directly undermine the West's stance on Iran -- and they do not reflect the official French position, which was summed up Thursday in a statement from the Elysee Palace that read "France, with the international community, cannot accept the prospect of Iran with a nuclear weapon."

But despite the commotion, Chirac's statements are not all that far off the mark. It might be tempting to write off the Iranians or North Koreans as "axis of evil" regimes that are just crazy enough to cook off a nuke, but Tehran -- like all rational actors -- knows the implications and the utility of a nuclear program. A nuclear-capable Iran would primarily use its nuclear program, not to turn Israel into a radioactive wasteland, but for deterrent value to safeguard the clerical regime from possible U.S or Israeli intervention. Israel, however, does not care to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime, and does not intend to see an Iranian nuclear weapons program come to fruition.

The Israelis, therefore, have their own ways of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. A pre-emptive Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is unlikely in the near future for a number of reasons that we have discussed before, including the time Israel still has before Iran reaches a technologically critical stage in its nuclear development, the strategically dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear sites and the tenuous U.S. position in Iraq. An offensive strike on Iran would still leave wide open the issue of a resolution in Iraq, which would further constrain the U.S. military position in the region.

But while the time for overt military action is likely still in the distance, Israeli covert action against Iran appears to be gaining steam.

The death of a high-level Iranian nuclear scientist, Ardeshir Hassanpour, was announced by Radio Farda and Iranian state television Jan. 25 -- a week after his death occurred. The Radio Farda report implicitly related the cause for Hassanpour's death to exposure to radioactive rays, though the details were murky. Stratfor sources close to Israeli intelligence have revealed, however, that Hassanpour was in fact a Mossad target.

Hassanpour is believed to have been one of Iran's most prized nuclear scientists. Some reports claim he was named the best scientist in the military field in Iran in 2003, that he directed and founded the center for nuclear electromagnetic studies since 2005 and that he co-founded the Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, where Iran's uranium-conversion facilities are located.

Decapitating a hostile nuclear program by taking out key human assets is a tactic that has proven its effectiveness over the years, particularly in the case of Iraq. In the months leading up to the 1981 Israeli airstrike on Iraq's Osirak reactor -- which was believed to be on the verge of producing plutonium for a weapons program -- at least three Iraqi nuclear scientists died under mysterious circumstances.

Yahya al-Meshad, a key figure in Iraq's nuclear program, traveled to Paris in 1980 to test fuel for the reactor; he was soon stabbed to death and was discovered by a hotel maid in his room the next morning. A prostitute who went by the name Marie Express reportedly saw the scientist the night before he died. She was then killed in a hit-and-run accident by an unknown driver who got away. After al-Meshad's death, two more Iraqi scientists were killed separately -- both by poisoning -- and a number of workers at Osirak began receiving threatening letters from a shadowy organization called the Committee to Safeguard the Islamic Revolution -- likely a Mossad front to enhance the workers' paranoia and hinder Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

Mossad's latest covert assassination campaign falls in line with Israel's psychological warfare strategy to undermine Iran's confidence in pursuing its nuclear agenda. The longer the Iranians are forced to second-guess Israel's intent to launch a pre-emptive strike, the more pliable Iran becomes in negotiating with the United States toward a political agreement on Iraq.

Tehran wants, ideally, to secure a Shiite buffer zone in Iraq while also reaching the point of no return in its nuclear program; but the Iranian regime must move carefully on the nuclear issue to avoid inviting airstrikes on its soil. Israel and the United States are betting for now that Iran's concerns over Iraq will override its pursuit of nuclear power -- which, however, leaves Tehran in a prime position to use the nuclear controversy as a major bargaining tool in extracting concessions from the United States over Iraq. But things do not always go as planned, and Israel appears to be setting the stage for Plan B.

Title: The Sinai War of 1956
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2007, 06:09:25 PM

The Second War of Independence
The Sinai campaign of 1956 established that Israel was here to stay.

BY MICHAEL B. OREN
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Fifty years ago, at dawn on Oct. 29, 1956, Israeli paratroopers under the command of Col. Ariel Sharon dropped into the Mitla Pass deep in the Sinai Peninsula, 25 miles from the Suez Canal. The action was the first phase in a plan secretly forged by representatives of France, Britain and Israel, triggered by Egypt's nationalization of the canal three months before. According to the scheme, the paratroopers' landing would provide a pretext for the French and British governments to order both Egypt and Israel to remove all of their forces from the canal area. The Europeans anticipated that Cairo would reject that ultimatum, thus allowing them to occupy the strategic waterway. Israel dutifully executed its part of the scheme, smashing the Egyptian army in four days and conquering all of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip. The Anglo-French armada, however, was late in arriving, and soon withdrew under intense international pressure. The Suez War--known in Israel as the Sinai Campaign, or Operation Kadesh--was over within a week, but the battle over its interpretation was merely beginning.

Numerous books and articles have been written about the Suez Crisis, the first post-World War II crisis to pit nationalism against imperialism, and the West against the communist bloc. Historians have long agreed that the invasion was an unrelieved catastrophe for Britain and France, precipitating their expulsion from the Middle East and their decline as great powers. By contrast, the first three decades after the crisis saw debate over Israel's fortunes in the war, with some scholars asserting that Israel had benefited from the destruction of the Egyptian army, the opening of the Straits of Tiran, and the strategic alliance with France. Starting in the 1980s, however, a movement of self-styled New Historians, dedicated to debunking the alleged "myths" of Israeli history, depicted the Sinai Campaign as no less disastrous for the Jewish state. "Israel . . . paid a heavy political price for ganging up with the colonial powers against the emergent forces of Arab nationalism," wrote Avi Shlaim of Oxford University. "Its actions could henceforth be used as proof . . . that it was a bridgehead of Western imperialism in the . . . Arab world."

Twenty years later, Shlaim's analysis of the 1956 war has become universally accepted in academia, and not only among revisionists. In a New York Times article marking the 50th anniversary of Suez, Boston University's David Fromkin, author of the widely acclaimed study of the origins of the modern Middle East, "A Peace to End All Peace" (1989), similarly portrayed Israel's victory as Pyrrhic. "Israel compromised itself through its partnership with European imperialism," Fromkin alleged, echoing Shlaim. "The more Israel won on the battlefield, the further it got from achieving the peace that it sought."





Those who have challenged the magnitude of Israel's victory in 1956, however, fail to take into account the incompleteness of Israel's triumph in its 1948 War of Independence. Customarily, states that win on the battlefield dictate the terms of the peace. But while Israeli forces had repulsed the invading Arab armies and compelled them to sue for truce, Israeli negotiators failed to transform that military accomplishment into a diplomatic device for ending the conflict. The armistice agreements that Israel signed with its four neighboring Arab states between February and July 1949 did not, for example, extend recognition or legitimacy to the Jewish state; nor did they endow that state with permanent borders.
Further complicating this anomalous situation, the agreements created various demilitarized zones of uncertain sovereignty along Israel's frontiers--at the foot of the Golan Heights, for instance, and in Nitzana, along the Sinai-Negev border. Most deleterious of all for Israel, the armistice did not provide for peace. On the contrary, the agreements allowed the Arabs to insist that a state of war continued to exist between them and the "Zionist entity." This state of war, the Arabs argued, enabled them to fire at Israeli settlements in the demilitarized zones, to conduct an economic boycott of the Jewish state, and to blockade Israeli ships and Israel-bound cargoes through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran. Arab states engaged in a relentless anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda campaign, designed to prepare their publics for a "second round" with Israel, this time to annihilate it. Propaganda did not suffice for some Arab countries, however, like Syria and Egypt, which sponsored cross-border terrorist (Fedayeen) attacks like that which killed eleven Israelis at Maaleh Akrabim in March 1954.

For the Arab states, the Palestine War, as they called it, had never really ended. Yet they were not alone in regarding Israel as an impermanent and unwanted presence: The Great Powers--the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union--routinely treated Israel as a passing phenomenon and ignored its fundamental interests. Indeed, for the Powers, Israel was little more than what United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles called "a millstone around our necks."

The period of 1948 to 1956 was one of profound upheaval in Great Power diplomacy in the Middle East. The United States was on the one hand striving to oust the old colonial powers, Britain and France, from the region, while on the other working with its European allies to prevent Soviet penetration. In response to the American threat, Britain and France sought to strengthen their alliances with local states--Britain with Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, and France with Syria and Lebanon--by guaranteeing their security and selling them modern arms. Israel, which was in no Power's interest, was completely left out of these arrangements. Worse, Israel's clashes with Egypt in 1949 and Jordan in 1956 nearly resulted in direct conflict between the IDF and British forces.

Viewed antagonistically by both Britain and France, Israel was hardly valued as an asset by the United States. The Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower owed nothing to the Jewish vote, and was closely aligned with State Department Arabists and American oil companies active in the Middle East. Apart from parade items such as helmets and batons, the United States adamantly refused to sell arms to Israel, even laboring to prevent Israel from purchasing weaponry from its allies. Such transactions, the administration reasoned, would push the Arabs into the Soviet sphere and endanger vital oil supplies.

For their part, the Soviets had also thrown their support behind the Arabs. Though they had provided crucial diplomatic and military backing to the Jewish state in 1948, the Soviets, having secured their objective of ousting the British from Palestine, proceeded to change sides. By 1951, they were unremitting in their hostility to Israel, and after Stalin's death in 1953, the Kremlin adopted a policy of nurturing "bourgeois nationalist" regimes opposed to the West, such as those of Egypt and Syria.

America and Britain reacted to the Soviet threat by trying to organize Middle Eastern states into a regional defense organization similar to NATO. The alliance, known first as the Middle East Defense Organization (MEDO) and later as the Baghdad Pact, was to include Iraq, Jordan and hopefully Egypt. Israel, though it repeatedly petitioned for admission to the group, was continually rejected.

Moreover, while actively fortifying the Arabs, the Powers also implicitly upheld their own interpretation of the armistice. They refused, for example, to pressure the Arab states to end their economic boycott and blockade of Israel or to stem armed infiltration. Rather, they condemned Israel's attempt to establish settlements in the demilitarized zones, to send ships through the canal and the straits, and to retaliate against Fedayeen strongholds. They also opposed Israel's construction of a national water carrier that would transfer Galilee water to the Negev, thus facilitating the desert's settlement. The Negev, the Americans and the British determined in 1949, would eventually be detached from Israel and transferred to Arab sovereignty as part of a land-for-peace deal. Indeed, an Anglo-American plan, inaugurated in 1954 and codenamed "Alpha," called for the transfer of large swaths of the Negev to Egypt as a means of incentivizing it to join MEDO; the Egyptians, in turn, would grant nonbelligerency--not peace--to Israel. Though Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion rejected Alpha, American and British leaders were prepared to exert immense pressure on him to implement the plan should Cairo accept it.

Indeed, the Egyptians had long demanded the Negev as a land bridge between them and the Arab world. In secret meetings with Israeli diplomats after the armistice, Egyptian representatives repeatedly demanded that Israel forfeit all of the Negev--62% of its territory--as the price of ending the conflict. But the Egyptians were also express in stating that peace with the Jewish state was inconceivable for the foreseeable future. That position remained unchanged after the Egyptian Revolution of July 1952 and the ascendance of Col. Gamal Abd el-Nasser to power. Though Nasser continued the secret contacts with Israel, at one point even exchanging letters with Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, at no time did he waver from the demand for all of the Negev, or change his rejection of immediate and full peace. In fact, starting in December 1954, Nasser embarked on a campaign to extend his primacy over the entire Arab world--an effort that required escalated hostility toward Israel and intensified opposition to the West. He proceeded to tighten the blockade and boycott of Israel, to order the Egyptian army to occupy parts of Nitzana, and to set up Fedayeen units to operate out of Gaza. He also declared war against the Baghdad Pact, rejecting Alpha and signing, in September 1955, the largest-ever Middle Eastern arms deal with the Soviet bloc.





This, then, was the regional and international situation that Israel confronted in the period before the Sinai Campaign. Surrounded by Arab states that were conducting acts of war against it--indeed, were arming themselves to obliterate it--Israel had no allies, no diplomatic support and no reliable supplier of weapons. Moreover, saddled with tens of thousands of new immigrants, many of them indigent, and a near-bankrupt economy in the wake of a devastating war that had killed 1% of its population, Israel was scarcely capable of maintaining its existence, much less of defending itself against Nasser, a regionally beloved and lavishly armed leader committed to its destruction. "O Israel! Weep . . . and await your end at any time now," declared the Egyptian-run Voice of the Arabs radio in 1955. "The Arabs of Egypt have found their way to Tel Aviv."
Israel's plight indeed seemed hopeless when, suddenly, in July 1956, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal. The event prodded the French, who had begun to view Israel as a possible ally against Nasser and his support for Algerian rebels, to open secret discussions on a joint operation in Egypt and undertake to arm the IDF. The French, in turn, urged the British to cease threatening the Israelis and join in the clandestine talks. The result was the Sevres agreement, named after the Paris suburb in which it was surreptitiously signed. According to the document, Israel agreed to commence hostilities against Egypt. One month later, Sharon and his paratroopers descended into the Mitla Pass and the Sinai Campaign began.

The fighting was brutal, but the Israeli forces succeeded in crushing Nasser's troops with their newly supplied Soviet arms, conquering all of the Sinai and Gaza, and reaching the Suez Canal. Though a combination of Soviet military and American economic threats eventually persuaded Ben-Gurion to evacuate these territories, in return he received American pledges for Israel's future defense, along with the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers along the border with Egypt and in Sharm al-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. Finally freed of the danger of Egyptian attack and strengthened through commerce with Asia by way of the straits, Israel enjoyed a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity. It took advantage of those years to absorb waves of new immigrants and to galvanize its civil society. Many Israelis who lived through that time remember the decade after 1956 as the most halcyon in their lives, and in their country's history. And though Nasser unilaterally evicted the U.N. force in May 1967 and again blockaded the straits, the security guarantees Israel had obtained from the United States in 1956, and the international commitments it received regarding the inviolability of its borders and shipping rights, proved essential to generating support for Israel in the Six Day War.

Equally important, at least, was the permanence that Israel achieved as a result of the Sinai Campaign. In the aftermath of the war, the Powers ceased to regard Israel as a temporary entity whose territory could be bargained off to the Arabs. There would be no more Alphas, no more attempts to deprive Israel of the Negev or of any other part of its sovereign land. Nor did the United States endeavor to block Israel's acquisition of modern arms, which continued to flow from France. Indeed, with French assistance, Israel built the nuclear reactor that endowed it with capabilities unequaled except by those of the world's greatest powers.

Finally, though Israel did, by virtue of its collusion with Britain and France, confirm the Arab charge that the Jewish state was little more than a beachhead for imperialism, in truth that charge exists far more in the minds of contemporary Western historians than in Arab thinking of the late 1950s. An examination of Arab broadcasts and newspapers from the period reveals no substantial change in Arab hostility toward Israel--it was absolute before the war, and no less total after it. Similarly, the war could not have lessened chances for the success of a peace process that simply did not exist and, according to Nasser, would not for many, many years.





Contrary, then, to the conventional wisdom in academic circles today, Israel emerged from the Sinai Campaign economically, diplomatically, and militarily strengthened. It had forged vital alliances and earned the respect, if not yet the affection, of the Great Powers, while also enhancing its citizens' security. The situation that existed after 1948, in which Israel was denied legitimacy, permanence, and such fundamental rights as safe borders and freedom of shipping, had ended. The 1956 war allowed Israel to realize, finally, the unfulfilled aspirations of 1948, and in this represents the culmination of Israel's fight for independence.
Mr. Oren is a senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, a contributing editor of Azure and author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present" (Norton, 2007).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 09, 2007, 09:17:17 AM

02.09.2007



READ MORE...
Analyses
 
Country Profiles - Archive
 
Forecasts
 
Geopolitical Diary
 
Global Market Brief - Archive
 
Intelligence Guidance
 
Net Assessment
 
Situation Reports
 
Special Reports
 
Strategic Markets - Archive
 
Stratfor Weekly
 
Terrorism Brief
 
Terrorism Intelligence Report
 
Travel Security - Archive
 
US - IRAQ War Coverage
 PNA: Hamas will never recognize Israel and will not abide by treaties Fatah has previously negotiated with Israel, senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan said. Hamas welcomed the agreement with Fatah to create a Palestinian unity government, but said Israeli recognition, as urged by President Mahmoud Abbas, is impossible.

stratfor.com

Title: Israel had fewer friends than Iran
Post by: ccp on February 24, 2007, 12:40:43 PM

It is interesting how every move the Israel military makes is now being telegraphed by segments of people from it's supposed allies who fear any military action whatsoever.  They would rather see Iran develop nuclear weapons.   Like John Edwards who claims Israel not Iran is the biggest nearterm threat to world peace.  Now the some Brits are helping Iran.   It is not their rear ends whose existence is on the line:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2007, 09:09:26 AM

stratfor.com

LEBANON: Hezbollah is increasing its forces north of Lebanon's Litani River, reinforcing its positions in anticipation of another conflict with Israel, following the one in August 2006, the Times of London reported. Shiite businessman Ali Tajiddine reportedly is aiding Hezbollah by buying land for the group to use as a base of operations.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2007, 09:01:59 AM

stratfor.com

U.S./SAUDI ARABIA: The United States will hold separate talks with Israel and Saudi Arabia before an Arab League summit in Riyadh in late March in order to come to a compromise on the so-called Saudi initiative for the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli daily Haaretz reported.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 13, 2007, 11:00:39 AM

ISRAEL AXES NAKED AMBASSADOR: Israel's ambassador was ordered home from El Salvador after he was found naked, bound and drunk in the garden of his official residence - with sado-masochistic sex toys nearby, officials said yesterday. The Foreign Ministry said U.S.-born Tsuriel Rafael - who couldn't identify himself to police until a red bondage ball was removed from his mouth - would be replaced as soon as possible.
 
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 13, 2007, 04:25:32 PM

ISRAEL: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might be forced to resign, the Jerusalem Post reported, citing sources in Kadima. The report precedes findings from the Winograd Committee, which is investigating conduct during the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, regarding Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2007, 05:49:25 AM

Today's NY Times:

West Bank Sites on Private Land, Data Shows
   
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: March 14, 2007
JERUSALEM, March 13 — An up-to-date Israeli government register shows that 32.4 percent of the property held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is private, according to the advocacy group that sued the government to obtain the data.

The group, Peace Now, prepared an earlier report in November, also provided to The New York Times, based on a 2004 version of the Israeli government database that had been provided by an official who wanted the information published. Those figures showed that 38.8 percent of the land on which Israeli settlements were built was listed as private Palestinian land.

The data shows a pattern of illegal seizure of private land that the Israeli government has been reluctant to acknowledge or to prosecute, according to the Peace Now report. Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and takes land there only legally or, for security reasons, temporarily. That large sections of those settlements are now confirmed by official data to be privately held land is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace.

The new data, updated to the end of 2006, was provided officially by the Israeli government’s Civil Administration, which governs civilian activities in the territories, in response to a lawsuit brought by Peace Now and the Movement for Freedom of Information in Israel in 2005. When the courts refused the request, the groups filed an appeal, and the earlier data was leaked to Peace Now. In January, the court ordered the Civil Administration to provide the data, in the form of digitized map information.

The information will be published Wednesday, and a copy was provided to The Times.

Some differences between the new data and the old data complicate the picture. The old data distinguished between private Jewish land, private Palestinian land, state land and so-called survey land, which is considered of unclear ownership.

The new data, provided by the government, makes a distinction only between private land and other land. But in the earlier data, the amount of private Jewish land was small, only 1.26 percent of the area of the settlements.

The second major difference involves the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, which looks like a suburb of Jerusalem, with a mall and a multiplex and an Ace Hardware store.

The Israeli government has said that it will never give up the three main settlement blocks— Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel — inside the West Bank and within the security barrier that Israel built. Information about them is thus extremely delicate, and that was one reason that the government refused earlier requests to provide the data.

The earlier data showed Maale Adumim containing 86 percent private Palestinian land, which seemed very high to its residents. According to the new data, however, only 0.54 percent of the settlement is listed as private land. The single case of Maale Adumim represents much of the difference in the total percentage of private land between the old and new data. Without the new Maale Adumim data, the difference between the old and new data is about one percentage point.

In settlements west of the separation barrier, which Israel intends to keep and which include Maale Adumim, the amount of private land is 24 percent, compared with 41.4 percent in the earlier data.

In settlements that Israel would presumably give up in any peace settlement, the percentage of private land is 40 percent, higher than the earlier data, which was 36.4 percent.

In the two other main settlement blocs that Israel intends to keep, Ariel is now listed as 31.4 percent private, compared with 35.1 percent before. Gush Etzion is listed now as 19 percent private, compared with 25.1 percent before.

In Givat Zeev, a settlement that Israel also intends to keep, the old data showed that the settlement contained 44.3 percent private land; the new data shows the figure to be 49.6 percent.

Dror Etkes of Peace Now, which put together the reports, said the group had asked the Civil Administration to explain the discrepancy on Maale Adumim, but had not gotten an answer.

===========

(Page 2 of 2)


Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Civil Administration, confirmed that his department had given the official data to Peace Now following the court order, but said he had not seen the report so he could not comment on its specifics.

But Mr. Dror emphasized that the settlements themselves make up less than 6 percent of the West Bank; that some of the private land belongs to Jews, some of whom bought the land many years ago or after 1967; and that the issue is complicated, given the various ways land was registered under the Ottomans, the British and the Jordanians.

Mr. Dror said the government has had a group, known as the “blue line team,” studying the data for two years trying to determine the actual limits of the settlements and the land claims around them, and that the new data reflects that work, though it is continuing. “It could take 10 more years for them to finish,” he said.

In a written statement issued late Tuesday night, Capt. Zidki Maman, also a spokesman for the Civil Administration, said, “We were disappointed to see that despite the clarifications made by the Civil Administration regarding the previous report and the database given to Peace Now, the most recent report is still inaccurate in many places, thus misrepresenting the reality concerning the status of the settlements.”

But Mr. Etkes of Peace Now noted that the government chose to provide no details, and refused to hand over data specifying what land was owned by Israelis.

Some of the land listed as private has been seized legally, though supposedly temporarily, by the Israeli military for security purposes. Many settlements were built on such land, even though it is supposed to be returned to its owners. The military simply signs a renewal of the seizure order every few years. But the military keeps secret how much land is under such temporary seizure orders.

In a 1979 court case, the Israeli Supreme Court declared that the seizure of private land for establishing settlements for security purposes is illegal. But the official data shows that 32 percent of the land in settlements established after 1979 is private land.

Peace Now will ask Israel’s attorney general “to open an investigation into the construction of settlements on private land,” Mr. Etkes said. “There’s no way the state prosecutor can be indifferent to lawbreaking on such a scale.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 15, 2007, 11:06:06 PM

The Coming War with Islam   
By Solly Ganor
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 15, 2007

Five years ago, I had a conversation with a young Palestinian student who in short precise terms explained how Islam will defeat the West. The conversation opened my eyes to a much larger picture in which Israel plays only a minor role in the Islamic game of conquest. Since then I tried to speak to some Arabs who come to pray at the Mosque, but they were not as outspoken as the student.

Last week, I had another conversation with an Israeli Arab construction boss by the unlikely name of Francis who was in charge of building a villa near our house in Herzelia. He told me that his family was Christian, and his name was given to him in honor of the Franciscan monks. Our conversation was as interesting as the first conversation I had with the Arab student five years ago and I would like to share it with you. Francis frequently parked his car near our house and we would exchange polite greetings.

About a week ago, the water was shut off for repairs in the house he was building, and Francis asked me if I could give him some hot water for his coffee. He was a tall man of about forty, with reddish hair and blue eyes. He spoke a perfect Hebrew, and I naturally became curious about him. I felt that he may the right person to exchange some views with. By his looks, I assumed that he was either a Druze or from the Syrian region. He looked more like a teacher than a construction worker and, as I later found out, he was actually a teacher by profession. Since my conversation with the student five years ago, I was always curious to hear their side of the story; therefore, I decided to invite him for a cup of coffee to our house. I saw him hesitate for a moment; then he smiled and thanked me for my hospitality.

While we drank our coffee, he told me that he was from a small village in the Galilee called Jish, near the present Kibbutz Sassa. I remembered the village very well as I was one of the soldiers who captured the village while serving in the 7th Armored brigade during the War of Independence in 1948. I decided not to tell him about it because at the time we encountered some stiff resistance at that village and quite a few of the inhabitants were killed.

He went on to tell me a little about himself. “For a while I was a teacher and I loved teaching, but I couldn’t make a living at it and I decided to join my father in law who is in the construction business.” Judging by the large Honda he was driving, I figured that he didn’t do too badly changing his profession.

Our conversation soon turned to the present situation in the Middle East, about Hamas winning the elections, the situation of the Israeli Arabs, and the last Lebanese war against Hezbollah. “As Christians we are in a difficult situation here in Israel. Unfortunately, the Moslems and especially the extreme Islamist section, are giving the tone here. My family who lived in Bethlehem probably since the Crusaders, had to flee for their life. The Moslems have been forcing us out, by threats and even murder. Bethlehem that was once predominantly Christian is now predominantly Moslem. Very little is written about it even in the Israeli press.”

He sipped his coffee and gave me a long look. He seemed like someone who wasn’t quite sure whether to say what he was about to say. I gave him an encouraging nod.

“I have to tell you something which very few of you seem to comprehend.” He continued, “Your bungling war against a few thousand Hezbollah fighters which you should have crushed no matter what, considering the importance of the outcome, has created a completely new situation, not only for this area, but globally. Your inept leadership totally misunderstood the importance of winning this war."

“As a matter of fact, the whole Moslem world, not only the Arabs, simply couldn’t believe that the mighty Israeli Army that defeated the combined Arab forces in six days in 1967, and almost captured Cairo and Damascus in 1973, couldn’t defeat a small army of Hezbollah men. As usual the Moslems see things the way they want to see things. Most think that the present generation of Israelis have gone soft and can be defeated."

“The American bungling of the war in Iraq only added to their conviction that victory not only over Israel but also over the West is not only possible, but certain. The ramifications of these two bungling wars may bring an Islamic bloody Tsunami all over the West, not only in Israel. The sharks smell blood and these two wars gave them the green light to attack sooner than they had in mind. Your problem is that you are on the defensive and they have the option to choose the time and the places when and where to attack and there is nothing much you can do about it. When will you Westerners realize that half measures don’t work with people who are willing to die by the thousands for Allah to achieve their goal? In their eyes the Western World is simply an abomination on earth that has to be wiped out.”

He spoke quietly and I could just picture him in the school giving his students a lecture. I poured him another cup of coffee and encouraged him to continue.

“The Americans, the Europeans, and even you Israelis really don’t know what it is all about, do you? During the last generation hundreds of thousands of children have been taught all over the Moslem world in Madrass schools to become martyrs for Allah in order to kill the infidels. These youngsters not only are ready to do it, but are actually in the process of doing it. Bombs are going off all over the world killing and maiming thousands of people, not only on 9/11 in the US, in London Madrid and Bali, but in Africa, India, Bengladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other places. The first signs of the Islamic Tsunami is already here, but the West doesn’t understand, or doesn’t want to understand what is coming."

“The Americans, instead of realizing that this is as bad as World War Two, or even worse, are going to pull out of Iraq, handing it over to Iran on a silver platter. Next may come the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf states. When dirty bombs go off all over Western towns, who is going to stop the Iranians?"

“Now is the time to stop them, not only because they are developing nuclear bombs, but because Iran has become the base for all Islamic terrorist. They supply, money, men, and weapons to Islamic terrorist around the world, quite often through their diplomatic mail. Billions of petro-dollars that are pouring into Iran are being funneled into terrorist organizations world-wide. They believe, and perhaps rightly so, that the West will do nothing to stop them in achieving their goals. Is history repeating itself? Are the Iranians making the same mistake that Hitler made when he attacked Poland? Is the situation similar?"

“As a history teacher who studied the subject thoroughly I can tell you that Western victory in World War Two was not all certain. Hitler could have won the war if he would have gone ahead with the atomic bomb development before the Americans. The Germans began working on it in the thirties, and it was Hitler’s decision to prefer building more conventional arms, as he considered atomic weapons sheer fantasy. Hitler made the wrong decision, but had he made the right decision the world would have been a different type of world today, wouldn’t it? The West won the war against Hitler by sheer chance. Very few people seem to realize that.”

I must say that his last words shook me up quite a bit. Had Hitler made a different decision, I would have died in Dachau, there wouldn’t have been a Jewish state called Israel, and most likely there wouldn’t have been any Jews left in the world. The idea that the Western democracies in general and the fate of the Jewish people in particular could have hinged on Hitler’s one decision, is a scenario of the worst nightmare.

He notices that his last words had an effect on me, and he smiled. “I see that my words are not wasted on you,” he said dryly. I nodded, and he continued with his lecture. “Coming back to our time, the Iranians rely on the West doing nothing about their development of nuclear bombs. They also rely on their secret weapon: an inexhaustible supply of Islamic suicide bombers, some of them who are already planted all over the Western World. Besides the Islamic countries that supply these suicide bombers, a second front has been opened, and that is the Internet with more than five thousand Islamic web sites, brain washing and urging young Moslems to become martyrs for Allah. They especially target young Moslems who live in Europe and the West in general. The Western intelligence authorities consider these web sites a bigger threat than the Iranian atomic bomb. Al-Qaeda recently issued a television broadcast that promised a devastating attack against its enemies this spring. As we all know, Al-Qaeda doesn’t make empty threats."

“Actually, I don’t understand why the Iranians bother to develop atomic bombs and bring the whole world down on them. Every suicide bomber is a potential atomic bomb, or a biological, chemical or dirty bomb that can be no less devastating than an atom bomb. The Americans and Europeans have no defense against this type of war."

“What can we do against this type warfare?” I asked him. “Well, you Israelis, should better prepare yourself for another round against Hezbollah. It will not be long in coming. It depends on the Iranians to give the word. This time you will have to destroy Hezbollah no matter what the cost may be."

“Of course, your next round against Hezbollah may involve the Syrians and the Iranians against you. The Iranians declared that they will not allow Hezbollah to be defeated no matter what and may launch their missiles against you. So will the Syrians. What will Israel do? It is unlikely that Israel will accept its destruction and may use their nuclear arsenal if the West will not come to their help. Perhaps our book of Revelation is not so wrong in describing that the end of the world would start at Armageddon, which we know as Har-Megiddo in Israel. The book of Revelations describe the last battle would be fought at Armageddon between the “Forces of good and the forces of evil.”

“And who would you call the forces of good ‘Israel or Islam?’ I asked looking him straight in the eyes. He gave me a startled look. “If I were a Moslem, I would have no problem to name the forces of good and it wouldn’t be Israel. As a Christian, I would probably name Israel, but as a Christian Arab I would prefer not to answer.”

We looked at each other. His answer made it clear where the Israeli Arabs stood, whether they were Moslems or Christians. And why should I be surprised? After all the Israeli Arabs call the establishment of the State of Israel their nakbah (disaster).

Is there a way to avoid the “Armageddon”?

“I think there are two ways to avoid it. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don’t want this confrontation anyway.”

“You are painting a rather dark picture. When do you think we will have the next round against Hezbollah?” I asked. “I think they will attack again as soon as they are fully re-equipped and I think it will be during the summer, while Israel is still in a military and political turmoil.”

For a while, we sat in silence. He finished his second cup of coffee and got up. “I know what I am going to do. I am going to Canada to join my brother. This country is becoming much too dangerous for Christians as well,” he said. He thanked me for the coffee and we shook hands.

“You said there are two ways to avoid Armageddon?” I remembered to ask him.
 
“Sure, all the West has to do is follow Putin’s ways. He assassinates his enemies without blinking an eye. Assassinate the four or five Mullahs who run the show, Ahmadinejad, and a few more Iranian fanatics, and the War can be avoided. It may be difficult to do, but not impossible. With today’s hi- tech technology I am sure that new weapons against individuals are being prepared right now. I think it would be a better way of handling the matter than an all out war against Islam.”

The conversation with Francis was not more encouraging than the one I had with the Palestinian student five years ago. It was becoming clear that Israel may be on the forefront for the coming war of the West against Islam, unless we follow Francis’ suggestion to assassinate the heads of the snake, rather than going to war with Islam.
 
Solly Ganor is a survivor of Dachau and the author of Light One Candle.

Title: For Many Palestinians, 'Return' is not a Goal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2007, 05:54:59 AM

For Many Palestinians, ‘Return’ Is Not a Goal
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
Published: March 26, 2007
NY Times

AMMAN, Jordan, March 22 — For nearly 60 years Nimr Abu Ghneim has waited, angrily but patiently, for the day he would return to the home he left in 1948.

Abdallah Zalatimo, a shop owner in Amman, Jordan, says of Palestinians who want to reclaim land, “What are we holding out for?”
A resident of a sprawling Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, Mr. Abu Ghneim, like most Arabs, says there can be no peace with Israel until he and 700,000 other Palestinians are permitted back to the homes they left in the 1948 fighting that led to Israel’s creation.

But with the Arab League expected to focus later this week on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, there is another, albeit quieter, approach being voiced, especially by younger and wealthier Palestinians: it may be neither possible nor desirable to go back.

“Every time people talk peace, you hear discussion of this subject,” said Hanin Abu Rub, 33, a Web content manager at a Jordanian Internet startup, Shoofeetv, who has been active in Palestinian politics. “But now it is a major part of the discussions we have. When people think, ‘Is it possible for us to go back?’ deep inside they now know they are not going back.”

Even having such a debate — rethinking a sacred principle — was once impossible. Now the discussion is centering on how to define the right of return in a new way. Some have come to see the issue as two separate demands: the acceptance, by Israel, that its creation caused the displacement and plight of the Palestinians; and the ability to move back to the lands they or their families left.

Almost no Palestinian questions the demand for Israel’s recognition of the right to return; many, however, now say returning is becoming less and less feasible.

The debate has been spurred again recently by plans to revive the so-called Arab Peace Initiative at the annual Arab League meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Wednesday and Thursday. The initiative, led by Saudi Arabia, offers Israel full recognition and permanent peace with the Arab states in return for Israel’s withdrawal to 1967 lines, the establishment of an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital and a “just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194” of 1948.

Resolution 194 says, “Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,” and calls for them to be compensated if they choose not to return.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have spoken of “positive” elements in the Saudi initiative, but they have expressed reservations about many parts, especially the issue of the refugees.

Israel says that Palestinians should have the right to return to a new Palestine, not to their original homes, especially considering that their numbers have exploded since the original 711,000 people fled in 1948. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees says it has 4.3 million registered Palestinian refugees.

But the prevailing Palestinian view is that the right of return is at the core of the dispute.

“The issue of the refugees is the Palestinian problem,” said Talat Abu Othman, chairman of the Jordanian chapter of the Committee to Protect the Right of Return, an independent Palestinian organization. “The rest, Jerusalem, the settlements and the Palestinian Authority are details. It is not about getting a few inches here or there, it is about the return itself. And even by demanding our return, we are walking away from some of our rights.”

For refugees in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the occupied territories, the right of return is both a symbol of their plight and a financial consideration.

“The Israelis were betting that the elders would die, and the youth would forget,” said Mr. Abu Ghneim, the refugee, as he sat flanked by several other Palestinian elders who have campaigned for the right of return. “But we are here and the young haven’t forgotten. Our right to return to our homes and lands can never be replaced, not with money or anything else.”

He worries, he said, that the Arab states will give in to Israeli demands to drop the issue altogether.

Most Palestinians who fled to Jordan were granted citizenship and today account for well over half of the country’s population. Palestinian refugees living elsewhere, however, have survived with few rights and no citizenship.

A few Palestinians in Jordan now propose a more negotiable stance that seeks recognition from the Israelis, but also offers terms for restitution.

The right of return “is my right, which I have inherited from my parents and grandparents,” said Maha Bseis, 39, a Palestinian whose family comes from Jerusalem. “But if I have the right, I will not return because I was born and grew up here.”

In 2003, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in the West Bank city of Ramallah, in one of the most comprehensive surveys conducted on the subject, found that most Palestinians would be unlikely to move if they were granted the right of return.

“Once the Palestinian narrative is assured, then the tactical issue of where they will go becomes easy to approach,” said Khalil Shikaki, who directs the center. “Everybody wants the emotional question addressed; everybody is happy with the likely modalities.”

He added, “The novel aspect of the survey is, once we gave assurances about the right of return, the other issues became very resolvable,” meaning that many said they would take compensation and would not move.

For Abdallah Zalatimo, 41, the decision on where he will go was made long ago. Born in the United States while his father, a physician from a prominent Jerusalem family, was doing his specialization, Mr. Zalatimo returned to Amman in 1976, before attending college in the United States.

In the late 1980s he opened a business making Arabic sweets that has grown to include shops in several Arab countries with several million dollars in revenues.

“What right do I have to ask for awda when I am here and content?” Mr. Zalatimo said, using an Arabic word for return. “We’ve been accepting less and less every year. What are we holding out for?”

Mr. Zalatimo said the nearly singular focus of many Palestinian refugees on returning detracted from the daily hardships of Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, people who had far fewer options and whose conditions were far worse.

“I think the Palestinian cause today is about helping the Palestinians in the occupied territories to live a better life,” Mr. Zalatimo said. “My pressing issue is to solve the problems of the Palestinians that are living there.”


Suha Maayeh contributed reporting.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 26, 2007, 07:35:58 AM

When do the jews and christians forced to flee from muslim countries get the right of return?

Title: The teaching and values of Israel's neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2007, 10:07:09 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqHUdwePfbM

The forum on which I found it asserts that the woman in question was coerced into doing a suicide killing because she was caught/tricked/lured into being caught at adultery.  I don't know if this is true.  Regardless, the values underlying this piece are quite remarkable. 

Would you be willing to trust your life in the hands of people like this?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 28, 2007, 06:54:36 PM

The so-called "Palestinians" have demonstrated over the decades that force is the only language they respect. As is the islamic tradition, treaties are for gaining advantage before war is continued, nothing more.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: arkangel on March 29, 2007, 08:19:18 AM

good thread. I am supposed to be working. :-P

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2007, 04:36:45 PM

Ark:

Then we are succeeding in our mission  :lol:  More seriously, part of my vision for this forum is to be a place that is part of intelligent and thoughtful people's day-- to be a place that they regularly turn to develop their understanding and thinking about what is going on.

======================

From today's WSJ Online:

The Palestinian Sewer
"Further deadly sewage floods are feared after a wave of stinking waste and mud from a collapsed septic pool inundated a Gaza village, killing five people, including two babies," the Associated Press reports:

The collapse has been blamed on residents stealing sand from an embankment.

It highlighted the desperate need to upgrade Gaza's overloaded, outdated infrastructure--but aid officials say construction of a modern sewage treatment plant has been held up by constant Israeli-Palestinian fighting.

The report gets a bit more specific as to the meaning of "constant Israeli-Palestinian fighting":

Umm Naser is about 300 metres [300 million microns] from the border with Israel, in an area where Palestinians have frequently launched rockets into Israel and Israeli artillery and aircraft have fired back. The situation worsened after Hamas-linked militants captured an Israeli soldier last June in a cross-border raid, and Israel responded by invading northern Gaza.

The Jerusalem Post reported earlier this month that metal provided by Israel had been used in the construction of those terrorist rockets. And why was Israel selling the Palestinians metal? "For the construction of a sewage system in Gaza."

Palestinian babies drown in sewage because of the bloodlust of Palestinian grown-ups. What a fetid political culture.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2007, 08:25:23 AM

stratfor.com

ISRAEL/PNA: Israeli troops disguised as Palestinians killed Ashraf Hanaysheh, an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade leader, Reuters reported, citing a Palestinian source. The special unit of paramilitary border police saw Hanaysheh near the town of Jenin in the northern West Bank, identified him as a senior operative and surrounded him. When Hanaysheh drew a weapon in response, the officers shot and killed him. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is a group in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction.

EGYPT: Egyptian authorities have arrested a man accused of spying on the country's nuclear program for Israel, state Prosecutor Hisham Badawi said. The man, an engineer employed by Egypt's nuclear energy agency, allegedly took reports from his workplace with plans to exchange them for money. Two other foreigners, reportedly from Japan and Ireland, also have been charged.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 20, 2007, 07:12:14 PM

http://memritv.org/

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1426


4/13/2007   Clip No. 1426

Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council Sheik Ahmad Bahr from Hamas, Declared during a Friday Sermon at a Sudan Mosque that America and Israel Will Be Annihilated and Called upon Allah to Kill the Jews and the Americans "to the Very Last One"

Following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which aired on Sudan TV on April 13, 2007.

Ahmad Bahr: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: "You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives." They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

[...]

America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

[...]

I tell you that we will protect the enterprise of the resistance, because the Zionist enemy understands on the language of force. It does not recognize peace or the agreements. It does not recognize anything, and it understands only the language of force. Our Jihad-fighting Palestinian people salutes its brother, Sudan.

[...]

The Palestinian woman bids her son farewell, and says to him: "Son, go and don't be a coward. Go, and fight the Jews." He bids her farewell and carries out a martyrdom operation. What did this Palestinian woman say when she was asked for her opinion, after the martyrdom of her son? She said: "My son is my own flesh and blood. I love my son, but my love for Allah and His Messenger is greater than my love for my son." Yes, this is the message of the Palestinian woman, who was over seventy years old – Fatima Al-Najjar. She was over seventy years old, but she blew herself up for the sake of Allah, bringing down many criminal Zionists.

[...]

Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet – defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2007, 08:44:58 AM

Geopolitical Diary: Hamas' Political Struggle

The armed wing of Palestinian Hamas movement, Izz al-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, on Tuesday claimed responsibility for launching 40 rockets and 70 mortar shells on parts of Israel bordering the Gaza Strip. The move brings to an end the five-month truce with the Jewish state. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has reportedly opted for a "limited military response" to the rocket attacks, which occurred after a daylong IDF offensive this past weekend that killed nine Palestinians, including five militants. The rocket fire, according to IDF officials, was a diversionary tactic to provide cover for a militant infiltration to nab IDF soldiers to up the stakes in the pending prisoner swap between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The cease-fire between the Hamas-led government and Israel is not exactly foolproof. Hamas is notorious for using various militant front organizations to periodically carry out attacks and remind Israel of its militant campaign's strength. But since Hamas swept parliamentary elections more than a year ago, the Hamas leadership has had to balance between proving itself as a legitimate political entity worthy of foreign aid and interaction, and as the leading Palestinian militant organization whose skilled use of explosive devices makes it capable of pressuring Israel into making concessions.

After five months of Hamas silence, however, the group made a point to take direct responsibility for the rocket attack that marked Israel's 59th Independence Day. This shift in stance comes more than two months after Hamas and Fatah leaders signed an agreement in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, to reshuffle the government in an attempt to halt endless street clashes between the rival groups and ease the economic blockade on the Palestinian territories. Though Hamas and Fatah made some progress in creating a national unity government, security issues persist, the economic embargo is still largely intact and the government itself has yet to function. It is no surprise that Hamas' organizational strength has slowly begun to wither away, with increasingly more of the party's members growing disillusioned with a political agenda that has left them paralyzed and doubting whether a political future is really what is good for the Hamas movement.

This difference of opinion is becoming increasingly visible in the top rung of the Hamas command, where the group's external leadership led by exiled politburo chief Khaled Meshaal and internal leadership led by Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh are battling for dominance over the movement. While exiled in Damascus, Syria, Meshaal and his colleagues do not wish to see Haniyeh compromise on Hamas' principles by making the appropriate concessions that would give the movement a moderate make-over and end up further sidelining the group's exiled leaders. Meshaal exerts a great degree of control over Hamas' militant wing, and he uses that control to prevent Hamas from making any significant political headway, as illustrated with Tuesdays's rocket barrage and subsequent claim of responsibility by the group's armed wing. Haniyeh, on the other hand, understands the need for Hamas to empower itself politically and avoid a major confrontation with Israel that would signal the (physical and political) end of Hamas' Gaza leadership.

These internal divisions are only exacerbated by the impasse on the pending prisoner exchange between the Israeli and Palestinian governments and an intense rivalry between Hamas and Fatah over control of the security forces. Five weeks into his job, Palestinian Interior Minister Hani al-Qawasmi tried to resign. Al-Qawasmi was chosen as an independent candidate to help quell the controversy over having a Hamas-ruled government in control of a security apparatus dominated by Fatah loyalists. However, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas attempted to appease his Fatah followers by appointing Muhammad Dahlan, a senior Fatah figure and former interior minister, as national security adviser to restructure the security forces and thus undermine al-Qawasmi's authority. Dahlan's experience in cracking down on Hamas militants in the 1990s has made him a mortal enemy in the eyes of Hamas leaders, providing yet another point of contention between the two factions.

As we anticipated, the lawlessness in the territories has provided jihadist elements with fertile ground to take root in the Palestinian theater. The growing jihadist presence in the area has come to light with recent attacks against Western targets, including the American International School in Gaza, Western-style boutiques, music and cosmetics stores, as well as the recent kidnapping and killing of British Broadcasting Corp. journalist Alan Johnston, whose death was claimed by a previously unknown jihadist-oriented group called the Brigades of Tawhid and Jihad. Though Israel benefits from keeping the Palestinians in disarray, the attrition of Hamas' organizational control and the worsening security conditions in the Gaza Strip are creating the conditions for Israel to face a future in which it will be battling the jihadist menace along its own border.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 04, 2007, 10:58:27 AM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...321.shtml?s=tn

From the NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...
Friday, May 4, 2007 11:39 a.m. EDT
Hamas Calls for 'Extermination of Jews'

The Palestinian militant organization Hamas not only wants the elimination of the state of Israel, but also the extermination of the Jews, according to the group’s newspaper.


"The extermination of Jews is Allah’s will and is for the benefit of all humanity, according to an article in the Hamas paper Al-Risalah,” the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reports.



"The author of the article, Kan’an Ubayd, explains that the suicide operations carried out by Hamas are being committed solely to fulfill Allah’s wishes. Furthermore, Allah demanded this action, because ‘the extermination of the Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds.’”

PMW points out that Hamas’ justification for the extermination of the Jews echoes Adolph Hitler’s words in "Mein Kampf”: "Thus I believe today that I am acting according to the will of the almighty Creator: when I defend myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

Another Hamas statement monitored by the PMW called Judaism "a faith that is based on murder.”

And in a televised speech, Dr. Ahmad Bahar, Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, called for the killing of Americans as well as Jews.


Bahar said his people were "afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation,” according to a transcript provided by the PMW.


"Be certain that America is on its way to disappear. America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan. America is defeated and Israel is defeated . . . Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies. Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies . . . Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”


© NewsMax 2007. All Rights Reserved.

=============

Added on Saturday evening, what seems to be a better report from another forum:
----------------------

Here is a fuller report of Bahr's speach. If you want to pass it around Marc, this is probably a better version:

JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 1, 2007

Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One". Following are excerpts from the sermon that took place last month, courtesy of MEMRI.

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2007, 04:48:08 AM

Move Over Olmert
Will Tzipi Livni be Israel's next prime minister?

BY FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER
Saturday, May 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
WSJ

HAIFA, Israel--On Wednesday, Tzipi Livni gave a press conference calling for Ehud Olmert's resignation in the wake of the Winograd Commission's sharp critique of his performance during the Lebanon war. She also announced she would be challenging him in the Kadima Party primary elections. Mr. Olmert fumed, but stopped short of firing the minister of foreign affairs, aware of her popularity within the party and striving to keep his government above water.

Many Israelis, by contrast, found Ms. Livni's soft tone and refusal to step down a symptom of political weakness. Still, she is determined to keep alive both Kadima and the chances for Israeli-Arab peace. Amid the political tsunami that washed over Israel in the last four days, this is something of a feat.

In an interview given prior to the release of the Winograd Report--which lambasted Prime Minister Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz--Ms. Livni told me why she ought to stay in power. She has a peace-seeking vision for Israel's future, which she has consistently pursued since her appointment in March 2006 and throughout the 34 days of war with Lebanon. Despite current accusations of wishy-washiness, she is still considered by many voters to be the stuff prime ministers are made of. If not now, a little later--assuming Kadima survives.





Ms. Livni has the distinction of being Israel's least-hated leader, widely trusted and considered a spotless and serious stateswoman. The president is suspended and faces likely prosecution on rape, and both prime minister and finance minister are suspected of corruption; Ms. Livni's slate, by contrast, is glaringly clean. A good number of Israelis have considered her a viable heir to Mr. Olmert, and now, in the eye of the storm, many of her party members and supporters still do.
Yet the country is on a political roller-coaster. More than 100,000 protesters flocked to Tel Aviv's Rabin Square on Thursday, calling for Messrs. Olmert and Peretz to step down. Minister Livni was not targeted. And significantly, the rally did not demand new elections. The reason is clear: Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud is poised to win them. His support rose to 27% in recent polls. But many Israelis fear his leadership no less than they despise Mr. Olmert's. This concern is echoed by prominent voices world-wide. Germany's foreign minister Steinmeyer, on behalf of the EU, said on Thursday that "Israel's internal crisis must not be allowed to jeopardize the efforts to resuscitate the Middle East peace process."

If the polling box stays comfortably far, Ms. Livni faces four alternative futures: Mr. Olmert may survive and oust her; he may survive, swallow his pride and keep her in the cabinet, setting his sights on mending both army and peace process; Shimon Peres could take over if Mr. Olmert is forced to resign; or Ms. Livni would take the prime ministerial helm herself. The last three options leave ample room for her international vision to push onward.

This weekend, therefore, Ms. Livni's views are still deeply relevant to Israel's future.

We met in her modest, one-day-a-week Tel Aviv office. Somewhat slumped after a heavy lunch with EU ambassadors, Ms. Livni's energies promptly resurfaced as she recalled addressing a cheering Kadima audience. She told them she had left Likud last year because she couldn't support a political platform dominated by the word "No." "My colleagues and I established Kadima because we were sick and tired of Likud's political fallacies, both ideological and procedural. We wanted to spell out what Likud knows, but due to militant members of its electoral assembly, cannot utter: the principle of two states for two nations. The Kadima platform is based on a paper I originally drafted for the Likud; I took it from my computer, deleted the title 'Reaching Agreement in Likud,' and typed 'Platform' instead."

Ms. Livni's document won voters' confidence last March, scoring a historical victory for the newly founded party shortly after it was deprived of its natural leader, Ariel Sharon. Ms. Livni misses him, personally and politically: "He belonged to a generation of leaders whose commitment to Israel and to the Jewish people was obvious to the public even when they erred," she told me. His heirs, by contrast, must prove their worth. "Kadima represents a huge portion of the Israeli public that is sitting on the fence [between left and right]," she says. "We must regain its trust."

Center parties have never done well in this opinionated country, but Ms. Livni thinks the middle road will prevail. "It is a worldview, not a bunch of nondeciders. My vision of Israeli society and economy is clear and focused." In effect, her economic views are consistent with Kadima's social-minded but essentially free-market stance. Far more urgent for most Israelis is her international outlook. Can she get talks with the Palestinians going? Can she jump-start the peace process, cashing in on American support while courting a helpful European input? Will Israel's strongest female politician since Golda Meir deliver the goods which all her predecessors--Golda most of all--failed to bring home?

Born in 1958 to a seasoned right-wing family--her father was Knesset member for Likud--Tzipora Livni trained as a lawyer and worked for Mossad. Married with two children, she entered Israeli parliament in Netanyahu's list in 1999, and held several ministerial posts under Sharon. Her rise to political stardom was swift and relatively painless. Her political views shifted from right to center early in the new millennium. The longtime hawk, who at 16 years old demonstrated against Henry Kissinger's mission to get Israel out of the Sinai and the Golan Heights, became a supporter of major territorial compromise, buttressed by a vital condition: that not one Palestinian refugee be repatriated into the Jewish state as part of the final deal.

"The establishment of Israel," she says, "has removed 'the Jewish problem' from world agenda. A Palestinian state must do the same for all Palestinians, residents of the territories and exiles alike. It is the only solution for the refugee problem." Can this be anchored in the newly awakened Saudi peace initiative? Ms. Livni draws a clear demarcation: She would give her blessing to the Saudi plan--in fact, she did so from the day it was broached in 2002--as long as the Palestinian "right of return" is off the agenda. "Any border disagreement can be solved by negotiation," she says. Demography is another matter.





This statement not only matches a near-consensus among Jewish Israelis, it also reflects a constitutional credo. Ms. Livni and I have met during the lively debates of the public council of the Israeli Democracy Institute, a powerful independent think tank drafting a written constitution for the country and closely associated with legislators of all political shades. This ambitious project is based on Israel's self-definition as a "Jewish and democratic state" (though some Israelis, this writer included, would prefer to change the order of the adjectives). Ms. Livni is committed to both tags, along with "a strong protection of individual rights." Put together, "these are the Israeli values that every immigrant should memorize, just like the American values in the U.S." Not all Israelis would agree, I retort. Ms. Livni thinks that the solid center is on her side. So, by implication, is the political left. "The real political fault-line runs between those who accept the 'Jewish and democratic' principle, and such religious groups who demand Jewish presence in as much of the Land of Israel as possible. For them, each passing day is a net gain. For me, every decision must substantiate Israel's dual-value vision. Therefore, the land must be divided into two nation states."
Unlike her former Likud friends, she chose to face reality: Avery large Palestinian minority within Israel's final borders would kill off either its Jewish or its democratic character. A generous territorial compromise is her way to square the ensuing circle. This was Kadima's initial raison d'etre, before it slalomed into Lebanon and corruption charges.

Till recently, Israel did not officially respond to the Saudi peace plan. A mistake? "We ought to have put our concept on the table years ago," Ms. Livni concedes. "By neglecting to do so, we lost opportunities of launching a viable process." Her tenure at the ministry of foreign affairs is marked by an effort to advertise a clearer Israeli stance. "There is a pragmatic Muslim-Arab world, which conceives Iran as the primary threat rather than Israel and its [West Bank] settlements. The fundamental solution we can offer these countries is based on two equilibriums: a Palestinian state entailing a [non-repatriation] solution for the Palestinian refugees, and a border agreement entailing [Israel dealing with] the Jewish settlements." The Oslo accord, negotiated by Yitzhak Rabin's labor-led coalition, was therefore a dire error. "Leaving the refugee issue hanging out for separate negotiation is our worst-case scenario. The two-state concept incorporates the solution for the refugees' problem. Israel agrees to a major border compromise in return for a clear international statement about the non-return of the refugees. We have accomplished this with the Bush administration, and I have asked for a similar statement from the Europeans. My interlocutors tell me it makes sense."

Ms. Livni is convinced that an independent, peaceful Palestine is in Israel's best interest. "I want to accomplish a viable Palestine. It is in our interest, because the Palestinian nation state would vouchsafe the Jewish nation state." Are moderate Muslims part of the solution? "Oh yes. They are crucial for strengthening the Palestinian moderates, who are unfortunately weak."





In recent months, Ms. Livni has publicly called for immediate dialogue on a prospective Palestinian state, based on a new common denominator. Iranian Shiite ideology is now a shared enemy, and Middle Eastern extremism no longer stems from the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. "The camps and the alignments have changed. The solution depends on Israelis, moderate Palestinians and pragmatic Arabs and Muslims working together. The two nation state concept is the touchstone of moderation."
Like many Israelis, Ms. Livni feels that television is the enemy of peace-promoting subtlety. "The electronic media does not generate moderation: neither Al-Jazeera television, nor the Internet insofar as it serves al Qaeda. Public opinion has become a tool for extremists, and [Muslim] moderates are afraid to speak up." Another good reason, I tell Ms. Livni, to cultivate every bud of European-Muslim moderation. She consents, then lashes out against what she calls "attempts to theologize the conflict. I cannot solve a religious strife," she says, "but I can solve a conflict between nations."

The Road Map is of course a starting point, although Ms. Livni regrets its vagueness on the refugee issue. Territorial compromise, furthermore, demands mutual flexibility. "We must explain--mainly to Europe--that a wholesale return to the 1967 border is no magic solution. It would bust the dream of a Palestinian state, because there was no geographical or political connection between Gaza and the West Bank. So amendments would be necessary, and both sides would appeal for them. I believe in bilateral negotiation."

"Is Europe a helpful member of the peace-brokering Quartet?" I ask. Most Israelis are painfully suspicious of the old continent's true feelings toward the Jewish state. Ms. Livni is quick to praise the EU's new presence in the Middle East. After all, the deployment of European forces in Lebanon last summer is partly credited to her diplomatic performance. "Yet Israel's image among the European public is remote from reality," she adds. "European leaders told me they must take their own public opinion and media on board. Some EU members, impatient to move on, might soften the conditions imposed on the Palestinians, and speed the process in the wrong direction. If they tell the Palestinians they need not recognize Israel's existence, then we are back to 1947." For the German chancellor, though, Ms. Livni has nothing but praise. "Angela Merkel is a leader with strong values. Like myself, she refuses to accept that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. She has a moral backbone."

Nothing of the sort can be said of Vladimir Putin. "Russia is recently edging away from American positions, and from the Quartet. It aims for independent policies, softer on Iran, accommodating to Hamas." A pause, and then a small concession to Israeli frankness: "Russia's wish to play a different game, vis a vis the Americans, is not helpful." What of the U.S. after President Bush? Israeli commentators suggest that a Democratic White House would pull some carpet from under our feet. On this, Ms. Livni is the diplomat again. "I take the American outlook I have discussed here to be bipartisan."

At close quarters, Ms. Livni is very much the sharp and likeable Sabra gal that middle Israel cannot dislike. She has genuine and refreshing faith in Israeli society and economy. The recent corruption investigations are a healthy sign, she says. Norms are changing and a painful cleanup operation would leave the country stronger, its ethical standards even higher. This utterance is no lip service: Israelis have good feelers for fakes, and Ms. Livni's optimism strikes even her political rivals as authentic.


Asked to comment on the outstanding performance of the Israeli economy throughout these years of crisis, her face lightens up. "This is amazing indeed: war in Lebanon, political dramas, and investments keep pouring in. I ascribe it to the human quality and originality of a group of Israelis. . . . Our economic policy has remained stable, despite the frequent government changes. We have not tilted between ideologies, but kept a consistent middle path. The Israeli public, grumpy as it is, has faith in its economy. So do international investors." Significantly, Israel's stock exchange did not even blink during this week's Winograd mayhem.





Ms. Livni's particular strength is the solid, optimistic, almost old-fashioned Israeli faith in her moral vision. Widespread public trust has been her greatest asset. Ironically, her greatest liability is the party she co-founded, fraught from its infancy by an unending tide of drama: Ariel Sharon's stroke, Mr. Olmert's Lebanese misadventure, Labor's unsuccessful chief as coalition partner, the string of probes and investigations, and now the Winograd showdown. If Kadima sinks, it is hard to see how Ms. Livni will remain afloat. If Kadima survives, however, Ms. Livni may yet be called upon to navigate the ship of state through the world's wildest water course.

Ms. Oz-Salzberger is the Leon Liberman Chair of Modern Israel Studies at Monash University and a senior lecturer in history at the University of Haifa.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 07, 2007, 06:29:14 AM

WHAT TO GIVE UP . . . AND WHAT LAND TO HOLD: ISRAEL'S TOUGHEST CHOICE
 
May 6, 2007 -- EACH time I visit Israel, I come home more pro-Israeli - and more worried about Israel's future.

The nation has been a stunning success, as close to a miracle as humanity achieved over the last, horrid century. But Israel is also a victim of that success. Built - like the United States - by the "old country's" rejects and outsiders, Israel's triumph is a slap in Europe's face. Europe was comfortable with its image of the Jew as a narrow-shouldered rabbinical student the local toughs could bully. But Europeans don't like Jews with muscles.  As for Israel's neighbors, they had 13 centuries to make a go of "Palestine." Instead, they turned the Land of Milk and Honey into a desert.

The ecological reclamation of the land of Israel is nearly as dramatic as the creation of a Jewish state. (Indeed, environmentalists of real integrity should count among Israel's strongest advocates.) That return to the garden is as humiliating to feckless Arab cultures as their military defeats.

And we won't even talk about Israel's introduction of rule-of-law democracy into the wretchedly governed Middle East.

The point is that, whatever Israel does or doesn't do, it will always have plenty of enemies. No matter how self-destructive and murderous Palestinian behavior may be in Gaza, how nakedly corrupt Palestinian leaders are, or how hypocritical Arab governments remain, the global left will always make excuses for them, while blaming Israel for every boil on a terrorist's backside.

SO why should Israel surren der any land to its enemies, if it gets in return nothing but empty promises and more security problems?

The reason has nothing to do with justice or sense, but with one of those oddities of the international system, "world opinion." I wish Israel could keep every inch of ground it now holds. But the reality is that global leaders who don't know Gaza from Giza will demand that Israel give up turf.

Some of those pressures can be shrugged off. But not all.

In this unjust world, Israel will be forced to make very difficult choices. Some of the toughest will have to do with the land it must surrender to thugs who'll turn it into yet another patch of self-made Arab misery. And there's a very real danger that, for internal political reasons, a future Israeli government will make faulty decisions.

ISRAEL must be severely prag matic, distinguishing between strategic terrain and evocative terrain - between those stretches of land critical to security and those whose appeal is purely emotional.

Sounds sensible and easy, but it isn't.

Israel's internal enemies are the rogue, extremist settlers who invoke a real-estate-magnate god to occupy West Bank territory that the state doesn't need and can't digest - and whose seizure plays into the hands of Israel's foes and complicates the support of her all-too-few friends.

Yet the fateful evolution of the Israeli parliamentary system has made those who return the least benefit to Israel - who drain its resources and give nothing back - into political kingmakers.

Jews who insist that their god cares more about a plot of bedeviled dirt than the reverence in their hearts are behaving like Arab militants (complete with the intolerance). No religious text is a valid deed.

Don't get me wrong: Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Christians have a stronger claim to Alexandria, Antioch and Istanbul than Muslims do to Jerusalem.

But when it comes to strategic terrain, forget about Hebron - the West Bank town that's home to less than 1,000 Israeli settlers, and well over 100,000 Palestinians. It's just one of the many settlements that hurt Israel's security instead of helping it.

SO what land truly matters to Israel's survival (assuming, for a moment, that Iran won't be permitted to build a nuclear arsenal)?

Israel can never surrender the Golan Heights. We might as well be honest about it. Syria repeatedly - three times - attacked Upper Galilee from the Golan. Three strikes and you're out.

Syria's a phony state, anyway, its borders drawn to please France. Israel has administered the Golan longer - and far better - than post-independence Damascus did.

Borders change. Get over it.

Elsewhere, though, traditional strategists have it wrong. They claim that whoever holds the mountainous "spine" running down through the West Bank controls the land that now comprises Israel. But Israel's survival and victorious wars disprove that "law."

What matters is control of the lines of communication - the roads - that enable Israel to shift military forces rapidly, and the control of foreign borders across which weapons can be infiltrated.

Thus, control of the Jordan Valley and its vital north-south highway is essential. The string of hilltop settlements east of Jerusalem that dominate the direct route to Jordan can never be given up.

And the recently floated scheme to swap Arab towns in northern Israel for part of the West Bank is madness - it would cost Israel control of a militarily vital highway from the coast into Galilee.

IN short, there are vital loca tions within the West Bank. They're just not the ones obsessing the fanatics who shame their faith.

If Israel doesn't do a cold- blooded analysis of what it truly needs to retain, the world will ask too much, its government will make decisions based upon political pressure rather than military necessity - and the result will be a far-worse mess than the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip created.

Israel must do what its survival requires. As the interim Winograd Report made clear on Monday, last summer's duel with Hezbollah was disastrous. Now Israel's enemies smell blood. Instead of the longed-for era of peace, we'll see no end of violence in the Middle East.

THERE'S no good solution to the region's problems. There may not even be any bad solutions that work. The failed civilization surrounding Israel may be hopeless - a possibility we pretend away because we cannot bear the implications.

But Israel can't pretend anything away. In a world in which so many openly seek its destruction - while others secretly long for the same thing - Israel is going to have to play flawless political chess. That means giving up the spaces on the board that don't help it checkmate its enemies.

Ralph Peters' most recent book is "Never Quit The Fight."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2007, 08:55:37 AM

WSJ

Jerusalem Before Israel
At the twilight of empire, the origins of conflict.

BY AMY DOCKSER MARCUS
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: The roots of Arab-Israeli enmity are usually traced to Palestine's administration as a British Mandate (1920-48). But in "Jerusalem 1913," Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Dockser Marcus--the paper's former Middle East correspondent (1991-98) and the winner of a Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for her coverage of improving cancer-survival rates--finds that the conflict's origins lie deeper in the past, in the Ottoman Empire before World War I. She begins by noting a long period of mutual accommodation that would vanish with the rise of modern nationalism. Some excerpts:

The Ottoman occupation of Jerusalem in the 16th century until the early 20th was often marked by peaceful coexistence: "Twice a year, Jews, Muslims, and Christians celebrated together at the shrine of Simon the Just, a popular biblical figure. For a single coin, you could buy a ride to the tombs on a camel or donkey. Their owners would lead the animals from café to café soliciting business, the colored rocks worn around the beasts' necks to protect them from the evil eye clicking rhythmically as they made their way down the street. During the monthlong Muslim holiday of Ramadan, nighttime shows featured entertainers who would make shadow puppets against the walls of the café, often using the puppets' dialogue to poke fun at local officials or make veiled political commentary on the latest events. During the Jewish holiday of Purim, children from all over the city dressed up in colorful costumes to celebrate and exchange sweets. The Arabs even had a name for Purim in their own language, which translated as 'the sugar holiday.' "

Theodor Herzl, the author of "The Jewish State," which called in 1897 for a Jewish homeland, visited Palestine after the first Zionist Congress that same year had settled on it as the best site for a Jewish home: "Herzl was everywhere greeted as a kind of prophet. Children lined up at the village gates to sing to him, dressed in white, freshly laundered linen and bearing gifts of chocolate. Old men rushed to his side clutching bread and salt, a traditional gesture of hospitality. Groups of farmers left their fields and rode out to meet him on horseback, cheering him on and shooting their rifles in the air as he approached.

"During an appearance at one Jewish settlement, three elderly men trailed behind him as he walked, falling to their knees to kiss the tracks he left in the sand. That incident so unsettled Herzl that afterward he made certain never to be seen riding a white donkey while in the country, for fear that people would think he considered himself the Messiah and turn him in to the Ottoman authorities."

World War I dissolved the Ottoman Empire, leaving Palestine, the nascent Jewish homeland, in the hands of British administrators for nearly 30 years. After gaining its independence in 1948, the country newly named Israel joined the United Nations the following year: "After the state of Israel had been founded and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was well under way, many looked back, trying to pinpoint the moment when they realized that that conflict was inevitable. David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister, said it was the day in 1915 that he sat on a train waiting to leave Jerusalem at the order of [Ahmed Djemal, the city's Ottoman ruler], who banished many known Zionist activists from the city.

"Ben-Gurion had tried to turn himself into an Ottoman--studying Turkish, attending law school in Constantinople, trying to organize a Jewish legion to fight on behalf of the Ottoman Empire in the war, and even donning a red fez. But all these gestures had been to no avail, for at the end of the day, Djemal had looked at him and seen not an Ottoman but an advocate for a future Jewish state, and had him jailed in Jerusalem. . . . Upon his release from jail, he was exiled to Alexandria. Later, in his books and memoirs, he recalled vividly a particular moment on the train, when an Arab acquaintance of his, whom he called Yeya Effendi, walked by and saw him waiting to leave. The men embraced, exchanged news and greetings, and then Yeya Effendi asked him where he was going.

"Ben-Gurion told him that he was being exiled, ordered never to return to Jerusalem. Yeya Effendi held him in the embrace of a true friend, mourning his loss of their shared city. Then he looked at Ben-Gurion and said something that Ben-Gurion pondered for the entire train ride to Alexandria. 'As your friend, I am sad,' Yeya Effendi told him. 'But as an Arab, I rejoice.' "

You can buy "Jerusalem 1913" from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 10, 2007, 09:52:38 AM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25428_Death_Cult_Mickey_Still_on_the_Air&only

"Palestinian" children's show and the MSM's lies.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2007, 04:12:45 AM

Posted because of who writes it.  From today's NY Times Op Ed page:
=============

Give the Arab Peace Initiative a Chance
By FUAD SINIORA
Published: May 11, 2007
Beirut

ALMOST a year has passed since Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, time enough to draw lessons from the conflict and reflect on its consequences.

Last week, Israel’s Winograd Commission published an interim report scrutinizing Israel’s conduct during what it called the country’s most recent military “campaign.” But the report failed to draw the most essential lesson from the July war and the wars that preceded it: military action does not give the people of Israel security. On the contrary, it compromises it. The only way for the people of Israel and the Arab world to achieve stability and security is through a comprehensive peace settlement to the overarching Arab-Israeli conflict.

It is in this vein that participants in the March Arab League summit in Riyadh called again for a peace proposal originally put forward at a similar gathering in Beirut in 2002. The Arab Peace Initiative, as it is called, was introduced by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by all the Arab countries. It offers Israel full recognition by the 22 members of the Arab League in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders, thus allowing the Palestinians to create a viable independent state on what is only 22 percent of historic Palestine.

This is a high price but one the Arabs are willing to pay, as it is the only realistic path to peace that conforms to all United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions addressing the conflict, and ensures the right of return of the Palestinian people. The Arab states are not seeking to wipe Israel off the map. Rather, we are seeking the legitimate goals of an armistice, secure borders and the ability of all of the region’s people to live in peace and security.

Last summer’s war was only the latest eruption of violence in this enduring conflict, and hindered prospects for peace rather than creating opportunities for it. The Winograd interim report criticized the Israeli government’s war goals as being unclear and unachievable, yet the Israeli Army came dangerously close to achieving the stated goal of its chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz: to “turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.”

The report made no mention of the sheer damage inflicted. Lebanon’s airports, bridges and power plants were systematically ravaged. Villages were destroyed, and more than an eighth of its population displaced. The bombardment caused an estimated $7 billion in damage and economic losses while leaving behind 1.2 million cluster bomblets that continue to kill and maim innocent people.

Most important, the war took the lives of more than 1,200 Lebanese citizens, the vast majority of them civilians. This epitomizes the protracted injustice Arabs feel as a result of Israel’s record of destruction of their lives and livelihood, its oppression of the Palestinian people and its continued illegal occupation of Arab lands. The July war proved that militarism and revenge are not the answer to instability; compromise and diplomacy are.

This should be the impetus for Israel to seek a comprehensive solution based on the Arab Peace Initiative. The Winograd Commission’s failure to discuss the war’s implications for peace prospects leads one to wonder whether Israel would rather allow this conflict to fester as long as it is under relatively controlled conditions. Its goal should be regional peace and security, which can be realized only through a just resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The inevitable alternative is increased extremism, intolerance and destruction.

Like the Israelis, the Arab people have legitimate security concerns, as evidenced by what Lebanon endured last summer. So often we have seen parties to the conflict use force in the name of self-defense and security, only to further aggravate the situation and compromise the very security they seek. These escalations also occur because there has never been full compliance with international law. Thus, illegal occupations, over-flights, detentions, house demolitions, humiliating checkpoints, attacks and counterattacks continue to heighten the anger and despair. Perpetuating hostility and distrust in this manner goes against the tide of confidence-building this region needs to foster stability. The conflict has persisted for so long, generating so many tangled consequences, that diplomacy remains the only option.

Because of its unique role in the world, the United States has a responsibility to display leadership and courage in helping the two sides achieve a just and lasting peace. The people of the Middle East aspire simply to live in freedom and dignity, without constant threats of violence, occupation and war. This is achievable if we demonstrate political will and learn the harsh lessons from the past. Leading these peace efforts is not only an American responsibility, it is in the United States’ interests: peace in the Middle East would offer a gateway to reconciliation with the Muslim world during these times of increased divisiveness and radicalism.

The Winograd Commission tried to draw conclusions about the Israeli political and military leadership from their actions during the July war. The correct lesson is that the only path to long-lasting peace is itself peaceful. With the support of the United States and its partners in the Quartet on the Middle East — the European Union, the United Nations and Russia — we hope to use the Arab Peace Initiative as the foundation to finally bring about a comprehensive peace to our troubled region. Only then will the people of the Middle East be able to finally realize their shared goal of living in freedom with security and lasting peace.

Fuad Siniora is the prime minister of Lebanon.

Title: The Six Day War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 20, 2007, 04:41:56 AM

Houston Chronicle
May 17, 2007
 
Viewpoints, Outlook
 
 




May 17, 2007, 8:44PM
History tells why Israel's mistrust of Arabs is deep

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

TOOLS

There has hardly been an Arab peace plan in the past 40 years — including the current Saudi version — that does not demand a return to the status quo of June 4, 1967. Why is that date so sacred? Because it was the day before the outbreak of the Six Day War in which Israel scored one of the most stunning victories of the 20th century. The Arabs have spent four decades trying to undo its consequences.

The real anniversary of the war should be three weeks earlier. On May 16, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser demanded the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force that had kept Israel and Egypt at peace for 10 years. The U.N. complied, at which point Nasser imposed a naval blockade of Israel's only outlet to the south, the port of Eilat — an open act of war.

How Egypt came to this reckless provocation is a complicated tale (chronicled in Michael Oren's magisterial history Six Days of War) of aggressive intent compounded with fateful disinformation. An urgent and false Soviet warning that Israel was preparing to attack Syria led to a cascade of intra-Arab maneuvers that in turn led Nasser, the champion of pan-Arabism, to mortally confront Israel with a remilitarized Sinai and a southern blockade.

Why is this still important? Because that three-week period between May 16 and June 5 helps explain Israel's 40-year reluctance to give up the fruits of the Six-Day War — the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza — in return for paper guarantees of peace. Israel had similar guarantees from the 1956 Suez War, after which it evacuated the Sinai in return for that U.N. buffer force and for assurances from the Western powers of free passage through the Straits of Tiran.

All this disappeared with a wave of Nasser's hand. During those three interminable weeks, President Lyndon Johnson tried to rustle up an armada of countries to run the blockade and open Israel's south. The effort failed dismally.

It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight.

With troops and armor massing on Israel's every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel.

"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants," declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, "and as for the survivors — if there are any — the boats are ready to deport them."

For Israel, the waiting was excruciating and debilitating. Israel's citizen army had to be mobilized. As its soldiers waited on the various fronts for the world to rescue the nation from peril, Israeli society ground to a halt and its economy began bleeding to death. Army Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, later to be hailed as a war hero and even later as a martyred man of peace, had a nervous breakdown. He was incapacitated to the point of incoherence by the unbearable tension of waiting with the life of his country in the balance.

We know the rest of the story. Rabin recovered in time to lead Israel to victory. But we forget how perilous was Israel's condition. The victory hinged on a successful attack on Egypt's air force on the morning of June 5. It was a gamble of astonishing proportions. Israel sent the bulk of its 200-plane air force on the mission, fully exposed to antiaircraft fire and missiles. Had they been detected and the force destroyed, the number of planes remaining behind to defend the Israeli homeland — its cities and civilians — from the Arab air forces' combined 900 planes was ... 12.

We also forget that Israel's occupation of the West Bank was entirely unsought. Israel begged Jordan's King Hussein to stay out of the conflict. Engaged in fierce combat with a numerically superior Egypt, Israel had no desire to open a new front just yards from Jewish Jerusalem and just miles from Tel Aviv. But Nasser personally told Hussein that Egypt had destroyed Israel's air force and airfields and that total victory was at hand. Hussein could not resist the temptation to join the fight. He joined. He lost.

The world will soon be awash with 40th anniversary retrospectives on the war — and on the peace of the ages that awaits if Israel would only return to June 4, 1967. But Israelis are cautious. They remember the terror of that unbearable May when, with Israel possessing no occupied territories whatsoever, the entire Arab world was furiously preparing Israel's imminent extinction. And the world did nothing.

Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2007, 05:40:34 AM

No Pyrrhic Victory
Most of the conventional wisdom about the Six Day War is wrong.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

On the morning of June 5, 1967, a fleet of low-flying Israeli jets surprised the Egyptian air force on the ground and destroyed it. This act of military pre-emption helped save Israel from what Iraq's then-President Abdul Rahman Aref had called, only several days earlier, "our opportunity . . . to wipe Israel off the map." Yet 40 years later Israel's victory is widely seen as a Pyrrhic one--"a calamity for the Jewish state no less than for its neighbors," according to a recent editorial in The Economist.

And the alternative was?

The Six Day War is supposed to be the great pivot on which the modern history of the Middle East hinges, the moment the Palestinian question came into focus and Israel went from being the David to the Goliath of the conflict. It's a reading of history that has the convenience of offering a political prescription: Rewind to the status quo ante June 5, arrange a peace deal, and the problems that have arisen since more or less go away. Or so the thinking goes.

Yet the striking fact is that all of Israel's peace agreements--with Egypt in 1979, with the Palestinians in 1993, with Jordan and Morocco in 1994--were achieved in the wake of the war. The Jewish state had gained territory; the Arab states wanted it back. Whatever else might be said for the land-for-peace formula, it's odd that the people who are its strongest advocates are usually the same ones who bemoan the apparent completeness of Israel's victory in 1967.





Great events have a way not only of reshaping the outlook for the future but also our understanding of the past, usually in the service of clarity. "Why England Slept" was an apt question to ask of Britain in the mid-1930s, but it made sense only after Sept. 1, 1939. By contrast, the Six Day War laid a thick fog over what came before. Today, the pre-1967 period is remembered (not least by many Israelis) as a time when the country's conscience was clear and respectable world opinion admired "plucky little Israel." Yet these were the same years when Israel lived within what Abba Eban, its dovish foreign minister, called "Auschwitz borders," with only nine miles separating the westernmost part of the West Bank from the Mediterranean Sea.
It is also often said today that the Six Day War humiliated the Arabs and propelled the region into future rounds of fighting. Yet President Aref of Iraq had prefaced his call to destroy Israel by describing the war as the Arabs' chance "to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948." It is said that the war inaugurated the era of modern terrorism, as the Arab world switched from a strategy of conventional confrontation with Israel to one of "unconventional" attacks. Yet hundreds of Israelis had already been killed in fedayeen raids in Israel's first 19 years of existence.

It is said that the Palestinian movement was born from Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Yet the Palestine Liberation Organization was already in its third year of operations when the war began. It is said that Israel enjoyed international legitimacy so long as it lived behind recognized frontiers. Yet those frontiers were no less provisional before 1967 than they were after. Only after the Six Day War did the Green Line come to be seen as the "real" border.

Fog also surrounds memories of the immediate aftermath of the war. To read some recent accounts, a more sagacious Israel could have followed up its historic victory with peace overtures that would have spared everyone the bloody entanglements of its occupation of the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Or, failing that, it could have resisted the lure of building settlements in the territories in order not to complicate a land-for-peace transaction.

In fact, the Israeli cabinet agreed on June 19 to offer the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan to Syria in exchange for peace deals. In Khartoum that September, the Arab League declared "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." As for Jewish settlements, hardly any were built for years after the war: In 1972, for instance, only about 800 settlers had moved to the West Bank.

It's true that the war caused Israel to lose friends abroad. "Le peuple juif, sûr de lui meme et dominateur" ("the Jewish people, sure of themselves and domineering") was Charles de Gaulle's memorable line in announcing, in November 1967, that France would no longer supply Israel militarily. Such were the Jewish state's former friends.

On the other hand, Israel gained new friends. The U.S., whose declared policy during the war was to be "neutral in thought, word and deed," would never again pretend such indifference, something that made all the difference to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Tens of thousands of American and European Jews immigrated to Israel after 1967, sensing it was a country not on the brink of extinction. Christian evangelicals also became Israel's firm friends, expanding the political base of American support beyond its traditionally narrow, Jewish-Democratic core.





None of this is to say that the Six Day War was an unalloyed (or unironic) blessing for Israel. By gaining control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel swapped its old territorial insecurities for new demographic ones. As Palestinian numbers grew, Israel's efforts to find a new strategic equilibrium--first through negotiations with the PLO, later through unilateral withdrawals--became increasingly frenetic. Who knows whether they will succeed.
Then again, when the sun rose on June 5, 1967, Israel was a poor, desperately vulnerable country, which threw the dice on its own survival in the most audacious military strike of the 20th century. It is infinitely richer and more powerful today, sure in its alliance with the U.S. and capable of making concessions inconceivable 40 years ago. If these are the fruits of Israel's "Pyrrhic victory," it needs more such of them.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

Title: slanted views of the liberal media bias against Israel
Post by: Stray Dog on June 09, 2007, 08:52:57 AM

I hope this post is appropriate here, I feel that as of late the liberal media never reports the attacks against Israel with the same zeal as it does when the case is reversed and Israel is defending herself. Just my $.02

JERUSALEM, June 9 — At least four Palestinian gunmen using an armored vehicle and grenade launchers broke through Israel’s border fence from Gaza today and fought a gun battle with Israeli soldiers, while Israeli troops entered Gaza near the southern town of Rafah to search for weapons and tunnels used to smuggle arms and explosives from Egypt.

In the border fence incursion, at the old Kissufim crossing near Deir el Balah, there were conflicting reports that one of the Palestinian gunmen was killed, that some were still inside Israel and that three of the four had returned to Gaza.

The attack evoked the Hamas raid into Israel a year ago, in which several Israeli soldiers were killed and another, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was captured. He is still being held somewhere in Gaza. Negotiations for a prisoner exchange have been intermittent but have thus far faltered over Hamas demands for prisoners Israel does not want to release.

Abu Ahmed, a spokesman for Islamic Jihad, told Gaza radio stations that at least four militants broke through the Gaza border fence and were fighting Israeli troops. “It is difficult to storm,” he said. “But when they entered in a surprise, they confused the enemy.” He said that the raid was carried out with the help of members of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, affiliated with Fatah.

An Israeli army spokesman confirmed that “four or five gunmen infiltrated through the border fence into Israel.” They approached an Israeli army post and there was a gun battle, in which the Israelis confirmed shooting one man, but did not know his status, the spokesman said.

The gunmen used an armored jeep with United Nations markings to ram the border post, according to Abu Ali, a spokesman for the Al Aksa brigades. Other reports said the jeep was disguised to look like an Israeli army vehicle.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 09, 2007, 09:19:54 AM

Woof C-Stray Dog:

I think your point most sound.

Snatching at random from this morning's news we find:

"LEBANESE TROOPS POUND ISLAMIC POSITIONS: Lebanon's army on Saturday pounded al Qaeda-inspired Islamic militants hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in renewed heavy clashes following a few days of intermittent fighting. Black smoke billowed from the Nahr el-Bared camp in northern Lebanon where witnesses reported some of the heaviest army shelling since June 1, when the Lebanese army -- using tanks and artillery -- launched an offensive to drive the Fatah Islam militants from their positions inside the settlement."

I'm guessing if Israel were going after such a camp there would be a a general caterwauling and dramatic fotos and "outrage", but because its not Israel attacking these scum, nary a word or foto of this sort.

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 09, 2007, 09:36:36 AM

Yet we hear from some that the Jews in America control the media and our pols.

Israel cannot count on the US to be there if push comes to shove.  Americans will not want to risk life and limb for Jews.

But, I see this as good news:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas052407.php3

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rogt on June 11, 2007, 10:06:27 AM

Quote from: ccp on June 09, 2007, 09:36:36 AM

Yet we hear from some that the Jews in America control the media and our pols.

Just saying "Jews control the media" implies some sort of conspiracy and is (rightly) considered bigotry and not taken seriously.   But there's no denying that a lot of Jews (some would say a disproportionate amount) happen to occupy powerful positions in our government and the media, and it would be absurd to think this doesn't in any way influence our policy towards Israel.

Quote

Israel cannot count on the US to be there if push comes to shove.  Americans will not want to risk life and limb for Jews.

I think WW2 pretty clearly demonstrated that Americans are willing to risk their lives for Jews when the cause is just.  Israel is not simply "Jews" but implies a set of policies and ideas that plenty of people who aren't anti-Semites consider unjust and morally bankrupt for very specific reasons.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 11, 2007, 04:32:22 PM

Israel's refusal to be pushed into the sea continues to inflame the muslim world. How unjust it is for the Israelis to continue to insist on survival.  :roll:

Title: Wonder why Israel does not negotiate with these folks?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2007, 06:44:19 AM

NY Times:

JERUSALEM, June 12 — Gunmen of rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah sharply escalated their fight for supremacy on Tuesday, with Hamas taking over much of the northern Gaza Strip in what is beginning to look increasingly like a civil war.


Hamas fighters in Nusairat, in the Gaza Strip, defended a national security headquarters they had seized from Fatah Tuesday.

Five days of revenge attacks on individuals — including executions, kneecappings and even tossing handcuffed prisoners off tall apartment towers — on Tuesday turned into something larger and more organized: attacks on symbols of power and the deployment of military units. About 25 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 wounded, Palestinian medics said.

In one Hamas attack on a Fatah security headquarters in northern Gaza near Jabaliya Camp, at least 21 Palestinians were reported killed and another 60 wounded, said Moaweya Hassanein of the Palestinian Health Ministry.

After a senior Fatah leader in northern Gaza, Jamal Abu al-Jediyan, was killed Monday, Fatah’s elite Presidential Guards, who are being trained by the United States and its allies, fired rocket-propelled grenades at the house of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, of Hamas, in the Shati refugee camp near Gaza City.

An hour later, Hamas’s military wing fired four mortar shells at the presidential office compound of Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, who is in the West Bank, a Fatah spokesman, Tawfiq Abu Khoussa, said in a telephone interview.

“Hamas is seeking a military coup against the Palestinian Authority,” he said.

Hamas made a similar accusation against Fatah. Hamas, which has an Islamist ideology, demanded that security forces loyal to Fatah, the more nationalist and secular movement, abandon their positions in northern and central Gaza.

Fatah’s leaders said Tuesday night that they would suspend participation in the unity government with Hamas, which began in March, until the fighting ends.

That agreement to govern jointly, negotiated under Saudi auspices, put Fatah ministers into a Hamas-led government in an effort to secure renewed international aid and recognition and to stop what was already serious fighting between the two factions.

But the new government has failed to achieve either goal, and it appeared to many in Gaza that the gunmen were not listening to their political leaders. Mr. Abbas is under increasing pressure to abandon the unity government he championed and to try once again to order new elections, which Hamas has said it will oppose by any means.

The head of the Egyptian mediation team, Lt. Col. Burhan Hamad, said neither side responded to his call on Tuesday to hold truce talks. “It seems they don’t want to come,” said Colonel Hamad, who has brokered several brief cease-fires between the two. “We must make them ashamed of themselves. They have killed all hope. They have killed the future.”

He said neither side had the weaponry required to produce “a decisive victory.”

Talal Okal, a Gazan political scientist, described what could be coming. “Tonight, we may find ourselves at the beginning of a civil war,” he said. “If Abbas decides to move his security forces onto the attack, and not to only defend, we’ll find ourselves in a much wider cycle.”

Fatah forces were ordered Tuesday evening to defend their positions and counter “a coup against the president and against the Palestinian Authority and national unity government.”

The streets of Gazan cities were once again empty of pedestrians and cars. People ventured out to buy food, but only to the next building, and parents kept children out of school.

At Shifa Hospital in Gaza, which Hamas gunmen patrolled, bodies of four Hamas fighters lay on the floor of the emergency room, including Muhammad al-Mqeir, 25. His closest friend called him a martyr, even though he was killed by another Palestinian, from Fatah. “They are not Palestinians, they are lost people,” the friend said of Fatah. Doctors said that the emergency room was overloaded and that the hospital was running short of blood.

After warning Fatah, Hamas attacked a Fatah-affiliated security headquarters in Gaza City, and declared northern Gaza “a closed military zone.”

An estimated 200 Hamas fighters surrounded Fatah security headquarters there, firing mortar shells and grenades at the compound, where some 500 security officers were positioned. The headquarters fell to Hamas. Hamas gunmen also exchanged fire with Fatah forces at the southern security headquarters in the town of Khan Yunis. There, the two sides fought a gun battle near a hospital. Fifteen children attending a kindergarten in the line of fire were rushed into the hospital, which is financed largely by European donations.

Angering Hamas, Fatah militants abducted and killed the nephew of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas leader assassinated by Israel in April 2004.
===========
(Page 2 of 2)



Hamas gunmen attacked the home of a Fatah security official with mortars and grenades, killing his 14-year-old son and three women inside, security officials said. Other Fatah gunmen stormed the house of a Hamas lawmaker and burned it down.

Fatah forces also attacked the headquarters, in Gaza, of Hamas’s television station, Al Aksa TV, and began to broadcast Fatah songs, but Hamas said later that it had repelled the attack.

In the West Bank, where Fatah is stronger and the Israeli occupation forces keep Hamas fighters underground, the Fatah Presidential Guards took over the Ramallah offices of Al Aksa TV and confiscated equipment.

Also in the West Bank, Fatah men kidnapped a deputy minister from Hamas, one of the few Hamas cabinet members and legislators not already in Israeli military jails, part of Israel’s effort to keep pressure on Hamas.

Since Monday morning, at least 43 Palestinians have died in the renewed fighting. More than 50 had died in the previous outburst last month that ended in a brief cease-fire mediated by the Egyptians.

A Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, accused Fatah, in alliance with Israel and the United States, of trying to destroy Hamas and overturn the results of elections held in January 2006, in which Hamas won a legislative majority.

“They crossed all the red lines,” he said of Fatah after the second straight day that Prime Minister Haniya’s house was fired upon.

Sami Abu Zuhri, another Hamas spokesman, said: “Those we sit with from Fatah have no control on the ground. These groups have relations with the U.S. administration and Israel.” Hamas says it believes that Mr. Abbas’s aide, Muhammad Dahlan, is controlling the Fatah forces, and Mr. Zuhri said, “It’s an international and regional plan aiming to eliminate Hamas.”

Israeli officials are debating whether Fatah can stand up to Hamas in Gaza. They say they have been asked by Washington recently to approve another shipment of armored vehicles, weapons and ammunition to the Presidential Guards. But a senior Israeli official said Israel was worried that the weaponry would just be seized by Hamas, as much of the last shipment was.

“Hamas now has two million bullets intended for Fatah,” he said.

Israeli officials are explicit privately about their intention to damage Hamas and its military infrastructure in Gaza and try to give Fatah a boost at the same time. Israel, in retaliation for rocket fire into Israel from Gaza, has been bombing the buildings and facilities of Hamas’s Executive Force, a parallel police force in Gaza, that has not been firing rockets. Israeli officials argue, however, that the Executive Force and the Hamas military wing “share a command headquarters.”

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which deals with the 70 percent of Gaza’s 1.5 million people who are refugees or their descendants, said its ability to provide needed aid had been severely hampered by the fighting. Three of its 5 food distribution centers and 7 of its 18 health clinics were forced to close Tuesday, said its Gaza director, John Ging.

“The violence is compounding an already dreadful humanitarian situation,” he said, with 80 percent of the refugee population already dependent on aid.

Mr. Okal, who is now on the board of trustees of the Fatah-affiliated Azhar University in Gaza, said he would oppose Fatah’s pulling out of elected institutions, but added that he was not optimistic about Gaza. “We are heading toward a collapse — of both the political system and society,” he said.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2007, 07:12:52 PM

PNA: Hamas Gains the Upper Hand in Gaza
Summary

Hamas consolidated its hold over the Gaza Strip after it captured one of the last Fatah command centers in Gaza City on June 14. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is threatening to dissolve the parliament and hold new elections, but doing so would only cripple Fatah's position even more, and Hamas knows this. After five days of bloody clashes, Hamas has dramatically changed the negotiating landscape in the Palestinian territories to pressure Fatah into giving up a significant degree of control over the Palestinian security apparatus.

Analysis

Hamas' trademark green flags waved over the Preventive Security headquarters in Gaza City on June 14. The headquarters is one of the last major Fatah compounds that Hamas has taken over after five days of deadly clashes in the Gaza Strip. Reports indicate that President Mahmoud Abbas has dissolved the Saudi-brokered "unity government," though the merits of such a move remain unclear.

Abbas has made such threats before, and he knows that he will be facing a full-scale civil war in the territories that would result in the creation of de facto mini-states, with Hamas in charge of Gaza and Fatah in charge of the West Bank, if Hamas is forced out of the government. He also knows Fatah would have almost no chance of winning a clear majority if new elections were held, and that his fractured Fatah movement might not be able to regain its current position if an all-out factional battle ensues. The fighting already is so bad that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, led by Muhammad Mahdi Akef, is being asked to mediate the crisis, and Abbas has given orders to Fatah members to fight back against Hamas.

Fatah is weak, and Hamas knows it. And this is precisely what is giving Hamas the confidence to go on the offensive and essentially establish what is being referred to as "Hamastan" in the Gaza Strip. In Hamas' mind, the time has come to redraw the lines on the power-distribution map based on its gains on the battlefield. The root of this bitter power struggle is control over the Palestinian security forces, which Hamas needs in order to ensure the longevity of its militant arm.

Even though it came to power through a landslide victory in the January 2006 legislative elections, Hamas has been unable to make much headway toward its ultimate goal of replacing Fatah as the main Palestinian actor. In fact, international sanctions and Fatah's control of the presidency (and hence security forces) forced Hamas' hand to the point where it had to agree to sharing power, even though it had a clear majority in parliament. The latest wave of fighting has allowed Hamas to at least lay claim to Gaza, from where it will try to extend its control into the West Bank.

Not only is the West Bank more ideologically in tune with Fatah, but Hamas also needs to control the security forces in order to legitimize its power projection. Otherwise, its moves will be seen as those of a militia group rather than a legitimate national institution.

Thus far, the problem has been that Fatah loyalists have firmly dominated the security forces. Hamas has played along with the negotiations and with Saudi efforts to broker a power-sharing agreement, but Hamas' key demand is to gain control over the Interior Ministry and remove several key Fatah security chiefs. Former Palestinian Interior Minister Hani al-Qawasmi, who recently resigned out of exasperation, was assigned his post as an independent player in the Hamas-Fatah fracas, but exiled Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal used his loyalists in Gaza to heavily pressure al-Qawasmi to not cooperate with Abbas' security personnel. The man at the top of Hamas' hit list is Muhammad Dahlan, a senior Fatah figure and former interior minister who Abbas appointed as national security adviser to restructure security forces and thus undermine al-Qawasmi's authority. Dahlan's experience in cracking down on Hamas militants in the 1990s has made him a mortal enemy in the eyes of Hamas leaders.

With likely backing from its supporters in Damascus and Tehran, Hamas has realized it no longer has to play defense against Fatah. Hamas also is working to undermine Fatah's credibility by heavily playing up allegations that Fatah is working with the CIA and Israel’s Mossad. Any Israeli military action in Gaza to try to contain Hamas will be widely perceived in the territories as Israel coming to Fatah's rescue, and Hamas will be sure to get that message across. From any angle, Fatah is in an extremely weak position. With that in mind, Hamas is betting that Abbas will have no choice but to negotiate and give in to Hamas' demands if he wants to avoid a full-scale civil war. And now that Hamas has taken over Fatah's military compounds in Gaza, it has access to thousands of U.S.-financed assault rifles, trucks, mortars, hand grenades and army radios to use in a fight if the situation comes down to civil war.

Hamas wants to show that the Western economic embargo against its democratically elected government will only result in more chaos in the territories and create a larger breeding ground for militias and crime families to take root. (The leading crime family in Gaza, Dugmush, is already believed to have aligned itself with al Qaeda-linked militants.) Hamas wants to be seen as a strong political force that Western governments will have to deal with if they want to prevent a larger conflagration down the line.

In the end, it looks like Abbas will have no choice but to cave in to at least some of Hamas' key demands if he wants to quell this crisis. Before that happens, however, things will get a lot bloodier, and it cannot be assured that either party will have the internal discipline to stop the gunfire.

stratfor.com

Title: Arafat's children
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2007, 08:49:33 AM

WSJ

Arafat's Children
Gaza's mayhem is the bitter fruit of terror as statecraft.

Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. As if on cue, it took about 24 hours before pundits the world over blamed the violence on Israel and President Bush.

This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August 2005, a unilateral concession for which it asked, and got, nothing in return. And it is the U.S. President who, in a landmark speech five years ago this month, called on Palestinians to "elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful, independent state. Instead, in January 2006 they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections. What is happening today is the result of that choice--their choice.

That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however. It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community. If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised: The way of the gun has been paying dividends for 40 years.

In 1972 Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Yet only two years later Yasser Arafat addressed the U.N.'s General Assembly--the first non-government official so honored. In 1970 Arafat attempted to overthrow Jordan's King Hussein and tried to do the same a few years later in Lebanon. Yet in 1980, the European Community, in its Venice Declaration, recognized Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization as a legitimate negotiating partner.
In 1973, the National Security Agency recorded Arafat's telephoned instructions to PLO terrorists to murder Cleo Noel, the U.S. ambassador in Sudan, and his deputy George Curtis Moore. Yet in 1993, Arafat was welcomed in the White House for the signing of the Oslo Accords with Israel. That same year, the British National Criminal Intelligence Service reported that the PLO made its money from "extortion, payoffs, illegal arms-dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud." Yet over the next several years, the Palestinian Authority would become the largest single recipient of foreign aid on a per capita basis.

In 1996, after he had formally renounced terrorism in the Oslo Accords, Arafat told a rally in Gaza that "we are committed to all martyrs who died for the cause of Jerusalem starting with Ahmed Musa until the last martyr Yihye Ayyash"--Musa being the first PLO terrorist to be killed in 1965 and Ayyash being the Hamas mastermind of a series of suicide bombings in which scores of Israeli civilians were killed. Yet the Clinton Administration continued to pretend that Arafat was an ally in the fight against Hamas. In 2000, Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of statehood midwifed by President Clinton and instead initiated the bloody intifada that left 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians dead.

In 2005, only months after Arafat's death, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have used the opportunity to intensify their rocket fire at civilian targets within Israel. Last month, Israeli security services arrested two Gazan women, one of them pregnant, who were planning to enter Israel on medical pretexts in order to carry out suicide attacks. Yet the same month, the World Bank issued a report faulting Israel for restricting Palestinian freedom of movement.

Now it appears Hamas has taken control of the Gaza Strip's main road and its border with Egypt, as well as the offices of the so-called Preventive Security Services, traditionally a Fatah stronghold. "They are executing them one by one," a witness told the Associated Press of Hamas's reprisals against the Preventive Security personnel.

We do not pretend to know where all this will lead. On Thursday, Mr. Abbas dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency, though he seems powerless to change the course of events in Gaza. Israel could conceivably intervene, as could Egypt, and both states have powerful reasons to prevent the emergence of a Hamastan with close links to Iran hard on their borders. But neither do they wish to become stuck in the Strip's bottomless factionalism and fanaticism.

At the same time, pressure will surely mount on Israel and the U.S. to accept Hamas's ascendancy and begin negotiations with its leaders. According to this reasoning, the Bush Administration cannot demand democracy of the Palestinians and then refuse to recognize the results of a democratic election.

But leave aside the fact that Mr. Bush did not simply call for an election: Is it wise to negotiate with a group that kills its fellow Palestinians almost as freely as it does Israelis? And what would there be to negotiate about? The best-case scenario--a suspension of hostilities in exchange for renewed international funding--would simply give Hamas time and money to consolidate its rule and rebuild an arsenal for future terror assaults. Then, too, the last thing the Palestinians need is yet further validation from the wider world that the violence they now inflict so indiscriminately works.

The deeper lesson here is that a society that has spent the last decade celebrating suicide bombing would inevitably become a victim of its own nihilistic impulses. This is not the result of Mr. Bush's call for democratic responsibility; it is the bitter fruit of the decades of dictatorship and terrorism as statecraft that Yasser Arafat instilled among Palestinians.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 16, 2007, 01:02:20 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25874_Palestinians_Flee_to_Israel&only

Oh, the irony.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 16, 2007, 01:08:46 PM

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened

All about Israel and it's neighbors.

Title: Peace Prize Looted & Other Ironies
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 18, 2007, 05:44:04 AM

Gaza, Fatah, and Hamas


Arafat's peace prize stolen? Next to go with be Castro's Nicorette.

Looters raid Arafat's home, steal his Nobel Peace Prize

Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM POST   Jun. 16, 2007
Enraged Fatah leaders on Saturday accused Hamas militiamen of looting the home of former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat in Gaza City.

"They stole almost everything inside the house, including Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize medal," said Ramallah-based Fatah spokesman Ahmed Abdel Rahman. "Hamas militiamen and gangsters blew up the main entrance to the house before storming it. They stole many of Arafat's documents and files, gifts he had received from world leaders and even his military outfits."

Abdel Rahman said the attackers also raided the second floor of the house and stole the personal belongings of his widow, Suha, and daughter, Zahwa. "They stole all the widow's clothes and shoes," he added. "They also took Arafat's pictures with his daughter."

Eyewitnesses told The Jerusalem Post that dozens of Palestinians participated in the raid, which took place late Friday.

"Most of the looters were just ordinary citizens," they said. "They stole almost everything, including furniture, tiles, water pipes, closets and beds."

According to the Fatah spokesman, the raid on Arafat's house, which has been empty since 2001, occurred despite promises from Syria-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to prevent such an attack.

"The Palestinian people will never forgive the Hamas gangs for looting the home of the Palestinian people's great leader, Yasser Arafat," Abdel Rahman said. "This crime will remain a stain of disgrace on the forehead of Hamas and its despicable gangs."

The homes of several other Fatah leaders have also been looted over the past few days, Palestinian reporters in Gaza City said over the weekend. Among them are the homes of Muhammad Dahlan and Intisar al-Wazir (Um Jihad).

Wazir complained that looters stole her jewelry, furniture, clothes and family albums and the personal belongings of her husband, Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), a top PLO leader who was assassinated by Israel in 1988 in Tunis.

She said the looting occurred in broad daylight and under the watchful eye of Hamas militiamen. "We don't feel secure any more," she said. "We fear for our lives and property."

The Popular Resistance Committees, an alliance of various armed groups, announced over the weekend that its men stormed Dahlan's house and confiscated a suitcase full of gold, forged US and Pakistani passports and an ID card belonging to Nissim Toledano, an Israeli Border Police officer from Lod who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas in December 2002.

Following the raid, hundreds of Palestinians rampaged the house and stole all of Dahlan's furniture and clothes.

Dahlan and some 80 top Fatah officials are now staying in hotels in Ramallah. On Friday night, a group of 15 senior Fatah security commanders arrived in the city after Israel gave them permission to leave the Gaza Strip. At least 150 other Fatah security commanders and activists have fled to Egypt aboard fishing boats.

The Fatah officials who fled to Ramallah had been abducted by Hamas militiamen late Thursday night and released a few hours later. They include Jamal Kayed, commander of the PA's National Security Force; Musbah al-Buhaisi, commander of Abbas's Presidential Guard, and his deputy, Hamoudeh al-Sheikh; Tawfik Abu Khoussa, Fatah's spokesman in the Gaza Strip; and Majed Abu Shamalah, a Fatah legislator.

"What's happening in the Gaza Strip these days reminds me of the first days after the US invasion of Baghdad," said Omar al-Ghul, a columnist from Gaza City. "In Baghdad, the Iraqis stole everything they could get their hands on inside Iraqi ministries and institutions. And in Gaza City the Palestinians stormed security installations and stole everything, including windows, doors and food."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813047962&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Watch Egypt
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2007, 03:33:47 PM

stratfor.com

GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
06.19.2007

The Geopolitics of the Palestinians
By George Friedman

Last week, an important thing happened in the Middle East. Hamas, a radical Islamist political group, forcibly seized control of Gaza from rival Fatah, an essentially secular Palestinian group. The West Bank, meanwhile, remains more or less under the control of Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian National Authority in that region. Therefore, for the first time, the two distinct Palestinian territories -- the Gaza Strip and the West Bank -- no longer are under a single Palestinian authority.

Hamas has been increasing its influence among the Palestinians for years, and it got a major boost by winning the most recent election. It now has claimed exclusive control over Gaza, its historical stronghold and power base. It is not clear whether Hamas will try to take control of the West Bank as well, or whether it would succeed if it did make such a play. The West Bank is a different region with a very different dynamic. What is certain, for the moment at least, is that these regions are divided under two factions, and therefore have the potential to become two different Palestinian states.

In a way, this makes more sense than the previous arrangement. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are physically separated from one another by Israel. Travel from one part of the Palestinian territories to the other relies on Israel's willingness to permit it -- which is not always forthcoming. As a result, the Palestinian territories are divided into two areas that have limited contact.

The war between the Philistines and the Hebrews is described in the books of Samuel. The Philistines controlled the coastal lowlands of the Levant, the east coast of the Mediterranean. They had advanced technologies, such as the ability to smelt bronze, and they conducted international trade up and down the Levant and within the eastern Mediterranean. The Hebrews, unable to engage the Philistines in direct combat, retreated into the hills to the east of the coast, in Judea, the area now called the West Bank.

The Philistines were part of a geographical entity that ran from Gaza north to Turkey. The Hebrews were part of the interior that connected north to Syria, south into the Arabian deserts and east across the Jordan. The Philistines were unable to pursue the Hebrews in the interior, and the Hebrews -- until David -- were unable to dislodge the Philistines from the coast. Two distinct entities existed.

Today, Gaza is tied to the coastal system, which Israel and Lebanon now occupy. Gaza is the link between the Levantine coast and Egypt. The West Bank is not a coastal entity but a region whose ties are to the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan and Syria. The point is that Gaza and the West Bank are very distinct geographical entities that see the world in very different ways.

Gaza, its links to the north cut by the Israelis, historically has been oriented toward the Egyptians, who occupied the region until 1967. The Egyptians influenced the region by creating the Palestine Liberation Organization, while Egypt's dissident Muslim Brotherhood helped influence the creation of Hamas in 1987. The West Bank, part of Jordan until 1967, is larger and more complex in its social organization, and it really represented the center of gravity of Palestinian nationalism under Fatah. Gaza and the West Bank were always separate entities, and the recent action by Hamas has driven home that point.

Hamas' victory in Gaza means much more to the Palestinians and Egyptians than it does to the Israelis -- at least in the shorter term. The fear in Israel now is that Gaza, under Hamas, will become more aggressive in carrying out terrorist attacks in Israel. Hamas certainly has an ideology that argues for this, and it is altogether possible that the group will become more antagonistic. However, it appears to us that Hamas already was capable of carrying out as many attacks as it wished before taking complete control. Moreover, by increasing attacks now, Hamas -- which always has been able to deny responsibility for these incidents -- would lose the element of deniability. Having taken control of Gaza, regardless of whether it carries out attacks, it would have failed to prevent them. Hamas' leadership is more vulnerable now than ever before.

Let's consider the strategic position of the Palestinians. Their primary weapon against Israel remains what it always has been: random attacks against civilian targets designed to destabilize Israel. The problem with this strategy is obvious. Using terrorism against Americans in Iraq is potentially effective as a strategy. If the Americans cannot stand the level of casualties being imposed, they have the option of leaving Iraq. Although leaving might pose serious problems to U.S. regional and global interests, it would not affect the continued existence of the United States. Therefore, the insurgents potentially could find a threshold that would force the United States to fold.

The Israelis cannot leave Israel. Assume for the moment that the Palestinians could impose 1,000 civilian casualties a year. There are about 5 million Jews in Israel. That would be about 0.02 percent casualties. The Israelis are not going to leave Israel at that casualty rate, or at a rate a thousand times greater. Unlike the Americans, for whom Iraq is a subsidiary interest, Israel is Israel's central interest. Israel is not going to capitulate to the Palestinians over terrorism attacks.

The Israelis could be convinced to make political concessions in shaping a Palestinian state. For example, they might concede more land or more autonomy in order to stop the attacks. That might have been attractive to Fatah, but Hamas explicitly rejects the existence of Israel and therefore gives the Israelis no reason to make concessions. That means that while attacks might be psychologically satisfying to Hamas, they would be substantially less effective than the attacks that were carried out while Fatah was driving the negotiations. Bargaining with Hamas gets Israel nothing.

One of the uses of terrorism is to trigger an Israeli response, which in turn can be used to drive a wedge between Israel and the West. Fatah has been historically skillful at using the cycle of violence to its political advantage. Hamas, however, is handicapped in two ways: First, its position on Israel is perceived as much less reasonable than Fatah's. Second, Hamas is increasingly being viewed as a jihadist movement, and, as such, its strength threatens European and U.S. interests.

Although Israel does not want terrorist attacks, such attacks do not represent a threat to the survival of the state. To be cold-blooded, they are an irritant, not a strategic threat. The only thing that could threaten the survival of Israel, apart from a nuclear barrage, would be a shift in position of neighboring states. Right now, Israel has peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, and an adequately working relationship with Syria. With Egypt and Jordan out of the game, Syria does not represent a threat. Israel is strategically secure.

The single most important neighbor Israel has is Egypt. When energized, it is the center of gravity of the Arab world. Under former President Gamal Abdul Nasser, Egypt drove Arab hostility to Israel. Once Anwar Sadat reversed Nasser's strategy on Israel, the Jewish state was basically secure. Other Arab nations could not threaten it unless Egypt was part of the equation. And for nearly 30 years, Egypt has not been part of the equation. But if Egypt were to reverse its position, Israel would, over time, find itself much less comfortable. Though Saudi Arabia has recently overshadowed Egypt's role in the Arab world, the Egyptians can always opt back into a strong leadership position and use their strength to threaten Israel. This becomes especially important as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's health fails and questions are raised about whether his successors will be able to maintain control of the country while the Muslim Brotherhood spearheads a campaign to demand political reform.

As we have said, Gaza is part of the Mediterranean coastal system. Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967 and retained influence there afterward, but not in the West Bank. Hamas also was influenced by Egypt, but not by Mubarak's government. Hamas was an outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which the Mubarak regime has done a fairly good job of containing, primarily through force. But there also is a significant paradox in Hamas' relations with Egypt. The Mubarak regime, particularly through its intelligence chief (and prospective Mubarak successor) Omar Suleiman, has good working relations with Hamas, despite being tough on the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is the threat to Israel. Hamas has ties to Egypt and resonates with Egyptians, as well as with Saudis. Its members are religious Sunnis. If the creation of an Islamist Palestinian state in Gaza succeeds, the most important blowback might be in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood -- which is currently lying very low -- could be rekindled. Mubarak is growing old, and he hopes to be succeeded by his son. The credibility of the regime is limited, to say the least.

Hamas is unlikely to take over the West Bank -- and, even if it did, it still would make no strategic difference. Increased terrorist attacks against Israel's population would achieve less than the attacks that occurred while Fatah was negotiating. They could happen, but they would lead nowhere. Hamas' long-term strategy -- indeed, the only hope of the Palestinians who not prepared to accept a compromise with Israel -- is for Egypt to change its tune toward Israel, which could very well involve energizing Islamist forces in Egypt and bringing about the fall of the Mubarak regime. That is the key to any solution for Hamas.

Although many are focusing on the rise of Iran's influence in Gaza, putting aside the rhetoric, Iran is a minor player in the Israeli-Palestinian equation. Even Syria, despite hosting Hamas' exiled leadership, carries little weight when it comes to posing a strategic threat to Israel. But Egypt carries enormous weight. If an Islamist rising occurred in Egypt and a regime was installed that could energize the Egyptian public against Israel, then that would reflect a strategic threat to the survival of the Israeli state. It would not be an immediate threat -- it would take a generation to turn Egypt into a military power -- but it would ultimately represent a threat.

Only a disciplined and hostile Egypt could serve as the cornerstone of an anti-Israel coalition. Hamas, by asserting itself in Gaza -- especially if it can resist the Israeli army -- could strike the chord in Egypt that Fatah has been unable to strike for almost 30 years.

That is the importance of the creation of a separate Gaza entity; it complicates Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and probably makes them impossible. And this in and of itself works in Israel's favor, since it has no need to even entertain negotiations with the Palestinians as long as the Palestinians continue dividing themselves. If Hamas were to make significant inroads in the West Bank, it would make things more difficult for Israel, as well as for Jordan. But with or without the West Bank, Hamas has the potential -- not the certainty, just the potential -- to reach west along the Mediterranean coast and influence events in Egypt. And that is the key for Hamas.

There are probably a dozen reasons why Hamas made the move it did, most of them trivial and limited to local problems. But the strategic consequence of an independent, Islamist Gaza is that it can act both as a symbol and as a catalyst for change in Egypt, something that was difficult as long as Hamas was entangled with the West Bank. This probably was not planned, but it is certainly the most important consequence -- intended or not -- of the Gaza affair.

Two things must be monitored: first, whether there is reconciliation between Gaza and the West Bank and, if so, on what sort of terms; second, what the Egyptian Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood do now that Hamas, their own creation, has taken control of Gaza, a region once controlled by the Egyptians.

Egypt is the place to watch.
 
© Copyright 2007 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 26, 2007, 10:03:23 PM

WSJ 
GLOBAL VIEW
By BRET STEPHENS   
Bret Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. He joined the Journal in New York in 1998 as a features editor and moved to Brussels the following year to work as an editorial writer for the paper's European edition. In 2002, Mr. Stephens, then 28, became editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, where he was responsible for its news, editorial, electronic and international divisions, and where he also wrote a weekly column. He returned to his present position in late 2004 and was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum the following year.

Mr. Stephens was raised in Mexico City and educated at the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics. He lives with his family in New York City. He invites comments to bstephens@wsj.com.

 
Who Killed Palestine?
June 26, 2007; Page A14
Bill Clinton did it. Yasser Arafat did it. So did George W. Bush, Yitzhak Rabin, Hosni Mubarak, Ariel Sharon, Al-Jazeera and the BBC. The list of culprits in the whodunit called "Who Killed Palestine?" is neither short nor mutually exclusive. But since future historians are bound to ask the question, let's get a head start by suggesting some answers.

And make no mistake: No matter how much diplomatic, military and financial oxygen is pumped into Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, it's oxygen flowing to a corpse. Palestine has always been a notional place, a field of dreams belonging only to those who know how to keep it. Israelis have held on to their state because they were able to develop the political, military and economic institutions that a state requires to survive, beginning with its monopoly on the use of legitimate force. In its nearly 14 years as an autonomous entity, the PA has succeeded in none of that, despite being on the receiving end of unprecedented international good will and largesse.

 
Hamas's seizure of the Gaza Strip this month -- and the consequent division of the PA into two hostile, geographically distinct camps -- is only the latest in a chain of events set in motion when Israel agreed, in September 1993, to accept Arafat and the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. An early indicator of what lay ahead took place on July 1, 1994, when Arafat made his triumphal entry into Gaza while carrying, in the trunk of his Mercedes, four of the Palestinian cause's most violent partisans. Among them were the organizers of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and the 1974 Ma'alot school massacre. If ever there was an apt metaphor for what Arafat's rule would bring, this was it.

Arafat was determined to use Gaza and the West Bank as a staging ground for attacks against Israel, and he said so publicly and repeatedly: "O Haifa, O Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning" (1995); "We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion" (1996); "With blood and spirit we will redeem you, Palestine" (1997). With equal determination, the Clinton administration and the Israeli governments of Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak treated Arafat's remarks as only so much rhetorical bluster. Mr. Clinton desperately wanted a Nobel Peace Prize; Israelis wanted out of the occupation business at almost any cost. These were respectable goals, but neither had as its primary aim the creation of a respectable Palestinian state.

Later, after the second intifada had erupted in all its suicidal frenzy, former U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross would admit the Clinton administration became too obsessed with process at the expense of substance. He should give himself more credit. The decision to legitimize Arafat was Israel's, not America's; once he was brought inside the proverbial tent he was bound to put a match to it. Still, the Clinton administration elevated Arafat like no other leader of the 1990s. If the rais came to flatter himself as a second Saladin, the flattery of White House banquets surely played a role.

The global media also did their bit in Arafat's elevation. Successive generations of Jerusalem bureau chiefs developed a conveniently even-handed narrative pitting moderates on both sides against extremists on both sides -- a narrative in which Arafat was a "moderate" and Ariel Sharon was an "extremist." When Mr. Sharon took his famous walk on the Temple Mount in September 2000, it was easy to cast him as the villain and Palestinian rioters -- and, later, suicide bombers -- as the justifiably aggrieved. Cheering Palestinians on from the sidelines were the Arab media and the governments that own them, happy to channel domestic discontent toward a foreign drama.

As with individuals, nations generally benefit from self-criticism, and sometimes from the criticism of others. No people in modern history have been so immune from both as the Palestinians. In 1999, Abdel Sattar Kassem, a professor of political science in the Palestinian city of Nablus, put his name to the "petition of the 20," written to "stand against [Arafat's] tyranny and corruption." Arafat imprisoned him; the rest of the world barely took notice. Arafat's global popularity reached its apogee in the spring of 2002, exactly at the same time the civilian Israeli death toll from terrorism reached its height.

Yet what served Arafat's interests well served Palestinian interests poorly. Arafat learned from his experience with Mr. Clinton that one could bamboozle an American president and not pay a price. George W. Bush took a different view and effectively shut the Palestinians out of his agenda. Arafat learned from the "international community" that no one would look too closely at where its foreign aid was spent. But a reputation for theft has been the undoing of Fatah. Arafat thought he could harness the religious power of "martyrdom" to his political ends. But at the core of every suicide bombing is an act of self-destruction, and a nation that celebrates the former inevitably courts the latter.

Above all, Arafat equated territory with power. But what the experience of an unoccupied Gaza Strip has shown is the Palestinians' unfitness for political sovereignty. There are no Jewish settlers to blame for Gaza's plight anymore, no Israeli soldiers to be filmed demolishing Palestinian homes. The Israeli right, which came to detest Mr. Sharon for pulling out of the Strip, might reconsider its view of the man and the deed. Nothing has so completely soured the world on the idea of a Palestinian state as the experience of it.

What does this mean for the future? At yesterday's summit in Egypt, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah threw rose petals at Mr. Abbas's feet. But the potentates of the Middle East will not midwife into existence a state the chief political movement of which has claims to both democratic and Islamist legitimacy. The U.S. and Israel will never bless Hamastan (even if the EU and the U.N. come around to it) and they can only do so much for the feckless Mr. Abbas. "Palestine," as we know it today, will revert to what it was -- shadowland between Israel and its neighbors -- and Palestinians, as we know them today, will revert to who they were: Arabs.

Whether there might have been a better outcome is anyone's guess. But the dream that was Palestine is finally dead.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2007, 07:20:39 AM

Geopolitical Diary: Hamas' Break Point
stratfor.com

Hamas has arrested the spokesman for the Army of Islam, the group that is holding British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Alan Johnston in Gaza, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said on Monday. The arrest comes exactly two weeks after Hamas publicly announced that it would free Johnston from his jihadist captors "using all means necessary."

Hamas' recent actions are part of its Gaza leadership's strategy to illustrate the group's political legitimacy in the wake of its June 15 takeover in Gaza. This also explains why Hamas recently killed off the infamous Mickey Mouse look-alike character that urged Palestinian children to kill Israelis in a children's TV show aired on a Hamas-owned station. After getting serious flack for using a Western Disney character to promote jihad, the producers at the station had the character beaten to death in the show's final episode by a character posing as an Israeli.

But these gestures alone are not enough to get the West to take Hamas seriously as a political player. Regardless of whether Hamas realizes it, the Gaza takeover has forced the group to make some serious decisions as to whether it can continue on its political path. Hamas' political evolution was first influenced by its predecessors of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which led a successful strategy of using grassroots work and social services to build up popular support. Hamas also closely watched as Hezbollah in Lebanon used its grassroots network to buy support, promote itself as a noncorrupt alternative and gradually integrate itself into the political system while maintaining its militant wing to defend its constituency against Israel. In essence, Hamas wanted to ensure the longevity of its militant arm by pursuing a political future.

At first, Hamas' political debut appeared to have gone better than the group's leaders had hoped. The group won (an unexpected) landslide victory in the March 2006 election that included sizable gains in the Fatah-dominated West Bank, in addition to Hamas strongholds in Gaza. At that time, Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank was in progress, which gave Hamas a strong political basis to claim that it was its armed campaign -- not Fatah's corruption and ineptitude -- that forced the Israelis to withdraw.

However, a successful evolution of a militant group into a political organization takes time. That way, the group can internally prepare itself as well as its constituency to make the necessary political concessions to achieve legitimacy and international recognition. So when Hamas was handed the reins of the government, and the West promptly cut off funds to the Palestinian National Authority, the group quickly realized it had more political responsibility than it was ready for or even willing to handle. Soon enough, a bloody factional struggle broke out between Hamas and Fatah over control of the security apparatus. The cutoff of funds combined with the number of people with guns on the streets not getting paid threw the Palestinian government into crisis mode. There were notable attempts to come up with a power-sharing agreement, such as the Saudi-brokered Mecca agreement, but the battle over the security forces broke the deal apart each time.

Things got messy enough that Hamas figured it could forcibly back Fatah into a corner through a major Gaza offensive. That way Hamas would be negotiating from a position of strength to force Fatah into giving in to its demands over the security forces in yet another power-sharing arrangement.

But Hamas overstepped, and Israel quickly saw an opportunity to keep the Palestinians further divided (and busy fighting each other). Hamas' Gaza takeover divided the Palestinian territories into de facto ministates, effectively precluding the need for Israel to even entertain having serious negotiations with the Palestinians. Hamas, locked into the Gaza Strip, now finds itself even more handicapped than before. Yet Fatah does not have the capability to impose its influence in the West Bank, much less Gaza, on its own. In other words the situation is untenable, and another Egyptian-led mediation effort will result in yet another doomed power-sharing agreement. The political stagnation in the territories will continue.

There is a larger issue in play, however. Faced with the blowback of the Gaza takeover, Hamas is now deliberating whether it is really worth going down the political road. Though Hamas has traditionally been the most disciplined and organized of Palestinian militant outfits, there is a serious rift within the group's Syrian-based exiled leadership and local Gaza-based leadership over whether Hamas can or should make political concessions, such as recognizing Israel, to make this plan work. But without these concessions, Israel and the West will not allow Hamas to function as a governing authority and will continue to withhold funds. The group simply does not have the economic means to sustain itself or its populace -- Gaza is essentially a refugee camp that is wholly dependent on foreign aid. This directly impacts Hamas because it will see a gradual loss of public support as the party is blamed for its hardship.

Whether Hamas decides to give up on the political agenda remains to be seen. This is an issue that will take time to deliberate within the group and will likely lead to greater internal fissures. It is important to note that there has never been a militant group comparable to Hamas in political and economic position that has tried the political experiment, failed, reverted back to militancy and did not severely fracture. Hamas will still have plenty of sponsors in the region to prop the group up, but regardless of whether Hamas realized it when the order was given to launch the Gaza offensive, the group looks to be facing a similar fate.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2007, 05:55:36 AM

The Bush Doctrine Lives
The president isn't selling out Israel or relaxing his call for Palestinian democracy.

BY MICHAEL B. OREN
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

JERUSALEM--Newspapers in Israel yesterday were full of stories about President Bush's call on Monday for the creation of a Palestinian state and an international peace conference. While Israeli officials were quoted expressing satisfaction with the fact that "there were no changes in Bush's policies," commentators questioned whether the Saudis would participate in such a gathering and whether Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his single-digit approval ratings, could uproot Israeli settlers from the West Bank.

But all the focus on the conference misses the point. Mr. Bush has not backtracked an inch from his revolutionary Middle East policy. Never before has any American president placed the onus of demonstrating a commitment to peace so emphatically on Palestinian shoulders. Though Mr. Bush insisted that Israel refrain from further settlement expansion and remove unauthorized outposts, the bulk of his demands were directed at the Palestinians.

"The Palestinian people must decide that they want a future of decency and hope," he said, "not a future of terror and death. They must match their words denouncing terror with action to combat terror."

According to Mr. Bush, the Palestinians can only achieve statehood by first stopping all attacks against Israel, freeing captured Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, and ridding the Palestinian Authority of corruption. They must also detach themselves from the invidious influence of Syria and Iran: "Nothing less is acceptable."

In addition to the prerequisites stipulated for the Palestinians, Mr. Bush set unprecedented conditions for Arab participation in peace efforts. He exhorted Arab leaders to emulate "peacemakers like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan" by ending anti-Semitic incitement in their media and dropping the fiction of Israel's non-existence. More dramatically, Mr. Bush called on those Arab governments that have yet to establish relations with Israel to recognize its right to exist and to authorize ministerial missions to the Jewish state.

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia, which has offered such recognition but only in return for a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, will have to accept Israel prior to any territorial concessions. Mr. Bush also urged Arab states to wage an uncompromising battle against Islamic extremism and, in the case of Egypt and Jordan, to open their borders to Palestinian trade.

If the Israeli media largely overlooked the diplomatic innovations of Mr. Bush's speech, they completely missed its dynamic territorial and demographic dimensions. The president pledged to create a "contiguous" Palestinian state--code for assuring unbroken Palestinian sovereignty over most of the West Bank and possibly designating a West Bank-Gaza corridor. On the other hand, the president committed to seek a peace agreement based on "mutually agreed borders" and "current realities," which is a euphemism for Israel's retention of West Bank settlement blocks and no return to the 1967 lines.

Most momentous, however, was Mr. Bush's affirmation that "the United States will never abandon . . . the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people." This means nothing less than the rejection of the Palestinians' immutable demand for the resettlement of millions of refugees and their descendents in Israel. America is now officially dedicated to upholding Israel's Jewish majority and preventing its transformation into a de facto Palestinian state.

Beyond these elements, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's vision was the international conference. The Israeli press hastened to interpret this as a framework for expediting the advent of Palestinian statehood, yet it is clear that the conference is not intended to produce a state but rather to monitor the Palestinians' progress in building viable civic and democratic institutions. The goal, Mr. Bush said, will be to "help the Palestinians establish . . . a strong and lasting society" with "effective governing structures, a sound financial system, and the rule of law."





Specifically, the conference will assist in reforming the Palestinian Authority, strengthening its security forces, and encouraging young Palestinians to participate in politics. Ultimate responsibility for laying these sovereign foundations, however, rests not with the international community but solely with the Palestinians themselves: "By following this path, Palestinians can reclaim their dignity and their future . . . [and] answer their people's desire to live in peace."
Unfortunately, many of these pioneering components in Mr. Bush's speech were either implicitly or obliquely stated, and one might have wished for a more unequivocal message, such as that conveyed in his June 2002 speech on the Middle East. Still, there can be no underrating the sea change in America's policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict brought about by this administration. If, under U.N. Resolution 242, Israelis were expected to relinquish territory and only then receive peace, now the Arabs will have to cede many aspects of peace--non-belligerency and recognition--well in advance of receiving territory.

Similarly, Mr. Bush's commitment to maintain Israel's Jewish majority signals the total rescinding of American support for Resolution 194, which provided for refugee return. Moreover, by insisting that the Palestinians first construct durable and transparent institutions before attaining independence, Mr. Bush effectively reversed the process, set out in the 1993 Oslo Accords, whereby the Palestinians would obtain statehood immediately and only later engage in institution building. Peace-for-land, preserving the demographic status quo, and building a civil society prior to achieving statehood--these are the pillars of Mr. Bush's doctrine on peace.

But will it work? Given the Palestinians' historical inability to sustain sovereign structures and their repeated (1938, 1947, 1979, 2000) rejection of offers of a state, the chances hardly seem sanguine.

Much of the administration's hope for a breakthrough rests on the Palestinians' newly appointed prime minister, Salaam Fayyad, who is purportedly incorruptible. Nevertheless, one righteous man is unlikely to succeed in purging the Palestinian Authority of embezzlement and graft and uniting its multiple militias.

The Saudis will probably balk at the notion of recognizing Israel before it exits the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees throughout the region will certainly resist any attempt to prevent them from regaining their former homes. Iran and Syria and their Hamas proxies can be counted on to undermine the process at every stage, often with violence.





Yet, despite the scant likelihood of success, Mr. Bush is to be credited for delineating clear and equitable criteria for pursuing Palestinian independence and for drafting a principled blueprint for peace. This alone represents a bold response to Hamas and its backers in Damascus and Tehran. The Palestinians have been given their diplomatic horizon and the choice between "chaos, suffering, and the endless perpetuation of grievance," and "security and a better life."
So, too, the president is to be commended for not taking the easy route of railroading the Palestinians to self-governance under a regime that would almost certainly implode. Now his paramount task is to stand by the benchmarks his administration has established, and to hold both Palestinians and Israelis accountable for any failure to meet them.

Mr. Oren is a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present" (Norton, 2007).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 19, 2007, 08:22:50 AM

ISRAEL/SYRIA: Israeli President Shimon Peres called for direct peace talks with Syria, saying the leaders of both countries should meet as a symbolic gesture of "mutual recognition." The statement comes after it was revealed that Israel has been passing messages to Syria secretly via Turkish envoys since February. Syrian President Bashar al Assad said July 17 that Syria would be open to talks if Israel promised to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2007, 06:44:30 AM

Veteran
Israel's new president on Iran's nuclear program--and his own.

BY JUDITH MILLER
Saturday, July 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

JERUSALEM--Shimon Peres had not even been sworn in as Israel's ninth president last Sunday when he began making news. While vowing to use his new post to "unify" his deeply polarized country and "speak to all Israelis," Mr. Peres told the Associated Press only hours before his induction that Israel must "get rid of" the territories it has occupied for 40 years and, by implication, the Jewish settlements he helped create. A majority of Israelis agreed with him, he asserted.

"Even before entering his job, he is doing everything to divide the nation . . . and playing into the hands of his friends--the murderers of the PLO," said Zvi Hendel, a Knesset member who represents the influential settler movement. When Mr. Peres took the oath of office in Israel's parliament later that day, a few outraged parliamentarians, unlike most Knesset members, Cabinet officials and 1,000 guests at the nostalgic ceremony, refused to stand, much less applaud.

The provocative declaration was vintage Mr. Peres. In a single sentence, the 83-year-old veteran of veterans--he has held virtually every available possible cabinet job, some of them twice--signaled his determination to use what has traditionally been a ceremonial post to press for peace, fight poverty and promote issues he has long seen as vital to Israel's national security. "The Jews have never been satisfied, neither personally nor collectively," he told me. "And they are right to be so. When you're satisfied, you become a bore."





Judging by its debut, President Peres's tenure will not be boring. During our 90-minute interview and subsequent lunch, at a hotel not far from the Knesset, Mr. Peres seemed to revel in his role as presidential provocateur.
Was he worried about an Iranian atomic bomb? I asked the man who led Israel's successful, once-secret effort to acquire nuclear weapons.

"Terrorism and the warming of the earth are the two great threats to Israel," he began.

Global warming?

Yes, he insisted, the warming of the "earth's refrigerator" ranks second only to terrorism in terms of threat. One day, Israeli homes, factories and cars will run on solar energy. "Better to depend on the sun than the Saudis," he said.

Israel's top threat, however, is nuclear terrorism. Now that President Bush has "boldly and courageously" toppled Saddam Hussein--he declined to give advice about whether, how and when Mr. Bush should bring American forces home--the theocratic rulers in Tehran are Israel's greatest challenge. Iran "wants to destroy all that is modern. But it is a failed state," he said. When the mullahs seized power after the 1979 revolution, Iran had 30 million people; today it has 70 million.

"The regime cannot feed them," Mr. Peres said. There is corruption and drugs, and Persians are barely 50% of the population." The regime, like the Soviet Union, will eventually fail.

But would it do so before acquiring atomic weapons?

"Will the Muslim world enter the modern age before Iran and terrorists get the bomb?" he said, answering a question with a question. No one knows, he continued.

The prospect of nuclear arms controlled by fanatical mullahs and the terrorists they support threatens not only Israel, but all states. "So the world will unite against them," he said. If there is a united front against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "he will lose."

Europe, including Russia, will apply financial pressure on Tehran, he predicted. Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he had recently met, "understands" the threat. "He knows that Chechnya has a Muslim majority and that Russia is losing population," according to Mr. Peres. Meanwhile, the election of Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, and the emergence of Labour's Gordon Brown in Britain means "there is a different Europe now."

Mr. Peres went on to say that using military force against Iranian nuclear targets would be premature, since it is possible that Iran could still be deterred by peaceful means. But military action is not off the table. If peaceful deterrence fails, "the red line" on force has to be set by a united front. "It would be the greatest mistake for Israel to draw that line," he warned.

Is Tehran not justified in seeking nuclear weapons given Israel's development of them?

Mr. Peres bristled. "Pakistan did it before us, and India," he asserted, apparently referring to the nuclear tests of those two countries. (Israel has never acknowledged testing a weapon.) His comment would seem to be a departure, by the way, from Israel's steadfast refusal to publicly confirm or deny its possession of what analysts estimate is a nuclear arsenal of some 300 weapons. And "Dimona helped us achieve peace with Egypt," he added, referring to the site of the country's largest nuclear reactor. "Sadat said it openly."

It's preposterous to compare Israel and Iran, Mr. Peres continued. While Israel is determined "not to be the first to introduce nuclear bombs in the Middle East," he said, returning to Israel's deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities--a policy he helped formulate in 1963 as deputy defense minister, and for which he was fiercely criticized--"Iran's leadership says openly they want to wipe us out."

While Mr. Peres said he wanted Tehran to worry about his country's intentions and capabilities, he added that Israel might not be troubled by a nuclearized Iran under non-militant stewardship. "We learned to live with Pakistan," he said. An Iran ruled by moderates "would be a different thing altogether." The peace process itself, or "peace processes," as he called them, are to some extent leadership-dependent.

Mr. Peres doubted, for instance, that peace would be possible with a Syria led by Bashar Assad. As long as Mr. Assad keeps encouraging radical Shiite Hezbollah and undermining Lebanon's integrity, "President Bush is right to resist direct negotiations," he said.





At the same time, Mr. Peres insisted there is now "a good opportunity to make peace with the Palestinians" whose militant Islamic party, Hamas, has rejected the West-Bank-based leadership and seized control of Gaza, the impoverished home of 1.5 million Palestinians.
"We must choose the PLO or Hamas," he said, referring with little nostalgia to the party founded and led by the late Yasser Arafat, who in 2000 finally torpedoed the Oslo peace process that Mr. Peres had secretly launched as Yitzhak Rabin's deputy in the early 1990s. In the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israel and the Palestinians agreed to divide the land that both claimed--precisely where was one of several key issues deliberately left to be clarified in "final status" talks that did not occur.

Though Mr. Rabin--Mr. Peres's long-time rival--Arafat, and he won the Nobel prize for what was then hailed prematurely as the end of the protracted Arab-Israeli conflict, Oslo crashed and burned in 2000 in a resurgence of Palestinian violence.

"Let the Gazans do whatever they want," Mr. Peres said. "We shouldn't stop delivering water or electricity and other basic necessities to them. But if Hamas fires at us, they should not expect thank-you notes. We will strike back. And we will negotiate with the West Bank Palestinian Authority wherever they are," he said. Such negotiations would be no favor to the Palestinians, Mr. Peres insisted.

Mr. Peres left the Labor Party where he had spent most of his political life to join former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's new Kadima faction, he said, only after Mr. Sharon had accepted his argument that the land had to be divided. Israel had little choice, he argued: Continued occupation of the territories would result either in a non-Jewish Israeli state, or a nondemocratic one, or both. "We cannot defeat or manage the territories," Mr. Peres asserted.

As he discussed Israel's fateful choices and his own policy preferences, Mr. Peres sounded more like a ruling prime minister than a ceremonial president. And with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval ratings in the single digits, Mr. Peres is in fact likely to enjoy more political latitude than he would have under a strong, popular leader.

Does he think that Mr. Olmert's government will survive the upcoming report by a commission investigating his disastrous stewardship of last summer's Lebanon war, as well as the various corruption investigations against the prime minister?

"I wouldn't exclude it," Mr. Peres replied--hardly the ringing endorsement that Mr. Olmert gave him in lobbying Knesset members to support his presidency.

But Mr. Olmert's embrace of Mr. Peres was also coolly calculated--aimed not only at strengthening his faltering Kadima, but eliminating a potential rival for Israel's top job. Even at his advanced age, associates said, Mr. Peres had flirted with the notion of becoming prime minister again, the post Israelis had denied him after Rabin's assassination in 1996.

Despite Israel's mistakes and failings, Mr. Peres said, its greatest days are ahead, thanks to globalization. Israel's once agriculture-based economy has been "revolutionized by 15,000-20,000 young people" who have replaced vegetables and fruit with high-tech exports, a once-mocked Peres "vision." "It's the individual capacity to create that counts today," he said. "It's a Jewish age."

In a globalized world, Jews will excel, Mr. Peres went on to say. His own son is but one example. Nehemia Peres, known as "Chemi," 49, the youngest of his three children, heads a venture capital firm called Pitango which is headquartered in one of the glass skyscrapers in Herzliya, a Tel Aviv suburb. Founded in 1993, Pitango now employs 35 people and has invested some $1.2 billion in 130 hi-tech, high-growth start-up companies owned by young Israelis at home and abroad.

"My father is not just a dreamer, he's a doer," said Chemi Peres, 49, the morning after his father's swearing in. "I've seen enough of his dreams come true--Dimona, the development of an indigenous aircraft industry, peace with Egypt and Jordan, an economy of Israeli billionaires"--not exactly the dream of Israel's founders--"in which $2 billion a year is invested each year in over 1,000 companies." And all despite the lack of peace with the Palestinians.





The elder Mr. Peres might have been elected president seven years ago, but the Knesset rejected him in favor of Moshe Katzav, a lackluster former minister from the conservative Likud Party. This was his father's most frustrating and humiliating defeat, Chemi Peres said.
But Mt. Katzav, like President Ezer Weizman before him, was forced out of office by scandal. On the day of Mr. Peres's induction, Mr. Katzav was reportedly closeted with his lawyers discussing a plea bargain in which he had acknowledged charges of forcible indecent assault and sexual harassment in lieu of graver accusations of having raped former female employees.

Some Israelis quietly fear that this presidency, too, may end in tears. Mr. Peres, who will turn 84 in August, is the oldest person ever to hold the post. He would be 91 if he completes two three-and-a-half year terms. "I'm healthy," Mr. Peres replied when I asked about this concern. "I was 12 pounds when born. I nearly killed my mother."

Most Israelis welcomed Mr. Peres's inauguration as president last week. They may be hoping he can restore to the now tarnished office dignity and honor at home, as well as its lost stature and moral authority abroad. But it says something disturbing that, despite the country's impressive prosperity and scientific achievements, there is no one younger on the political scene to play this role.

Ms. Miller, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, is a writer based in New York.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 21, 2007, 03:26:54 PM

****Right of return?****

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=24c7c36b-d5e2-40ed-8a82-1e8d386f1aa9

Cotler urges recognition of Jewish refugees
Former justice minister says UN failing to consider thousands of Jews driven from Arab lands after 1948
 
Steven Edwards
CanWest News Service

Friday, July 20, 2007

NEW YORK -- Former justice minister Irwin Cotler and other Canadian scholars presented the U.S. Congress on Thursday with its first testimony on Jews driven from Arab lands following Israel's creation in 1948.

"The time has come to rectify this historical injustice," Cotler told members of the congressional human rights caucus in Washington in a written statement.

The witnesses were among experts helping U.S. lawmakers decide on a pair of bills that would oblige the Bush administration to actively oppose the Arab-led practice in Middle East peace efforts to speak only of Palestinian refugees.

While key Arab voices continue to push for a "right of return" for descendants of some 600,000 Palestinians whose pre-1948 homes are now inside Israel, the general discourse for decades has all but ignored the tens of thousands of Jews, Christians and other minorities who were similarly turned into refugees.

Cotler charged that the United Nations bears "express responsibility for the distorted narrative." Arab countries have mustered majority backing from Muslim and developing states to pass 101 UN resolutions that refer only to Palestinian refugees.

Jews in Arab lands totalled almost 900,000 in 1948, but there are fewer than 8,000 in 10 Arab countries today, Cotler said. Arab countries counter that 3.7 million Palestinians remain in refugee camps in the region, whereas Jewish refugees moved on to new lives in Israel and elsewhere.

Cotler is considered a leading expert on the issue, having helped produce a 2003 study entitled Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights and Redress.

Co-authored by fellow Canadian Stan Urman, who also testified in Washington, the study spoke of new evidence that Arab states reacted to the creation of Israel by orchestrating the persecution of their Jewish citizens.

"Today, we cannot allow a second injustice, namely for the international community to recognize rights for [only] one victim population," said Urman, executive director of New York-based Justice for Jews from Arab Countries.

The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives are expected to vote before the end of the year on the bills that prompted the hearing.

The Senate bill urges President George W. Bush to ensure that the peace process acknowledges that the Arab-Israeli conflict has created "multiple refugee populations."

The House document would ensure that any peace agreement addresses the rights of all refugees, "including Jews, Christians, and other populations displaced from countries in the region."

The legislation is significant because the U.S., along with Russia, the UN and the European Union, is one of the four international powers seeking to restart the stalled Middle East peace process.

The congressional hearing unfolded as former British prime minister Tony Blair, in his new job as the special Middle East envoy for the four powers, met in Lisbon with representatives of the so-called Quartet.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 25, 2007, 09:58:31 AM

1120 GMT -- ISRAEL -- An Arab League delegation arrived in Israel on July 25 to promote the league's Middle East peace plan. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit and Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib were to conduct talks with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres before meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert later in the day.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2007, 12:01:38 PM

ISRAEL: Israel should end its occupation of the West Bank, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during an interview with the U.S.-sponsored Arabic radio station Radio Sawa. Citing a recent speech by U.S. President George W. Bush, Rice added that, in the long term, Israel should focus on developing the Galilee and Negev regions rather than developing the occupied West Bank.
stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 14, 2007, 08:58:00 AM

(IsraelNN.com) Arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat’s doctor has confirmed the long-circulating rumors that the PLO chairman had AIDS – though the doctor insists Israel poisoned Arafat as well, causing his death.

Rumors have long circulated in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority that Arafat’s symptoms prior to his death were caused by AIDS. Within the PA, Israel has always been accused of poisoning the PLO chairman.

Now, Arafat’s private doctor has joined other PLO officials in acknowledging that Arafat had the HIV virus, but is holding on to the claim that Israel was responsible for his ultimate demise, in a French hospital.

Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi told the Jordanian Amman News Agency that Arafat did, in fact, have AIDS – but insisted that the HIV virus was injected into the chairman’s bloodstream, and not the result of illicit sexual activity.

Al-Jazeera interrupted an interview with al-Kurdi due to his mention of Arafat’s having had AIDS.

French doctors who treated Arafat insisted after his death that he had died of a massive stroke after suffering intestinal inflammation, jaundice and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a blood condition.

Another Arafat aide, Bassam Abu Sharif, accused former French President Jacques Chirac of withholding knowledge that Israel killed Arafat with a substance that destroys red blood cells.

Even before Arafat died, US author and intelligence expert John Loftus said on the John Batchelor Show on WABC radio on October 26 that it was widely known in CIA circles that Arafat was dying from AIDS. Loftus further said that was the reason the US kept preventing Israel from killing Arafat – to allow him to be discredited by the ailment.

A 1987 book by Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa, the deputy chief of Romania's intelligence service under Communist dictator Nicola Ceausescu, may explain how Arafat contracted the sexually transmitted disease.

In his memoirs "Red Horizons," Pacepa relates a 1978 conversation with the general assigned to teach Arafat and the PLO techniques to deceive the West into granting the organization recognition. The general told him about Arafat’s nightly relations with his young male bodyguards and multiple partners. “Beginning with his teacher when he was a teen-ager and ending with his current bodyguards. After reading the report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand," Pacepa wrote.

Senior US intelligence official James J. Welsh, the National Security Agency's former PA analyst, told WorldNetDaily, "One of the things we looked for when we were intercepting Fatah communications were messages about Ashbal [Lion cub] members who would be called to Beirut from bases outside of Beirut. The Ashbal were often orphaned or abandoned boys who were brought into the organization, ostensibly to train for later entry into Fedayeen fighter units. Arafat always had several of these 13-15 year old boys in his entourage. We figured out that he would often recall several of these boys to Beirut just before he would leave for a trip outside Lebanon. It proved to be a good indicator of Arafat's travel plans. While Arafat did have a regular security detail, many of those thought to be security personnel - the teenage boys - were actually there for other purposes."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123347

=============

stratfor.com
SYRIA, RUSSIA: Syria has acquired advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles, as well as chemical warheads for surface-to-surface missiles, Ynet reported, citing an unnamed Israeli military source.

Title: When pigs fly
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 29, 2007, 09:13:02 AM

opinion journal

The Upside of Hamas
The Associated Press reports some surprisingly good news from the erstwhile terror haven of Jenin:

Palestinian police rescued an Israeli soldier Monday after he mistakenly drove into this West Bank town and was surrounded by a mob that later burned his car. Israel praised the rescue as a sign of the growing strength of Palestinian moderates.

Three policemen spotted the Israeli military officer inside the car and escorted him through the mob before taking him to their headquarters, police said. The soldier suffered no injuries and was handed over to Israeli troops. . . .

The rescue was a sharp contrast to seven years ago when two Israeli army reservists strayed into the West Bank city of Ramallah. They were captured by Palestinian police, who took them to a police station. A mob stormed the station and killed the two, throwing one body from a second story window as news photographers took pictures.

That incident, known to shocked Israelis as "the lynching," set the tone for violence and suspicion that has continued ever since.

This latest incident is only an anecdote, not yet a trend; but it may signify that the rise of Hamas is actually forcing "moderate" Palestinians to behave moderately, because accommodating Israel is their only hope for survival.

Lemon Soufflé

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 12, 2007, 01:57:35 PM

I haven't had time to post about the brewing brouhaha between Israel and Syria, with commentary by Turkey but from the following Stratfor report it appears that Israel has taken out one of the recently provided Russian anti-aircraft positions in Syria.  The Ruskis have been selling AA capability to Iran too, so I'm guessing there has been some close consultation between Israel and the Pentagon about all this.

  SYRIA: Syria could be planning a military response to the alleged Israeli airstrike in northern Syria on Sept. 6, the Kuwait-based Al Jareeda reported. The report also says a Syrian delegation met recently with top Hezbollah and Hamas officials to draw up a retaliation plan, and that the Syrian army has started drafting reservists in response to Israel's raised alert levels in the north. Israel-based newspaper Al Sinara reported Sept. 12 that the Israeli air force hit a Syrian-Iranian missile base, which was supposedly destroyed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 12, 2007, 06:56:16 PM

Israel, Syria: Threats and Incursions
Summary

The alleged Sept. 6 incursion into Syrian airspace by the Israeli air force was related to nuclear facilities, Israeli media have reported. Though this speculation will continue in the Israeli press, the nuclear angle to the incursion is unlikely.

Analysis

Israeli media have been reporting that the alleged Sept. 6 Israeli air force (IAF) incursion into Syria had the photo reconnaissance of nuclear sites as its objective.

Though these reports and the remaining evidence create more questions than they answer, this hypothesis is not compelling. The conventional threat to Israel posed by Syria looms much larger, and though Israel must be vigilant to the Syrian threat -- whether nuclear or conventional -- the Jewish state has good reason to proceed with restraint.

Despite its status in U.S. eyes as a second-tier "Axis of Evil" state, Syria does not have a nuclear program that comes close to North Korea's or even Iran's program. It continues to focus on civilian research, particularly the production of radioisotopes for medical purposes. Though connections to Iranian and North Korean know-how could accelerate the Syrian program, Syria lacks the finances and resources to commit to an advanced nuclear program -- not to mention the standoff distance needed to conceal anything of that scale from the Mossad.

Thus, whether the incursion was a photo reconnaissance, offensive strike or some other sort of mission, reports of the nuclear angle fail to convince. The rudimentary state of Syria's nuclear program (even taking into account all the unknowns) means Damascus has not crossed the sort of redline that would warrant the attention of what, by Syrian reports, appears to have been at least four Israeli aircraft.

Syria's conventional capabilities are no match for Israel's, and any significant move toward a more robust nuclear program would ensure a swift and strong Israeli military response -- one Damascus has neither the desire to incur nor the ability to repel.

Syria's use of militant proxies against Israel, however, cannot be ruled out, given that Syrian diplomatic objections to the alleged incursion largely have been ignored. Interestingly, both the resumption of Qassam rocket attacks against Israel and the worst Qassam rocket strike in the Jewish state's history (in which dozens of Israel Defense Forces troops were injured) took place Sept. 11.

Israel can strike Syrian targets with impunity. But during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah (which Syria helped arm) in southern Lebanon, Israel only went so far as to buzz Syrian President Bashar al Assad's summer residence -- so a strike would represent a significant escalation (although not an unprecedented step) for the IAF.

Giving Israel cause for restraint, the al Assad government is stable and is something Israel can manage. Israel does not want regime change in Damascus because the resulting power vacuum would create the risk of an Islamist regime more aggressively opposed to Israel -- something the Jewish state lacks the bandwidth to deal with at present.





The Syrian missile program, on the other hand, is comparatively far more advanced than its nuclear program and represents a much more tangible threat to Israel -- especially given concerns that missiles could be passed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Sources indicate that the IAF mission probably was linked to a recent missile import from North Korea, which has a long-standing missile export history, especially with Syria and Iran.

Longer-range systems would allow Syria to place its missiles further from the reach of the IAF. Already, both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are in range of Syria's longer-range Scud missile variants, even from the vicinity of Tal al-Abiad and Dayr az Zawr. But Israel has long lived with the threat of Scud missiles pointed in its direction, so as with Syria's nuclear program, some other threshold would have to be crossed to warrant an Israeli strike, such as concerns about radically improved guidance systems.

The Israeli-Syrian drama is playing out against the backdrop of continued threats of a military confrontation between Iran and the United States. Tehran has made it clear that its response to any U.S. attack would involve strikes against Israel (no matter the Jewish state's level of involvement). Thus, Israel sees the need for increased vigilance against the potential for Iran and Iranian weapons (perhaps stationed in eastern Syria, where the alleged IAF incursion took place) to strike the heart of the Jewish state.
stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2007, 03:39:04 PM

Very interesting , , ,

TURKEY: Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida reported that Turkey played a key role in providing intelligence to Israel in the apparent Israeli air force (IAF) flyover into Syrian airspace Sept. 6. The report claimed not only that Turkey provided detailed information on potential Syrian targets for the IAF, but also that the Turkish army authorized the IAF to use its airspace in the operation. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Al-Jarida that Turkish intelligence did not coordinate the alleged cooperation with any Turkish public official.

Stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 13, 2007, 03:49:06 PM

If true, very interesting indeed. Turkey in the past has had a good relationship with Israel, but I figured that as the jihadists gained power this would disappear.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2007, 08:19:55 PM

I suspect Turkey's calculus re the Kurds trumps most things.  AQ is a Arab Sunni phenomenon and the Turks are not Arabs (Are they Sunni? Don't know)  I'm guessing they don't care much for Syria and its friendship with Iranian Shia either :lol:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 13, 2007, 08:49:10 PM

It's my understanding that Turkey is majority Sunni. Syria's political elites are mostly Alawites, whom most muslims do not recognize as muslim, but Iran's mullahs have, more out of political expediency that theological agreement IMHO.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2007, 08:38:21 AM

North Korea and Syria
September 14, 2007; Page A12
A nuclear-armed North Korea is dangerous enough. A North Korea that shares its nuclear technology with other bad actors is worse -- especially if the partner-state is known to be cozy with terrorists. The potential nexus between WMD and terrorism is the biggest threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies.

So reports this week in the New York Times, the Washington Post and elsewhere that North Korea may be cooperating with Syria on some sort of nuclear facility are worth taking seriously. Syria has close ties with Iran and provides sanctuary within its borders for Hezbollah, a group that the National Intelligence Estimate released in July warns may be prepared to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. Pyongyang has a long, well-documented history of sharing missile technology with Syria, and it is all too believable that sharing nuclear knowhow could be next.

Israel is said to be the primary source of the intelligence on a North Korean-Syrian nuclear connection. But neither Israel nor the Bush Administration has commented officially on this or another mysterious event -- Israel's flyover and apparent raid last week on targets inside Syria. Given the Administration's experience with prewar intelligence on WMD in Iraq, it's understandable that it would want to have solid evidence before going public.

Meanwhile, however, the six-party talks on the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program have picked up steam, with Pyongyang promising to dismantle its facilities by the end of the year and the U.S. pledging to consider such goodies as fuel aid and removing North Korea from its list of terror-sponsoring states. U.S., Russian and Chinese inspectors turned up at the Yongbyon nuclear facility this week.

If North Korea is moving its nuclear facilities to Syria -- or "merely" proliferating -- it would undermine everything at the heart of that agreement, as well as cross a long-stated American red line that Pyongyang not proliferate. Even if it is unsure of the full implications of the intelligence, the Administration has an obligation not to proceed with a nuclear deal until Pyongyang and Damascus come clean.
WSJ

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 15, 2007, 02:43:45 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/15/us-nuke-guy-north-korea-and-syria-are-up-to-no-good/

WMD in Syria?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 16, 2007, 05:43:20 AM

WOW!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv, Sarah Baxter in Washington and Michael Sheridan

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”
Related Links

* A tale of two dictatorships: The links between North Korea and Syria

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know � Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria � the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461421.ece

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 17, 2007, 08:59:24 AM

stratfor.com

Geopolitical Diary: The Israeli Overflight Mystery Deepens

This weekend, the mystery of the Israeli aircraft over northern Syria became more important and even less clear than it was before. The story began Sept. 6 with a report from Syria that an Israeli aircraft had dropped ordnance over northern Syria and had been forced by Syrian air defenses to retreat from Syrian airspace. Syria reported sonic booms in the North as, they would have it, the Israeli plane went west toward the Mediterranean at supersonic speeds. This was mysterious, as the Syrians reported no damage and only a single plane. We assumed it was an Israeli reconnaissance flight.

Then, during a meeting of Syrian and Turkish leaders, the Turkish government reported that two auxiliary fuel tanks from Israeli planes had been found in Turkish territory, close to the Syrian frontier. That would indicate that the Israelis were operating very close to the Turkish border, had been detected by the Syrians, released their fuel tanks and took off. That story left two unsolved mysteries: First, what were the Israelis looking for that close to the Turkish border -- or more precisely, right on the Turkish border? And second, why were the Turks so touchy about some drop tanks that were, after all, left behind by Israel, a country with which Turkey has close military relations? And of course, that takes us back to why the Israelis would be monitoring events on the Turkish-Syrian border themselves instead of just asking the Turks.

Then, this weekend, Washington started leaking, with the media carrying a series of utterly contradictory explanations from unnamed American sources. The Washington Post ran a report by an American "expert on the Middle East" (pedigree unclear, but obviously impressive enough to be used by the Washington Post). The Post report said the target was a Syrian facility officially labeled by Syria as an "agricultural research center." The attack was linked with the arrival of a ship in a Syrian port carrying goods from North Korea labeled as "cement." According to the Post's expert, it wasn't clear what the ship was actually carrying, but the consensus in Israel was that it was delivering nuclear equipment. Meanwhile, an unnamed source in The New York Times said the mission was indeed a reconnaissance flight tracking North Korean nuclear equipment. So, two of the major U.S. newspapers have both had similar leaks. This is clearly the official unofficial position of the U.S. government.

The problem with this theory is not with the idea that a North Korean ship might be carrying nuclear equipment to Syria. The problem is the idea that Syria would have a nuclear research facility smack on its border with Turkey. Turkish-Syrian relations are not always warm, and in fact are frequently quite nasty. The idea that the Syrians would conduct ultra-secret nuclear research (or store such equipment) on the Turkish border is a little hard to buy. If we were them, we would like to see our valuable nuclear research out of mortar range of a hostile power -- but perhaps the Washington Post's expert is on to something.

Another leak, provided by Israel to the London Times, hinted that there were chemical weapons at the site, and that the attack (note that this leak claimed there was an attack and not simply a reconnaissance flight) helped save Israel from an "unpleasant surprise." A sub-leak from the Israelis was that the target destroyed in the raid was a store of chemical weapons. So the Americans are talking about North Korean nuclear technology while the Israelis are talking about chemical weapons. Amos Yadlin, head of Israeli military intelligence, said that he would not discuss the matter, then went on to discuss it by saying that Israel now has the deterrent capability against Hezbollah that it didn't have in 2006. Perhaps the chemical weapons were to be shipped to Hezbollah?

The least credible story of the bunch, which came from the British paper the Observer, was that the raid might have been a dry run for an attack on Iran. That is of course possible, but we are having trouble understanding how flying to the Turkish-Syrian border would constitute a dry run for anything beyond flying to the Turkish-Syrian border.

We do not mean to be flip. We think that this raid or reconnaissance flight, or whatever it was, was important. It's importance was less about U.S.-Syrian relations than about Syrian-Turkish relations. That relationship has been critical to both countries for years. If the Syrians are actually storing anything sensitive along the Turkish-Syrian border, that would mean that the Syrians might have some sort of understanding with the Turks that would be extremely important for the region. For us, the location of the facility is more startling than the possibility of a North Korean shipment, chemical weapons or even a dry run for a strike on Tehran.

Since when do the Syrians trust the Turks enough to do anything important along the border? Since when do the Israelis have to do reconnaissance flights along the border? The Turks patrol that area pretty intensely. We had thought there was a strong intelligence-sharing program. Perhaps it's no longer a trusted channel? Of course, the Turks somehow might have been complicit in this.

The mystery is deep and we are baffled, but it does not strike us as trivial. Something important happened Sept. 6.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2007, 06:54:33 AM

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=66c6885b-851b-45e3-9dce-b6b464a77afc
Former IDF officer Yoni on what Israel's up to in Syria, and what Syria and Iran's up to regarding Israel.
 Monday, September 17, 2007 at 11:43 PM 

Read Article & Comments (0) Trackbacks  Post Your Comments

Hugh Hewitt: That music means Yoni joins us, www.yonitheblogger.com, if you want to read his blog, many years in the Israeli defense services, now in the Pacific Northwest. Yoni, good to talk to you.

YT: How are you, Hugh?

HH: Did you have a good Rosh Hashanah? 

YT: I had a great Rosh Hashanah. 

HH: Well, I’m glad to hear that. And now, what did the Israelis do, and when did they do it?

YT: What we did on the 6th of September is we inserted elite ground troops into Syria on the eastern side of Syria near the Euphrates River in a region that’s called Deir Ez-Zour, and these elite units on the ground assisted a flight of F-15s in destroying two locations in Syria. One location, which nobody is talking about anymore, was a major weapons depot of weapons that had been shipped from Iran to Syria, for then trans-shipment into Lebanon to Hezbollah, which included long range missiles that could hit the whole state of Israel. And the second location was a facility that was storing equipment that had arrived in Syria on the 3rd of September from North Korea that was nuclear weapons components. 

HH: Now what kind of components would they be sending through to Syria, on their way to Iran, I assume?

YT: No, on their way to Syria. 

HH: What is…Syria doesn’t have a program, do they?

YT: Syria’s trying to jump start a program. 

HH: Now first of all, tell us your sources for this stuff.

YT: Guys I used to work with. 

HH: All right. And so this is not…you’ll see some of this hinted at in the write-up in the Times of London, et cetera. So are you in trouble for discussing this on the air?

YT: No.

HH: Okay.

YT: No, enough of it’s leaked out that…you know, I mean, we’re fine. 

HH: Now talk to me a little bit about what you mean by jump start. What were they trying to build? What did they have there? Do you know?

YT: That, no, I don’t know, other than my friend said components that would lead them to be able to put together nuclear weapons. I think, reading between the lines, what they are trying to do is bring in the components that they could then just assemble, and have a ready bomb, rather than trying to produce, like Iran is trying to produce, from the ground up. They were wanting to get kind of, you know, a do-it-yourself kit from North Korea, and put it together, and then hit Israel. 

HH: Now given this, does this tip the hand of the Israelis, vis-à-vis Iran, as Iran gets closer?

YT: Oh, yes and no. I mean, Iran is today, they’ve threatened us that they could hit us with 600 missiles, which is just an empty threat, because they’re scared to death, because Iran and Syria, late spring, early summer, I don’t recall the exact time frame, both purchased from Russia the same so-called state of the art air defense system.

HH: And you just took it down easily?

YT: We just went through it like it wasn’t even there. 

HH: Now how did that happen? Is that because of stealth technology? Or did they do something on the ground?

YT: That I’m not going to get into.

HH: Okay. The sum and substance of this popular support in Israel for the action?

YT: Oh, absolutely. Look, we did two things in one week that herald the bad days are potentially behind us. We did this raid into Syria, and in addition to that, we had undercover troops go into Gaza and grab one of the main guys behind the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, the soldier that was kidnapped and taken into Gaza.

HH: I missed that entirely. 

YT: Well, you don’t go to www.yonitheblogger.com often enough. 

HH: When did that happen?

YT: The same week, the first week of September, as the air raid. 

HH: And what branch of the service did that?

YT: The IDF, the ground forces. We have elite units, and what they did is they went in dressed up as Arabs on donkey carts, and were able to get close to the guy, grabbed him, and then a helicopter pops up over the fence and sets down in the open area, and picks everybody up and back to Israel they go.

HH: And what are they going to do with him? Trade him?

YT: Well, let’s just say right now, we’re getting information from him.

HH: And it’s been how long since the change at Defense? Obviously, I’m not talking about Barak’s return, but the new chief of staff.

YT: It’s been now, oh, maybe nine months. 

HH: And so what’s the impact on the armed services?

YT: Huge, huge. Guys are training like they’re supposed to. Guys that haven’t trained in seven, eight years that we put into combat last summer now are back to training like they’re supposed to. We’re spending a lot of money getting them new equipment. You know, the situation, you wouldn’t know it from the American media, but as we speak, Israel is at the highest state of alert that we can be. 

HH: Why?

YT: Because of massive Syrian troop movements, because Assad’s brother-in-law and some of the top generals told Assad that he has to hit Israel back for what we did, or they will take action. Well, we know in an Arab country what that means. They’ll just take him out behind the palace and put a bullet in his head. So things are pretty hectic, and we’ve got, you know, troops were not sent home for Rosh Hashanah, nor will they be sent home for Yom Kippur. Things are at a very high state of alert right now. 

HH: But I check Ha’aretz every day. It’s not really evident from that, is it, that they’re…

YT: We have military censors. 

HH: Oh, I’d forgotten that.

YT: There are things that when it pertains to state security, that they won’t publish inside Israel. 

HH: And so what is the threat level right now, you think, in Israel?

YT: I think, well, if we’re at the highest, if our forces are at the highest stage of alert, the threat level is very high.

HH: And so, what I’m getting at, how routine is that level of alert?

YT: It’s not routine at all. I mean, when you’ve got extra aircraft in the air, we have got extra aircraft with pilots sitting in the seats on the runways, when you’ve got soldiers in the thousands that you would have sent home for the holiday, and you keep them there, I mean, that causes a huge inconvenience to families, because you don’t get to see your kids often enough when they’re in the military. You know, your kids are out running for three days straight without sleep across the desert and things like that, it’s a huge inconvenience. 

HH: We will then be watching www.yonitheblogger.com. Thanks, Yoni.

End of interview.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2007, 07:02:43 AM

Second post of the day.  From the WSJ:


Osirak II?
Israel's silence on Syria speaks volumes.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

In the late spring of 2002 the American press reported that Israel had armed its German-made submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. In Israel, this was old news. It was also headline news.

"Washington Post: Israeli subs have nuclear cruise missiles," was how the Jerusalem Post, of which I was then the editor, titled its story of June 16. It wasn't as if we didn't previously know that Israel had purchased and modified the German subs for purposes of strategic deterrence. Nor did we delight in circumlocutions. We simply needed the imprimatur of a foreign source to publish items that Israel's military censors (who operate as if the Internet doesn't exist) forbade us from reporting forthrightly.

So it's more than a little telling that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz chose, in the wake of an Israeli Air Force raid on Syria on Sept. 6 dubbed "Operation Orchard," to give front-page billing to an op-ed by John Bolton that appeared in this newspaper Aug. 31. While the article dealt mainly with the six-party talks with North Korea, Mr. Bolton also noted that "both Iran and Syria have long cooperated with North Korea on ballistic missile programs, and the prospect of cooperation on nuclear matters is not far-fetched." He went on to wonder whether Pyongyang was using its Middle Eastern allies as safe havens for its nuclear goods while it went through a U.N. inspections process.

How plausible is this scenario? The usual suspects in the nonproliferation crowd reject it as some kind of trumped-up neocon plot. Yet based on conversations with Israeli and U.S. sources, along with evidence both positive and negative (that is, what people aren't saying), it seems the likeliest suggested so far. That isn't to say, however, that plenty of gaps and question marks about the operation don't remain.





What's beyond question is that something big went down on Sept. 6. Israeli sources had been telling me for months that their air force was intensively war-gaming attack scenarios against Syria; I assumed this was in anticipation of a second round of fighting with Hezbollah. On the morning of the raid, Israeli combat brigades in the northern Golan Heights went on high alert, reinforced by elite Maglan commando units. Most telling has been Israel's blanket censorship of the story--unprecedented in the experience of even the most veteran Israeli reporters--which has also been extended to its ordinarily hypertalkative politicians. In a country of open secrets, this is, for once, a closed one.
The censorship helps dispose of at least one theory of the case. According to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Israel's target was a cache of Iranian weapons destined for Hezbollah. But if that were the case, Israel would have every reason to advertise Damascus's ongoing violations of Lebanese sovereignty, particularly on the eve of Lebanon's crucial presidential election. Following the January 2002 Karine-A incident--in which Israeli frogmen intercepted an Iranian weapons shipment bound for Gaza--the government of Ariel Sharon wasted no time inviting reporters to inspect the captured merchandise. Had Orchard had a similar target, with similar results, it's doubtful the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert--which badly needs to erase the blot of last year's failed war--could have resisted turning it into a propaganda coup.

Something similar goes for another theory, this one from British journalist Peter Beaumont of the Observer, that the raid was in fact "a dry run for attack on Iran." Mr. Beaumont is much taken by a report that at least one of the Israeli bombers involved in the raid dropped its fuel tanks in a Turkish field near the Syrian border.

Why Israel apparently chose to route its attack through Turkey is a nice question, given that it means a detour of more than 1,000 miles. Damascus claims the fuel tank was discarded after the planes came under Syrian anti-aircraft fire, which could be true. But if Israel is contemplating an attack on Tehran's nuclear installations--and it is--it makes no sense to advertise the "Turkish corridor" as its likely avenue of attack.

As for the North Korean theory, evidence for it starts with Pyongyang. The raid, said one North Korean foreign ministry official quoted by China's Xinhua news agency, was "little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security." But who asked him, anyway? In August, the North Korean trade minister signed an agreement with Syria on "cooperation in trade and science and technology." Last week, Andrew Semmel, the acting counterproliferation chief at the State Department, confirmed that North Korean technicians of some kind were known to be in Syria, and that Syria was "on the U.S. nuclear watch list." And then there is yesterday's curious news that North Korea has abruptly suspended its participation in the six-party talks, for reasons undeclared.





That still leaves the question of just what kind of transfers could have taken place. There has been some speculation regarding a Syrian plant in the city of Homs, built 20 years ago to extract uranium from phosphate (of which Syria has an ample supply). Yet Homs is 200 miles west of Dayr az Zawr, the city on the Euphrates reportedly closest to the site of the attack. More to the point, uranium extraction from phosphates is a commonplace activity (without it, phosphate is hazardous as fertilizer) and there is a vast gulf separating this kind of extraction from the enrichment process needed to turn uranium into something genuinely threatening.
There is also a rumor--sourced to an unnamed expert in the Washington Post--that on Sept. 3 a North Korean ship delivered some kind of nuclear cargo to the Syrian port of Tartus, forcing the Israelis to act. That may well be accurate, though it squares awkwardly with the evidence that plans for Orchard were laid months ago.

More questions will no doubt be raised about the operational details of the raid (some sources claim there were actually two raids, one of them diversionary), as well as fresh theories about what the Israelis were after and whether they got it. The only people that can provide real answers are in Jerusalem and Damascus, and for the most part they are preserving an abnormal silence. In the Middle East, that only happens when the interests of prudence and the demands of shame happen to coincide. Could we have just lived through a partial reprise of the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor? On current evidence, it is the least unlikely possibility.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2007, 07:19:37 AM

An old IDF joke: "Syria is willing to fight Israel down to the last Palestinian."

I'd love to see Israel stomp a mudhole in Syria right about now.

Title: Interesting Intelligence Bedfellows
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on September 18, 2007, 09:19:27 AM

Israeli Space-Based Radar Set for Indian Launch

Sep 16, 2007

By Craig Covault
Military space reconnaissance capabilities are proliferating. This week, the U.S., Israel, India, China and Brazil could advance their commercial, technological and strategic interests with new milsats set to be launched.

Once aloft, the satellites will look into each other’s backyards and try to steal each other’s customers. And they all will be watching Iran.

The missions—scheduled for Sept. 17-20—have been developed by a diverse set of companies and thousands of engineers and technicians whose efforts will benefit their respective military programs beyond the intelligence operations the spacecraft will support.

The programs show how military space is maturing around the world and, with it, the growing capability of nations to make their own decisions based on in-house space intelligence data—not massaged information from the major space powers—the U.S., Russia and China.

In a unique flight scheduled for liftoff from India Sept. 17-20, Israel’s first “Polaris/TecSat” military imaging radar satellite is to be launched along with India’s first military recon spacecraft. They will be fired into an approximately 600-km. (372-mi.) polar orbit atop the same powerful Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV).

The mission, from India’s launch site on an island in the Bay of Bengal, will also inaugurate major military space cooperation between India and Israel.

If successful, the Israeli space-based radar will put Israel among the small list of nations with imaging radar reconnaissance satellites able to distinguish camouflaged vehicles from rocky terrain, for example, and to see at night and through clouds and foliage.

The launch of Polaris 1 will also provide Israel with a new capability that will be focused heavily on Iran, including obtaining data for a potential Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Although largely classified, the Israeli spacecraft’s electronically steered, synthetic aperture radar has 1-meter resolution and differing spot, mosaic and strip modes (see diagram, p. 31). These modes provide a multitude of different radar aspect angles from which to illuminate targets on the ground.

The Polaris modes should provide space-based radar imaging intelli gence products that are similar in quality to the multimode U-2’s Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar 2A sensor, according to Jeff Grant, vice president for business development at Northrop Grumman.

That will enable its products to be used in connection with change-detection software and imagery that can be overlaid with diverse data from other Israeli space or UAV systems.

The other satellite on the PSLV/Polaris mission—the Indian Cartosat 2A spacecraft—remains secret, but carries a powerful panchromatic camera. India is already highly accomplished in the development of remote-sensing spacecraft and should be able to step up easily to higher resolution military imaging satellites.

And India is also interested in purchasing the Polaris imaging radar satellite design from Israel for its own military reconnaissance operations, which are focused heavily on Pakistan, China and, increasingly, the U.S., according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Northrop Grumman officials hope a recently signed teaming arrangement that would allow it to coproduce a modified Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) version of the Polaris/TecSat radar satellite will lead to financing from the U.S. government in the Fiscal 2009 budget.

Such spacecraft “could provide an early, though basic, capability to the Pentagon long before its massive Space Radar system reaches orbit,” says Grant (AW&ST Apr. 16, p. 26).

Within 48 hr. of the PSLV flight, the emphasis will shift to Vandenberg AFB, Calif., where the U.S. DigitalGlobe WorldView-1 spacecraft is set for liftoff Sept. 18 on board a United Launch Alliance Delta II. This will be a commercial flight with a unique quasi-commercial recon-related spacecraft.

WorldView 1 was built by Ball Aerospace, ITT and DigitalGlobe with $500 million from the Defense Dept.’s National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to provide imagery for specific Defense Dept. medium- to high-resolution needs. It will have up to half-meter resolution, more than 50% better than the 1 meter previously allowed for spacecraft not built as top-secret superresolution systems designed by the National Reconnaissance Office.

Then, on Sept. 19, China is to launch its joint mission with Brazil. The new CBERS 2B imaging satellite will be an upgraded version of the previous two China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellites. It will be fired into polar orbit by a Long March 4 from the Taiyuan launch site south of Beijing.

Although important for commercial remote sensing, the CBERS program is giving China and Brazil extensive data and experience with digital imaging and economic intelligence as well as military reconnaissance. It’s used heavily by the People’s Liberation Army.

The Israeli radar satellite launch follows the June 11 flight of another new Israeli imaging reconnaissance spacecraft, Ofeq-7. It has multispectral as well as higher resolution sensors. The success of Ofeq-7, and hoped-for success with the radar, would mark a major comeback for Israeli space intelligence operations. Ofeq-7 and the new radar satellite flight come almost exactly three years since a Shavit booster failure that destroyed Ofeq-6.

However, Ofeq-7, with its roughly half-meter resolution, has much greater capability than previous Israeli recons. “With this launch, we have improved Israel’s operational capabilities by dozens of percent,” says Brig. Gen. Haim Eshet, director of space programming at Israel’s Defense Research and Development Directorate.

“The intensified Israeli space drive comes amid increasing concern about Iran’s nuclear development program, Syria’s contradictory intimations toward peace talks or war, and the support both nations provide to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups,” says Israeli military analyst David Eshel on the Defense Update web site.

“One of the prime targets for Israel’s space intelligence is the growing threat posed by the Tehran regime,” he says.

“The Israeli defense ministry has placed the highest priority on detailed monitoring of Iranian efforts to obtain data on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as long-range delivery systems. High-resolution space imagery has become one of its major intelligence and reconnaissance assets,” Eshel states in Defense Update.

Israel says it’s using the 145-ft.-tall four-stage Indian booster because the PSLV can fire the 600-lb. Polaris spacecraft into a true polar orbit, which is not achievable from Israel’s Shavit booster launch site at Palmahim AB.

However, Israeli critics of the decision disagree, saying the launcher choice is based more on strengthening military ties with a major power other than the U.S.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) provided background information on the Polaris radar spacecraft to the Jerusalem Post.

“This new satellite will be a major leap for the IDF and its operational capabilities,” a senior Israeli defense official told the Post. “This will enhance our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and its successful launch will place Israel as one of the leading countries in the world in satellite development.”

The spacecraft’s radar was developed by IAI’s Elta group. It is to fly in a 400 X 800-km. orbit powered by solar arrays generating about 1,000 watts at the start of a five-year orbital lifetime.

Other IDF officials noted that although some imagery from the spacecraft over areas other than the Middle East will be marketed, the Israeli government will limit what imagery can be sold. Restrictions also will apply for licensing the Polaris/TecSat radar technology to India, and possibly also to the U.S., Israeli officials said.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw091707p2.xml&headline=Israeli%20Space-Based%20Radar%20Set%20for%20Indian%20Launch

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2007, 04:05:35 PM

Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By JPOST.COM STAFF

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Magazine report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas and VX gas.

The factory was created specifically for the purposes of altering ballistic missiles to carry chemical payloads, the magazine report claimed.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time, however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrains at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.

According to Global Security.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons, or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kippur War. Global Security.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

SourceDrudge http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411428847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArt icle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2007, 04:32:40 PM

 :-oWHOA! :-o

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2007, 11:05:44 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/18/good-news-british-intel-outfit-reports-evidence-of-chemical-warheads-on-syrian-missiles/

I guess we've found Saddam's WMDs.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 20, 2007, 06:37:06 AM

Geopolitical Diary: The Increasingly Mysterious Israeli-Syrian Encounter

Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday on Israeli TV that Israel launched an operation into Syria a couple of weeks ago. He shed little light on it; what was most interesting was that Netanyahu went out of his way not only to support the mission but also to praise Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for carrying it out.

That there was an Israeli mission Sept. 6 is not new news. That Netanyahu would be the one to confirm it is curious, and that he would praise Olmert -- a political opponent -- is intriguing. But what is fascinating is the ongoing silence about the purpose of the mission. What were the Israelis attacking?

Normally, we would expect secrecy, but in this case it is exceedingly odd. Having admitted Israel carried out an operation in Syria (he did not admit it was an airstrike), Netanyahu already has opened Israel up to what little political fallout there might be. Why not also identify the target? The Syrians certainly know what the target was, and by now so does any country with space reconnaissance capabilities -- not to mention its allies. Admittedly, we don't like being left out, but the desire to keep the nature of the mission secret from the public while admitting that it took place is by far the most arresting aspect of the story. What could the Israelis have hit that they don't want to talk about -- and that, frankly, the Syrians won't discuss either?

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in the region, and the Israelis have started talking about improved relations with Syria. Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said tensions between Israel and Syria are over, and that Israel is ready to negotiate a peace settlement -- a statement as mysterious in its own way as Netanyahu's discussion of the mission. When did Israeli-Syrian tensions end? Add to this that Rice said the United States will not stand in the way of peace between Syria and Israel and the confusion is complete. She was in the region to move the peace process forward, after all. The only ones making any sense are the Syrians, who rejected all overtures and said Israel is being insincere. At least some things remain true to form.

Most intriguing are the reports we have received from Lebanon claiming that a serious division has opened up in the leadership of Hezbollah over the prospect of Syria working out a peace agreement with Israel. To even hear of a division within Hezbollah over the subject is startling, let alone the fact that the group is taking the possibility of a peace treaty seriously.

Israel periodically raises the possibility of a peace settlement with Syria, usually not all that sincerely, so Peres' comment is not completely strange. The report on Hezbollah taking this seriously is more interesting, but remember that rumors always flow in Lebanon, and this one may not be true -- or Hezbollah is simply getting itself bent out of shape.

But the thing we just can't get away from is Netanyahu admitting that there was a mission, praising Olmert, implying that it was significant and not even hinting at the target -- even though it's not a secret. We know this: The airstrike took place in Northern Syria, along the Turkish border. Both the Turks and Syrians have said so. The Israelis don't care a bit what the Syrians think, but they do care what the Turks might think. Could the target have been something entering Syria from Turkey that the Israelis didn't want arriving? That would be a reason for the secrecy about the target from both the Israelis and Syrians. Neither want to alienate Turkey, even if Turkey -- or some Turks -- were smuggling something into Syria. The Syrians wouldn't want to admit the route and the Israelis wouldn't want to embarrass the Turks.

The Turks have wanted the Israelis and Syrians to negotiate with each other. Perhaps having put the Turks in an unpleasant position, the Israelis launched a peace offensive toward Syria to satisfy Turkish sensibilities, and Washington accepted the concept of negotiations with Syria because it had no choice -- and it was confident the Syrians would sink them anyway. In the meantime, Hezbollah panicked at the thought that the Syrians might not.

This is, as they say, thin. But ever since the Sept. 6 attack, we have been drawn to the mystery of it. Every few days, the mystery deepens. As more information comes out, it is less and less understandable. Meanwhile, more uncertainties swirl around Israeli-Syrian relations. Whatever happened on Sept. 6 simply seems to grow more and more important.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 22, 2007, 07:00:30 PM

Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.

The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.

They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, according to Israeli sources. They located the nuclear material at a compound near Dayr az-Zwar in the north.


Evidence that North Korean personnel were at the site is said to have been shared with President George W Bush over the summer. A senior American source said the administration sought proof of nuclear-related activities before giving the attack its blessing.

Diplomats in North Korea and China believe a number of North Koreans were killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials.

Syrian officials flew to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, last week, reinforcing the view that the two nations were coordinating their response.
Source TimesOnline /Drudge

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 23, 2007, 12:35:07 PM

Yoni the Blogger is on right now!

http://www.middleeastradioforum.org/

Worth making note of this resource.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2007, 05:21:07 AM

Although most of this piece is about NK, I post it here because a goodly part of this piece concerns events that have been covered in this thread:

stratfor

Geopolitical Diary: A Softened U.S. Stance Toward North Korea?

The six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear program are ramping up again in Beijing amid seemingly contradictory signals from the United States.

On one hand, North Korea was implicated in nuclear proliferation, through a series of leaks (intentional or otherwise) to U.S. and Israeli press outlets, after a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike in Syria that was reportedly aimed at a facility hosting North Korean missile or nuclear technology and workers. On the other hand, U.S. representative to the six-party talks Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill is offering an upbeat assessment of progress on dismantling North Korea's nuclear facilities following a pre-meeting session with North Korean envoy Kim Kye Gwan on the eve of the six-party talks.

Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush used his address at the U.N. General Assembly to label North Korea a "brutal regime," and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice separately suggested that North Korea might be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism even before the question of kidnapped Japanese citizens is resolved.

The six-party talks are, in and of themselves, not necessary to solve the North Korean nuclear issue. The nuclear crisis -- or interminable bureaucratic discussion punctuated by moments of excitement -- has been going on for more than a decade. At its most basic level, it represents an attempt by North Korea, a nation squeezed between U.S.-backed South Korea and an at-best-ambiguous China to the north, to break free from the international isolation left over from the collapse of its Cold-War life-support system, all on its own terms. And the main focus of North Korean attention is the United States.

Interestingly, despite the rising speculation about North Korean proliferation to Syria, Washington does not appear to be taking too hard a line against Pyongyang leading up to this round of talks, aside from Bush's requisite lumping of North Korea in with the likes of Belarus, Syria and Iran. And Pyongyang does not appear to be taking steps that would indicate it is all that concerned about the circulating accusations or the attendant consequences for such actions one would normally expect from the United States.

Rather, it seems the earliest hints that came out after the Israeli airstrike on Syria might be the most accurate: that Pyongyang -- in private bilateral negotiations with Washington -- handed over its buyers list, including the lot numbers and details of what it sold to whom and when, and that the Israelis launched a strike on Syria following the U.S. disclosure of a small piece of that information to Tel Aviv. In return, North Korea has been promised removal from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, in addition to other incentives (perhaps including progress on normalization talks) as part of overall bilateral negotiations.

The mystery and obfuscation following the Israeli strike against Syria, then, allows Washington and North Korea to both play like they don't know what is going on, with neither losing face. Israel leaks that it was in possession of the information and shared it with the United States, not the other way around. (This also makes up for the obvious intelligence failure on the part of the Israelis, if they truly had to wait for North Korea to tell them where the offending material was hiding). North Korea calls Washington a hypocrite for helping Israel develop nuclear weapons and quickly meets with the Syrians, feigning ignorance and claiming conspiracy.

And remarkably, amid what might be proof positive of both Syrian attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and North Korean proliferation of nuclear material, there is no slowing of the six-party process, or of Washington's negotiations with Pyongyang.

If that is the case, then two things will come out of this week's six-party talks. First, there will be clear movement on North Korea's commitment to dismantle the aging Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as on Washington's assurances of economic aid and removing Pyongyang from international blacklists. But this is window dressing.

More important will be the panic in China (if not also in South Korea, Japan and Russia) as it sees the United States and North Korea reshaping their relationship in spite of the other regional interests. This could strip Beijing of much of its negotiating leverage with Washington on other issues, leave Seoul off-balance as it tries to pursue its own path with regard to the upcoming inter-Korean summit and keep the outlying parties -- Moscow and Tokyo -- unsure of just what the United States will do next, or how that will affect Japan's attempts to take charge of shaping Northeast Asia and Russia's efforts to reassert itself in the region.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2007, 10:44:02 AM

Reliability of this source unknown:

========
This presents an interesting idea, to say the least...
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Wednesday, 19 September 2007

One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in a state of complete amazement.

"Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and over again, 'Do you think the Americans will attack us?' 'When will the Americans attack us?' 'Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic."

And that was before September 6. Since then, it's panic-squared in Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in Syria.

On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr. Israel's military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens' Osirak II? in yesterday's (9/18) Wall St. Journal.

Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not Israel's silence that "speaks volumes" as he claims, but Syria's. Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war perpetrated on their soil?

The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the Israeli media last month (8/13): Syria's Antiaircraft System Most Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending vast sums on Russian systems, "considered the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology."

Syria now "possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world," with "more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types," some of which are so new that they have been installed in Syria "before being introduced into Russian operation service."

While you're digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria:



Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place on September 6th.

Nothing.

El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded.

Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are defenseless. As in naked.

Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as nakedly defenseless as Syria. I can tell you that there are a lot of folks in the Kirya (IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv) and the Pentagon right now who are really enjoying the mullahs' predicament. Let's face it: scaring the terror masters in Tehran out of their wits is fun.

It's so much fun, in fact, that an attack destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and the Revolutionary Guard command/control centers has been delayed, so that France (under new management) can get in on the fun too.

On Sunday (9/16), Sarkozy's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner announced that "France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear program."

All of this has caused Tehran to respond with maniacal threats. On Monday (9/17), a government website proclaimed that "600 Shihab-3 missiles" will be fired at targets in Israel in response to an attack upon Iran by the US/Israel. This was followed by Iranian deputy air force chief Gen. Mohammad Alavi announcing today (9/19) that "we will attack their (Israeli) territory with our fighter bombers as a response to any attack."

A sure sign of panic is to make a threat that everyone knows is a bluff. So our and Tel Aviv's response to Iranian bluster is a thank-you-for-sharing yawn and a laugh. Few things rattle the mullahs' cages more than a yawn and a laugh.

Yet no matter how much fun this sport with the mullahs is, it is also deadly serious. The pressure build-up on Iran is getting enormous. Something is going to blow and soon. The hope is that the blow-up will be internal, that the regime will implode from within.

But make no mistake: an all-out full regime take-out air assault upon Iran is coming if that hope doesn't materialize within the next 60 to 90 days. The Sept. 6 attack on Syria was the shot across Iran's bow.

So - what was attacked near Dayr az-Zawr? It's possible it was North Korean "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria, i.e., stuff to make radioactively "dirty" warheads, but nothing to make a real nuke with as the Norks don't have real nukes (see Why North Korea's Nuke Test Is Such Good News, October 2006).

Another possibility is it was to take out a stockpile of long-range Zilzal surface-to-surface missiles recently shipped from Iran for an attack on Israel.

A third is it was a hit on the stockpile of Saddam's chemical/bio weapons snuck out of Iraq and into Syria for safekeeping before the US invasion of April 2003.

But the identity of the target is not the story - for the primary point of the attack was not to destroy that target. It was to shut down Syria's Russian air defense system during the attack. Doing so made the attack an incredible success.

Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless enemies are fun.

( http://www.ivanyi-consultants.com/articles/silence.html )

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2007, 05:02:45 PM

IRAN, ISRAEL, SYRIA: Informed sources have confirmed that retired Iranian Gen. Ali Reza Asghari, who defected in February, gave Israel the intelligence on Syria's missile program needed for the Syrian airstrike Sept. 6. Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jeerada reported earlier that Asghari was the source of information for the airstrike. Asghari is a former aide to the Iranian defense minister and a retired general who served for a long time in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
stratfor

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2007, 02:24:42 PM

Geopolitical Diary: Israeli Politics and Geopolitics

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will meet Oct. 2 for the sixth summit in the current peace process, leading up to an international peace conference planned by the United States for November. Normally, such peace conferences either achieve nothing or culminate in disaster. In the first case, they are simply gestures by all sides toward a peace process, without anyone really expecting a resolution. They are PR moves.

Then there are summits that really tackle fundamental tensions, like then-U.S. President Bill Clinton's Camp David meeting in 2000 with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. At these kinds of meetings, core issues -- such as the status of Palestinian refugees, control of Jerusalem and recognition of Israel's right to exist -- are faced squarely. Either the meeting blows apart on the spot, or the two sides start making concessions, in which case there are explosions back home. Normally, neither side has the political authority to make concessions; so with the grand gestures over, everyone goes home after the photo-ops are completed and life goes on pretty much as it did before.

The great exception to this rule was the Camp David accords signed between Egypt and Israel 30 years ago. In spite of universal expectations to the contrary, that agreement has held for more than a generation. It is the foundation of Israeli national security -- since a serious conventional threat to Israel is impossible without Egypt's participation -- and it relieved Egypt of the burden of confronting Israel. It was an agreement rooted in geopolitical reality. Egypt did not wish to mortgage its future on behalf of the Palestinians and the Israelis did not need the Sinai desert. A buffer zone was created, with foreign troops symbolically enforcing the buffer -- and it worked.

For any Israeli-Palestinian agreement to have any chance of working, there has to be some geopolitical rationality to it. Up to now, no settlement has been possible because of geography. A Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza is a social and economic abortion. It would immediately fall into dependence on Israel. Yet, at the same time, it represents a long-term threat to Israeli security, creating a Palestinian state within artillery range of Tel Aviv. And this does not even begin to deal with the questions of the future of Jerusalem, the right of Palestinians to return to Israel, or compensation for Israelis who left Arab countries.

But there is an opening at the moment. The victory of Hamas in Gaza and the continuation of the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank has, for the moment, effectively created two Palestinian entities. In many ways, they are more bitterly opposed to each other than they are to Israel, at least for the time being. The division of the Palestinians is obviously advantageous to the Israelis.

Now the Israelis have to make a strategic decision. The maintenance of a split among the Palestinians requires that Abbas be strengthened. Israel is releasing Fatah fighters from prisons to bolster Abbas' forces. But creating a political settlement with Abbas that leaves Hamas stranded and isolated in Gaza, while Abbas' West Bank entity emerges into as viable a state as possible, is more difficult and more important. It means that Israel must deal with the more intractable issues, making concessions not only to strengthen secular Palestinians against Islamists, but institutionalizing the split in the Palestinian community.

The kind of political settlement that has to be made to strengthen Abbas will run directly into Israeli domestic politics. Fatah was the sponsor of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which was pivotal in the suicide bombing campaigns. Abbas has common interests with Israel for the moment, but he is no friend of Israel by any stretch of the imagination. For many Israelis, Abbas is the heir of Arafat, which means the heir of 40 years of terrorism.

Olmert hardly has the political base to make concessions to Abbas. At the same time, the deep division among the Palestinians, which has always been there in various ways, has now congealed into a geographical split. The more radical and intractable faction controls Gaza. Its enemy, the more secular movement, dominates the West Bank. The West Bank is far more important to Israel than Gaza. Maintaining that split and making a separate peace with Abbas should be tantalizing.

But the Israelis are likely to pass up the chance, for three reasons. First, they simply don't trust Abbas. Second, a Palestinian state along the 1948 borders poses a danger to Israel regardless of whether it includes Gaza. Finally, the Israelis are not prepared to make the kind of concessions that would make Abbas a Palestinian hero. However, from the Israeli point of view, the problem with inaction is that Hamas has been the rising tide among Palestinians -- if Israel passes on this moment, it could face Hamas in a pre-eminent position in the West Bank as well as in Gaza.

Splitting one's enemies is the pivot of geopolitics. The United States sided with Stalin against Hitler, with Mao against Brezhnev. The Palestinians have split themselves. Geopolitically, Israel has an obvious move, but politically it is an unsustainable one. Abbas is no friend of Israel and is playing his own game. His back is against the wall. But Abbas has a common enemy with Israel: Hamas.

It is Israel's move. If history is any guide, it will choose politics over geopolitics.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 02, 2007, 05:36:53 PM

 to Syria to upgrade the Syrian air-defense network, London daily The Times reported. The team reportedly was dispatched after Syrian airspace was penetrated by an alleged Israeli airstrike Sept. 6 near Dayr az-Zawr. The Times report also suggests that the Israeli air force successfully applied, for the first time, a sophisticated electronic warfare system that jammed Syria's Russian-made radar during the attack.

ISRAEL, SYRIA: The Israeli air force targeted an abandoned military building during its secret mission into Syria on Sept. 6, Syrian President Bashar al Assad said Oct. 1. In his first public comments about the event, al Assad said the raid demonstrated Israel's disregard for peace, but distanced himself from the possibility of war with Israel. He also said Syria will boycott the U.S.-hosted Middle East peace conference if the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights would not be discussed.



ISRAEL, SYRIA: Israel Defense Forces lifted a censorship measure preventing Israeli media from reporting that Israel carried out an airstrike on a Syrian target Sept. 6. The move comes after Syrian President Bashar al Assad on Oct. 1 confirmed the airstrike, which he said targeted an unused military facility. Israel is upholding censorship on any details about the strike.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 03, 2007, 09:54:03 AM

Quote from: rogt on June 11, 2007, 10:06:27 AM

Quote from: ccp on June 09, 2007, 09:36:36 AM

Yet we hear from some that the Jews in America control the media and our pols.

Just saying "Jews control the media" implies some sort of conspiracy and is (rightly) considered bigotry and not taken seriously.   But there's no denying that a lot of Jews (some would say a disproportionate amount) happen to occupy powerful positions in our government and the media, and it would be absurd to think this doesn't in any way influence our policy towards Israel.

Quote

Israel cannot count on the US to be there if push comes to shove.  Americans will not want to risk life and limb for Jews.

I think WW2 pretty clearly demonstrated that Americans are willing to risk their lives for Jews when the cause is just.  Israel is not simply "Jews" but implies a set of policies and ideas that plenty of people who aren't anti-Semites consider unjust and morally bankrupt for very specific reasons.

Actually, I would have to disagree with you on this part.." think WW2 pretty clearly demonstrated that Americans are willing to risk their lives for Jews when the cause is just" 

American's did not enter the war to help save jewish lives, We entered the war because we were attacked. We entered the war to kick start mass production from the war-machine..And we entered the war for alot of other reasons. American soliders were not even aware of death camps or the extermination of jews till much, much later in the war and if you think that at that time in American culture that Americans were going to send their Son's off to save jewish lives, I think your mistaken.

My grandfather took part in a Couple WW2 battles and he told me he had no idea till the final leg of the war that jews were envolved.

America went to war for alot of other reasons then going to help jewish people.

And it seem's now that alot of the American public, Politicans and Lobbiest are getting tired of the Israel vote and good,We should not tally up more American death's count to help out another foregin nation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 06:04:03 AM

I agree that we did not enter WW2 to help the Jews, though awareness on the part of some that Hitler was evil in part was due to his hatred for the Jews, but with this "We entered the war to kick start mass production from the war-machine", , ,  :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 04, 2007, 09:22:55 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 06:04:03 AM

I agree that we did not enter WW2 to help the Jews, though awareness on the part of some that Hitler was evil in part was due to his hatred for the Jews, but with this "We entered the war to kick start mass production from the war-machine", , ,  :roll:

I said that was one of many reason's. The economy shot up for America, Job's increased..More and more Factory job's and blue coller work open up for American's. The American Warmachine brought America out of a crink. If you go back and look at how many job's were created because of ww2 it's unreal. Steel production shot up though the roof and the government opened it's door's for Employment, not just sending people though boot camp but because they got their hand's on a whole new flow of money they were able to out sorce building production to citizen companies in America.

Car compaines were able to expand, Medical research was pretty much still in the stone age and were now given the green light to advance, the weapon Industry, Communication was allowed to make a boom, Radar , air travel...

When I said "kick start the warmachine" I should have put down everything that went along with it. It was a term that we used in College to describe everything that went with the War machine. Job's , economy , advancement and resorce

But those time's have changed War's no longer make a Nation's economy rise , now they just make a few old people more riches and it break's the economy of a Nation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 09:31:45 AM

Max:

Now you are making a different point-- that the war had the effect of getting the economy going.  Your original assertion was different-- that a reason for entering the war was to get the economy going.

The latter point I do not find to be serious and the former, although widely held, I think less accurate than to say that the Depression, which was triggered by the fragmentation of the world wide economy from competitive currency devaluations and the likes of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, did not end until the re-unification of the world wide economy with the Bretton Woods Accords after WW2.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 04, 2007, 10:15:25 AM

That's what I was trying to clear up. I was trying to point out in brief forum speak that there were alot of factor's behind WW2  and it was not just  to enter the war to save jewish folk's. I did not mean in my original post that the whole reason (and if it sounded that way , sorry) was to get the boom of our nation to it's peak..

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 10:18:57 AM

Sorry to be relentless, but my point is that "getting the economy going" was not ANY of the reasons we entered WW2.  That it had that effect is often asserted (I disagree) but that is a separate point.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 04, 2007, 10:37:25 AM

Here is a read on the subject at hand. Anyone can look at it from any type of view. Just like everything else in the World.

Why was it important for the US to enter World War 2? 

U.S. Entering WWII
There is no definitive answer to this question because it depends on ones philosophical position on war as an instrument of foreign policy along with the difficult question as to when and how a country acts in what it PERCEIVES to be it's best interests. Generally speaking, a country will go to war when it's VITAL interest is at stake. In can be argued that U.S. vital interests were far more threatened during the Cold War than prior to WWII. Throughout its history, U.S. foreign policy has largely been based on relatively free trade with countries who also provide open markets for capital investment. Prior to WWII, the U.S. traded with, and invested in what was to become the Axis Powers (Germany, Japan and Italy), and if the U.S. had decided not to enter the war, it is certain that trade and investment would have continued. During the Cold War however, as Revolutionary Socialist (aka Communist) governments began to take control of so many countries, U.S. vital interests were gravely threatened because such countries would not permit free market investment or free trade. Instead, they either nationalized industries or expropriated them altogether, while instituting harsh trade restrictions. It could also be argued that U.S. entry into the war was a political decision. Even until the war, the U.S. economy was still not fully recovered from the Great Depression. A war fought in far away places would be a boost for the economy, by providing full employment which in turn, would guarantee re-election. It must first be pointed out that only Congress can decide to go to war (both declared and un-declared) because they control its funding. A president can only appeal to the people who in return, influence their elected representatives. But in the case of WWII, public opinion was decidedly against entering the war, so some believe that Roosevelt needed to threaten Japan's vital interests by ordering an oil embargo which in itself could be interpreted as an act of war, leading to an attack on the U.S. There is compelling evidence that the Roosevelt Administration knew of an impending attack, but allowed it to occur without warning because they knew it would sway public opinion toward war. Whatever the motivation, once the Japanese attacked, the congress had no choice but to declare war. Because Germany and Italy were allies of Japan, the U.S. declared war on those countries as well. Finally, the Balance of Power concept must be considered as an explanation. Before WWII, the British were consistently the most influential and most often, the most powerful nation on earth. They certainly had the strongest navy. As an instrument of their Foreign Policy, they would ally with certain countries, to insure that no nation could achieve a state of supremacy. During the early years of the war (1940-41) it became obvious that the British would be considerably weakened by the war, and some feared for its very survival. Add to this the nationalist movements in its far flung colonies and many saw and even greater contraction, both in military might and economic influence. Someone had to fill the power vacuum that was certain to exist after the war, but to achieve the "balancer" role, the U.S. needed to project its power as soon as possible, so as to be in a strong post-war bargaining position. It must be noted that when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 to start WWII, although the U.S. had a strong navy, it had a standing army smaller than that of Finland. The rest, as they say, is history.

How did World War 2 affect the US economy? 
 
WWII and the US Economy

From what I understand in my history classes, the war was one of the reasons the Great Depression ended. World War Two gave jobs to thousands, if not millions, of people in the U.S. Soldiers were paid and some sent money home, men too old to be in the army replaced the men that were at war, and women worked in factories to build ailrplanes, ships, tanks, etc.

WWII created much needed jobs in factories involveing the production of war supplies. It jump started us out of the Great Depression and boosted the stock market.The second world war helped us become the strongest coutry we are today. By mobilizeing the unemployed, we aided our economy.

Although war is a time of hardships and usually poverty, World War 2 had many positive effects for America. One point of prosper was economy. Some said that the Second World War put an end to the Great Depression. Many of America's products went overseas and by 1943, half of the country's production went overseas. Americans were then forced to buy less of such products, but soon spent there money on things such as newspapers, movies, and promotion toward the war because of the shortage of supplies. From 1941-1944 newspapers sold daily increased four folds. Hollywood made over 2,500 motion pictures during the war also. In 1942, the War Advertising Council was formed. It conducted more than 100 campaigns to sell war bonds, secure blood donations, conserve food, and inspire enlistments. And with the change of spending money also came the change of earning money. Farmers made $20 billion in 1944 unlike the late 1930s, which had an average of only $8 billion. The war also caused a shortage of employees. This raised the annual earnings to $44 billion compared to 1939's $13 billion. With the men gone at war, women would soon fill in those empty jobs to support their families. Government propaganda encouraged women to do their patriotic duty by leaving their homes and entering the workplace. At the wartime peak in July 1944, 19 million women were employed. But women workers weren't the only group that enlarged during the war, but also child labor increased over two folds. Because of these factors, the average family income rose over 25% from 1941-1945. In the beginning of the war, 1941, the national income was around $95 billion dollars, but by 1944 it rose to $150 billion.

World War 2 greatly improved our economy. Women got the taste of working outside the home, the stock market was on the uprising again. People were starting to make money and become prosperous. The government used ads to help boost liberty bonds, blood donations,reserving supplies for the troops and the enterntainment industry. America proved to other nations that we are a strong country.

Germany was really on the back hand of the U.S.A 's stock market blunge. After the hyperinflation in germany the u.s.a gave out billions of marks worth of loans to help rebuild the economy. When the stock markets fell in the US the US demanded all there loans payed back ASAP. then germany was back to were it started.

It helped. Since people had saved up money, they could not spend it due to rationing, one sees the raise of exsesive buying. This incress in purchessing lead to more factory jobs, etc... Also now more and more women were joining the work force - again incressing production. Furthurmore the idea of the shopping mall spread from eight at the end of the WWII to 3,840 but 1960.

The U.S. was in large part lifted out of the great depression by selling strategic goods and materials like tools, machinery, petroleum, metals, and grain to both sides since we were neutral at first. Once we were sucked in by the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the economy shifted into overdrive and measures had to be taken to keep inflation from soaring out of control. After the war was over, the seeds of our modern "Consumer based" economy had been sown and grew like wildfire. Technology had taken great leaps forward. Before the war women rarely worked outside the home and only in limited professions. Afterwards the women who had worked to support the war and replace men in the Services liked the money and independence their own jobs gave them and they stayed in the workforce. Finally, we shifted in a massive way from mostly farming to mostly manufacturing jobs and services. Europe was devastated by the war but the U.S. emerged more militarily and economically powerful than ever.

Economists of the Keynesian school propagated this idea that World War 2 was good for the US economy. In particular, a government economist who did central planning and price fixing during the war named Paul Samuelson wrote economics textbooks that became widely used in schools. Most modern economists these days are not Keynesian. Destruction is never productive. War does not boost an economy. The benefits are short-lived and shallow. Many economists believed that FDR prolonged the depression for many years with his "New Deal" policies and therefore the depression lasted into World War 2. The war did not end the depression. The end of the war ended the depression.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 11:11:34 AM

Sorry to be a nag, but please include the source of your posts.  For example: WHO wrote this?  Where was it written/posted?  etc.

This piece still does not address the point that I was making-- that we did not enter the war to "get the economy going"-- which was your original assertion.

As for this point: "There is compelling evidence that the Roosevelt Administration knew of an impending attack, but allowed it to occur without warning because they knew it would sway public opinion toward war."  :roll: This hoary piece of drivel has been around for a long time and has been debunked almost as long.  It belongs in the same category of the "911 truthers".

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 04, 2007, 11:31:01 AM

I probably should have included that in the post. He does mention there is compelling evidence that they knew about the attack but he never mention's that there is overwhelming evidence that make's it true. Then he also mentions "Whatever the motivation" That get's me as a whatever you heard or think you heard , now let's get on with it and he does begin the letter with "There is no definitive answer to this question" and both letter's both mention War, Economy and Job's and this disagreement can go on and on why America entered WW2 just like how a disagreement on why JFK was killed can go on and on , it's a endless circle

There are just some point's you can't get across on a forum or just something's you forget to type and the disagreement can go on and on. I can provide you with my fact's and you can continue to shoot them down ( and that's totally ok. No disrespect intended, everyone has their point of view)

BUT I think we have dragged this topic a tad bit off track and did a post hijacking. So I suggest that maybe we can carry this on in Private and return the topic to hand or when I set up the Private with you we can discuss it after you finish stick beating me  :-D (Speaking of that, I need to call you about that and set it up)  but I mean no disrespect to you or your home in any of my post and they are alway's directed to you in the highest respect.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 03:08:01 PM

My distinction is not registering with you.  Forward.  :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 04, 2007, 03:09:42 PM

I don't understand  :?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 04, 2007, 06:06:46 PM

We (The US) are not hated by much of the muslim world because of Israel, Israel is hated because it's a part of us (western civilization). Israel is hated because they dare to be free of islamic domination. They are hated because of their success. They are hated because of their strength. I'm about as non-jewish as you can get, and I support Israel because they are part of our shared civilization.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2007, 07:20:29 PM

"I don't understand."

My point exactly. :lol:  But it is OK.  :-D

"We (The US) are not hated by much of the muslim world because of Israel, Israel is hated because it's a part of us (western civilization). Israel is hated because they dare to be free of islamic domination. They are hated because of their success. They are hated because of their strength. I'm about as non-jewish as you can get, and I support Israel because they are part of our shared civilization."

That is quite pithy GM.  I like it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Maxx on October 04, 2007, 08:59:48 PM

I should clear up that it's not that I don't understand "distinction" LOL...I was refering to something else.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 06, 2007, 06:25:41 AM

A quick historical review of some inconvenient facts:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org:80/what-really-happened/

Title: Division of Jerusalem?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2007, 09:11:04 AM

ISRAEL, PNA: The Israeli government will support a division of Jerusalem, which allegedly is a major component of an Israeli-Palestinian deal to be announced during a Middle East peace conference in November, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said. Even the hawkish factions of Olmert's coalition back this Israeli concession, Vice Premier Haim Ramon said.

stratfor

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rogt on October 09, 2007, 01:53:41 PM

Quote from: G M on October 04, 2007, 06:06:46 PM

We (The US) are not hated by much of the muslim world because of Israel, Israel is hated because it's a part of us (western civilization). Israel is hated because they dare to be free of islamic domination. They are hated because of their success. They are hated because of their strength.

You don't think their treatment of the Palestinians has at least something to do with it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2007, 02:39:37 PM

Ulitmately, no.

IMO there is a profound disconnect in the Arab thinking about all this.  They put themselves in a frenzy to wipe out Israel, and then are surprised that this has consequences in how the Israelis treat them.  Either that or they are consciously manipulating the gaps in the mental maps of western Liberalism and its running dogs  :wink: in the media  :evil:

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rogt on October 09, 2007, 02:47:34 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2007, 02:39:37 PM

Ulitmately, no.

OK.

Quote

IMO there is a profound disconnect in the Arab thinking about all this.  They put themselves in a frenzy to wipe out Israel,

How exactly did they "put themselves" in such a frenzy as you see it?  It's all about them just hating Israel for no reason?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2007, 08:58:14 PM

Roger:

We've been discussing these matters on the Assn forum and here for several years now.  I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure why I should think that breaking down my POV one more time would make any more likely to register with you than the other times.

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 10, 2007, 06:34:38 AM

Geopolitical Diary: A New Shield for Israel

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Tuesday that Israel will soon be able to intercept 90 percent of the missiles launched at it, from Iran's Shahab-3 missiles to Palestinian Qassam rockets.

The difference between intercepting a medium-range ballistic missile and a Qassam rocket is immense, and the technical challenges of defending against such a broad spectrum of threats will require not just one, but a series of systems.

Israel's geographic location inherently leaves it vulnerable to this entire spectrum of ballistic threats, and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has worked to confront them for more than two decades. Israel cannot do this alone; it needs the financial and technical support of the United States. In 1986, joint U.S.-Israeli work began on the first generation of Arrow ballistic missile interceptors. (Now deployed, they remain operationally unproven.) Meanwhile, other work continued at a rapid pace.

Ultimately, Barak envisions a layered system comprised of the Israeli Iron Dome, the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 and two generations of the Arrow system. However, due to the challenges of fielding breaking technology, not to mention the financial costs, the minister's plan will present significant difficulties.

During the summer 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the militants launched artillery rockets, designed to be fired by batteries in large salvos, against IDF forces either individually or in relatively small batches. While this tactic made Hezbollah fighters more difficult to pinpoint and strike, it also transformed what would normally have been a devastating military weapon (i.e., massed artillery rocket fire) into a comparatively ineffectual weapon of terror.

Palestinian Qassams are even more ineffectual. (As was the Grad artillery rocket used in the Oct. 7 incident near Netivot.) Qassams are notoriously hard to aim and wildly inaccurate; their construction is, by design, extremely crude. Though they also are weapons of terror, Qassams have even less effect, especially individually and in small numbers.

These are precisely the scenarios that any nascent system is best suited to defend against -- ones with limited and manageable targets. Of course, the standard counter to such defenses has always been to overwhelm the technology with numbers. And it is far cheaper and simpler to come up with an overwhelming number of artillery rockets than to defend against them.

This is especially true of the larger, more expensive ballistic missiles. As it stands, Iran probably has more missiles capable of reaching Israel than Israel has Arrow interceptors. Nevertheless, the Iranian ballistic missile program is a significant national investment that has produced only a modest number of missiles capable of reaching Israel. Similarly, neither Hezbollah nor Palestinian fighters are particularly well-equipped to manage the logistics and launch the barrage of rockets necessary to create overwhelming fire.

Israel will continue to build toward this defensive shield and, much like Japan, the Jewish state will become a proving ground for these technologies. While its ultimate success remains to be seen (and that success will never be absolute), Israel's new shield will -- at the very least -- alter the calculus for all future ballistic threats against the country.

stratfor

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 10, 2007, 06:48:03 AM

second post of the morning:

NY Times so caveat lector
-=---------------

An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S.
               E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink

 
By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER
Published: October 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
 
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
A familiar administration divide: Vice President Dick Cheney says Israeli intelligence was credible, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questions whether there was a real threat.
At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.

The debate has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea.

By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.

“Some people think that it means that the sky is falling,” a senior administration official said. “Others say that they’re not convinced that the real intelligence poses a threat.”

Several current and former officials, as well as outside experts, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the intelligence surrounding the Israeli strike remains highly classified.

Besides Ms. Rice, officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was cautious about fully endorsing Israeli warnings that Syria was on a path that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Others in the Bush administration remain unconvinced that a nascent Syrian nuclear program could pose an immediate threat.

It has long been known that North Korean scientists have aided Damascus in developing sophisticated ballistic missile technology, and there appears to be little debate that North Koreans frequently visited a site in the Syrian desert that Israeli jets attacked Sept. 6. Where officials disagree is whether the accumulated evidence points to a Syrian nuclear program that poses a significant threat to the Middle East.

Mr. Cheney and his allies have expressed unease at the decision last week by President Bush and Ms. Rice to proceed with an agreement to supply North Korea with economic aid in return for the North’s disabling its nuclear reactor. Those officials argued that the Israeli intelligence demonstrates that North Korea cannot be trusted. They also argue that the United States should be prepared to scuttle the agreement unless North Korea admits to its dealing with the Syrians.

During a breakfast meeting on Oct. 2 at the White House, Ms. Rice and her chief North Korea negotiator, Christopher R. Hill, made the case to President Bush that the United States faced a choice: to continue with the nuclear pact with North Korea as a way to bring the secretive country back into the diplomatic fold and give it the incentive to stop proliferating nuclear material; or to return to the administration’s previous strategy of isolation, which detractors say left North Korea to its own devices and led it to test a nuclear device last October.

Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, also attended the meeting, administration officials said.

The Israeli strike occurred at a particularly delicate time for American diplomatic efforts. In addition to the North Korean nuclear negotiations, the White House is also trying to engineer a regional Middle East peace conference that would work toward a comprehensive peace accord between Arabs and Israelis.

The current and former American officials said Israel presented the United States with intelligence over the summer about what it described as nuclear activity in Syria. Officials have said Israel told the White House shortly in advance of the September raid that it was prepared to carry it out, but it is not clear whether the White House took a position then about whether the attack was justified.

One former top Bush administration official said Israeli officials were so concerned about the threat posed by a potential Syrian nuclear program that they told the White House they could not wait past the end of the summer to strike the facility.

Last week, Turkish officials traveled to Damascus to present the Syrian government with the Israeli dossier on what was believed to be a Syrian nuclear program, according to a Middle East security analyst in Washington. The analyst said that Syrian officials vigorously denied the intelligence and said that what the Israelis hit was a storage depot for strategic missiles.

That denial followed a similar denial from North Korea. Mr. Hill, the State Department’s assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific affairs, raised the Syria issue with his North Korean counterparts in talks in Beijing in late September. The North Koreans denied providing any nuclear material to Syria.

Publicly, Syrian officials have said Israeli jets hit an empty warehouse.

Bruce Riedel, a veteran of the C.I.A. and the National Security Council and now a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, said that American intelligence agencies remained cautious in drawing hard conclusions about the significance of the suspicious activity at the Syrian site.

Still, Mr. Riedel said Israel would not have launched the strike in Syria if it believed Damascus was merely developing more sophisticated ballistic missiles or chemical weapons.

“Those red lines were crossed 20 years ago,” he said. “You don’t risk general war in the Middle East over an extra 100 kilometers’ range on a missile system.”

Another former intelligence official said Syria was attempting to develop so-called airburst capability for its ballistic missiles. Such technology would allow Syria to detonate warheads in the air to disperse the warhead’s material more widely.

Since North Korea detonated its nuclear device, Ms. Rice has prodded Mr. Bush toward a more diplomatic approach with North Korea, through talks that also include Japan, Russia, South Korea and China. Those talks led to the initial agreement last February for North Korea to shut down its nuclear reactor in exchange for fuel and food aid.

That deal angered conservatives who believed that the Bush administration had made diplomacy toward North Korea too high a priority, at the expense of efforts to combat the spread of illicit weapons in the Middle East.

“Opposing the Israeli strike to protect the six-party talks would be a breathtaking repudiation of the administration’s own national security strategy,” said John R. Bolton, former United States ambassador to the United Nations.

But other current and former officials argue that the diplomatic approach is America’s best option for dealing with the question of North Korean proliferation.

“You can’t just make these decisions using the top of your spinal cord, you have to use the whole brain,” said Philip D. Zelikow, the former counselor at the State Department. “What other policy are we going to pursue that we think would be better?”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 11, 2007, 04:04:36 AM

Syria Tells Journalists Israeli Raid Did Not Occur             
NY Times
By HUGH NAYLOR
Published: October 11, 2007
DEIR EZ ZOR, Syria, Oct. 9 — Foreign journalists perused the rows of corn and the groves of date palms pregnant with low-hanging fruit here this week, while agents of Syria’s ever present security services stood in the background, watching closely, almost nervously.

An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S. (October 10, 2007) “You see — around us are farmers, corn, produce, nothing else,” said Ahmed Mehdi, the Deir ez Zor director of the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands, a government agricultural research center, as he led two of the journalists around the facilities.

It was here at this research center in this sleepy Bedouin city in eastern Syria that an Israeli journalist reported that Israel had conducted an air raid in early September.

Ron Ben-Yishai, a writer for the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, grabbed headlines when he suggested that the government facility here was attacked during the raid, snapping photos of himself for his article in front of a sign for the agricultural center.

He said he was denied access to the research center, which sits on the outskirts of the city, and he did not show any photos of the aftermath of the raid, though he said he saw some pits that looked like part of a mine or quarry, implying that they could also be sites where bombs fell.

His claims have compelled the Syrian government, already anxious over the rising tensions with Israel and the United States, to try to vindicate itself after a recent flurry of news reports that it may have ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons.

President Bashar al-Assad, in a BBC interview, played down the Israeli raid, saying that Israeli jets took aim at empty military buildings, but he did not give a specific location. His statement differed from the initial Syrian claim that it had repulsed the air raid before an attack occurred.

Israel has been unusually quiet about the attack on Sept. 6 and has effectively imposed a news blackout about it. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli opposition leader, on Sept. 19 became the first public figure in Israel to acknowledge that an attack had even taken place. Some Israeli officials have said, though not publicly, that the raid hit a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, but they have not specified where.

On Monday, journalists toured the agricultural center at the government’s invitation to prove, Mr. Mehdi said, that no nuclear weapons program or Israeli attacks occurred there. “The allegations are completely groundless, and I don’t really understand where all this W.M.D. talk came from,” Mr. Mehdi said, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

“There was no raid here — we heard nothing,“ he added.

An entourage of the center’s employees lined up with him to greet the journalists. In a seemingly choreographed display, they nodded in agreement and offered their guests recently picked dates as tokens of hospitality.

They showed off a drab-colored laboratory that they said was used to conduct experiments on drought-resistant crops and recently plowed fields where vegetables and fruits are grown.

Mr. Ben-Yishai’s news report rattled Syrians for another reason: he apparently was able to slip into Syria, which bars Israelis from entering, and travel throughout the country.

“I think he came in on a European passport,” said Ghazi Bilto, who said he was a graphic designer for the agricultural center.

Burhan Okko, who also said he was a graphic designer for the center, interrupted, saying, “It was definitely on a German passport.” The international news media have speculated that the Israeli attack was aimed at a Syrian effort to acquire nuclear weapons materials, possibly with the aid of North Korea. Syria rejects these claims.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 16, 2007, 09:11:21 AM

stratfor:

PNA, ISRAEL: Palestinian faction Hamas does not object in principle to negotiations with Israel or to a political solution to the Palestinian issue, Palestinian-owned Al-Quds al-Arabi daily reported, citing an exclusive interview with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Haniyeh added, however, that Hamas will only negotiate if it believes a political breakthrough is possible.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 17, 2007, 08:59:44 AM

See No Proliferation
Reality can't interfere with "diplomacy."

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The silence from the Bush Administration over Israel's recent bombing of a site in Syria gets louder by the day. U.S. officials continue to look the other way, even as reports multiply that Israel and U.S. intelligence analysts believe the site was a partly constructed nuclear reactor modeled after a North Korean design.

The weekend was full of reports about these intelligence judgments, first in the U.S. media then picked up by the Israeli press. Israel's former chief of military intelligence, Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, called them "logical." That's the term of art people use to confirm things in Israel when they want to get around the military censors.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Israel and offered her own non-confirmation confirmation. "We're very concerned about any evidence of, any indication of, proliferation," she said, according to the New York Times. "And we're handling those in appropriate diplomatic channels." Just what you need when your enemies are caught proliferating nuclear expertise--a little more diplomacy. The world is lucky Israel preferred to act against the threat, in what seems to have been a smaller version of its 1981 attack against Iraq's Osirak reactor.

Ms. Rice went on to say that "The issues of proliferation do not affect the Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts we are making," adding that "This is the time to be extremely careful." In other words, even if North Korea is spreading nuclear weapons, she doesn't want to say so in public because it might offend a country--Syria--that is refusing even to take part in the regional Palestinian-Israeli peace conference next month. That's certainly being "careful."





Or perhaps she fears offending North Korea, which the Bush Administration has agreed to trust for finally pledging to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and disavowing proliferation. In return for that promise, the U.S. is shipping fuel oil to Pyongyang and is taking steps to remove North Korea from its list of terror states. It would certainly be inconvenient, not to say politically embarrassing, if North Korea were found to be helping Syria get a bomb amid all of this diplomacy.
All the more so given that only last year, after North Korea exploded a nuclear device, President Bush explicitly warned North Korea against such proliferation. "America's position is clear," he said at the time. "The transfer of nuclear weapons or material will be considered a grave threat to the United States." More than once, Mr. Bush added that, "We will hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences."

Even granting some leeway in defining the words "fully accountable," they cannot mean winking at the spread of nuclear know-how to a U.S. enemy in the most dangerous corner of the world. With its continuing silence about what happened in Syria, the Bush Administration is undermining its own security credibility. More important, the see-no-evil pose is showing North Korea that it can cheat even on an agreement whose ink is barely dry--and without "consequences."

WSJ
==========
stratfor

SYRIA, IRAN: Iran has reportedly helped Syria domestically manufacture modified copies of the Chinese DF-11 and DF-15 short-range ballistic missiles, a source in the region said. Both are capable of striking almost all of Israel. Other transfers could include additional shorter-range Russian FROG-7s and the Misagh-1, an Iranian copy of the Chinese copy of the U.S. FIM-92 Stinger missile.

Title: NK nuke facility in Syria?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2007, 06:51:18 AM

1144 GMT -- SYRIA -- A U.S. research group that tracks nuclear weapons and stockpiles has satellite imagery of what the experts believe to be a Syrian nuclear site targeted in a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike, The Washington Post reported Oct. 24. The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said the photographs taken before the strike show buildings under construction similar in design to a North Korean reactor. They also show what could have been a pumping station used to supply cooling water for a reactor, the Post reported, citing experts David Albright and Paul Brannan of ISIS.

stratfor.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 26, 2007, 05:52:14 AM

0056 GMT -- SYRIA -- Satellite photos taken Oct. 24 indicate that a Syrian site near the Euphrates River that is believed to have been the target of a September Israeli attack now shows no signs of what formerly appeared be a partially constructed nuclear reactor similar in design to a North Korean one, the International Herald Tribune reported Oct. 25. In August, satellite imagery of the site revealed a tall square building measuring about 150 feet on one side.

stratfor

Title: What Does the Syria Attack Bode for Iran?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 28, 2007, 07:23:39 PM

October 27, 2007

Trying to Prevent World War III

By Caroline Glick

It goes without saying that if and when a decision is made in Jerusalem or Washington to carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations the public will only learn of the decision in retrospect. All the same, over the last few weeks, it has been impossible to miss the fact that the Iranian nuclear program has become the subject of intense and ever increasing international scrutiny. This naturally gives rise to the impression that something is afoot.

Take for example the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency Muhammad elBaradei's recent remarks on the subject. Speaking to ,i>Le Monde on Monday, elBaradei asserted that it will take Iran between three to eight years to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Consequently, he argued, there is no reason to consider conducting a military strike against Teheran's program. There is still plenty of time for diplomacy, or sanctions or even incentives for the ayatollahs, he said.

ElBaradei's statement is only interesting when it is compared to a statement he made in December 2005 to the Independent. Back then Baradei's view was that Iran was just "a few months" away from producing atomic bombs. But then too he saw no reason to attack. As he put it when he warned that Iran was on the precipice of nuclear weapons, using force would just "open Pandora's box." "There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate, and at the end of the day, you have to go back to the negotiation table to find the solution," elBaradei warned.

Given that the IAEA's Egyptian chief has been unstinting in his view that no obstacle should be placed in Iran's path to nuclear bombs, what makes his statements from 2005 and today interesting is what they tell us about his changing perception of the West's intentions. At the end of 2005, he was fairly certain that the West - led by the US - lacked the will to attack Iran. By making the statement he made at the time, he sought to demoralize the West and so convince it that there was nothing to be done to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Now, when faced with a real possibility that the US or Israel or a combination of states are ready and willing to attack Iran's nuclear installations, elBaradei seeks to undermine them by questioning the salience of the threat.

ElBaradei's statement of course was not made in a vacuum. It came against the backdrop of an increasing unanimity of opinion among top Bush administration members that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Last Thursday, President George W. Bush said that a nuclear armed Iran would foment World War III.

The next day, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who until recently was known to oppose military action against Iran and to minimize the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute to the US, said at a press briefing that a nuclear-armed Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and was liable to foment a major war. Gates added that in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stated desire to destroy Israel, "Washington couldn't trust that Iran would handle nuclear weapons responsibly." Standing next to Gates last Thursday was Admiral Michael Mullen, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen rebuffed assertions that the US campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained military resources to the point that the US today cannot mount an effective campaign against Iran. As he put it, "From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve" to mount an attack against Iran's nuclear installations.

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continues to champion negotiations with the mullahs, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday Rice acknowledged that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East and possibly around the world." And then there is Israel. It appears that both the IDF and the government are earnestly preparing for the possibility of war. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's sudden visits to Moscow, Paris and London, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's trip to Washington this week were all devoted to the Iranian nuclear project.

One of the main things that we have learned from these reports about the September 6 Israeli strike against the North Korean nuclear installation in Syria is that Israeli intelligence on nuclear proliferation is more comprehensive, and at least in certain areas, superior to US intelligence. According to media reports of the strike, the US approved the Israeli operation after Israel brought the US incontrovertible evidence of the threat posed by the nuclear site.

In light of Israel's apparent intelligence prowess, it seems reasonable to assume that Olmert and Barak did not fly to those foreign capitals empty-handed. Indeed by some accounts they brought with them new and incriminating information regarding the current status of Iran's nuclear program.

Then there is Iran's neighbor Turkey to consider.

This week Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan paid a sudden visit to London. There he met with Olmert, who was also in the city that day. The meeting took place less than two weeks after Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan visited Israel. In an analysis this week in The Asia Times, M.K. Bhadrakumar, India's former ambassador to Turkey tied Turkey's pro-Hamas government's sudden interest in speaking to Israel to the tension between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. Bhadrakumar noted that Israel has close relations with Kurdish President Massoud Barzani. He hypothesized that the intensification of high-level discussions likely signals that a deal is being crafted which involves Turkey's position on Iran, and Iraqi Kurdistan's position on Turkey and the PKK. His view is buttressed by the fact that Erdogan is scheduled to meet with Bush at the White House on November 5.

Finally it is important to note Barak's crash-program aimed at purchasing and deploying missile defense systems capable of covering all of Israel as quickly as possible, and last week's media reports that US, British and Australian commandos are fighting Iranian forces inside of Iran close to the Iran-Iraq border by Basra.

Assuming that all of these developments do in fact mean that the day is quickly approaching where Iran's nuclear installations come under attack, a discussion of some of the likely outcomes of such a strike seems in order. How would Iran respond? What would be the long-term effect of such a strike? Until Israel attacked the North Korean nuclear installation in Syria last month, according to the foreign reports, most analysts assumed that Iran will retaliate against such a strike with as much force as it is able to muster, and that a successful attack against Iran's nuclear sites will push back Iran's nuclear program for approximately five years.

As this scenario has it, Iran will direct a counter-strike against Israel that will include a ballistic missile attack carried out jointly by Iran, Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Furthermore, Iran will direct Hizbullah terror cells throughout the world to carry out attacks against Jewish and American targets.

But again, as bad as it may be, there is no comparison between an Iranian missile and terror offensive and Armageddon. By pushing back Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons by several years, a strike against Iran gives the world the opportunity to bring down the regime through non-military means by fomenting an internal revolution of Iranians.

This outcome remains the most likely scenario. And it is because it remains the likeliest consequence of an attack that Barak is keen to get a missile defense system up and running. And it is because this is the likeliest scenario that most analysts have suggested that Israel will have to attack Syrian and Hizbullah missile sites at the same time as Iran's nuclear sites are under attack, But the Israeli strike on Syria also points to other possible scenarios - for better and for worse. In an interview with the British Spectator, a senior British governmental said of the Israeli operation: "If people had known how close we came to World War III that day there'd have been mass panic." According to reports in the Washington Post and the Sunday Times, in the days before the attack IDF commandos collected soil samples which indicated the presence of fissile materials at the site. That together with intelligence regarding the transfer of nuclear materials, perhaps even a nuclear warhead from North Korea some three days before the attack, leads to the conclusion that far from being the start of a long-term undertaking, the site in Syria was advanced and nearly operational. Given the strategic nature of the installation that Israel attacked, perhaps the most astounding aspect of the operation is Syria's decision not to respond.

Syria's non-response may be telling something very optimistic about the consequences of an attack against Iran. It is possible that what we learn from Syria's decision not to respond is that under certain circumstances Iran too may opt not to react to a strike against its nuclear installations.

On the negative side, the Israeli strike on Syria brought a harsh reality into full view. The nature of the target and subsequent reports make clear that the nuclear collaboration between Syria, Iran, North Korea and perhaps other states is close, active, deep and strategic. In an article published in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal, the ranking Republican members of the House Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, Peter Hokstra and Ileana Ros-Lehiten - who both received classified briefings on the Israeli strike - emphasized the threat arising from this close collaboration. Their article complemented a report in Jane's Defense Weekly from last month. According to that report, Syrian and Iranian engineers were killed when a North Korean Scud-C missile they were attaching a mustard gas warhead to exploded accidentally. The explosion took place at a Syrian military depot near Aleppo on July 26.

What this is liable to mean is that even if an attack against Iran's nuclear installations inside of Iran were completely successful, there is a possibility that Iran's nuclear capabilities will not be significantly downgraded. What the Syrian operation indicates is that Iran's program may be dispersed in Syria, North Korea, and in Pakistan which transferred nuclear technologies to Iran and North Korea, (as well as Libya and Egypt). In other words, there is now a distinct possibility that Iran is not the only country that will have to be attacked to prevent Iran and its allied rogue states from acquiring nuclear weapons.

And yet, when one looks at Iran, and sees the genocidal fanaticism not merely of Ahmadinejad but of the regime as a whole, one understands that whatever the cost, Israel and all who wish to prevent a massive worldwide conflagration cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Everything must be done everywhere to prevent Teheran from acquiring the wherewithal to foment a new world war and destroy the State of Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2007, 10:01:49 PM

Are the American people up to this and its aftermath?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2007, 02:37:57 PM

Hamas Shows Off Body Parts at Press Conference
(IsraelNN.com) According to the Bethlehem-based Maan news agency, Hamas terrorists held a press conference on Monday night claiming a victory over IDF soldiers in gunfights earlier in the day. Hamas leaders said terrorists had taught the soldiers “an unforgettable lesson.”
The terrorists displayed body parts during the press conference, claiming that the body parts belonged to Israeli soldiers who were wounded during the day. No IDF soldiers lost body parts in Gaza on Monday, and it is not clear who the body parts actually belonged to.
The press conference was held next to the Gaza home of Ahmed Abu Tahoun, one of the Hamas terrorists who was killed in Monday’s fighting. At least one other terrorist was killed, as was one IDF reservist.
======================
No URL came to me with this, but the person who sent it to me I regard to be quite reliable and well-informed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 12, 2007, 05:14:53 PM

PNA: Hamas police shot six people dead in Gaza City at a mass gathering to commemorate the death of Yasser Arafat. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in the largest Fatah party rally held since it was ousted by Hamas. Witnesses and medics said another 130 people were wounded when the police opened fire as crowds threw rocks at them and chanted "Shiite, Shiite," accusing Hamas of being a proxy for Iran and Syria.

stratfor

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2007, 12:08:37 PM

Last update - 20:26 22/11/2007     
 
 
 
 
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service 
 
 

The Israel Air Force hit a Syrian radar post near the country's northern border with Turkey on September 6, knocking out Syria's entire radar system as a prelude to striking a suspected nuclear reactor, Aviation Week & Space Technology is reporting in its November 26 edition.

The radar site was hit with a combination of electronic attack and precision bombs to allow the IAF to enter and exit Syrian airspace unobserved, the report said.

Subsequently all of Syria's air-defense radar system went off the air for a period of time that encompassed the raid, U.S. intelligence analysts told Aviation Week. According to the report, the United States provided Israel with information about Syrian air defenses as Israel carried out the strike.

The U.S. was monitoring the electronic emissions coming from Syria during the air strike, and while there was no active American engagement in the operation, there was advice provided, military and aerospace industry officials told the magazine.

However, there was "no U.S. active engagement other than consulting on potential target vulnerabilities," a U.S. electronic warfare specialist says.

Syria has confirmed the air strike, but has vehemently denied reports that it targeted and destroyed an apparent nuclear facility built with North Korean assistance. North Korea has also denied any nuclear cooperation with Syria.

For their part, Israeli officials have maintained silence and refused to comment on the air strike.

Israeli nuclear expert: Syria site was facility for assembling nukes

Tel Aviv University Professor Uzi Even, a former Meretz MK and a chemist who until 1968 worked at the Dimona nuclear reactor, told Haaretz in an interview published Thursday that he believes the evidence suggests that the Syrian site was not in fact a nuclear reactor - but rather a facility for assembling nuclear bombs.

Even, who has been keeping track of nuclear issues for years, bases his analysis in large part on satellite photos widely published recently in the media and on internet Web sites.

The images show that the facility lacked a chimney - which is necessary for the emission of the radioactive gases - despite the fact that evidence suggests that construction began on the facility at least four years ago. In contrast, a chimney is clearly visible in images of the reactor in Yongbyon, North Korea.

"We can assume that construction began even before 2003," says Even. "In all those years, five years or even more, a chimney had still not been built? Very strange."

In addition, Even contends, the facility did not have cooling towers. The pumping station seen in the photos, 5 kilometers from the site, cannot, according to him, be a substitute for such towers. "A structure without cooling towers cannot be a reactor," he says, pointing to the satellite photo from Yongbyon, in which one can clearly see the cooling tower, with steam rising from it.

Another structure essential for a reactor is missing from the Syrian photos: a plutonium separation facility, which processes enriched uranium in order to turn them into plutonium.

"In my estimation this was something very nasty and vicious, and even more dangerous than a reactor," says Even. "I have no information, only an assessment, but I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely a factory for assembling the bomb."

Should his assessment be true, it would mean that Syria was in a far more advanced stage in its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, in that it likely would already have the necessary plutonium, and was involved in building a bomb factory.

Even's assessment is reinforced by the fact that satellite photos taken after the bombing clearly show that the Syrians made an effort to bury the entire site under piles of earth. "They did so because of the lethal nature of the material that was in the structure, and that can be plutonium," he said. That may also be the reason they refused to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the site and take samples of the earth, which would expose the nature of the site.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 26, 2007, 12:36:08 PM

On the Jewish Question
By BERNARD LEWIS
November 26, 2007; Page A21

Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow's Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways -- Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement -- Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a willingness to accept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive Israeli contribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions are only furtively expressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them are jailed or worse. These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the leadership.

Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
WSJ

Title: Condi's Road to Damascus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2007, 06:02:47 AM

Condi's Road to Damascus
The price America will pay for her Syrian photo-op.
WSJ
BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Remember Nancy Pelosi's spring break in Damascus? Condoleezza Rice apparently does not. When the House Speaker paid Syrian strongman Bashar Assad a call back in April, President Bush denounced her for sending "mixed signals" that "lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror." Today, said sponsor of terror will take its place at the table Ms. Rice has set for the Middle Eastern conference at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Only at Foggy Bottom would Syria's last-minute decision to go to Annapolis be considered a diplomatic triumph. The meeting is supposed to inaugurate the resumption of high-level negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, with a view toward finalizing a deal on Palestinian statehood before the administration leaves office. On a deeper plane of geopolitical subtlety, it is supposed to bring Israel and the Arab world together in tacit alliance against Iran.

This raises three significant questions. First, how does Syria's presence at Annapolis affect those goals? Next, how does Syria's presence affect U.S. policy toward Syria? And what effect, if any, will all this have on Syria's behavior in the region?





Much is being made of the fact that, in accepting the administration's invitation, Syria apparently reversed a previous decision, coordinated with Iran, to boycott the conference. This plays into the view that Syria can be persuaded to abandon its 25-year-old ties to Iran and return to the Arab fold, thereby severing the encircling chain that links Tehran to Damascus to southern Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. High-profile ridicule of the conference by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who called it "useless") and spokesmen for Hezbollah and Hamas add to the impression that Mr. Assad may be prepared to chart an independent course--all for the modest price of the U.S. agreeing (with Israel's consent) to put the issue of the Golan Heights on the conference's agenda.
It really would be something if the Syrian delegation could find their own road to Damascus on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. But that would require something approximating good faith. The Syrians' decision to be represented at Annapolis by their deputy foreign minister--his bosses evidently having more important things to do--is one indication of the lack of it. So is the Assad regime's declaration (via an editorial in state newspaper Teshreen) that their goal at Annapolis is "to foil [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's plan to force Arab countries to recognize Israel as a Jewish state." And lest the point hadn't been driven home forcefully enough, the Syrian information minister told Al Jazeera that Syria's attendance would have no effect on its relations with Iran or its role as host to the leadership of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups.

At best, then, Syria will attend Annapolis as a kind of non-malignant observer, lending a gloss of pan-Arab seriousness to the proceedings. At worst, it will be there as a spoiler and unofficial spokesman of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. If it's clever, it will adopt a policy of studied ambivalence, with just enough positive chemistry to induce the administration into believing it might yet be prepared for a real Volte face, provided the U.S. is also prepared to rewrite its Syria policy. Recent attestations by Gen. David Petraeus, that Damascus is finally policing its border with Iraq to slow the infiltration of jihadis, suggest that's just the game they mean to play.

What price will the U.S. be asked to pay? Contrary to popular belief, recovering the Golan is neither Syria's single nor primary goal; if anything, the regime derives much of its domestic legitimacy by keeping this grievance alive. What's urgently important to Damascus is that the U.N. tribunal investigating the 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri be derailed, before the extensive evidence implicating Mr. Assad and his cronies becomes a binding legal verdict. No less important to Mr. Assad is that his grip on Lebanese politics be maintained by the selection of a pliant president to replace his former puppet, Emile Lahoud. Syria would also like to resume normal diplomatic relations with the U.S. (which withdrew its ambassador from Damascus after Hariri's killing), not least by the lifting of economic sanctions imposed by the 2003 Syria Accountability Act.

No doubt the Syrians believe the U.S. can deliver on these items: Dictators rarely appreciate the constraints under which democratic governments operate. Yet there is no credible way the U.S. can deliver on the first demand, and only discreditable ways in which it could deliver on the second. The administration may be tempted to re-establish normal diplomatic relations and ease sanctions, which is about as much as it can do. Yet Damascus would view these concessions either as signs of niggardliness or desperation, and hold out for more.





Put simply, there is nothing the U.S. can offer Mr. Assad that would seriously tempt him to alter his behavior in ways that could meaningfully advance U.S. interests or the cause of Mideast peace. Yet the fact that Ms. Rice's Syria policy is now a facsimile of Speaker Pelosi's confirms Mr. Assad's long-held view that he has nothing serious to fear from this administration.
So look out for more aggressive Syrian misbehavior in Lebanon, including the continued arming of Hezbollah; the paralysis of its political process; the assassination of anti-Syrian parliamentarians and journalists; the insertion of Sunni terrorist cells in Palestinian refugee camps, and the outright seizure of Lebanon's eastern hinterlands. Look out, too, for continued cooperation with North Korea on WMD projects: Despite Israel's September attack on an apparent nuclear facility, the AP reports that North Korean technicians are back in Syria, teaching their Arab pupils how to load chemical warheads on ballistic missiles. And don't hold your breath expecting Syria's good behavior on its Iraqi frontier to last much longer.

In the meantime, we have the Annapolis conference, and the one-day photo-op it provides Ms. Rice. In the spirit of giving credit where it's due, the least the Secretary can do is invite the Speaker to the party.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2007, 08:33:33 PM

 Saudi Normalization with Israel Forgotten - David Horovitz
As Arab League foreign ministers and officials were convening for consultations ahead of the Annapolis summit at the Saudi Embassy in Washington on Monday, Israeli journalists were somewhat unceremoniously escorted off the premises. At a press briefing held at the embassy by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, the best I could do was to ask one of the American reporters to put a question on my behalf to Faisal: "What steps are you prepared to take right now toward normalizing ties with Israel?" His answer: "None." Faisal elaborated that the Arab peace plan makes plain that "normalization will come after peace is established." And peace, he went on, entailed full Israeli withdrawal. The Saudi foreign minister also said the Arab presence at Annapolis was not about producing a concerted front against Iran. "We have to worry about Israel first," he said.
    Diplomatic sources have said that the Saudis don't want any contact whatsoever with the Israeli delegation at Annapolis, and therefore the respective delegations will even use different doors to enter the meeting room. (Jerusalem Post)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 27, 2007, 10:21:49 PM

Commenting on the WSJ piece 'Condi's Road to Damascas': I was once a big fan of Condi.  Now I am undecided and it may take a long time to sort out her time as a lot of subtle things are attempted and handled behind the scenes.  I think the comparison to Pelosi is off-base.  After all, Pelosi was accused of pretending she was Secretary of State.  Condi is Sec of State and she summoned the Syrian leadership to come here along with the other leaders.

Bret Stephens contends that the U.S. has no carrots and presumably no sticks to offer Syria.  We don't know that.  Places like Syria, Iran and N.Korea must wonder what this administration has left to do with more than a year still remaining and the war in Iraq starting to go better.

There are many publicly unanswered questions that remain from the recent super-secret Israeli attack inside Syria.  Israel and perhaps the U.S. could have something in terms of evidence on Syria even if that attack missed its target.  Rumored was nuclear material from North Korea.  Also rumored was a portion of Saddam's missing goods.  If not the U.S., the Israelis perhaps are still ready willing and able to re-adjust and hit again.

I like to think that our leaders have more information than we do so these meetings are difficult to judge.  A chance for the Americans to pass a personal message to Assad might have value to us.  From Assad's point of view, even if the information the Americans possess lacks perfect accuracy, that didn't save Assad's executed Sunni Arab neighbor.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 28, 2007, 05:25:11 AM

Those are fair points Doug.

It may also be that the Israelis and Palestinians have gone back to pretending to negotiate, that we have gone back to pretending to be an "honest broker", and the Arab governments have agreed to pretend to believe the pretense-- so that the Arab governments can cover their ass with the Arab street as they do business with us.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2007, 07:23:04 AM

Dec 20, 2007 23:58 | Updated Dec 21, 2007 1:18
Why the US hasn't seen smuggling tapes
By HERB KEINON AND YAAKOV KATZ

Despite efforts by the country's top security echelon to share with Congress videotapes of Egypt assisting Hamas in arms smuggling, the footage has been shown only to some administration officials and never made it to Congress, to avoid infuriating the Egyptians, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The videotapes included footage of Egyptian border policemen allegedly assisting a group of close to 80 Hamas terrorists crossing illegally into Gaza through a hole they had cut in the border fence.
Defense officials said there was also evidence that the Egyptians were assisting Hamas with smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip under the Philadelphi Corridor.
The decision to send the tapes to the Israeli Embassy in Washington was made by Israel's top defense echelon to influence the appropriations process in Congress ahead of a decision to withhold part of the foreign aid granted to Egypt.
That the tape was not shown to Congress reflects a desire by Israel's political and diplomatic echelon not to escalate tension with Cairo by becoming directly involved in lobbying against Egypt in Congress.
For months there has been a debate inside the government over how directly Israel should get involved in the issue inside Washington.
The perception that won the day this time was that over-involvement would be seen by Cairo as an infringement of certain diplomatic "rules" between the two countries and could lead to a major crisis.
The Bush administration is also opposed to pushing too far on the issue at the present time.
The defense establishment believes that showing the tapes can be an effective way of pressuring Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak into clamping down on Hamas's smuggling activities.
"If key congressmen and senators see this, then it will provide a clear picture of the situation and ensure that the money is withheld," a senior official said. "When this happens, Mubarak will feel that he has no choice but to stop the smuggling."
Congress on Wednesday sent a foreign aid bill to US President George W. Bush that for the first time conditions some Egyptian military aid on its efforts to crack down on smuggling into Gaza and improving its human rights record.
According to the legislation, $100 million of the $1.3 billion in Egyptian military aid has been set aside until the secretary of state certifies that Egypt has met these obligations, though the secretary can waive the requirements if she feels holding back the $100m. would harm American national security interests.
An earlier version of the bill would have held back $200m. and not have given the secretary of state a waiver, but it was watered down throughout the process.
Still, critics of Egypt's activities feel that the move sends a strong message that Congress is watching the country and is willing to take some moves that might anger what the administration feels is a key US ally.
Also, according to Washington sources, part of the rationale of continuing with the military aid - begun as part of the Camp David Accords - is that some of it will be used to combat smuggling.
Bush is expected to sign the bill soon.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847396429&pagename=JPost%2FJPArt icle%2FShowFull

Title: Mughniyah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2008, 08:36:26 AM

Summary
Multiple reliable Stratfor sources have confirmed that Israel’s Mossad was behind the Feb. 12 car bombing in Damascus, Syria, that killed Hezbollah’s operations chief Imad Mughniyah. Hezbollah has a number of ways to retaliate for Mughniyah’s death.

Analysis
Multiple reliable Stratfor sources confirmed Feb. 13 that Israel’s Mossad was responsible for the Feb. 12 car bombing in Damascus, Syria, that killed Hezbollah’s chief of operations Imad Mughniyah, also known as “The Wolf”. One source said Mughniyah was leaving a security meeting with Hamas personnel in a Syrian intelligence office when he was hit.

Mughniyah was a legendary Hezbollah leader and a highly valuable asset to the organization’s patrons in Iran and Syria. Iran, which has been steadily working to firm up its grip on Hezbollah over the past several months, had brought Mughniyah out of hiding to head up Hezbollah’s most daring operations, including training Shiite operatives from the Gulf Arab states to carry out retaliatory strikes against U.S. interests in the event of a U.S. attack on Iran.

The only reason Mughniyah has managed to dodge the CIA and Mossad for so long is his obsession with operational security. We are told that he primarily spent his time in recent months in Beirut’s southern suburbs — Hezbollah’s stronghold. However, he would on several occasions take trips to Syria to meet with members of Syrian and Iranian intelligence officers.

Hezbollah will retaliate for Mughniyah’s death, though the design of the group’s retaliatory campaign is still unclear. Hezbollah is unlikely to take any major overt action that could spin up another war with Israel, which could end up costing Hezbollah more in the end. However, Hezbollah, which has a long history of acting on motives of retribution and revenge, has a number of covert plans in the works that could be put into action. Ironically, Mughniyah was the Hezbollah strongman in charge of the group’s foreign operations.

Once Hezbollah dusts off its contingency plans for occasions such as this, it will take the group at least several days to update surveillance before the strike, putting the group’s operatives at higher risk of getting caught. Hezbollah’s foreign operations network is vast, with the United States, Western Europe and South America on the list of potential targets. African countries with strong ties to Israel, such as South Africa and Kenya, could be vulnerable to an attack.

Stratfor has also learned that Hezbollah has been preparing for kidnappings targeting Westerners in Beirut. The organization has already compiled a thorough dossier on U.S. citizens in Lebanon and has mapped U.S. targets in the country. Though such a high-profile move carries considerable risks for the Shiite militant movement, Mughniyah’s death could very well be the trigger to put this plan into action.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 13, 2008, 01:47:10 PM

Above is one of my main reasons for liking Israel.

Title: Syrian rockets, missiles put all of Israel in reach
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 10, 2008, 09:35:20 AM

Rockets, missiles place all of Israel within firing zone



By Aaron Klein


WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Syria is in the midst of "intensely" arming itself, placing into position rockets and missiles capable of striking the entire Jewish state, according to an assessment presented to the Knesset today by multiple Israeli security agencies.
 
The announcement follows a WND exclusive report last month quoting security officials stating Syria, aided by Russia and Iran, has been furiously acquiring rockets and missiles, including projectiles capable of hitting any point in Israel. The officials listed anti-tank, anti-aircraft and ballistic missiles as some of the arms procured by Syria.
 
Yesterday, Israel's Mossad and Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence chiefs presented an annual security report to the Knesset warning of Syria's armament program.
 
The chiefs also warned of a possible flare-up at Israel's northern border with the Hezbollah terror group and said in their assessment Iran could cross the technological threshold enabling it to assemble a nuclear bomb by the end of next year.
 
The assessment came after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced last week negotiations between the Jewish state and Syria should be seriously considered it if would bring an end to Syrian-sponsored terrorism and Damascus' "involvement in the axis of evil."
 
The negotiations would aim for some sort of Israeli evacuation from the Golan Heights strategic, mountainous territory looking down on Israeli and Syrian population centers twice used by Damascus to launch ground invasions into the Jewish state.

Syria openly provides refuge to Palestinian terror leaders, including the chiefs of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and has been accused of shipping weapons to Hezbollah. Damascus is also accused of supporting the insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq.

'Furious frenzy' to get Russian missiles

Olmert's announcement of Israel's willingness to negotiate followed a WND report in which Israeli and Jordanian security officials outlined Syria's recent armament.

A Jordanian security official said one of the main reasons Damascus did not retaliate after Israel carried out its Sept. 6 air strike inside Syria – which allegedly targeted a nascent nuclear facility – was because Syria's rocket infrastructure was not yet complete.

The official said that after the Israeli air strike, Syria picked up the pace of acquiring rockets and missiles, largely from Russia with Iranian backing, with the goal of completing its missile and rocket arsenal by the end of the year. The Jordanian official said Syria is aiming to possess the capacity to fire more than 100 rockets into Israel per hour for a sustained period of time.

"The Syrians have three main goals: to maximize their anti-tank, anti-aircraft and ballistic missile and rocket capabilities," explained the Jordanian official.

According to Israeli and Jordanian officials, Syria recently quietly struck a deal with Russia that allows Moscow to station submarines and war boats off Syrian ports. In exchange, Russia is supplying Syria with weaponry at lower costs, with some of the missiles and rockets being financed by Iran.

"The Iranians opened an extended credit line with Russia for Syria with the purpose of arming Syria," said one Jordanian security official.

"Russia's involvement and strategic positioning is almost like a return to its Cold War stance," the official said.

Both the Israeli and Jordanian officials told WND large quantities of Syrian rockets and missiles are being stockpiled at the major Syrian ports of Latakia and Tartus.

Syria's new acquisitions include Russia's S-300 surface-to-air missile defense shield, which is similar to the U.S.-funded, Israeli-engineered Arrow anti-missile system currently deployed in Israel. The S-300 system is being run not by Syria but by Russian naval technicians who work from Syria's ports, security officials said.

New ballistic missiles and rockets include Alexander rockets and a massive quantity of various Scud surface-to-surface missiles, including Scud B and Scud D missiles.

Israeli security officials noted Syria recently test-fired two Scud D surface-to-surface missiles, which have a range of about 250 miles, covering most Israeli territory. The officials said the Syrian missile test was coordinated with Iran and is believed to have been successful. It is not known what type of warhead the missiles had.

In addition to longer-range Scuds, Syria is in possession of shorter-range missiles such as 220 millimeter and 305 millimeter rockets, some of which have been passed on to the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah.

Israel has information Syria recently acquired and deployed Chinese-made C-802 missiles, which were successfully used against the Israeli navy during Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006. The missiles were passed to Syria by Iran, Israeli security officials told WND.

Russia recently sold to Syria advanced anti-tank missiles similar to the projectiles that devastated Israeli tanks during the last Lebanon war, causing the highest number of Israeli troop casualties during the 34 days of military confrontations. Syria and Russia are negotiating the sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2008, 04:56:23 PM

By Joanna Chen | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 21, 2008 | Updated: 6:11 p.m. ET Mar 21, 2008

In an audiotape released this week, Osama bin Laden urges Palestinians to shun negotiations with Israel in favor of armed resistance. In spite of such calls, however, pleas for talks are coming from unexpected players on both sides of the divide.

One of them, Shifa al-Qudsi, recently finished serving a six-year sentence in an Israeli prison for planning to carry out a suicide bombing. Back in 2002 the Palestinian had been fitted with an explosive belt by Fatah's Al Aqsa military brigade but was arrested shortly before carrying out her deadly mission. Since then al-Qudsi, now 30, has undergone a radical change of heart and today insists that a solution can be achieved only through dialogue.

NEWSWEEK's Joanna Chen met with al-Qudsi at her family home in the West Bank town of Tulkarem and heard why violence isn't an option and life is worth living after all. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What made you want to blow yourself and other people up six years ago?

I was motivated by all the suffering that was going on around me, and at the time it seemed the right thing to do. Palestinians were getting killed inside their own homes, farmers were unable to work on their own lands, innocent children were being oppressed. All of this created an atmosphere of violence.

What did those years in prison do to you?

It was very difficult for me. I sat there for a long time and came to the conclusion there must be an alternative to this path of death and violence. We have to find a better way to reach our objective.

Was there a certain moment when you realized that blowing people up might not be the right way?

I had the chance to read a lot while I was in jail. I read about Mahatma Gandhi and how he obtained his objective of peace without raising a weapon or throwing a stone. I tried to think of a way to do the same in my own country. I think words can express better the suffering of Palestinian prisoners and the wish for peace between two peoples. I don't need to blast my body to bits and kill other people. Today I believe that words are more powerful than weapons.

Even between enemies?

The reality has already been imposed on us. We can't start talking about getting back historical Palestine, and I'm resigned to the fact that there are two nations who can live on this land. There should be peace and quiet not just for the Israelis but for the Palestinians.

What would you say to people who still think that attacks are the way to go?

Many people before me carried out suicide attacks and others will continue to do so if the situation doesn't improve. However, I tell them now: enough. We have created a lot of problems and a lot of destruction on both sides, and the time has come for us to engage in dialogue.

Would you say that to your brother, who's serving 18 years in an Israeli jail for an attempted suicide bombing?

My youngest brother is in jail because he was caught inside Israel wearing a suicide belt. He was only 15 and a half. I consider this blackmail and exploitation of my brother. He was too young to have been able to make this decision on his own, and so I consider what happened to him a crime from our own side. He should never have been exploited this way. When I decided to blow myself up I was convinced this was right and I was old enough to make my own decision, but not my brother.

Your daughter was just seven when you were sent to prison. How did you explain your willingness for her to grow up without a mother?

We've talked about it a lot. She blamed me for leaving her, although I tried to explain to her that I had bigger issues to deal with. I don't want to say that I regret my former mission, but at the same time I know I should have thought of my daughter more and should have made her [my] priority. What will make an impact is not a suicide belt that I strap to myself but education. A bomb only creates casualties and more violence. If I can equip my daughter with education, that will make a change.

What do you tell your daughter today about Israelis?

The most important message for my daughter is that Israelis are not all carriers of weapons and not all of them want to kill Palestinians. There is a big sector that wants peace.

What are your plans for the future?

The day after I came out of prison I went to register [at] university. I feel like there's no time to waste, and my objective is to study and to be able to give my daughter and other children a better future through education.
Do you think that's going to be possible?

I say it in three languages: yes, ken and aywa. I want to talk, to tell people that I did time in an Israeli jail and learned Hebrew and communicated with a lot of Israelis. I want to continue this communication and also to carry the voice of 11,000 Palestinian prisoners to the world.

Do you think your change of heart reflects a change in the Palestinian people?

I think my position reflects the desire of the Palestinian people for peace. People are tired. They want to live. And they really want peace but are struggling in order to make the world understand.

If you could speak to the Palestinian and Israeli leadership, what would you say?

My message to both is peace. We need to engage in real dialogue. Everybody needs to come down from the tree and to enter into a solid, realistic negotiation. This is the only way.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/124569?GT1=43002

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2008, 09:12:27 AM

Iran has set up sophisticated listening stations in Syria to intercept Israeli military communications, The Associated Press reported April 2, citing Israeli security officials. As a result, Israel is taking new precautions, including not allowing top brass to bring mobile phones into rooms where classified information is being discussed.

stratfor

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2008, 08:08:43 AM

JENIN - "When you see Zakariya, maybe you'll be surprised, but he looks like just any other Palestinian man now. Without armed men, without a weapon, just an ordinary guy," related an acquaintance of Zakariya Zubeidi, until not long ago the commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Jenin.�
Though Zubeidi is no longer hiding from the Israel Defense Forces, for a number of hours the people at the theater where he works tried to find him. Zubeidi didn't answer his mobile phone even when the commander of the Palestinian security forces in Jenin, Suleiman Umran, called him. In the end, a woman who works at the theater explained that he usually sleeps late and maybe that's what he was doing.�
In the past, Zubeidi used to show up briefly at his house, in the Jenin refugee camp, together with his wanted colleagues, before disappearing for fear that Israelis would ambush him. The only reminder of those days are the framed pictures of the "martyrs" killed recently in the camp, and the huge poster of Saddam Hussein posted in one of the alleys leading to Zubeidi's home. The door is opened by his son Mohammed, who immediately summons his father. He comes down in sandals and a black T-shirt, and promises that in a few minutes he will come to the theater offices. Zubeidi arrives in his officer's "battle" jacket and mountaineering shoes, but without a weapon and without his erstwhile colleagues�
What are you doing these days?�
Zubeidi: "Nothing special. We've shut down the Al-Aqsa brigades and I haven't yet received a full pardon from Israel. I'm at home a bit, at the theater a bit."�
Why haven't you received a pardon?�
"They lied to us, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The PA promised us that after we spent three months in PA facilities and if we didn't get involved in actions, we would receive a pardon. The three months ended and nothing happened. We still need to sleep at the headquarters of the security organizations. They promised us jobs and they haven't materialized either. Some of us are getting a salary of NIS 1,050 a month. What can you do with that? Buy Bamba for your children? They lied to everyone, they made a distinction between those who were really in the Al-Aqsa Brigades, whom they screwed, and groups that called themselves by that name, but in fact were working on behalf of the PA."�
So why have you stopped?�
"In part because of the conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Look, it's perfectly clear to me that we won't be able to defeat Israel. My aim was for us, by means of the 'resistance' [code for terror attacks], to get a message out to the world. Back in Abu Amar's day [the nom de guerre of Yasser Arafat], we had a plan, there was a strategy, and we would carry his orders."�
In effect, are you saying what Amos Gilad and intelligence always said, that Arafat planned everything?�
"Right. Everything that was done in the intifada was done according to Arafat's instructions, but he didn't need to tell us the things explicitly. We understood his message."�
And today there is no leadership?�
"Today I can say explicitly: We failed entirely in the intifada. We haven't seen any benefit or positive result from it. We achieved nothing. It's a crushing failure. We failed at the political level - we didn't succeed in translating the military actions into political achievements. The current leadership does not want armed actions, and since the death of Abu Amar, there's no one who is capable of using our actions to bring about such achievements. When Abu Amar died, the armed intifada died with him."�
What happened? Why did it die?�
"Why? Because our politicians are whores. Our leadership is garbage. Look at Ruhi Fatouh, who was president of the PA for 60 days, as Yasser Arafat's replacement. He smuggled mobile phones. Do you understand? We have been defeated. The political splits and schisms have destroyed us not only politically - they have destroyed our national identity. Today there is no Palestinian identity. Go up to anyone in the street and ask him, 'Who are you?' He'll answer you, 'I'm a Fatah activist,' 'I'm a Hamas activist,' or an activist of some other organization, but he won't say to you, 'I am a Palestinian.' Every organization flies its own flag, but no one is raising the flag of Palestine."�
Are you, who used to be a symbol of the intifada, saying, "We have been defeated, we have failed, the intifada is dead?"�
"Even Gamal Abdel Nasser admitted his defeat, so why not me? Come on, I'll tell you something. On Saturday there was a ceremony to mark the killing of one of our martyrs. They asked me to say a few words. What could I say? I can no longer promise that we will follow in the martyr's footsteps, as is customary, because I would be lying. So then one of the heads of Fatah came over to me and said, 'We are following in the footsteps of the martyrs, we are continuing the resistance.' And I told him that he is a liar.�
"I feel that they have abandoned us, the Al-Aqsa activists. They have left us behind and forgotten us. We are marching in the direction of nowhere, toward total ruin. The Palestinian people is finished. Done for. Hamas comes on the air on its television station and says 'Fatah is a traitor.' That is to say, 40 percent of the nation are traitors. And then Fatah does the same thing and you already have 80 percent traitors."�
Is that why you are at home?�
"I got tired. When you lose, what can you do? We, the activists, paid the heavy price. We've had family members killed, friends. They demolished our homes and we have no way of earning a living. And what is the result? Zero. Simply zero. And when that's the result, you don't want to be a part of it any more. Lots of other people, as a result of the frustration, and because Fatah doesn't have a military wing any more, have joined the Islamic Jihad. Those activists are still willing to pay the price.�
"And look at what the PA does to those who are keeping at it. If a PA person is killed in a battle with the Israelis, the stipend paid to his family will amount to NIS 250 a month, even though he had been earning about NIS 2,000. Why? So that he won't even think about carrying out terror attacks. This is the only plan that the PA has these days: Israeli security. The security of the occupation before the security of [Palestinian] citizens.�
"When an occupation jeep comes into a refugee camp, the PA doesn't do anything, and if someone shoots at the jeep, they'll go and arrest him immediately. Today the president of the Palestinian people is General Dayton [Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator]. They're all working for him, he is the boss. A PA no longer exists."�
Forecast: war�
Zubeidi relates that for him, the theater is a refuge from the bleak political reality that the Palestinians are facing. "Here there's no politics, no religion. I still feel free here." From time to time he talks with Tali Fahima [the Israeli woman who spent time in prison for her contacts with Zubeidi], and Jewish friends come to visit him at the theater. As to the future of the region, Zubeidi's forecast is very grim.�
"Abu Mazen's mistake," he says, referring to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, "is that he is gambling everything on the negotiations. And what happens if the talks fail? What is his plan then? I'm telling you that if by the end of 2008 a Palestinian state isn't established, there is going to be a war here. Not against Israel, or between Hamas and Fatah, but against the PA. The citizens are going to throw the PA out of here. Today the PA is doing what Dayton and Israel are telling it to do, but at the end of the year, when Israel doesn't give the Palestinians a state, the PA is going to be thrown out. There's going to be an all-out war here, for control of the West Bank."�
Zubeidi is not the only one who's feeling pessimistic about the future of the PA. Similar remarks can be heard everywhere in the West Bank these days. Senior American and Israeli officials who have spoken recently with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are saying that his despair is obvious. Some of Fayyad's bitterness derives from Israel's scornful attitude toward the PA. However, it appears that Fayyad is frustrated to the same extent by the endless conflict with Fatah people, who urge him to appoint cabinet ministers from their movement and at the same time are lying in wait for him to fail.�
Some of the criticism of Fayyad's government, which has no Fatah people, is justified. The Palestinian prime minister, his many successes notwithstanding, is by no means a miracle worker, nor can he by himself change the face of the reality. The group of cabinet ministers he has appointed are considered technocrats, for better or worse, and they are not succeeding in implementing a substantial change in the government sector.�
The heads of the Tanzim, the senior Fatah people who were supposed to have become the organization's leaders of the future, are also making little effort to conceal their despair. They watch as their movement marches toward annihilation: without real reforms, without substantive change, but with endless talk about elections in Fatah and a war on corruption. Even the heads of some of the security organizations are critical of the stuttering actions of the PA against Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in the West Bank. And while Hamas indirectly conducts indirect negotiations with Israel on a cease-fire, the PA, as Zubeidi says, has "zero achievements" to show: limping negotiations, Israeli unwillingness to help, corruption and the absence of reforms. In the view of some Tanzim people, the PA is on a sure path to disintegration. Not in a swift and sharp way, but rather in a prolonged process, at the end of which it will disappear from the West Bank and will be replaced by the Israeli occupation and Hamas. Nearly the only scenario that could change the face of things is, of course, a political agreement or a framework agreement between the PA and Israel. But who can trust the Israelis?


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971604.html

Title: Turning Point
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2008, 09:42:22 AM

Second post of the day
=================

Israel and its neighbors

Geopolitical Diary: An Israeli 'Turning Point'
April 7, 2008 | 0312 GMT
Israel launched a major, nationwide military exercise on Sunday. Scheduled to last five days, it is designed to simulate air and missile attacks against Israel, including “unconventional” weapons — which we would assume refers to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The exercise will test Israel’s ability to protect its population and maintain continuity of government and military decision-making in the event of such an attack.

The Israelis have emphasized that the simulation is not an attempt to raise tensions in the region, nor a cover for an attack against either Lebanon or Syria. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sunday, “The goal of the exercise is to check the authorities’ ability to carry out their duty in times of emergency and for preparing the home front for various scenarios. There is nothing else hidden behind it.”

The code name of the exercise is Turning Point 2, a choice that bears some scrutiny because code names have become public relations tools. From Operation Peace for Galilee (Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982) to Urgent Fury (the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983) to Iraqi Freedom, the code names selected by Western countries have less to do with the desire for security than the desire for a clear message. (Turning Point 1 was a much smaller exercise that took place last year. However, given rumors flying around the region right now, anything called “Turning Point” will raise eyebrows, even if it was used before.)

Thought was given by the Israelis to the name “Turning Point.” That choice was intended to deliver a message, and deliver it to two audiences. One audience is the Israeli public. The other is Israel’s adversaries, ranging from Hamas and Hezbollah to Syria and Iran. That a message is being delivered along with the exercise is clear. The meaning of the message, however, is more opaque.

“Turning point,” as Winston Churchill used it in World War II, is that moment in which the trend of the war shifts away from one side and toward another. It is a decisive moment, a point of rectification. From the Israeli standpoint, there would appear to be three conflicts that need to be rectified. The first is the Israeli confrontation with Hamas in Gaza, where an extended stalemate appears to be in place. The second is Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah. The Israeli-Hezbollah encounter of 2006 defined a balance between Israeli and Hezbollah forces that is unsatisfactory to Israel. Many Israelis would argue the need for a turning point there — a reinitiation of conflict to change the outcome of 2006 — and Hezbollah has been claiming that this is Israel’s intent. The third of Israel’s conflicts has been in its relations with Iran. Israel has asserted that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon and delivery system that will threaten Israel. An elimination of that threat through offensive, defensive or combined efforts would certainly be a turning point.

The Israelis may have in mind one or more of these actions taking place simultaneously. A combined action in Gaza and the Bekaa Valley would represent an attempt to achieve a turning point in the Israeli strategic position. Either or both of those offensives might trigger missile attacks using chemical weapons. Therefore any operation that would be intended as a turning point in the regional conflict might well contain a defensive scenario against a large-scale chemical attack against Israel from weapons deployed in Lebanon or possibly Syria.

The Israelis could also be conducting a necessary exercise for implementing defensive warfighting scenarios under unknown circumstances. They might have chosen the code name simply to jangle nerves in the region. However, over the past weeks we have seen everything from U.S. Sixth Fleet naval vessels moving close to the Lebanese coast, to very convincing reports of Syrian troop movements along the Lebanese border. Jangling the nerves of the region seems superfluous.

The name might simply mean that from this moment forward, Israel is ready for unconventional air and missile attack. Or it could be intended as a signal that Israel is interested in a broader turning point. Either way, code names are not casually chosen and the code name for the largest anti-WMD defensive exercise that Israel has ever undertaken was not pulled out of a jar.

“Turning Point” is an interesting choice.
======

And this from a few days ago:

Israel, Syria: Military Posturing and Rumors of Troop Movements
Stratfor Today » April 4, 2008 | 2154 GMT

HAITHAM MUSSAWI/AFP/Getty Images
Syrian soldiers in Lebanon loading a tank in 2005Summary
Officials in both Syria and Israel continued to state that unusual Syrian troop movements have not been occurring. Indications suggest that Syria has in fact been engaging in military posturing, however, as both countries probe each other while regional tensions escalate over Israeli plans for a new conflict with Hezbollah.

Analysis
Israeli and Syrian military officials continue to deny that any unusual Syrian troop movements have been taking place since April 3. In a defense briefing, Israeli Military Intelligence officials added that Syria had not mobilized its reserve forces. Stratfor sources earlier said three Syrian divisions had been sent to the Lebanese border near the western Bekaa Valley.

Despite the denials, a number of indicators suggest Syria has indeed been engaged in some military posturing over the past couple days.

According to a Lebanese military source with ties to the Syrian regime, the Syrians sent three divisions (two armored and one mechanized) along the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli border. Two of the divisions were redeployed from the Golan Heights, where Syria maintains three forward divisions by the cease-fire line, to positions near the western Bekaa Valley. Though the Syrian military is not in stellar shape, these units tend to be somewhat more proficient than the rest of the regular army. Syria reportedly redeployed another armored division from Dira (near the Jordanian border) to positions near the western Bekaa Valley.

The predominately offensive armored divisions are reportedly positioned behind the mechanized division. Our source indicates that Damascus is attempting to portray these tactics — in part through unit disposition — as a defensive posture. But the deployment of three divisions to the border is hardly defensive in nature — and it is unlikely Israel will read these as defensive moves.

Though the Israelis are making a strong effort to deny that any such action is taking place, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s cancellation of his trip to Germany (citing “scheduling problems”) the same day as the reports on the Syrian military buildup probably was not coincidental. Moreover, a Sudanese news agency cited Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem as saying April 4 that Syria is preparing for an Israeli attack and further contention with the United States, but has chosen peace as its strategic option. The same day, the daily Al Hayat reported that Syria and Israel were in back-channel discussions involving talk of a possible truce, as well as warnings from both sides against instigating a military confrontation.

As Stratfor has discussed, following the failure of the March 29-30 Arab League summit, Syria was expected to turn more aggressive. Damascus has closely eyed Israel’s preparations for a military offensive against Hezbollah, a military organization in Lebanon. Syria wants to undermine Israeli confidence that the Syrians would remain on the sidelines of an Israeli-Hezbollah rematch.

The Syrians are not delusional about their severe military disadvantage vis-a-vis the Israel Defense Forces and what would be an assured Syrian defeat if Damascus followed through with its threat to enter any Israeli-Hezbollah fight. Damascus also knows the Israelis would much rather have the Syrians stay out of the conflict and ensure the stability of the al Assad government. But by such military maneuvers, the Syrians hope to give Israel some pause in its planning, and open a back door for negotiations.

The flurry of apparent diplomatic and military activity in the past two days suggests the Israelis and Syrians are trying to probe each other as regional tensions continue to escalate about whether Israeli plans a new conflict with Hezbollah. While neither side can be certain of the other’s intentions, such military posturing is part and parcel of this diplomatic game.



stratfor

Title: Carter is a pathetic joke, and a joke
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2008, 08:24:16 AM

The Sad End of Jimmy Carter
By BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY
April 25, 2008; Page A15

The problem is not that he is, or is not, talking to the Syrians – everyone does it to some degree.

It isn't that he went to Damascus to meet with the exiled head of Hamas – everyone, including the Israelis, will one day have to do that too, in accordance with that old rule which says that in the end it is with your enemies not your friends that you have to come to an understanding and make peace.

No.

The problem is how Jimmy Carter went about it.

The problem is the spectacular and useless embrace he exchanged with the senior Hamas dignitary, Nasser Shaer, in Ramallah.

 
Getty Images 
Jimmy Carter at the tomb of Yasser Arafat.
The problem is the wreath he laid piously at the grave of Yasser Arafat, who, as Mr. Carter knows better than anyone else, was a real obstacle to peace.

It is that in Cairo, if we are to believe another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, whose statement has so far not been denied, Mr. Carter apparently described Hamas as a "national liberation movement" – this party which has made a cult of death, a mythology of blood and race, and an anti-Semitism along the lines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion into the linchpin of its ideology.

The problem is also the formidable nose thumbing he got from Hamas's exiled leader, Khaled Mashaal, who, at the very moment he was receiving Mr. Carter, also triggered the first car bombing in several months in Keren Shalom on the Gaza strip – and that this event elicited from poor Mr. Carter, all tangled up in his small-time mediator calculations, not one disapproving or empathetic word.

The former president, it will be recalled, is an old hand at this sort of thing.

Going off track like this is not new for the man who 30 years ago was one of the architects of peace with Egypt, but who since then has not stopped vilifying Israel, comparing its political system to that of South Africa during apartheid, ignoring Israel's desire for peace, which is no less real than its errors, even denying its suffering.

A year ago, he told CBS that for years his beloved Hamas had not committed any terrorist attacks resulting in civilian casualties – this, a few months after the assassination of six people at the Karni Terminal, and the attack on Aug. 30, 2004, which killed 16 passengers in two buses in Beersheba.

And it is one thing to speak to CBS, and another to say these words, which are unofficial but have indisputable moral authority, to the belligerents.

It is one thing to say, in Dublin on June 19, 2007, that the true criminals are not those who proclaim, like Mashaal, that "before dying" Israel must be "humiliated and degraded," but those who would prefer that these charming characters be pushed out of the circles of power, sooner or later, with a distinct preference for "sooner." It is quite another to come over in person and put all one's weight behind the most radical elements, those who are the most hostile to peace, the most profoundly nihilistic in the Palestinian camp.

The truth is, if one wished to discredit the other side, to fully humiliate and ridicule the only Palestinian leader (Mahmoud Abbas) who at the risk of his life continues to believe in the solution of two states – if with a word one wanted to ruin the last dreams of men and women of goodwill who still believe in peace – one would be absolutely on the right track.

So what happened to this man, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate?

Is it the vanity of someone who is no longer so important, who wants a last 15 minutes in the spotlight before he has to leave the stage forever?

Is it the senility of a politician who has lost touch with reality and with his own party? Barack Obama, even more clearly than his rival, has just reminded us that it will not be possible to "sit down" with the leaders of Hamas unless they are prepared to "renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and respect past agreements."

Could he be suffering from a variant of self-hatred, or in this case a hatred of his own past as the Great Peacemaker?

All hypotheses are permitted. Whatever the reason, Mr. Carter has demonstrated an unusual capacity to transform a political error into a disastrous moral mistake.

Mr. Levy's new book, "Left in Dark Times: A Stand against the New Barbarism," will be published by Random House in September. This essay was translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.


The President of Iran was wondering whom to invade when his telephone
rang.

"This is Mendel in Tel Aviv. We're officially declaring war on you!"
"How big is your army?" the president asked.
"There's me, my cousin Moishe, and our pinochle team!"

"I have a million in my army," said the president.
"I'll call back!" said Mendel.

The next day he called.

"The war's still on! We have now a bulldozer, Goldblatt's tractor plus
the canasta team!"

"I have 16,000 tanks, and my army is now two million."
"Oy gevalt!", said Mendel. "I'll call back."

He phoned the next day.

"We're calling off the war"
"Why?"

"Well," said Mendel, "we had a little chat, and there's no way we can
feed two million prisoners."

Title: WSJ: Closest allies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 07, 2008, 09:33:29 AM

Israel Is Now America's Closest Ally
By MICHAEL B. OREN
May 7, 2008

President George W. Bush will soon make his second visit to Israel in less than six months, this time to celebrate the country's 60th anniversary. The candidates for the presidency, Republican and Democratic alike, have all traveled to Israel and affirmed their commitment to its security. So have hundreds of congressmen.

American engineers, meanwhile, are collaborating with their Israeli counterparts in developing advanced defense systems. American soldiers are learning antiterrorist techniques from the Israeli army.

 
Corbis 
John McCain visits the Western Wall in Jerusalem, March 2008.
Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where the American flag is rarely (if ever) burned in protest – indeed, some Israelis fly that flag on their own independence day. And avenues in major American cities are named for Yitzhak Rabin and Golda Meir. Arguably, there is no alliance in the world today more durable and multifaceted than that between the United States and Israel.

Yet the bonds between the two countries were not always so strong. For much of Israel's history, America was a distant and not always friendly power.

Consider the period before Israel's founding in 1948, during the British Mandate over Palestine. Though many Americans, Christians as well as Jews, were committed to building the Jewish national home, their government's policy was strictly hands-off. Palestine, in Washington's view, was exclusively Britain's concern, and the Arab-Jewish conflict was a British headache.

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration raised no objection to Britain's 1939 decision to end Jewish immigration into Palestine, sealing off European Jewry's last escape route from Nazism. The U.S. indifference to Zionism deepened during World War II, when America feared alienating its British allies and angering the Arabs, whose oil had become vital to the war effort. Deferring to British and Arab demands, America confined hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors in displaced-persons camps in Europe rather than let them emigrate to Palestine.

America's ambivalence toward Zionism persisted after the war, as the battle against Nazism gave way to the anticommunist struggle. While a sizeable majority of Americans welcomed Israel's creation in May 1948, policy makers in Washington feared that such support would trigger an Arab oil boycott of the West and the Soviet take-over of Europe. Secretary of State George Marshall even warned the president, Harry Truman, that he would not back him for re-election if he recognized the newborn state. An ardent Baptist whose best friend was a Jew, Truman ignored these warnings and made the U.S. the first nation to accord de facto recognition to Israel. But buckling to State and Defense Department pressures, Truman also imposed an arms embargo on Israel during its desperate war of independence. Later, he arm-twisted Israeli leaders to relinquish land to the Arabs and to readmit Palestinian refugees.

Pressure for territorial concessions escalated under Truman's successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who also vetoed weapons sales to Israel. His secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, dismissed Israel as "the millstone around our necks," and threatened it with sanctions during the 1956 Suez Crisis. Israel is home to the Middle East's largest memorial to John F. Kennedy, but Kennedy similarly refused to sell tanks and planes to Israel, and warned that America's relationship with the Jewish state would be "seriously jeopardized" by Israel's nuclear program. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first president to invite an Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington – 16 years after Israel's birth – but he then balked at Eshkol's request for American help against the Arab armies assembling for war in June 1967. "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone," Johnson replied, implying that the U.S. would not stand beside Israel militarily.

The Six-Day War nevertheless inaugurated a dramatic change in America's attitude toward Israel. Israel's astonishing victory in that conflict instantly transformed the "millstone" into an American asset, a hardy fellow democracy and Cold War ally. Nixon regarded Israel as "the best Soviet stopper in the Mideast," and furnished the weaponry Israel needed to prevail in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both ran on platforms highly favorable to Israel, and dedicated themselves to the search for Israel-Arab peace. By the end of the 1970s, an inchoate U.S.-Israeli alliance had emerged, sealed by the existence of a potent pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the extension to Israel of billions of dollars of American aid.

But the relationship was hardly friction-free. Israel's reluctance to forfeit territories captured in 1967, and its efforts to settle them, became a perennial source of tension. Presidents Ford and Carter threatened to withhold assistance from Israel unless it made territorial concessions. President George H.W. Bush denied Israel loan guarantees for resettling Russian immigrants in the West Bank. Israel's security policies also jolted the alliance – Ronald Reagan condemned Israel's bombardment of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 as well as its siege of Beirut the following year. Americans, in turn, irritated the Israelis with their transfer of sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia and their opposition to Israeli arms sales to China.

Such rifts have grown increasingly infrequent, however, and today there are few visible fissures in the U.S.-Israeli front. Yet America has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital – imagine if Israel refused to recognize Washington. Powerful interest groups lobby against Israel in Washington while much of American academia and influential segments of the media are staunchly opposed to any association with Israel.

How does the alliance surmount these challenges?

One reason, certainly, is values – the respect for civic rights and the rule of law that is shared by the world's most powerful republic and the Middle East's only stable democracy. There is also Israel's determination to fight terror, and its willingness to share its antiterror expertise. Most fundamentally, though, is the amity between the two countries' peoples. The admiration which the U.S. inspires among Israelis is overwhelmingly reciprocated by Americans, more than 70% of whom, according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish state.

No doubt further upheavals await the alliance in the future – as Iran approaches nuclear capability, for example. Israel may act more muscularly than some American leaders might warrant. The impending change of U.S. administration will also have an effect. But such vicissitudes are unlikely to cause a major schism in what has proven to be one of history's most resilient, ardent and atypical partnerships.

Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present," now available in paperback from Norton.

Title: Israel at 60
Post by: ccp on May 08, 2008, 10:37:33 AM

An email from Human Events.

By the way it is my opinion that BO is no friend of Israel.  I suspect he and Michelle feel like many "Muslim" Blacks and have no love whatsever for Jews let alone Israel.  If he wins in November Israel is on their own IMO.


Israel at 60
by Nile Gardiner
Posted: 05/08/2008
   Print This
   Forward
   Feedback
   Digg This!
   Subscribe
Sponsored By:
Few countries in modern times could claim the title “warrior nation”. The United States and Great Britain definitely can, and Israel certainly qualifies for this distinction too. Today is the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding and a reminder of the heroism of the Israeli people. This tiny nation of just 7 million has fought seven wars and survived in the face of insurmountable odds, international hostility and massive intimidation, a tribute to the strength of the human spirit and the willingness of Israelis to fight to defend their freedom.

Six decades on from its establishment, Israel continues to fight for its very existence, and remains the most persecuted nation in the history of the United Nations. The UN has left no stone unturned in its hounding of Israel, a relentless display of hatred and prejudice that shames the world body. Despite being the freest, most democratic country in the Middle East, Israel is the whipping boy for the UN’s Human Rights Council, a discredited basket case of an organization that boasts some of the world’s worst human rights offenders as members, including China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Russia and Egypt. Roughly three quarters of the HRC’s resolutions in its first year were aimed at Israel, while brutal dictatorships such as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma and Sudan barely merited a mention.

Needless to say, the United Nations has remained silent in the face of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats to wipe Israel “off the map”, much as the League of Nations dithered in the shadow of Nazi Germany just two generations ago. Iran’s dictator doesn’t mince his words when referring to Israel, calling it a “filthy entity” that “will sooner or later fall” in a speech this January, as well as “a dirty microbe” and “a savage animal” at a rally in February.
Continued
Sponsored Links:

    * Get Ann Coulter's Outrageous New Book...Yours FREE!
    * Ann Coulter: Get Ann's scathing commentary by email every week!
    * Huge Profits from ETFs in 5 Easy Steps
    * BRIC Investor Report: Brazil, Russia, India & China stocks



There are distinct echoes of the heated discussions in Europe and the United States over the intentions of Adolf Hitler in the mid to late 1930s in today’s debate over Iran. Then as now, there was a constant barrage of calls from political elites on both sides of the Atlantic for direct talks with a totalitarian regime and illusory hopes of reaching out to “moderates” within the government, a general downplaying of the threat level, widespread inaction and hand-wringing, and staggering complacency over levels of defense spending.

The brutal lessons of 20th Century history taught that there can be no negotiation with this sort of brutal dictatorship, and it would be a huge strategic error for the West to do so. There will be endless debate in international policy circles over Tehran’s nuclear intentions, but the essential fact remains that the free world is faced with a fundamentally evil and barbaric regime with a track record of backing international terrorism, repressing its own people, issuing genocidal threats against its neighbors, and of enabling the killing of Allied forces in Iraq.

It is imperative that the United States and Great Britain, Tel Aviv’s two main allies, remain united in defending Israel in the face of Iranian aggression. Iran poses the most significant threat to Israel’s security since its founding, as well as the biggest state-based threat to the West of our generation. As Israeli President Shimon Peres warned earlier this year, “a nuclear armed Iran will be a nightmare for the world.”

As the world’s largest sponsor of international terror, and a dangerous rogue regime hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons capability, Iran must be stopped. The Jerusalem Post reported just yesterday that the latest Israeli intelligence assessment is that “the Islamic Republic will master centrifuge technology and be able to begin enriching uranium on a military scale this year. According to the new timeline, Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year.” This is several years ahead of the flawed assessment of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and gives added urgency to the debate over the Iranian nuclear issue.

Every effort must be made to increase the pressure on Tehran through Security Council and European economic, military and political sanctions, including a ban on investment in Iranian liquefied natural gas operations. In particular, extensive pressure must be applied on Switzerland to halt a $30 billion contract between Zurich-based contractor EGL and the National Iranian Gas Export Company.

At the same time, Washington and London must make preparations for the possible use of force against Iran’s nuclear facilities if the sanctions route fails. In addition, the U.S. and UK must be prepared to retaliate against Iranian aggression in Iraq, with Tehran continuing to wage a proxy war against Coalition and Iraqi forces. As General Petraeus made clear in his recent testimony before Congress, Iran is actively supplying mortars, rockets and explosives to Shiite militia groups in Iraq. It has also been revealed by Coalition spokesmen in the last few days that the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been using Hizbollah guerillas to train Iraqi militias at a training camp at Jalil Azad near Tehran. 

As tensions with Iran escalate, and as the stakes are dramatically raised, Britain and the United States should support the admission of Israel into NATO, offering a collective security guarantee in the face of Tehran’s saber-rattling. Israel, which spends nearly 10 percent of its GDP on defense (in contrast to the NATO average of 2.1 percent), would be a major net asset to the Alliance, possessing a first rate army, air force and navy, as well as outstanding intelligence and special forces capability. There is likely to be strong initial opposition to the move by some European countries, including France and Belgium, but it is a debate that NATO should have sooner rather than later. 

The next few years will be a critical time for Israel, as it faces the prospect of the rise of a nuclear Iran that has pledged its destruction. If Israel is to survive another 60 years it is imperative that the West confronts the gathering storm and stands up to the biggest threat to international security since the end of the Cold War.

The United States, Great Britain and their allies must reject the illusory promise of “peace in our time” conjured by advocates of an appeasement approach towards the Mullahs of Iran, and ensure the world does not face a totalitarian Islamist regime armed with nuclear weapons. The freedom that Israel currently enjoys was secured through the sacrifice of her soldiers through several wars in the Middle East, as well as the earlier sacrifice of American and British troops in World War Two. It is the same liberty that we cherish today in the West, freedom that must be fought for and defended.


Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and a Margaret Thatcher Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
 
AddThis Social Bookmark ButtonAddThis Feed Button
Reader Comments: (
50
)
Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers.Click to view all
 
Report Abusive PostTo whom is the support of Great Britain and the USA critical too? It seems that there is a consistent one-sided call for support from Israel with very little reciprocation. Modern Israel has played the "Christians must support 'God's Chosen People'" card to the hilt, meanwhile blocking the free-speech rights of Christians in that country. It seems to me that Israel is speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the "God front". They like the support of their "Christian brothers" so long as they don't behave as Christians in their country (and make disciples). I don't see why Christians should be supporting one Godless little Middle Eastern nation over another despite what Pastor Hagee says.
I Art Laughing, The Last Frontier
May 08, 2008 @ 03:24 AM
Report Abusive PostBTW does anyone know exactly when "this generation" has passed? Seems like all of the people from the Golda Meir generation have been dead for at least a decade.
I Art Laughing, The Last Frontier
May 08, 2008 @ 03:27 AM
Report Abusive Postwhy must we support israel? They spy on the U.S.; they blockade our arms shipment to the Palistinans; they ignore the U.N. (unless they want something). They should be classified as part of the axis of evil, as sonny george would say.We are a friend of israel, but they ain't our friend.
Wes, McLean VA
May 08, 2008 @ 04:06 AM
Report Abusive PostArms shipments to the Palestinians? What have you been smoking Wes?
I Art Laughing, The Last Frontier
May 08, 2008 @ 04:10 AM
Report Abusive PostWe should support Israel because the jews are the chosen people and it's a spiritual mandate from God. "He who watches over never lumbers nor sleeps" "he" is God. Do you really want to be on the wrong side of God? I know I'm gonna get heat from the religious haters, but Matthew 5:10. And as far as why we support them politically. It's because they are the only stable democracy in the Middle East. Happy b-day Israel!

Title: Strafor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2008, 06:36:28 AM

May 9, 2008
Indications continued to mount on Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would be indicted on charges of bribery. Violence broke out in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Lebanese groups opposed to it. The Turks announced that they had suspended talks between Israel and Syria because of Syrian leaks concerning talks with Israel that the Turks had brokered. Things are in flux, to say the least.

It is important to note that Olmert was not indicted and that he said that he had not taken any bribes. However, the unsealing of the information that the prosecutors had about the bribe, which triggered Olmert’s denial, kicked off a political storm in Israel, with many political leaders either calling for his resignation immediately or predicting that he would be forced to resign eventually — given that Olmert had stated that he would resign if indicted.

Israeli politics are, therefore, in a meltdown. Olmert’s ability to govern under these circumstances is limited. Everyone is maneuvering in anticipation of his leaving office, and his leverage has evaporated. Should he again be given a clean bill of health, the situation will undoubtedly reverse. However, there is a broadly held sense in Israel that he will not survive. That throws the future of the coalition into question and likely makes elections necessary. If that happens, Israel will not be in a position to make any decisions on Palestinian or Syrian negotiations.

That makes the decision by the Turks to announce publicly that they would suspend negotiations over a leak that happened weeks ago particularly interesting. There was no reason to hold the announcement, and, having held it, there was no reason to announce it now. Moreover, the Turks did not say the talks were canceled, only that they were on hold. Given the state of Israeli politics, of course, that is quite accurate. We suspect that the Turks were quite irritated with the Syrians over the leak, but also decided that they needed a reason to put things on hold at this time. Still, the strategic reasons that led the Turks to want an Israeli-Syrian settlement are still in place, as are Israeli and Syrian interests — and this was a pause with a signal to the Syrians to behave.

And that is an important signal, given what happened in Lebanon today. Lebanese politicians decided to move against Hezbollah’s private communication system — the system that enables Hezbollah to be a self-contained army within Lebanon, outside the bounds of the Lebanese Army. Hezbollah understood that this was a direct threat to its power in Lebanon and reacted with violence, ranging from stone-throwing to mortar fire. Hezbollah made it clear that it did not intend to have its power reduced.

Taking on Hezbollah is dangerous for anyone, particularly the Lebanese. The move to shut down Hezbollah’s communications was obviously going to cause a violent response, and few in Lebanon are eager to risk Hezbollah’s wrath — unless they have an understanding with Syria. Syria is a supporter of Hezbollah, but its relationship with the group is complex. There are times when Syria has wanted Hezbollah to be as aggressive as possible and times when Syria was very active in restraining Hezbollah. The Syrians never wanted to dismantle the group, but there were times they wanted it to be benign. Given Syria’s talks with the Israelis –- for which the Syrians publicly celebrated, and the Turks rapped them on the knuckles — an unconditional demand on the part of Israel had to have been Syria reining in Hezbollah.

Whoever decided to shut down Hezbollah’s communication system had to have some confidence that they would not be facing Hezbollah alone. There are three possibilities. One, that they thought they could handle Hezbollah themselves. We find that hard to believe. Two, that they thought Israel might intervene, perhaps because Olmert would start a war to cover his indictment. If that’s so, we think it was a major miscalculation; Israel won’t go to war on that basis. Three, that anti-Hezbollah forces in Lebanon have gotten the signal from Syria that they can act against Hezbollah, as a gesture of good faith to Israel on the part of Damascus. Our suspicion is that this is what happened. Incurring the displeasure of both Hezbollah and Syria is not wise for any Lebanese.

The tangle caused by Olmert’s situation is now intense. Left out of this discussion are the Palestinian negotiations or any of the other complexities of the region. This is quite enough. But as frequently happens in the Middle East, what appeared to be a promising opening a couple of weeks ago has bogged down in the internal politics of one of the actors. Even Olmert’s departure will not solve the problem, as it will create a vacuum that could take months to fill.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 10, 2008, 08:06:53 PM

May 10, 2008, 8:30 a.m.

Be Careful What You Wish For
Israel’s doom would be bad news for Europe.

By Mark Steyn

Almost everywhere I went last week — TV, radio, speeches — I was asked about the 60th anniversary of the Israeli state. I don’t recall being asked about Israel quite so much on its 50th anniversary, which as a general rule is a much bigger deal than the 60th. But these days friends and enemies alike smell weakness at the heart of the Zionist Entity. Assuming President Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic fancies don’t come to pass, Israel will surely make it to its 70th birthday. But a lot of folks don’t fancy its prospects for its 80th and beyond. See the Atlantic Monthly cover story: “Is Israel Finished?” Also the cover story in Canada’s leading news magazine, Maclean’s, which dispenses with the question mark: “Why Israel Can’t Survive.”

Why? By most measures, the Jewish state is a great success story. The modern Middle East is the misbegotten progeny of the British and French colonial map-makers of 1922. All the nation states in that neck of the woods date back a mere 60 or 70 years — Iraq to the Thirties, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel to the Forties. The only difference is that Israel has made a go of it. Would I rather there were more countries like Israel, or more like Syria? I don’t find that a hard question to answer. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (Iraq may yet prove a second) and its Arab citizens enjoy more rights than they would living under any of the kleptocrat kings and psychotic dictators who otherwise infest the region. On a tiny strip of land narrower at its narrowest point than many American townships, Israel has built a modern economy with a GDP per capita just shy of $30,000 — and within striking distance of the European Union average. If you object that that’s because it’s uniquely blessed by Uncle Sam, well, for the past 30 years the second largest recipient of U.S. aid has been Egypt: Their GDP per capita is $5,000, and America has nothing to show for its investment other than one-time pilot Mohammed Atta coming at you through the office window.

Jewish success against the odds is nothing new. “Aaron Lazarus the Jew,” wrote Anthony Hope in his all but unknown prequel to The Prisoner Of Zenda, “had made a great business of it, and had spent his savings in buying up the better part of the street; but” — and for Jews there’s always a ‘but’
— “since Jews then might hold no property…”

Ah, right. Like the Jewish merchants in old Europe who were tolerated as leaseholders but could never be full property owners, the Israelis are regarded as operating a uniquely conditional sovereignty. Jimmy Carter, just returned from his squalid suck-up junket to Hamas, is merely the latest Western sophisticate to pronounce triumphantly that he has secured the usual (off-the-record, highly qualified, never to be translated into Arabic, and instantly denied) commitment from the Jews’ enemies acknowledging Israel’s “right to exist.” Well, whoop-de-doo. Would you enter negotiations on such a basis?

Since Israel marked its half-century, the “right to exist” is now routinely denied not just in Gaza and Ramallah and the region’s presidential palaces but on every European and Canadian college campus. During the Lebanese incursion of 2006, Matthew Parris wrote in the Times of London: “The past 40 years have been a catastrophe, gradual and incremental, for world Jewry. Seldom in history have the name and reputation of a human grouping lost so vast a store of support and sympathy so fast. My opinion - held not passionately but with little personal doubt — is that there is no point in arguing about whether the state of Israel should have been established where and when it was” — which lets you know how he would argue it if minded to. Richard Cohen in The Washington Post was more straightforward: “Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.” Cohen and Parris, two famously moderate voices in the leading newspapers of two of the least anti-Israeli capital cities in the West, have nevertheless internalized the same logic as Ahmadinejad: Israel should not be where it is. Whether it’s a “stain of shame” or just a “mistake” is the merest detail.

Aaron Lazarus and every other “European Jew” of his time would have had a mirthless chuckle over Cohen’s designation. The Jews lived in Europe for centuries, but without ever being accepted as “European”: To enjoy their belated acceptance as Europeans, they had to move to the Middle East. Reviled on the Continent as sinister rootless cosmopolitans with no conventional national allegiance, they built a conventional nation state, and now they’re reviled for that, too. The “oldest hatred” didn’t get that way without an ability to adapt.

The Western intellectuals who promote “Israeli Apartheid Week” at this time each year are laying the groundwork for the next stage of Zionist delegitimization. The talk of a “two-state solution” will fade. In the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, Jews are barely a majority. Gaza has one of the highest birth rates on the planet: The median age is 15.8 years. Its population is not just literally exploding, at Israeli checkpoints, but also doing so in the less incendiary but demographically decisive sense.

Arabs will soon be demanding one democratic state — Jews and Muslims — from Jordan to the sea. And even those who understand that this will mean the death of Israel will find themselves so confounded by the multicultural pieties of their own lands they’ll be unable to argue against it. Contemporary Europeans are not exactly known for their moral courage: The reports one hears of schools quietly dropping the Holocaust from their classrooms because it offends their growing numbers of Muslim students suggest that even the pretense of “evenhandedness” in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” will be long gone a decade hence.

The joke, of course, is that Israel, despite its demographic challenge, still enjoys a birth rate twice that of the European average. All the reasons for Israel’s doom apply to Europe with bells on. And, unlike much of the rest of the west, Israel has the advantage of living on the front line of the existential challenge. “I have a premonition that will not leave me,” wrote Eric Hoffer, America’s great longshoreman philosopher, after the ’67 war. “As it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.”

Indeed. So happy 60th birthday. And here’s to many more.

© 2008 Mark Steyn

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGM4M2M5YWRhYWY4YzgwYjdkYWI2NTViMmM5MTc2MTM=

Title: Buchanan: Time is not on the Jews side
Post by: ccp on May 16, 2008, 04:39:58 PM

From Pat Buchanan,

"President Bush celebrates Israel's 60th birthday, and is celebrated in turn as Israel's best friend ever"

Does any Jew seriously think BO is a friend of the Jews?  And Clinton?  Clinton would sell out the Jews just as quickly as she sold out the Blacks if becomes in her self interest.  Not true for Bush.

His article is food for thought:

***As Israel enters its 61st year, Israelis may look back with pride. Yet, the realists among them must also look forward with foreboding.

Israel is a modern democracy with the highest standard of living in the Middle East. In the high-tech industries of the future, she is in the first rank. From a nation of fewer than a million in 1948, Israel's population has grown to 7 million. In seven wars -- the 1948 War of Independence, the Sinai invasion of 1956, the Six-Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and the Lebanon wars of 1982 and 2006 -- Israel has prevailed, though some of these wars were, as Wellington said of Waterloo, "a damn near-run thing."

Israel has revived Hebrew, created a new currency, immersed her children in the history, ancient and modern, of her people, and established a homeland for Jews from all over the world, millions of whom have migrated there to settle. Israel is now home to the largest concentration of Jews anywhere on earth.

Israel became home to the largest Jewish population on earth in part because American Jews in the 1990s fell in number from 5.5 million to 5.2 million, a loss of 300,000, or 6 percent of the U.S. Jewish population.

According to Charles Krauthammer, by 2050, the U.S. Jewish population will have shrunk another 50 percent to 2.5 million. American Jews are slowly vanishing. How and why is this happening?

It is the collective decision of American Jews themselves, who have led the battles for birth control and a woman's right to choose.

As Jews were roughly 2 percent of the U.S. population from Roe v. Wade to today, perhaps 2 percent of the 50 million legal abortions since Roe were likely performed on Jewish girls or women, resulting in 1 million lost members of the Jewish community in 35 years.

And if demography is destiny, Israel's future, too, appears grim.

As former Ambassador Zalman Shoval writes, Israel's population of 7 million is 80 percent Jewish. But the Palestinian population of Israel has risen to 20 percent and is growing much faster.

One Israel blogger, using Shoval's totals, writes that among the Israeli population between 1 and 4 years old, roughly 30 percent is Arab. The future of Israel is thus increasingly Arab and less Jewish.

According to the United Nations, by 2050, Israel will have 10 million people.

By then, the Arab population, at present birth rates, is likely to be close to 30 percent of the Israeli population. On the West Bank and Gaza, today's 4 million Arabs are to explode to 10 million, far outstripping the growth in Israel. Jordan's population of 5 million, 60 percent Palestinian, will also double to 10 million.

Thus, not even counting Palestinians in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the Gulf states, Israel's 7 million to 8 million Jews in 2050 will be living with 13 million Palestinians in Israel, Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. If Israel is to survive as a Jewish state, a separate and independent Palestinian state would seem an imperative.

Yet, as Israelis continue to build outposts and expand and add settlements, the possibility of a Palestinian state recedes. Indeed, many Israelis, seeing what an end to the occupation produced in Gaza, refuse to consider any pullout at all from the West Bank.

Such a policy of holding on and digging in is sometimes the best one -- but only if time is on one's side. Is time on Israel's side?

According to the world population statistics from the National Policy Institute, the worldwide Arabic population in 1950 was only 94 million, less than 4 percent of the world population. But by 2050, it will be 700 million, 7 percent of a world population of almost 10 billion.

According to U.N. population experts, Lebanon's population will grow to 5 million in 2050, but Syria's will almost double from today's 20 million to 34 million. The population of Saudi Arabia will rise from 24 million to 45 million. Egypt will grow by more than 50 million to 121 million Egyptians by 2050. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 71 million today, is expected to reach 100 million at mid-century.

And, demography aside, the Islamic faith of Israel's neighbors is becoming militant. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah now controls Southern Lebanon and is becoming the power in Beirut. While Egypt is headed by a pro-American autocrat, the principal rival for power is the widely popular Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who do not like the Saudi monarchy should consider what is likely to rise in its place, should the House of Saud fall. The same is true of the Jordanian and Moroccan monarchies, and the sheikdoms, emirates and sultanates of the Persian Gulf.

In any struggle of generations, the critical question is often: Whose side is time on? As President Bush celebrates Israel's 60th birthday, and is celebrated in turn as Israel's best friend ever, it is a fair question to ask.***

Title: Krauthammer ON Israel's 60th
Post by: ccp on May 16, 2008, 05:15:27 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503577.html

Title: Re: Buchanan: Time is not on the Jews side
Post by: rachelg on May 16, 2008, 07:23:53 PM

 I don't think abortion has a lot of impact on Jewish survival/continuity. Jews have been called the ever-dying people for a long time and has survived much worse threats than the current situation. Demography has never been destiny for the Jewish people.

 Currently--Intermarriage and assimilation are generally thought to be the largest threats to Jewish continuity currently.http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.841657/k.5C30/Jewish_Continuity_and_Intermarriage.htm

Also abortion would not be the only factor in reducing  Jewish fertility. . Are you arguing against all forms of birth control, mandating that people get married younger and immediately start trying for children, etc….

 
 The Palestinian birthrate was probably over estimated and the Jewish birthrate in Israel is high.   Even Secular Israelis have on average 3 kids. I have a religious cousin in Israel in whose neighborhood the averagenumber of children  is 8 and the woman are still mostly of childbearing age. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/primarysources

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2008, 10:52:09 PM

Rachel:

Glad to have you join the conversation.

Why do you think the Palestinian birthrate is overestimated?  By how much/what do you think it is?

TIA,
Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 17, 2008, 11:00:51 AM

Enabling Hezbollah   
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | Friday, May 16, 2008

AS Hezbollah's terror army dismantles Lebanon, the world whistles "Ain't That a Shame."
With its heavily funded proxies marching through an Arab democracy's ruins, Iran has arrived on the Mediterranean, outflanking Israel.

Syria's surrogates punish Beirut. Lebanon's crippled government cringes at the whims of Hassan Nasrullah, Hezbollah's strongman. Terror rules.

And not one civilized country lifts a finger.

This doesn't mean that war will be avoided at the "negligible" cost of Lebanese lives and freedom. It just means that the inevitable showdown with Hezbollah will be a bloodier mess when it finally comes.

When will we face reality? Hezbollah can't be appeased. Hezbollah can't be integrated into a democratic government and domesticated. And Hezbollah, whose cadres believe that death is a promotion, can't be deterred by wagging fingers and flyovers.

Hezbollah, our mortal enemy, must be destroyed. But we - Israel, the United States, Europe - lack the will. And will is one thing Hezbollah and its backers in Iran and Syria don't lack: They'll kill anyone and destroy anything to win.

We won't. We still think we can talk our way out of a hit job. Not only are we reluctant to kill those bent on killing us - we don't even want to offend them.

Hezbollah's shocking defeat of Israel in 2006 (when will Western leaders learn that you can't measure out war in teaspoons?) highlighted the key military question of our time: How can humane, law-abiding states defeat merciless postnational organizations that obey only the "laws" of bloodthirsty gods?

The answer, as Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us, is that you have to gut the organization and kill the hardcore cadres. (Exactly how many al Qaeda members have we converted to secular humanism?).

Entranced by the military vogue of the season, we don't even get our terminology right. Defeating Hezbollah has nothing to do with counterinsurgency warfare - the situation's gone far beyond that. We're facing a new form of "non-state state" built around a fanatical killing machine that rejects all of our constraints.

No one is going to win Hezbollah's hearts and minds. Its fighters and their families have already shifted into full-speed fanaticism, and there's no reverse gear. Hezbollah has to be destroyed.

But we're not going to do it. And Israel's not going to do it. We both lack the vision, the guts, the strength of will. Hezbollah has all three. In spades.

As for Europe stepping in, it's got just enough UN peacekeepers in Lebanon to serve as hostages, but not enough to set up a convincing roadblock. (All the United Nations has done has been to direct traffic for Hezbollah arms smugglers.)

And Europeans won't fight to protect Jews. Even now, Europeans, high and low, wish they could find an excuse to pile on against Israel. The continent's shamelessly anti-Israeli media is doing all it can to give its audiences that excuse - witness the pro-Hezbollah propaganda reported as ground truth in 2006 - but Europe's still a bit too embarrassed by its recent past to actively aid in Israel's destruction.

Meanwhile, Israel's bumbling Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his government remain focused on the chaos in Gaza generated by Hamas - another Iranian tool - while trying to ignore the existential threat metastasizing on its northern border. The "world community" wrings its hands about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but does nothing - as Iran methodically sets the stage to launch volleys of medium-range missiles into Israel when the hour of reckoning comes.

The extremists running Iran today would destroy Israel. No matter the cost. And Hezbollah's happy to help.

Until that day comes, Tehran and Damascus are convinced that no one will stand up for Lebanon. They're savvier strategically than we are.

Before Israel squandered its credibility in the 2006 war, it briefly looked as though its Sunni Arab neighbors might rouse themselves to action to help thwart Tehran's ambitions. Those hopes have dissolved. Meanwhile, Jordan's rulers seem blithely unaware that they're next: Once Lebanon is under Hezbollah's thumb, Iran and Syria's next step will be to destabilize Jordan, surrounding Israel with active enemies.

Is there a good solution? No. Is there any solution? Yes. Backed by US air and naval power, Israel must strike remorselessly, destroying Hezbollah without compromise and ignoring the global save-the-terrorists outcry.

It's not going to happen. We lack the strength of will to do this right.

Israel or even the United States may feel compelled to intervene at some point. But we'll do too little too late and stop too soon.

Hezbollah would sacrifice women and children by the thousands to win. We rely on that fatal narcotic, diplomacy, as Lebanon shatters and our enemies pick up the pieces.

We're not Hezbollah's enemies. We're its enablers.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 17, 2008, 11:06:06 AM

"Peoplehood" Based on a Big Lie   
By Eli E. Hertz
MythsandFacts.com | Friday, May 16, 2008

The Palestinians claim that they are an ancient and indigenous people fails to stand up to historical scrutiny. Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine. Until the 1967 Six-Day War made it expedient for Arabs to create a Palestinian peoplehood, local Arabs simply considered themselves part of the ‘great Arab nation’ or ‘southern Syrians.’

“Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.”
Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels

“All [that Palestinians] can agree on as a community is what they
want to destroy, not what they want to build.”
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

There is no age-old Palestinian people. Most so-called Palestinians are relative newcomers to the Land of Israel

Like a mantra, Arabs repeatedly claim that the Palestinians are a native people. The concept of a ‘Stateless Palestinian people’ is not based on fact. It is a fabrication.

Palestinian Arabs cast themselves as a native people in “Palestine” – like the Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in America. They portray the Jews as European imperialists and colonizers. This is simply untrue.

Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a God-forsaken backwash that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey.

The land’s fragile ecology had been laid waste in the wake of the Arabs’ 7th-century conquest. In 1799, the population was at it lowest and estimated to be no more than 250,000 to 300,000 inhabitants in all the land.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Arab population west of the Jordan River (today, Israel and the West Bank) was about half a million inhabitants and east of the Jordan River perhaps 200,000.

The collapse of the agricultural system with the influx of nomadic tribes after the Arab conquest that created malarial swamps and denuded the ancient terrace system eroding the soil, was coupled by a tyrannous regime, a crippling tax system and absentee landowners that further decimated the population. Much of the indigenous population had long since migrated or disappeared. Very few Jews or Arabs lived in the region before the arrival of the first Zionists in the 1880s and most of those that did lived in abject poverty.

Most Arabs living west of the Jordan River in Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza are newcomers who came from surrounding Arab lands after the turn of the 20th century because they were attracted to the relative economic prosperity brought about by the Zionist Movement and the British in the 1920s and 1930s.

This is substantiated by eyewitness reports of a deserted country – including 18th-century reports from the British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, French author and historian Count Constantine Volney (Travels through Syria and Egypt, 1798); the mid-19th-century writings of Alphonse de Lamartine (Recollections of the East, 1835); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); and reports from the British Consul in Jerusalem (1857) that were sent back to London.

The Ottoman Turks’ census (1882) recorded only 141,000 Muslims in the Land of Israel. The real number is probably closer to 350,000 to 425,000, since many hid to avoid taxes. The British census in 1922 reported 650,000 Muslims.

Aerial photographs taken by German aviators during World War I show an underdeveloped country composed mainly of primitive hamlets. Ashdod, for instance, was a cluster of mud dwellings, Haifa a fishing village. In 1934 alone, 30,000 Syrian Arabs from the Hauran moved across the northern frontier into Mandate Palestine, attracted by work in and around the newly built British port and the construction of other infrastructure projects. They even dubbed Haifa Um el-Amal (‘the city of work’).

The fallacy of Arab claims that most Palestinians were indigenous to Palestine – not newcomers - is also bolstered by a 1909 vintage photograph of Nablus, today an Arab city on the West Bank with over 121,000 residents. Based on the number of buildings in the photo taken from the base of Mount Gerizim, the population in 1909 – Muslim Arabs and Jewish Samaritans – could not have been greater than 2,000 residents.

Family names of many Palestinians attest to their non-Palestinian origins. Just as Jews bear names like Berliner, Warsaw and Toledano, modern phone books in the Territories are filled with families named Elmisri (Egyptian), Chalabi (Syrian), Mugrabi (North Africa). Even George Habash – the arch-terrorist and head of Black September – bears a name with origins in Abyssinia or Ethiopia, Habash in both Arabic and Hebrew.

Palestinian nationality is an entity defined by its opposition to Zionism, and not its national aspirations.

What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge – such as Israel did after the 1967 Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule, no matter how distant or despotic.

A Palestinian identity did not exist until an opposing force created it – primarily anti-Zionism. Opposition to a non-Muslim nationalism on what local Arabs, and the entire Arab world, view as their own turf, was the only expression of ‘Palestinian peoplehood.’

The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a charismatic religious leader and radical anti-Zionist was the moving force behind opposition to Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s. The two-pronged approach of the “Diplomacy of Rejection” (of Zionism) and the violence the Mufti incited occurred at the same time Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq became countries in the post-Ottoman reshuffling of territories established by the British and the French under the League of Nation’s mandate system.

The tiny educated class among the Arabs of Palestine was more politically aware than the rest of Arab society, with the inklings of a separate national identity. However, for decades, the primary frame of reference for most local Arabs was the clan or tribe, religion and sect, and village of origin. If Arabs in Palestine defined themselves politically, it was as “southern Syrians.” Under Ottoman rule, Syria referred to a region much larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today, with borders established by France and England in 1920.

In his book Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, Daniel Pipes explains:

“Syria was a region that stretched from the borders of Anatolia to those of Egypt, from the edge of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of today’s states, the Syria of old comprised Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, plus the Gaza Strip and Alexandria.”

Syrian maps in the 21st century still co-opt most of Greater Syria, including Israel.

The Grand Mufti Al-Husseini’s aspirations slowly shifted from pan-Arabism – the dream of uniting all Arabs into one polity, whereby Arabs in Palestine would unite with their brethren in Syria - to winning a separate Palestinian entity, with himself at the helm. Al-Husseini was the moving force behind the 1929 riots against the Jews and the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt against two non-Muslim entities in Palestine – the British and the Jews. He gathered a large following by playing on fears that the Jews had come to dispossess, or at least dominate the Arabs. 

Much like Yasser Arafat, the Grand Mufti’s ingrained all-or-nothing extremism, fanaticism and even an inability to cooperate with his own compatriots made him totally ineffective. He led the Palestinian Arabs nowhere.

The ‘Palestinian’ cause became a key rallying point for Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, according to Oxford historian Avi Shlaim. The countries the British and French created in 1918-1922 were based largely on meridians on the map, as is evident in the borders that delineate the Arab states today. Because these states lack ethnic logic or a sense of community, their opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews has come to fuel that fires Arab nationalism as the ‘glue’ of national identity. (see details on the ramifications of British and French policy, which plague the Middle East to this day in the chapter “The European Union.”)

From the 1920s, rejection of Jewish nationalism, attempts to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland by violence, and rejection of any form of Jewish political power, including any plans to share stewardship with Arabs, crystallized into the expression of Palestinianism. No other positive definition of an Arab-Palestinian people has surfaced. This point is admirably illustrated in the following historic incident:

“In 1926, Lord Plumer was appointed as the second High Commissioner of Palestine. The Arabs within the Mandate were infuriated when Plumer stood up for the Zionists’ national anthem Hatikva during ceremonies held in his honor when Plumer first visited Tel Aviv. When a delegation of Palestinian Arabs protested Plumer’s ‘Zionist bias,’ the High Commissioner asked the Arabs if he remained seated when their national anthem was played, ‘wouldn’t you regard my behavior as most unmannerly?’ Met by silence, Plumer asked: ‘By the way, have you got a national anthem?’ When the delegation replied with chagrin that they did not, he snapped back, “I think you had better get one as soon as possible.”

But it took the Palestinians more than 60 years to heed Plumer’s advice, adopting Anthem of the Intifada two decades after Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 – at the beginning of the 1987 Intifada.

Under the Mandate, local Arabs also refused to establish an ‘Arab Agency’ to develop the Arab sector, parallel to the Jewish Agency that directed development of the Jewish sector (see the Chapter “Rejectionism”).

In fact, the so-called patriotism of indigenous Muslims has flourished only when non-Muslim entities (the Crusaders, the British, the Jews) have taken charge of the Holy Land. When political control returns to Muslim hands, the ardent patriotism of the Arabs of Palestine magically wanes, no matter how distant or how despotic the government. One Turkish pasha who ruled Acco (Acre) between 1775 and 1804 was labeled Al Jazzar, The Butcher, by locals.

Why hasn’t Arab representative government ever been established in Palestine, either in 1948 or during the next 19 years of Arab rule? Because other Arabs co-opted the Palestinian cause as a rallying point that would advance the concept that the territory was up for grabs. “The Arab invasion of Palestine was not a means for achieving an independent Palestine, but rather the result of a lack of consensus on the part of the Arab states regarding such independence,” summed up one historian. Adherents to a separate Palestinian identity were a mute minority on the West Bank and Gaza during the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian rule - until Israel took control from the Jordanians and the Egyptians in 1967. Suddenly a separate Palestinian peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood - and 21 other Arab states went along with it.

Palestinianism in and of itself lacks any substance of its own. Arab society on the West Bank and Gaza suffers from deep social cleavages created by a host of rivalries based on divergent geographic, historical, geographical, sociological and familial allegiances. What glues Palestinians together is a carefully nurtured hatred of Israel and the rejection of Jewish nationhood.

Title: Arab Population in the West Bank and Gaza: The Million and a Half Person Gap
Post by: rachelg on May 17, 2008, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2008, 10:52:09 PM

Rachel:

Glad to have you join the conversation.

Why do you think the Palestinian birthrate is overestimated?  By how much/what do you think it is?

TIA,
Marc

Marc-- This is a great forum.



There was a persuasive study released late in 2005. I admit to not having read all 94 pages of it but I went to a couple of lectures on the topic.

It is available here--- www.biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS65.pdf
Here is  a summary  of the study by  one of the  authors in the Forward.

http://www.forward.com/articles/4221/

“The study, begun in March 2004, was recently released because we finally finished our exhaustive analysis and audit of the population figures released by the P.A. Central Bureau of Statistics. Annual data released by the P.A. Ministry of Health and data released by the P.A. Central Elections Commission with this month's election helped seal the conclusion: The P.A.'s reported 3.8 million population figure for the West Bank and Gaza was grossly overstated. Our analysis found only 2.4 million Arabs living in the territories at the start of 2004.
There were fewer births, emigration instead of immigration, and double counting of Jerusalem residents and individuals who have left the P.A. territories to live abroad or in Israel. The full report and methodology is available for review at www.pademographics.com.( This site no longer works)  Critics might benefit from actually reading the report and should understand that other documents they have seen, such as figures from the Jewish Agency, have simply plugged in numbers released by the P.A.”

The Palestinians have good reasons  to be less than truthful because there are military and economic advantages  of claiming a higher population. There are also political advantages for some on the Israeli side to accept those higher numbers

Also related

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380751772&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In Israel 2006 Birthrate grew from  to 2.7 from 2.8   and Muslim Birthrate  is down  from 4.8 to 4.   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 17, 2008, 03:30:05 PM

Israel: A bit over 7 million

Egypt: 80,335,036, per the CIA world factbook

Lebanon: 3,925,502

Syria: 18.6 million per the US State Dept.

Iran: 65,875,223

Saudi Arabia: 28,161,417

Iraq: 27,499,638

Though outnumbered, thus far Israel hasn't been outgunned....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 18, 2008, 06:43:12 AM

Rachel,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree with you and doubt abortion is a major or significant factor in Jewish demographics.  Sometimes I am not sure of Buchanan's motives vis a vis the Jews.  Surely he is at odds with leftist Democrat Jews on issues of abortion, conservative vs. Liberal, etc.  I recall there was some rumors of his being antisemetic years ago.  But he generally has been a friend of Jews when it comes to their right to the State of Israel.  And I appreciate that.  And I agree with him on many issues of politics.
I still feel that many Jews love for the Democratic party and pure hatred of Republicans (more than ther hatred for Naziism IMO) is misplaced or outdated.
As for attrition, or assimilation I have a relative who is rumoured to be more or less a Jew for Jesus.  This seems nuts to me but what can I say.   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2008, 04:19:40 PM

Rachel:

Thank you for the great specificity of your answer.

Concerning the birth rate number of 4.0 for the Palestinians, this still is a HUGE number given the magic of compounding.  I remember in the university reading that Latin American rates of 3.5 were yielding populations that had a median age of 16  :-o  $.0 is much worse than that, and add in the biological dynamics of sexual segregation in the Arab cultures and you have large all male groups wandering around with no jobs, nothing to do, and informed only by religious fascists. 

In a completely unrelated vein, here is this interesting tranlation of a speech by Qaddaffy of Libya:

http://www.memritv.org:80/clip/en/1731.htm

Title: The Al Durra case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2008, 09:56:39 AM

REVIEW & OUTLOOK 
 

Al-Durra Case Revisited
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
May 27, 2008

It's hard to exaggerate the significance of Mohammed al-Durra, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli bullets on Sept. 30, 2000. The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.

It's equally hard, then, to exaggerate the significance of last week's French court ruling that called the story into doubt. Not just whether the Israeli military shot the boy, but whether the whole incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes. If so, it would be one of the most harmful put-up jobs in media history.

You probably didn't hear this news. International media lapped up the televised report of al-Durra's shooting on France's main state-owned network, France 2. Barely a peep was heard, however, when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in a suit brought by the network against the founder of a media watchdog group. The judge's verdict, released Thursday, said that Philippe Karsenty was within his rights to call the France 2 report a "hoax," overturning a 2006 decision that found him guilty of defaming the network and its Mideast correspondent, Charles Enderlin. France 2 has appealed to the country's highest court.

Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate. While Mr. Karsenty couldn't provide absolute proof of his claims, the court ruled that he marshalled a "coherent mass of evidence" and "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered "perfectly credible."

The ruling at the very least opens the way for honest discussion of the al-Durra case, and coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. French media could stand some self-examination. The same holds for journalists elsewhere.

On that Saturday in 2000, Palestinians faced off against Israeli troops at Gaza's Netzarim junction. Two months before, Yasser Arafat had walked out of the Camp David peace talks. Two days before, Ariel Sharon had visited Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The second Intifada was brewing. The French network's cameraman, Mr. Abu Rahma, filmed the skirmishes and got the footage to the France 2 bureau in Israel. Mr. Enderlin edited the film and, relying only on his cameraman's account, provided the voice-over for the report. He suggested Israeli soldiers killed the boy. He didn't say he wasn't there.

Along with the Temple Mount incident, the al-Durra shooting was the seminal event behind the second Intifada. Israel apologized. But nagging doubts soon emerged, as Nidra Poller recounts here. An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching.

Others including Mr. Karsenty asked, among various questions, Why the lack of any blood on the boy or his father? Or why did France 2 claim to have 27 minutes of footage but refuse to show any but the 57 seconds on its original broadcast? Mr. Enderlin said, "I cut the images of the child's agony, they were unbearable."

Under pressure from media watchdogs, and after years of stonewalling, France 2 eventually shared the additional film. It turns out that no footage of the child's alleged death throes seems to exist. The extra material shows what appears to be staged scenes of gun battles before the al-Durra killing. For a sample, check out www.seconddraft.org, a site run by Richard Landes, a Boston University professor and one of Mr. Karsenty's witnesses.

Judge Trébucq said that Mr. Karsenty "observed inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin."

We don't know exactly what happened to Mohammed al-Durra. Perhaps we never will. But the Paris court ruling shows that France 2 wasn't completely open about what it knew about that day. It suggests the Israelis may not have been to blame. It makes it plausible to consider -- without being dismissed as an unhinged conspiracy theorist -- the possibility that the al-Durra story was a hoax.

To this day, Islamic militants use the al-Durra case to incite violence and hatred against Israel. They are well aware of the power of images. Mr. Karsenty is, too, which is why he and others have tried to hold France 2 accountable for its reporting.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

Title: Bomb the Iranian nuke strongholds before Nov?
Post by: ccp on June 06, 2008, 07:22:05 AM

If BO is in power Israel can forget about US support for any military option.  It is off the table period. Dershowitz's and his (liberal/democrat to the death Jewish) crowd's  biased opinion notwithstanding. If Israel does anything it will have to be before Bush leaves office or only if McCain gets in.  If I was in Israel I would rather fight for my life than risk extermination because some G*D*M make love not war screw balls from the 60's want to sweet talk to enemies and be "nice" so we can be "liked" around the world. 

***Israeli minister says alternatives to attack on Iran running out     
Jun 6 03:36 AM US/Eastern
   
Iran, Mideast Peace on Bush-Olmert Agenda

      An Israeli deputy prime minister on Friday warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.

"If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it," said Shaul Mofaz, who is also transportation minister.

"Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme," Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot daily.

He stressed such an operation could only be conducted with US support.

A former defence minister and armed forces chief of staff, Mofaz hopes to replace embattled Ehud Olmert as prime minister and at the helm of the Kadima party. ***

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 06, 2008, 02:13:50 PM

You can thank the CIA's moronic NIE that assessed Iran as having suspended it's nuclear program for the delay in acting. Now we're almost out of time to do anything and Iran has had greater opportunity to harden it's defenses and disperse it's nuclear materials.

Title: Re: Bomb the Iranian nuke strongholds before Nov?
Post by: rachelg on June 06, 2008, 08:06:05 PM

Quote from: ccp on June 06, 2008, 07:22:05 AM

If BO is in power Israel can forget about US support for any military option.  It is off the table period. Dershowitz's and his (liberal/democrat to the death Jewish) crowd's  biased opinion notwithstanding. If Israel does anything it will have to be before Bush leaves office or only if McCain gets in.  If I was in Israel I would rather fight for my life than risk extermination because some G*D*M make love not war screw balls from the 60's want to sweet talk to enemies and be "nice" so we can be "liked" around the world. 

The last time Israel "  bombed a nuclear reactor the Republican President Regan was furious and voted with  the UN to sanction Israel.   To be fair  President Regan's treatment of Israel was mixed and he did some vary positive things for Israel but he did not support Israel's bombing of the nuclear reactor
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/3779.htm

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 06, 2008, 08:50:25 PM

And were it not for Israel's strike on Osirak, the 1st. Gulf war might have turned out quiet differently. Thank god Israel did what it did. Reagan isn't running for president. Barack Huissein Obama and John McCain are. Obama and his leftist cronies hate both America and Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2008, 04:32:18 AM

Rachel:

Thank you for that reminder-- I had forgotten that about Reagan.  (Is there a chance he was posturing for the Arab world?)

I would add though that here there is the matter of US control over Iraqi airspace.  Unless Israel launches missiles from its submarines (a rarely discussed capability) then to get to Iran and back US acquiescence would appear to be necessary.

MArc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 07, 2008, 04:46:41 AM

If we wish to critique Reagan's presidency, I'd start with his failure to engage Iran after Hezbollah killed lots of Americans, including 241 military personnel in Beirut. It took Israel to finally end Imad Mughniyeh's long and bloody career. Of course, we are living today with the spectre of a nuclear jihadist Iran thanks to Jimmy "The Dhimmi" Carter.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 08, 2008, 07:41:56 AM

***You can thank the CIA's moronic NIE***

GM,

What do you think was behind this?  Was this really the CIA's honest assesment?  Did they really believe this?  Was it political (my hunch)?

Rachal,
Yes, I forgot that about Reagan too. I agree with you on that!  Yes Reagan is over-rated with many of his polices. In another post I remind us the immigrant mess is directly due to *his* failure to deal with it except with a cheap and expedient pardon.  Now we have a much greater mess on our hands.  There is no comparison to earlier generations coming off the boat onto Ellis Island to those hoards of millions walking in now.  The savings and loan mess also ballooned out of control in part thanks to his failure to deal with it in any way shape or form.  The Beirut thing on one hand was a retreat. Nothing wrong with cutting one's losses.  But it certainly did embolden our enemies in the middle east.  I remember the Beirut bombing well.  I was one of the medical students in Grenada which occured at the same time.  I went to see Reagan speak on the White House lawn.  We were all so proud of our country, our President and our troups.  I was quoted in local newpapers praising troops who secured our safety.  The feeling that we were a great country was broght back.  The left's destroying our pride in our country and our military after Viet Nam and Watergate was being paved over by a new sense of our coutry's greatness again.  That was Reagan's gift to us. 

Now we are tilting back to another leftist elistist pompous jerk IMO.  We "must do this we must do that".  And in everything he voted for or people he surrounded himself with said  is an undercurrent of a theme that America is no good.  "First time I am proud of my country", "chickens coming home to roost", etc.  The BO campaign managers will fool a lot of people by trying to back peddle and white wash this up.  BO is not only no Abe Lincoln, he is no JFK or RFK.  At least those guys came from a family that fought and died for, and believed in this country.  How can we elect a guy who loathes our country like this guy?  Hear we go again with a lot of cleverly, lawyerly, and poll driven drivel.  The election process has become torture in this country IMO.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 08, 2008, 09:23:28 AM

CCP, GM:

If  you want to discuss the NIE's assessment, that would belong on the Iran thread.  (BTW Stratfor's theory is that it was our way of telling the Iranians we would not bomb them as part on ongoing negotiations.)

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on June 15, 2008, 04:33:59 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2008, 04:32:18 AM

Rachel:

Thank you for that reminder-- I had forgotten that about Reagan.  (Is there a chance he was posturing for the Arab world?)


MArc

Happy Fathers Day!!!!

Apparently from his diaries Regan believed The French was going to save Israel which is about as intelligent as saying ketchup is a vegetable.

“Sun. June 7 • Got word of Israeli bombing of Iraq—nuclear reactor. I swear I believe Armageddon is near.
Returned to W.H. at 3 p.m. More word on bombing. P.M. Begin informed us after the fact.
Tues. June 9 • Ended day with an N.S.C. meeting re the bombing of Iraq. P.M. Begin insists the plant was preparing to produce nuclear weapons for use on Israel. If he waited 'til the French shipment of "hot" uranium arrived he couldn't order the bombing because of the radiation that would be loosed over Baghdad.
I can understand his fear but feel he took wrong option. He should have told us & the French, we could have done something to remove the threat. However we are not turning on Israel—that would be an invitation for the Arabs to attack. It's time to raise H—l world wide for a settlement of the "middle-east" problem. What has happened is the result of fear & suspicion on both sides. We need a real push for a solid peace.”
...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MidEast_tension_raised_fears_of_armageddon_0501.htm

Why does every President think that he is  the messiah and he  can just hold some peace talks and bring peace to the region?


23 of the previous US presidents have been lawyers including some of the greats.---Jefferson both Adams,  Lincoln etc. This Country founding documents were mostly written by lawyers educated far above most of the rest of the population. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_previous_occupation

Obama’s  background is much less privileged than Bush an Aristocrat with a Southern Drawl .  McCain is certainly not your average Joe with an  Navy Admiral for a Father and a  very wealthy wife.  Obama’s  Great Uncle served and his Father could not have served because he was not a US citizen.  I don’t think having a military background would necessarily make you a great president.   President Carter was a sailor. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 15, 2008, 05:13:37 PM

You do not need to be a US citizen to serve in the US military. Currently, a "green card" is required to enlist, however in the past that was not required and many foreign nationals earned their citizenship by serving. Obama's father chose not to serve, just as he didn't choose to parent his many children from different mothers.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2008, 05:35:38 PM

Rachel:

You are clearly a bright gal, so I will deny myself the cheap shot about reading comprehension and suggest you read this again:

BEGIN

Apparently from his diaries Regan believed The French was going to save Israel which is about as intelligent as saying ketchup is a vegetable.

“Sun. June 7 • Got word of Israeli bombing of Iraq—nuclear reactor. I swear I believe Armageddon is near.
Returned to W.H. at 3 p.m. More word on bombing. P.M. Begin informed us after the fact.
Tues. June 9 • Ended day with an N.S.C. meeting re the bombing of Iraq. P.M. Begin insists the plant was preparing to produce nuclear weapons for use on Israel. If he waited 'til the French shipment of "hot" uranium arrived he couldn't order the bombing because of the radiation that would be loosed over Baghdad.


END

The point is that delay would have meant that the French shipment TO SH/IRAQ would have taken place, thus making for a lot of collateral damage via radiation.

BTW, the French minister responsible for the nuke program with SH was one Jacques Chirac.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on June 15, 2008, 06:12:24 PM

Marc,
I have certainly been wrong in the past and could be wrong now.

I was referring to this line.

"He should have told us & the French, we could have done something to remove the threat" Isn't that implying that the French would have changed their plans for shipping  uranium for the safety of Israel?  Am I reading that wrong?

Interestingly enough the French were the ones who helped Israel get nuclear weapons as well.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2008, 08:33:58 AM

As far as this particular quote goes, fair enough-- but I am thinking the "we" envisions the US more than the US and France-- and not appearing here is Chirac's sordid history of personal friendship with SH dating back to those years, , , Furthermore, IMHO Chirac played a pretty despicable role during the UN's Oil for Food program and during the run up to the Iraq War.

Title: Stratfor: Israel-Syria deal?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2008, 11:53:13 PM

Geopolitical Diary: The Growing Possibility of an Israeli-Syrian Deal
June 19, 2008
The Israeli-Syrian peace process lurched toward fruition today.

Middle Eastern — and especially Levantine — politics are sufficiently Byzantine to be classified as a health hazard in most Western states. We could weave you a story of how the Iranians fear losing their hold in Lebanon and so are pushing for violence, how the Americans are looking for subtle ways to sabotage the talks in order maintain leverage over Iran, or how Syria and Israel’s respective economic and military interests actually dovetail quite nicely in southern Lebanon. But sometimes it does an outside observer a great service simply not to get inside the minds of those involved. Wednesday was one of those days.

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a man under considerable public pressure at home, announced that the time was rapidly approaching for Israel to open direct, public talks with Syria. And far from leaving such a meeting in the airy realm of maybe-land, Olmert even publicly indicated that he would be meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Paris on July 13.

As a general rule one does not garner a great deal of support among one’s people for posing for photo ops with the leaders of states who are considered enemies. So either Olmert has lost his mind (unlikely) or the informal peace talks which Turkey has been hosting for weeks are generating sufficient progress for Olmert to take the plunge. To take the historical view, Israeli leaders only met in person with their Egyptian and Jordanian counterparts when those respective peace deals were in the home stretch. Details of the deal are certainly nebulous at present, but we suspect they would involve a combination of land transfers and demilitarized zones that would secure Israel’s northern borders and guarantee Syria’s economic interests in Lebanon. Hezbollah would have to go, and it would probably be up to Syria to stuff it into a bag and throw it in the river.

An Israeli-Syrian deal would do more than remove the last major specter threatening Israeli security (existing deals with Egypt and Jordan already cover Israel’s other borders, and a deal with Syria would have to cover Lebanon as well). The Arab-Israeli conflict has been the key feature molding regional developments for 60 years. Its dissolution would fundamentally reshape the region.

Many of the United States’ rivals have used the Israeli-Arab conflict as a lever to pry open the region and challenge American power, with the most obvious example being the Soviet Union. Arab hostility toward Israel spilled over to the United States and caused the 1973 oil embargo. For decades Arab-Israeli disagreements have fueled Islamism and militancy throughout the region. In the case of a deal with Syria, the only remaining group with the opportunity to take a shot at Israel will be the Palestinians, a nationality with fewer friends, tools, money and options than ever before.

We do not mean to paint a picture of sunshine and joy for the region, and an end to the hot portions of the Arab-Israeli conflict should not be confused with regional “peace.” This is still the Middle East after all, and the role of Iran — a state that is not Arab and is not included in the pending deal — has yet to be determined and so remains at the very minimum an Israeli and American security concern. But an end to theArab-Israeli conflict cannot help but take some of the heat out of the region’s troubled politics. The United States, for one, will be glad to be able to turn at least some of its attention elsewhere.

Ironically, the greatest future challenge to U.S. power in the Levant may well come from the country that has long been America’s staunchest ally: Israel. Israel’s existence requires one of two things: a heavy qualitative technological edge over its neighbors, or an external sponsor willing to guarantee Israeli security. Should Syria join Egypt and Jordan in standing down from the regional cold war that has marked the years since the 1973 war, Israel would not only be freed from having to maintain a high alert status, but the rationale for a firm alliance with the United States would erode somewhat. That’s not to say that Israel is itching for a break with Washington or that the two powers’ interests would otherwise be diametrically opposed — far from it — but that if Syria and Israel can bury the hatchet, then Israel will have something that it has not had for some time: room to maneuver.

Title: Pistachio Sedition Raging in Israel (title stolen from Jewschool)
Post by: rachelg on June 20, 2008, 04:47:53 PM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3555682,00.html

US envoy slams Israel over 'illegal importation of pistachios from Iran'

As Iran’s nuclear threat intensifies, so does our addiction to what seems to be our only dispute with US over Iranian matters: Pistachios

Nahum Barnea
Published:    06.15.08, 07:36 / Israel Money

The US and Israel are at odds about Iran’s “weapon”: Ten days ago, US Ambassador to Israel Richard H. Jones wrote a severe letter to Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On, with copies sent to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and two of his ministers.

 

In the letter, Jones accuses Israel of secretly trading with Iran and transferring foreign currency to the country, in direct violation of an Israeli law prohibiting trade with enemy states.

 
The fuss is over something Iran is famous for, though perhaps less than its nuclear ambitions; namely pistachio nuts. The American government
accused Israel of buying Iranian pistachios under the guise of trade with Turkey, despite the US's objection.

 

The US ambassador’s letter reveals another amazing fact: Israel is the largest per capita consumer of the pistachio. “I am writing to draw your attention to the troubling issue of illegal importation of pistachio of Iranian origin to Israel,” writes Jones.

 

“Israel is the world’s largest per capita consumer of pistachio nuts and therefore an important market – estimated at $20 million – for pistachio producers. Of the two largest producers of pistachios – the Unites States and Iran – only the US has duty free access to the Israeli market under our Free Trade Agreement…while Iran’s product is banned by Israel’s Trading with the Enemy Act.

 

"Evidence strongly suggests that most, if not all, of the pistachios entering Israel are actually of Iranian origin.” Despite the close ties between Israel and the US, American producers hold only five percent of the market.

 
Soccer fans unwittingly supporting the enemy

Jones further claims that though the matter was brought to the Israeli government’s attention, nothing has been done as of yet. Israel, for its part, claims its pistachios are imported from Turkey.

 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has looked into Turkey’s pistachio production and exportation and concluded that most of it is consumed locally. The small remaining percentage is exported to the US and the EU. Despite these findings Israel still maintains that 83% of pistachios consumed within its borders originate in Turkey.

 

The ambassador urged Bar-On to enforce the trade act – offering his help in a number of initiatives, including training Israeli customs officers on how to identify an Iranian pistachio.

 
The matter holds a special significance these days, as countless Israelis sit in front of their television screens watching the European Championship games and gobbling unfathomable amounts of pistachios, unwittingly supporting the enemy.

 

Every pistachio nut brings Iran another step closer to achieving nuclear capability, and though the US ambassador has placed responsibility for the fiasco primarily on the government’s shoulders, the pistachio crisis may require Israeli citizens to be more discerning in their eating habits.

Title: Re: Stratfor: Israel-Syria deal?
Post by: rachelg on June 20, 2008, 06:36:58 PM

Marc,
Do you  think there will be a peace deal between Israel and Syria or that it will be good for Israel in the end?  I normally don't think of Stratfor as being overly optimistic but I don't feel particularly hopeful about a swift solution to the conflict.  However, it not like that region has ever been short of miracles.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 20, 2008, 08:16:48 PM

Hi Rachel:

I simply don't know.  IMHO I have Stratfor to be an unusually well-informed and thoughtful assessor of what goes in, particularly in the mid-east.   It does seem like SOMETHING BIG is going on-- particularly in the aftemath of taking out the NK reactor effort in Syria, and the change of power in the US, the success of the US in Iraq which apparently has BO beginning to backtrack on his "run away" statements. 

The Adventure continues!
Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 20, 2008, 10:33:11 PM

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/


About that Israeli Exercise

The New York Times is reporting that the Israeli military carried out a large-scale exercise earlier this month that, in the words of U.S. officials, appeared to be a rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran.

According to the Times, more than 100 Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-15s and F-16s participated in the drill, which was conducted over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece during the first week of June. Officials who spoke with the Times (on the condition of anonymity) described the exercise as an effort to “develop a long-range strike” capability, and “demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.”

We’d say it was more of an effort to practice long-range strike, since the IAF has had that sort of capability for decades. It’s been 27 years since Israeli jets destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, and more than a decade since the IAF flew across the Mediterranean and took out Yasser Arafat’s headquarters in Tunis. In both cases, the Israelis achieved tactical surprise, demolished their targets, and suffered no losses of aircraft or crews.


As we’ve noted in the past, the IAF would almost certainly employ deceptive elements for a similar attack against Iran. That’s one reason that most analysts believe the strike package would be relatively small (no more than two dozen aircraft), with fighters flying in tight formation with their aerial tankers to minimize radar returns. The raid would likely follow an established air corridor, with Israeli aircraft mimicking the IFF “squawk” and radio callsigns of commercial aircraft.

By comparison, the “rehearsal” effort in early June was a much larger, and (arguably) more noisy effort, aimed at sending signals to the U.S., the Europeans—and Iran. As one American official told the Times:


“.. the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”


Officials interviewed by the NYT said they do not believe that Israel has concluded that it must strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and do not view such an attack as “imminent.” But, it’s worth remembering the U.S. was surprised by past Israeli air missions. Incorporating the expected deception campaign, the IAF could likely mask strike preparations and launch the raid without detection by American intelligence assets.


One unique feature of the recent exercise was the incorporation of Israeli helicopters, which could be used to rescue downed pilots. U.S. or Israeli officials have not revealed the extent of rotary wing activity during the drill, or its proximity to operating areas for fighter aircraft. Israeli helicopter crews routinely participate in search-and-rescue training in the eastern Mediterranean with American and Turkish units.

But combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) represents only one potential mission for the choppers. Israel’s long-range helicopters are a primary insertion platform for commando units, which could be used to designated targets, assist downed aircrews, or recover material after the attack. There are reports that Israeli special forces participated in last year’s strike on a Syrian nuclear reactor, scooping up evidence that was used to confirm its purpose.

More than two years ago, we reported that IAF officers told their American counterparts that planning for an Iran mission had largely been completed. Given Israel’s long concern about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, that claim seems entirely plausible. That would also suggest that the recent exercise was something of a rehearsal, not the “long-range strike development effort” suggested by the Times.

During the same 2006 encounter, IAF officials also suggested that special ops planning for an Iran operation had also been concluded. Without going into details, they indicated that Israeli helicopters, C-130 tankers (for refueling the choppers) and commando teams would be forward deployed in support of the raid. Turkey, a longtime ally of Israel, might be a possible basing location for SOF teams and support elements. A forward operating base in northern Iraq is another possibility.

While the recent exercise clearly served training (and diplomatic) purposes, we’d say it meet other needs as well. Given the mechanics of an actual raid against Iran, we believe the package would be significantly smaller, and incorporate deceptive elements not seen earlier this month. That’s why the early June drill may also support a disinformation campaign, aimed at confusing Tehran (and western intelligence) over the size, composition and tactics of a potential strike formation.

Here’s a historical fact: virtually every major IAF operation has been preceded by a carefully planned and executed deception effort. That’s why it would be a mistake for Tehran, the Europeans and the U.S. to accept this month’s exercise as the template for an actual strike. If past performance is any indicator, the Israelis still have a few tricks up their sleeve.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 13, 2008, 04:16:22 PM

I just got back from an awesome vacation in Israel.  A tourist's viewpoint is not always accurate but  I feel  more hopeful about a more peaceful region  than I did when l was volunteering there in 2001 and 2002. 
 

I was disturbed that "Israeli Arabs"  now   refer to themselves as "Palestinians with Israeli citizenship", especially since they have no interest in giving up their Israeli citizenship. This was even in front of a Jewish audience in an appeal for funds for a day care center in Nazareth. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2008, 04:56:50 PM

Welcome home Rachel.

Where is Nazareth?  In my ignorance, your final sentence leaves me confused.  :oops:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 13, 2008, 04:57:19 PM

Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.- Golda Meir

http://www.memritv.org/subject/en/178.htm

I'm not holding my breath.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 14, 2008, 08:19:45 PM

Marc-- Thanks!
Nazareth is in Israel proper  not in the territories like Bethlehem.   Arab citizens of Israel are now  referring  to themselves as Palestinian with Israel citizenship  not Israeli Arabs.  They have changed their nationality to Palestinian from Arab and denied a tie to the county they have citizenship with.
 
 Wikipedia has decent articles about the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth


 The guy who committed the bulldozer attack had Israeli citizenship.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 15, 2008, 04:18:26 AM

That is consistent with islamic theology. Loyalty to the "umma" over all others. The bitter fruit of multiculturalism.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2008, 06:38:21 AM

We seem to be circling the vortex of genocidal logic here  :cry: :cry: :cry:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 15, 2008, 06:52:53 AM

Quote from: G M on July 15, 2008, 04:18:26 AM

That is consistent with islamic theology. Loyalty to the "umma" over all others. The bitter fruit of multiculturalism.

And you are saying, it is better to keep the race/group pure?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 15, 2008, 12:20:46 PM

No, it's important that immigrants and citizens be loyal to their nation. No hyphenated identity.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 15, 2008, 02:28:48 PM

I guess many so called "immigrants" might argue that in fact it's their land in the first place.
They might also argue that while a few may be "citizens" they are still not equal.

I think it's hard to support one's government when you are told that while you may
be allowed to be a citizen, all men (citizens) are not created equal.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 15, 2008, 02:32:47 PM

Then they should move to the "palestinian" territories and enjoy the paradise the "palestinians" have made for themselves.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 15, 2008, 04:18:16 PM

JDN,
Do you think it is  okay to respond to injustices real or imagined  with violence or sympathy to those who carry out violence?  If the Arabs had wanted a another state  they should have said yes in 1948  when offered one by the UN and they would have had one which would have included Nazareth.


Israel does need to treat all it citizens equally and it is problem they are working on. Israel is not a perfect country but it does try to treat all its  citizens fairly. Hence my presence at a program funded with Jewish money   for an Arab Day Care Center.

GM,
I don't believe in all moral relativism but I do  support religious plurality and I don't think multiculturalisms caused much if any of the problems in Israel.  The problems in Israel started hundreds maybe thousands of years before the idea of multiculturalism  existed. 

Title: questions for Rachel
Post by: ccp on July 15, 2008, 09:00:26 PM

Rachel,

A  penny for your thoughts:

What is your sense of Israelis' thoughts about Iran going nuclear and what to do about it?  I would suppose there is a mix of opinion like here?

Also what do people think of the Olmert alleged bribe scandal?  It sounds fishy from what little I've read in the American press.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 15, 2008, 09:32:32 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=A34GLEEZ5FJ2LQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/02/12/do1205.xml&site=15&page=0

We were brought up to hate - and we do
By Nonie Darwish
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 12/02/2006

The controversy regarding the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed completely misses the point. Of course, the cartoons are offensive to Muslims, but newspaper cartoons do not warrant the burning of buildings and the killing of innocent people. The cartoons did not cause the disease of hate that we are seeing in the Muslim world on our television screens at night - they are only a symptom of a far greater disease.

I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and in the Gaza Strip. In the 1950s, my father was sent by Egypt's President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, to head the Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza and the Sinai where he founded the Palestinian Fedayeen, or "armed resistance". They made cross-border attacks into Israel, killing 400 Israelis and wounding more than 900 others.

My father was killed as a result of the Fedayeen operations when I was eight years old. He was hailed by Nasser as a national hero and was considered a shaheed, or martyr. In his speech announcing the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, Nasser vowed that all of Egypt would take revenge for my father's death. My siblings and I were asked by Nasser: "Which one of you will avenge your father's death by killing Jews?" We looked at each other speechless, unable to answer.

In school in Gaza, I learned hate, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never an option, as it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. At school we sang songs with verses calling Jews "dogs" (in Arab culture, dogs are considered unclean).

Criticism and questioning were forbidden. When I did either of these, I was told: "Muslims cannot love the enemies of God, and those who do will get no mercy in hell." As a young woman, I visited a Christian friend in Cairo during Friday prayers, and we both heard the verbal attacks on Christians and Jews from the loudspeakers outside the mosque. They said: "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God. We are not to befriend them or make treaties with them." We heard worshippers respond "Amen".

My friend looked scared; I was ashamed. That was when I first realised that something was very wrong in the way my religion was taught and practised. Sadly, the way I was raised was not unique. Hundreds of millions of other Muslims also have been raised with the same hatred of the West and Israel as a way to distract from the failings of their leaders. Things have not changed since I was a little girl in the 1950s.

Palestinian television extols terrorists, and textbooks still deny the existence of Israel. More than 300 Palestinians schools are named after shaheeds, including my father. Roads in both Egypt and Gaza still bear his name - as they do of other "martyrs". What sort of message does that send about the role of terrorists? That they are heroes. Leaders who signed peace treaties, such as President Anwar Sadat, have been assassinated. Today, the Islamo-fascist president of Iran uses nuclear dreams, Holocaust denials and threats to "wipe Israel off the map" as a way to maintain control of his divided country.

Indeed, with Denmark set to assume the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, the flames of the cartoon controversy have been fanned by Iran and Syria. This is critical since the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to refer Iran to the Security Council and demand sanctions. At the same time, Syria is under scrutiny for its actions in Lebanon. Both Iran and Syria cynically want to embarrass the Danes to achieve their dangerous goals.

But the rallies and riots come from a public ripe with rage. From my childhood in Gaza until today, blaming Israel and the West has been an industry in the Muslim world. Whenever peace seemed attainable, Palestinian leaders found groups who would do everything to sabotage it. They allowed their people to be used as the front line of Arab jihad. Dictators in countries surrounding the Palestinians were only too happy to exploit the Palestinians as a diversion from problems in their own backyards. The only voice outside of government control in these areas has been the mosques, and these places of worship have been filled with talk of jihad.

Is it any surprise that after decades of indoctrination in a culture of hate, that people actually do hate? Arab society has created a system of relying on fear of a common enemy. It's a system that has brought them much-needed unity, cohesion and compliance in a region ravaged by tribal feuds, instability, violence, and selfish corruption. So Arab leaders blame Jews and Christians rather than provide good schools, roads, hospitals, housing, jobs, or hope to their people.

For 30 years I lived inside this war zone of oppressive dictatorships and police states. Citizens competed to appease and glorify their dictators, but they looked the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorised other Muslims. I witnessed honour killings of girls, oppression of women, female genital mutilation, polygamy and its devastating effect on family relations. All of this is destroying the Muslim faith from within.

It's time for Arabs and Muslims to stand up for their families. We must stop allowing our leaders to use the West and Israel as an excuse to distract from their own failed leadership and their citizens' lack of freedoms. It's time to stop allowing Arab leaders to complain about cartoons while turning a blind eye to people who defame Islam by holding Korans in one hand while murdering innocent people with the other.

Muslims need jobs - not jihad. Apologies about cartoons will not solve the problems. What is needed is hope and not hate. Unless we recognise that the culture of hate is the true root of the riots surrounding this cartoon controversy, this violent overreaction will only be the start of a clash of civilis-ations that the world cannot bear.

• Nonie Darwish is a freelance writer and public speaker.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 16, 2008, 07:22:20 AM

http://muttaqun.com/auliya.html

Auliya
(Friends, Protectors, Helpers, Supporters)

According to Quran and Sunnah

WWW.MUTTAQUN.COM



Christians and Jews


The Noble Qur'an: Al-Ma'idah 5:51
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as 'Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers etc.), they are but 'Auliya' to one another.  And if any amongst you takes them as 'Auliya' then surely he is one of them.  Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)."


The Noble Qur'an: Al-Mumtahinah 60:1-9, 13
1. O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism, this Qur'ân, and Muhammad  ), and have driven out the Messenger (Muhammad  ) and yourselves (from your homeland) because you believe in Allâh your Lord! If you have come forth to strive in My Cause and to seek My Good Pleasure, (then take not these disbelievers and polytheists, etc., as your friends). You show friendship to them in secret, while I am All-Aware of what you conceal and what you reveal. And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray, (away) from the Straight Path.

2. Should they gain the upper hand over you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you with evil, and they desire that you should disbelieve.

3. Neither your relatives nor your children will benefit you on the Day of Resurrection (against Allâh). He will judge between you. And Allâh is the All-Seer of what you do.

4. Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibrâhim (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: "Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allâh, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever, until you believe in Allâh Alone," except the saying of Ibrâhim (Abraham) to his father: "Verily, I will ask for forgiveness (from Allâh) for you, but I have no power to do anything for you before Allâh ." Our Lord! In You (Alone) we put our trust, and to You (Alone) we turn in repentance, and to You (Alone) is (our) final Return,

5. "Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the disbelievers, and forgive us, Our Lord! Verily, You, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."

6. Certainly, there has been in them an excellent example for you to follow, for those who look forward to (the Meeting with) Allâh (for the reward from Him) and the Last Day. And whosoever turn away, then verily, Allâh is Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all Praise.

7. Perhaps Allâh will make friendship between you and those whom you hold as enemies. And Allâh has power (over all things), and Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

8. Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity.

9. It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allâh forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers those who disobey Allâh).

13. O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allâh (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have been in despair to receive any good in the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have been in despair about those (buried) in graves (that they will not be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection).


Disbelieving Relatives


The Noble Qur'an: At-Tauba 9:23
O you who believe! Take not for 'Auliya' (supporters and helpers) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc).

Hypocrites


The Noble Qur'an: An-Nisa 4:88-89
Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not 'Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad  ). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither 'Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.


The Noble Qur'an: An-Nisa 4:139
Those who take disbelievers for 'Auliya' (protectors or helpers or friends) instead of believers, do they seek honour, power and glory with them? Verily, then to Allah belongs all honour, power and glory.

The Noble Qur'an: An-Nisa 4:144
O you who believe! Take not for 'Auliya' (protectors or helpers or friends) disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

Muslims


The Noble Qur'an: Al-Ma'idah 5:55
Verily, your Walî (Protector or Helper) is Allâh, His Messenger, and the believers, - those who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, and they bow down (submit themselves with obedience to Allâh in prayer).


The Noble Qur'an: At-Taubah 9:71
The believers, men and women, are Auliyâ' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islâm has forbidden); they perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give the Zakât, and obey Allâh and His Messenger. Allâh will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.


The Noble Qur'an: Al-Anfal 8:73
And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so (i.e. become allies, as one united block with one Khalifah - chief Muslim ruler for the whole Muslim world to make victorious Allâh's Religion of Islâmic Monotheism), there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).

No Muslims in Town to be Friends With?


The Noble Qur'an: Ash-Shura 42:9
Or have they taken (for worship) Auliyâ' (guardians, supporters, helpers, protectors, etc.) besides Him? But Allâh, He Alone is the Walî (Protector, etc.). And it is He Who gives life to the dead, and He is Able to do all things.


The Noble Qur'an: An-Nisa 4:119
...And whoever takes Shaitân (Satan) as a Walî (protector or helper) instead of Allâh, has surely suffered a manifest loss.



Action Items for the  uttaqun:

It is one thing to be friendly towards a non-believer, but you are commanded not to establish alliances or friendships with a non-Muslim.

Do not reach to non-Muslim family for help and support in times of crisis or otherwise.  If they seek the knowledge of Islam, share it.  But your loyalty is to Islam above all else; your priority is to the Islamic brotherhood/sisterhood.

You should not refer to or think of a non-Muslim as your friend.

When you need guidance, go to Qur'an, make Dua, seek Islamic council.  Do not rely on therapeutic counselors, guidance counselors, self-help books, non-Muslim family members, horoscopes, etc.

Deal justly and kindly with those who do not fight you on account of your religion.  However, do not rely on them for friendship/support if they are non-Muslim. 

The Arabic word "Auliya" is not interchangeable with "friend" in all uses of the word.  Note that it translates as "friends, protectors, supporters, helpers," i.e. it is referring to a certain type of friend - the type you count on for help, support, or protection.

You may count yourself as a friendly (kind) person to some disbelievers, but don't ever make the mistake of counting them as your friend.

If a Muslim friend clearly abandons his or her salah, s/he has engaged in an act of disbelief and you must not treat this person as an Auliya.

If a person puts on a cowboy hat, that does not make him a cowboy or farmboy, etc.  However, if that same person wears that same hat *every day* for several years in a row... eventually he's going to become more like a cowboy; he's certainly going to be treated like one, and he's eventually going to think like one.  If muslims abandon their Islamic clothes (or other fundamental behaviors of Islam) and dress like a kaffir - eventually they're going to be treated like one, become allies with the kaffir, and even begin to THINK like the kaffir.  Kaffir thinking and Muslim thinking are extreme opposites.  The kaffir way of thinking lends itself to believing that Jesus died on a cross to forgive all sins... why? Because it "feels" right.  The muslim way of thinking examines the evidence before coming to a belief.

If there are no Muslims where you live, remember that Allah, swt, is your closest Auliya and Wali.  To have anyone else but Allah, swt, his Messenger  or the believers as Auliya, is haram. 

Remember... Allah, subhana watala, sees everything we do!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 16, 2008, 07:31:15 AM

HTTP://WWW.impact-se.org/

Why peace isn't possible.

Title: Re: questions for Rachel
Post by: rachelg on July 16, 2008, 06:27:49 PM

Quote from: ccp on July 15, 2008, 09:00:26 PM

Rachel,

A  penny for your thoughts:

What is your sense of Israelis' thoughts about Iran going nuclear and what to do about it?  I would suppose there is a mix of opinion like here?

Also what do people think of the Olmert alleged bribe scandal?  It sounds fishy from what little I've read in the American press.

CCP
A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel so  I 'm  definitely not a fan.  That question of what to do about it   was asked repeatedly  during our trip to all our speakers and tour guides etc and the answer  we always got was "its complicated". There  was an  interesting article about some of the problems about  a potential  attack  on Iran  recently in the Jerusalem Post which I will post next.


We heard  a very interesting response  to questions about The  Olmert bribery scandal .     Our tour guide said basically  bribery scandals are nothing new to Israeli politicians. There have always been stories about people giving  envelopes of cash to prime ministers from the very beginning of the State of Israel.  However Olmert is very disliked so the corruption and being disliked is too many strikes against him and the press is having fun at his expense.    Sharon was thought to be corrupt but he was really well liked  so it wasn't mentioned as much.
 
Gm
  I didn't  mean to imply the I thought the Arabs and the Israelis are going to start  singing Kumbuya together any time soon.    I just felt more hopeful about  Israeli's security  situation than I have in the past.    The  Security fence has really saved a lot of lives and the borders with Syria and Lebanon have been quieter.

Title: No repeat of Osirak
Post by: rachelg on July 16, 2008, 06:29:47 PM

Editor's Notes: No repeat of Osirak
Jul. 10, 2008
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

  http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330934125&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It was late afternoon, Sunday, June 7, 1981, and Zeev Raz was leading his squadron of F-16s across Iraq toward the Osirak nuclear reactor. Anxiously, he scanned the terrain ahead for the last checkpoint of their hair-raising mission, a little island in the middle of the Bahr al-Mihl Lake, about 100 kilometers west of the target, from which the pilots would calculate their final assault on Saddam Hussein's impending bomb factory.

At 5.34 p.m., bang on schedule, Raz spotted the lake. Or at least he thought he did. Except that it looked rather larger than it had in the satellite photos they'd pored over. And that little island - the crucial last reference point - was nowhere to be seen.

Flashing through Iraqi air space at 10 kilometers a minute, Raz was second-guessing himself. Had he miscalculated? Had he strayed from the meticulously planned route? Was he leading his colleagues to disaster? What had gone wrong?

Too late, Raz realized what had happened. The previous winter's heavy rains had swollen the lake and submerged the island. The satellite image was out of date. He had been in the right place, and should have trusted himself. Quickly, he reset his computer, inputting his new position, obtaining the adjusted parameters for the bombing run.

But minutes later, when Raz closed in on his target, it became appallingly clear that the miscalculation at the sunken island had profoundly distracted him. This expert airman, leading the pride of the Israel Air Force across vast swathes of hostile terrain on a mission deemed by prime minister Begin to be critical to Israel's very existence - a mission that the chief of the General Staff, Raful Eitan, had told them that day "must be successful, or we as a people are doomed" - found to his horror that he had, almost amateurishly, overflown the target. He had begun his bombing dive too late.

Israel's legendary destruction of Osirak - a near-impossible operation, pushing the F-16s further than they had been built to fly, evading enemy radar for hundreds of miles, to precision bomb a heavily protected nuclear target - has entered the pantheon of acts of extraordinary Zionist daring as a clinical example of pre-emptive devastation, executed with breathtaking, ruthless accuracy.

But as detailed in American journalist Rodger Claire's overlooked study of the mission, 2004's Raid on the Sun - in which he spoke, uniquely, to all the pilots, their commanders, and key players on the Iraqi side of the raid as well - the bombing of Osirak was far from error-free. It was an astonishing, envelope-pushing assault all right. It succeeded, utterly, in destroying Saddam's nuclear program - a blow from which he would never recover. It safeguarded Israel from the Iraqi dictator's genocidal ambitions. But Raz's mistake on the final approach was only one of several foul-ups that could so easily have doomed it.

Recognizing that Raz, the lead bomber, was not going to be able to hit the target, the No. 2 pilot in the squadron, Amos Yadlin, streaking along behind him, made the incredibly risky split-second decision to depart from the bombing sequence, cut in beneath Raz's plane, and try to drop his two 2,000-pound bombs first. As he would later tell author Claire, Yadlin thought to himself: "I'm not going to end up being hanged in some square in Baghdad because of a screwup."

Yadlin did indeed get his bombs away, and saw them pierce the Osirak dome and disappear inside as he peeled off.

Simultaneously, Raz was executing an astoundingly ambitious "loop-de-loop" in the skies above the reactor, and was able to come back over Osirak, at the correct angle this time, and hit the target.

The potential consequences of these radical departures from the intended bombing process - the potential for misunderstanding, for collision, for disaster - can hardly be overstated.

And that wasn't all that went wrong. The sixth pilot of the eight, Yiftah Spector, had not been one of the original octet selected for the mission, but, as commander of the base where the F-16s were stationed, had forced his way into the team late in the day. On the morning of the raid, he had woken with the flu, not told a soul, and spent the entire flight fighting to stay level-headed and focused. Come the moment of truth, perhaps because he blacked out, he too lost track of the target but, unlike Raz, was unable to recover and fired too late. One of his unexploded bombs was subsequently found inside the destroyed reactor.

The troubles had started even before takeoff. Lining up on the tarmac earlier, one of the planes, flown by Doobi Yaffe, had encountered a fueling malfunction, precluding the vital pre-takeoff final "top up" that was thought might be crucial for the pilots to cover the unprecedented distance to Osirak and back.

Another of the planes, that of Amir Nachumi, suffered complete electrical failure on the tarmac. Ten minutes before takeoff, Nachumi was forced to abandon the F-16 in which he'd trained for months and requisition a backup plane, which would inevitably handle a little differently, from the nearby hangar. (The next day, safely returned from their mission, when IAF ground crews rolled out the eight F-16s for maintenance checks, all eight failed to start, sporting an array of mechanical failures. As Claire quotes Nachumi remarking wryly: "Who says planes do not have souls.")

Potential disaster also struck when, as the eight F-16s violated Jordan's airspace en route to their target, flying low to evade radar, they were spotted by King Hussein, out sailing his royal yacht at Aqaba. The king phoned his defense headquarters in Amman to report the sighting of what, despite the camouflage paint, were all-too evidently Israeli F-16s streaking eastward on a bombing run. He was assured that his security apparatus had picked up nothing suspicious. If the king tried to alert the Iraqis, he evidently failed to do so.

And over the target zone itself, the operation was immeasurably eased by the fact that not only had the Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery units taken a break for their evening meal just prior to the raid - as the Mossad had established they would - but they had also, inexplicably, shut down their radar systems. These systems were still only warming up when the Israeli pilots bombed the reactor; the Iraqi defense teams thus had no radar or computer guidance as they tried to fire back and the Israelis - right through to the last, most endangered of the pilots, Ilan Ramon - were able to bomb and escape the scene. The only people hit by the panicked defensive fire, indeed, were Iraqi soldiers on the far side of the Osirak complex, several of whom were killed in the chaos.

AS ONE of his chapter headings, Claire cites the US Army maxim that "No plan, no matter how perfect, survives first contact with the enemy."

The raid on Osirak, though perceived as peerlessly clinical and precise, was certainly no exception.

And yet, compared to the challenge that Israel would face if it attempted something similar against Iran's nuclear facilities, Osirak was a walk in the park.

The potential Iranian targets are, obviously, significantly further away. The very success of Osirak has ensured that there can be no element of surprise. And if the Iranians were inclined to any relaxedness, the reported Israeli strike in Syria last September will have put them all on the highest of alerts. It's a safe bet that the teams protecting key installations across Iran don't troop out en masse for dinner, switching off their radar systems as they go.

The last few weeks have seen all kinds of warnings and counter-warnings, bluffing and counter-bluffing, playing out among Israelis, Americans, the rest of the international community and the Iranians: widely reported Israeli bombing drills as far out west over the Mediterranean as the IAF would have to fly east to target Iran; reports and denials about American coordination with Israel or, alternatively, American wariness about an Israeli attack; Iranian drills and missile tests and threats; new peaceful nuclear cooperation carrots being proffered by the West, and nibbled, then rejected, then nibbled again by Iran; new sanction sticks being wielded.

The Israeli defense establishment's tight-lipped insistence remains that Israel does have "a military option" for Iran. The Israeli political establishment's rather looser lipped position remains that we hope we won't have to use it.

But the key Osirak lesson to be internalized in the current face-off, the maxim that ultimately facilitated that operation's success, is to continue to expect the unexpected.

Saddam may have recognized that Israel might attempt an audacious raid on his French-supplied reactor; he may even have realized that the series of sabotage operations that had already blighted his nuclear project foretold an Israeli refusal to countenance its completion. But he had evidently not fully internalized the extent of Osirak's vulnerability; he hadn't put in place sufficient defensive provisions to safeguard it. He didn't really believe it was going to be hit.

Iran, for all of its leadership's derisive insistence that Israel would not dare attack, is clearly bracing for the possibility. Its entire nuclear project, indeed, has been constructed with paramount attention to defense and minimal vulnerability - constructed, that is, with Saddam's failure to adequately protect Osirak as a case study. It has placed sensitive installations deep underground. It has relentlessly sought to acquire the most advanced defensive missile systems. And it has worked to maintain the utmost secrecy around key elements of the project, to the extent that nobody can even be confident that all relevant Iranian nuclear facilities have even been located, much less that they can be put out of commission.

In short, if the IAF attempts some kind of Osirak replication - against targets such as the Natanz facility, where the Iranian enrichment centrifuges are spinning to hotly debated effect - Iran will be waiting. Israel knows this. As Osirak squadron leader Raz told this newspaper in an interview two years ago, "The IAF can do damage to some of the [Iranian] facilities, but cannot stop them as a whole."

And so, since Israel's position is that it cannot be reconciled to a nuclear Iran, one has to anticipate that Israel has other options in mind if international pressure fails to deter the ayatollahs. One has to hope that, however profound our concerns about the expertise of our political leadership and its ability to think outside the box, the glorious tradition of Israeli military innovation, creativity, dedication and daring that enabled operations such as Osirak, remains intact.

INTERESTINGLY, 27 years later, Amos Yadlin, the pilot who cut in under his commander's slightly errant F-16 to drop the first pair of bombs on Osirak, is now Maj.-Gen. Yadlin, head of IDF Military Intelligence.

Interestingly, too, David Ivri - the IAF commander who oversaw the Osirak raid, subsequently served as Israel's ambassador to the US and is now Boeing's Israel representative - is currently refusing to give interviews, as are many of the senior Israeli military figures who might have keen insights into the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear drive.

Given the spate of frequently contradictory reports about US-Israeli coordination or tension over a strike on Iran, it might be worth noting that in the more garrulous past, Ivri would occasionally speak with a certain quiet satisfaction about a treasured picture he kept hanging on the wall facing his desk in Washington. It features an enlarged black-and-white US satellite photograph of Osirak, taken a few days after the IAF raid had smashed the facility to pieces. And it bears a handwritten inscription that reads: "For Gen. David Ivri, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981 - which made our job much easier in Desert Storm." It is signed: Dick Cheney.

Such thanks, however profound, came belatedly. Although president Ronald Reagan reportedly responded to first news of Osirak's destruction with a lighthearted "boys will be boys" and later spoke admiringly of "a terrific piece of bombing," the US formally protested the raid and approved a condemnatory UN resolution which branded it a violation of international law.

Israel, of course, had chosen not to breathe a word to the Americans ahead of that attack.

(Raid on the Sun by Rodger W. Claire is published in paperback by Broadway books.)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 16, 2008, 06:35:12 PM

Rachel,

Funny, I feel worse about Israel's security situation. A nuclear Iran is a mortal threat that has a chance to be stopped, but the window gets smaller daily.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2008, 10:29:37 PM

Great post Rachel.

Title: When Mistakes Are Worth Making
Post by: rachelg on July 18, 2008, 04:57:01 AM

http://www.danielgordis.org/Site/Site_Dispatches.asp
 Recent dispatches are displayed on this web site. The most recent dispatch is below, while previous dispatches are on the left. To sign up for these Dispatches, please enter your email address in the box on the right and click "Go."
When Mistakes Are Worth Making
18 July 2008
For some strange reason, I remember the scene with clarity. I was in the kitchen, early on a Friday afternoon about a month ago, cooking Shabbat dinner. Micha, our youngest, now 15, was hanging out in the living room. The radio was on in the background, and on the hour, the news came on. It was over in minutes, and then the music returned.

I hadn’t really paid attention to the news, but Micha apparently had. “Do you think we’re ever going to get Gilad Shalit back?” he asked. Without even looking at him, I said, without even thinking, “Of course we are. Definitely.”

“You don’t know that,” a different voice piped in. Now, I looked up. Avi, his older brother, was unexpectedly home. “We may get him back, and we may not. How can you possibly say that we definitely will?” But the conversation was over. Micha, overjoyed to see Avi, had quickly followed his brother upstairs, and I was left alone in the kitchen. So I never got to answer Avi.

But had he pressed, and had Micha not been around, I would have said to him, “Why did I say that? Because when he hears the news each and every day, the only thing that your brother thinks about is the fact that you’re about to get drafted. And he’s beyond worried he’s panicked. Because he worships the ground you walk on. And he needs to believe, to know. He needs to believe that you’re going to be OK. And he wants to know that though he lives in a country that asks its kids to do everything, to commit everything, that country also knows that it owes them everything in return. And getting them home – no matter what has happened to them – is part of that.”

I never said any of that to Avi, but I recalled that conversation several times during this agonizing week of prisoner exchanges, of returned coffins, of funerals expected but still tear-stained, of Hezbollah celebrations and of all the columnists who insist that the trade was a terrible idea, that you don’t trade Samir Kuntar for two dead bodies, that they were “deeply ashamed to be an Israeli [and] not very proud of being a Jew either,” that we’ve weakened our bargaining position in the future, and, according to Rabbi Menachem Froman, that we’ve even made peace more difficult to attain, that Israel is committing suicide, and that we have now officially given the Hezbollah the crown of victory in the Second Lebanon War.

So, in the face of all the good arguments about how no self-respecting country trades a almost two hundred dead bodies and several living terrorists including Samir Kuntar (who, we should recall, shot a man at point blank range in front of his four-year-old daughter, and then killed the girl by smashing her skull against a rock with the butt of his rifle – and all this at the ripe old age of 17) for two soldiers who were almost certainly dead, how does one justify this decision? Wasn’t it certainly a mistake?

Yes, in strategic terms, it was probably a mistake. But sometimes mistakes are worth making. Take the Disengagement. It is now clear that the Disengagement from Gaza was a horrifying, costly and still painful mistake. But – and I realize that this is not a popular position – it was a mistake that Israel needed to make. It was the mistake that proved, once and for all, that the enemies we face have no interest in a state of their own. They just want to destroy ours. That is what Israelis learned, now without a doubt, as a result of the Disengagement. There’s almost no one left around here myopic enough to imagine even for an instant that further retreats will get us peace. OK, there are still a few arm-chair peace-niks in the States, insisting that there is simply no conflict that cannot be resolved. But here? Precisely the opposite. Now we know that the right was correct – further retreats will only embolden our enemies. They’ll demand more. And more. Until we’re gone.

The benefits of that lesson are understandably of no consolation to the families who paid so dearly in the summer of 2005, who are still living in temporary housing, whose marriages didn’t survive, whose livelihoods have never been restored, whose children hate the country that did that to their parents – but despite all that, the Disengagement was probably a horrifying mistake that Israel needed to make. For now we know, even those of us (and I include myself) who were na&iumlve enough to imagine something else. Peace is not around the corner. Peace is not a year or two away. Peace is not possible. Not now. Not a year from now. Not a decade from now. Because their issue isn’t a Palestinian State it’s the end of the Jewish one. We learned that through the mistake we made in 2005, a mistake that we probably needed to make.

And that’s why we had to make the trade this week. Yes, according to a variety of strategic criteria, the trade was problematic. It may raise the price for Gilad Shalit (not that those negotiations have been going anywhere, of course). It may affect future prisoners of war.

But if it was a mistake, it was a calculated mistake, a mistake well worth making. It was a mistake worth making when we think about what is the real challenge facing Israel. The challenge facing Israel isn’t to win the war against the Palestinians. The war can’t be won. We can’t eradicate them, and they won’t accept our being here. The challenge that Israel faces is not to move towards peace. Peace can’t be had. No – the challenge facing Israel is to learn how to live in perpetual, never-ending war, and in the face of that, to flourish, and to be a country that our kids still want to defend. And that is what we did this week.

I didn’t watch much of the Hezbollah celebration on television. I just couldn’t stomach it. I watched enough, though, to see the crowd cheering a man whose main accomplishment in life has been smashing a girl’s skull with his rifle – after he made her watch while he killed her father. I watched enough to hear about how Mahmoud Abbas – our alleged peace partner – congratulated the same Kuntar on his release. I watched enough to chuckle at the sight of Kuntar in a decorated Hezbollah uniform – even though Hezbollah didn’t even exist when he perpetrated his murders and was captured. I watched enough to be reminded of what (the word “who” somehow doesn’t feel appropriate) it is that we’re still fighting.

But I’ll confess to having watched more than my share of the Israeli side. On the morning of the trade, I woke up and like many Israelis, I thought to myself, “Who knows, maybe all the intelligence reports are wrong. Perhaps one of them will walk across the border, or maybe still be on a stretcher.” Maybe. This is a county that doesn’t easily give up on hope. Our anthem, after all, says od lo aveda tikvateinu – “Our hope is not yet lost.” So I watched the live feed that morning, waiting along with the rest of this breathless nation, until we saw the two black coffins.

And I watched the soldiers standing at attention – and weeping – as the bodies were transported into Israeli trucks and driven into Israel. I watched the thousands of people who, the next day, lined the roads on the way to the cemeteries. I watched Karnit Goldwasser’s extraordinary eulogy for her husband (click on the picture of her to watch the video – it’s worth watching the full seven minutes even if you don’t understand Hebrew). I watched a country that is about life, and yes, even love, not about the celebration of death and hatred.

We did the right thing. We gave Karnit Goldwasser her life back. We gave Udi and Eldad the burial they deserved. We gave their parents some certainty, and with it, the hope that maybe, just maybe, they, too, can start to live again, even with the searing pain that will never subside. And perhaps most importantly, we showed the next generation of kids who will go off to defend this place that this is not a country about calculus, but about soul. We showed them what it is to love. We showed them that we’ll get them back. No matter what.

And I was proud, not ashamed. I wasn’t ashamed to be Israeli. I wasn’t ashamed to be a Jew. We proved to our kids once again that we’re the kind of country that’s worth defending.

There are those who claim that by making this trade, we’ve now formally admitted that Hezbollah won the Second Lebanon War. But, really, was there anyone who did not already know that? Have we forgotten the Winograd Commission and its two devastating reports about the government’s conduct of the war? Have we forgotten the report that showed that, weeks before Udi and Eldad were killed, the army knew that the reservists they were sending there were sitting ducks, but that no changes in deployment were made? Have we forgotten the IDF Chief of Staff who left the War Room in the first hours of the war to go sell part of his stock portfolio? Have we forgotten the most cynical of political arrangements that got us as a Defense Minister a labor organizer who didn’t even pretend to know the first thing about military matters, but who still insisted on playing a role in the conduct of the war? Have we forgotten the mayors of some towns in the North who fled their own cities when the rockets started to fall? Have we forgotten the horrific non-use and then mis-use of ground troops, the arrogance of a former Air Force commander who imagined that he’d win the war from the air? Have we really forgotten already how badly we lost? Does anyone really imagine that this trade gives them the victory? Please.

We lost. We knew that already. What we did this week is that we did right by the families who paid the price. We showed that at the end of the day, it’s not only strategic calculus that matters in this country. There will be other ways to get our deterrent edge back. We’ll get around to that there’s sadly no way that Hamas in the West, Hezbollah in the North, Syria to the east of them and Iran off in the distance will not force us to. We’ll attend to that in due course.

But in the meantime, we showed ourselves once again that this country is about soul. They won, and we lost. They celebrated, and we buried. They cheered, and we wept. And I’d rather be one of us, any day.

Wednesday night, we drove Micha to the airport to drop him off for his flight to the States. The radio was on during the entire drive, and we listened to the interviews with people who’d known Udi and Eldad, the constant updates on the plans for the two funerals to be held the following day. “I feel bad being excited about going on vacation,” he said to us on the road from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. “It’s a sad day here.”

“Yes,” we told him, “it’s a sad day, but it’s OK for you to be excited. Going to America is a big deal.” He didn’t say anything. We got off at the exit for the airport, pulled up to the security checkpoint, still surrounded by all those guys with the submachine guns at the ready, because the war’s not over and it’s not going to be. I turned off the radio so I could talk to the young woman manning the checkpoint. After a few quick words, we were ushered through.

It was quiet in the car. We followed the access road to the departure terminal, each lost in our own thoughts. I don’t know what Micha was thinking. But I’m pretty sure that it was about the two soldiers. About the funerals the next day. About his brother. And about America.

We pulled to the curb, still not saying anything. I stopped the car, and said to him, “OK, buddy, let’s go.” Micha looked at me. “I’m really going to miss this country,” he said.

I was stunned. Not, “I’m going to miss you,” but “I’m going to miss this country.” And then, if I’d had any doubt before, I knew. We did the right thing. If we made a mistake, we made the mistake that we just needed to make. We taught our kids that we may not know how to end this war, but we do know how to take care of them.

And he taught us, too. He reminded us that even the kids here understand what an extraordinary country it is that they call home. That this is sometimes a scary place. But that it’s also a country that a teenager knows he can love, that he’s going to miss and that one day, he’ll defend.

In the end, that’s what matter most. Even on the saddest of days. Especially on the saddest of days.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2008, 06:48:22 AM

Rachel:

I respect you and respect that you have experience in Israel whereas I have none.  That said, this piece strikes me a fairly clueless.  The lesson it thinks is being taught has been taught many, many times before. 

"Intelligence is the amount of time it takes to forget a lesson."

The author is not very smart.

TAC,
Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 18, 2008, 07:05:41 AM

The only thing the savages understand is violence. The weakness the idiot author lionizes is the way of those that passively shuffled into the death camps without protest, it's the making of the next shoah.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 21, 2008, 07:03:16 PM

Marc,
I don't know whether the prisoner swap (really  dead bodies for live terrorists) was right.  I will post a blog post that lays out the other side very well next.   I'm sure there are any easy answers.  I also find it difficult to comment because it is not me who is standing on a border risking my life and it is not my kids who are serving. I'm not the one who has to regularly go to funerals for those younger than me.    Israeli parents have to deal with the fact that their is a clock over all their kids heads . When they are seven ( in 11 years you will be going off to war) when they are 15 ( in three years you will be going to off to war) etc.    At when they are 18 instead of packing them off to college  you pack them off to boot camp.  Daniel Gordis is an American immigrant to Israel and he struggles with the fact that by moving his family his  kids there   they will one day  have to risk their  life  and  make life and death decisions for themselves and others .    What are you willing to die for and what are you willing to kill for?   What awful things are you willing to do and what aren't you?  At stake is  theirs and Israelis survival and soul.       A comment  by a soldier that has always stuck with me is "It so easy to be a Likudnik (right winger) in America" because you are not paying the price for it.

Obviously these are questions that applies to America as well. I do understand that when you limit soldiers tactics you run the risk of increasing  the number of soldiers being killed and wounded  and that is devastating. However  I want the war  we are in to be about more than just land and survival.  I am not interested in fighting monsters just to become them.  I expect the  USA and Israel to Stand for something  and THEY  DO . 

GM- As I told you privately I find you comment about the Shoah disrespectful to those who were murdered ( I don't think that was your intent ) and painful to read and I would greatly appreciate it if you would edit out that comment .  This may be a  minority view because no one else commented about it.   However even though I waited a few days to post  I'm still angry and I have not moved on.

Title: Let the enemy decide the rules
Post by: rachelg on July 21, 2008, 07:05:15 PM

http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2008/07/let-the-enemy-d.html
By the time this is posted the so-called 'prisoner swap' will have been completed.  But we really need to be honest about this… it wasn't really a prisoner swap.  Prisoners are alive.

Only monsters hold dead bodies for ransom… and only fools trade live prisoners for dead bodies.

One can argue forever about whether or not the unprovoked cross-border attack in which Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were captured was reason enough for Israel to have gone to war.  But once that Rubicon was crossed and we'd accepted the attack as a 'Casus Beli' and sent troops into combat, there was no excuse for not using all means at our disposal to fight the war until our enemy was begging for terms of surrender.

Instead, our feckless leaders dabbled and deliberated and argued over whether to even call what they were waging a 'war'.  They squandered every advantage they held at the start of the war by installing lawyers and politicians to select bombing targets instead of allowing the IDF officers in the field do what they'd trained their entire lives to do; win!

We waited weeks to commit ground troops to battle, and when we finally did, we watched them being shuffled aimlessly around southern Lebanon without objectives or support.

Worst of all, we were forced to watch helplessly as Hezbollah conducted carefully orchestrated press tours painting Israel's pinpoint bombing as monstrous… while Ketyushah rockets were fired indiscriminately all over northern Israel.

Throughout the short summer war we heard voices from around the world - and even from within our own country - who argued passionately for restraint.  "The Lebanese people are not the enemy", they declared.  "Hezbollah is the enemy!"

These useful idiots pleaded for the IDF to spare the poor, hapless Lebanese who were caught between Israel's mighty army and Hezbollah's well entrenched forces… pointing out that the Lebanese deserved mercy because they are a modern, secular people just like us.

'Moderate' Lebanese blogs were linked, and the grand old days when Beirut was known as the 'Paris of the East' were invoked repeatedly… while doctored photos of burning Beirut neighborhoods became like fixed wallpaper behind the media's talking heads who dutifully read Hezbollah scripts about Israeli atrocities.

Ignored was the fact that these cosmopolitan Lebanese had watched approvingly for decades as Hezbollah set up rocket batteries and supporting military infrastructure in their towns and villages.  Ignored was the cover and support these poor secular Lebanese willingly provided to Hezbollah for a generation.

Nobody seemed particularly worried about Israel's blameless civilians who were forced to live in bunkers under relentless bombardment.  Israeli casualties were chalked up to 'the fortunes of war' while Lebanese casualties were paraded before the world as martyred innocents.

And when it came time to accept a shameful ceasefire that amounted to nothing more or less than surrender, Israeli leaders again failed (doomed, actually) the captured soldiers by refusing to establish enforceable terms for their safe return.

From the first moment of the attack that sparked the war, Hezbollah/Lebanon refused to abide by any modern conventions of warfare.  Not a single tenet of the Geneva conventions was honored by our enemy… yet we were inexplicably expected to fight the good fight according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

And even after the war's end, we had to have our face rubbed in how brutally we'd behaved by a couple of clueless Israeli journalists.  Under cover of convenient foreign passports, they traveled illegally to Lebanon in an effort to show how nice and normal these wonderful Lebanese people are… as if to say 'How could we have ever entertained such aggressive, warlike feelings towards people who are so much like us???'  Jane Fonda could have done no worse!

Where are these journalists now that their so called 'story' has come to its dénouement with the docile, cosmopolitan Lebanese we took such pains to spare holding massive state-sponsored celebrations for the return of heroes whose only fame comes from murdering Israeli civilians.  Could their silence indicate that even they are having a little trouble putting lipstick on this particular pig?

Enough!!!

When attacked by a wild animal you don't negotiate or ask what rules it wants to use in the fight.  You strike it down without mercy and without remorse.  If you are attacked by a pack of wild animals you fight savagely and without restraint until all of them are dead or neutralized.  To do otherwise doesn't mean facing ignominious defeat.  It means you move down the food chain and become an entrée!

The only way Israel can regain its deterrence in the region after this recent debacle is to make it clear to all that, from this day forward, we will play by whatever rules our enemies are willing to honor.

No Rules = No Restraint.

If our towns and cities are fair game… so are yours.  Don't complain that our weapons are better, or more powerful.  You should have thought of that before attacking us.

If you portray the killing of civilians as heroic, then we will surpass you in heroism.  Don't cry to the world about your precious civilians and then prepare a national celebration to honor a monster who deliberately destroyed a family, and whose final act before being captured was to gleefully crush the skull of a small child against a rock.

If our soldiers won't enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions… neither will yours.  A dead prisoner will be worth a dead prisoner in any exchange.  If we run out of dead prisoners to trade, we will make more.  As you've ably demonstrated today, live prisoners can be unapologetically turned into dead ones quite easily.

If this is the only way we can force our enemies to keep our POWs alive and to feel some accountability for their welfare… then so be it.  Otherwise our long-neglected death penalty will be dusted off and employed without hesitation or sentimentality.   And since those who attack us refuse to wear uniforms or insignia, henceforth they will not be entitled to the niceties of a trial or POW status.  Those we capture in the field will be summarily executed.

For more than 60 years Israel has dreamed of being accepted among the family of nations and being allowed to live peacefully within secure and recognized borders.  Yet again and again we've been forced onto the battlefield by our neighbors, and required by the world to engage a savage enemy as if we were chivalrous knights.

It is worth noting that even at the Battle of Agincourt (fought between the French and English in 1415), the accepted rules of Chivalry were set aside when one side was faced with an untenable choice between chivalry and victory:

After repelling two French attacks against their vastly outnumbered army, the English held more enemy captives than they themselves had soldiers in arms.  Upon seeing the French massing for a third attack the English King, Henry, ordered his men to begin killing the prisoners since he could not spare the soldiers to guard them… and if left alone the captive French knights could easily join the next French attack using weapons that still littered the field.

However, as soon as the next French attack failed to materialize, he ordered the execution of prisoners to be stopped.

Modern scholars nearly universally condemn Henry for his order to execute the French prisoners.  After all, the rules of the day required that those asking for quarter be granted protection without question.  However it is interesting to note that at the time, neither the French nor any contemporary commentators seem to have had a problem with Henry's decision. It was the only logical thing to do under the circumstances.

Given a choice between victory and chivalry, Henry chose victory.

In this day and age Israel can do no less.  We need not hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct than our enemies… especially in conflicts not of our making.  Until we learn this simple lesson, we will have to endure many more shameful ceremonies such as we witnessed today.

Make no mistake; there will be another war in the not-too-distant future.  Our recent capitulation has all but guaranteed that.  Our appeasement and public displays of weakness have served only to whet the appetites of our enemies as they publicly proclaim that what the world witnessed today is proof that relentless armed struggle is the only way to confront and destroy the Zionist entity.

I can only hope that when the next war comes, we will have leaders in place who have the wisdom to first win the war… and only then, try to negotiate terms for peace.

May the families of those who were miserably failed by their government be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 21, 2008, 07:34:53 PM

Rachel,

You are free to be angry at me. My intent was not to anger you, just to emphasize what's at stake and how stupid trading terrorists for corpses is. Showing weakness to the savages just encourages them, and the clock is ticking to the time when they'll have nuclear weapons.

Both America and Israel face the same enemy. This enemy has no rules. This enemy loves to target children. This enemy will destroy both nations if given the chance. They cannot be negotiated with, cannot be reasoned with. You can't teach them to love. There is no choice but to teach them to fear. The "old school Israelis" understood this. Somehow this seems to have been lost to many Israelis and Americans today.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 21, 2008, 07:57:31 PM

As posted on another board, the right mindset needed:


I was asked in a couple of PM's to write up some examples of "spontaneous jihad".

Spontaneous jihad is when a lone muslim gets the idea to go and an act of murder as party of an isolated terrorism.

Case #1

In the first incident I was driving an unmarked jeep from Jerusalem to the north of Israel to teach a week long in service training for snipers. In Israel we have different colored license plates for our vehicles. Yellow and black plates for Israeli citizens both Arab and Jews, blue or green for Palestinians, red plates for police vehicles, Black with white letters for IDF and white with black letters for diplomatic vehicles. The jeep I was driving had yellow and black plates on it and inside the jeep I had green plates and also red plates that I could put on the Jeep if I saw the need. The jeep had a siren and pa system and a kojack blue light, along with two sets of radios law enforcement and IDF radios.

I left Jerusalem heading north through Ramallah in Samaria AKA northern part of the so called west bank. As I had a bunch of equipment related to the teaching of the course, I didn't want to be bothered by taking either my sniping rifle or my M16 rifle, so I was armed with a mini Uzi and a Glock 21 pistol which happened to be the first one that entered Israel.

Since I was going to be in for a long drive I was wearing the Glock in an IWB holster carried cross draw and was wearing the mini Uzi with the stock folded and the sling around my neck carried muzzle down between my legs. The Uzi had two mags in it and I carried four more if I remember correctly more in my left cargo pocket of my pants.

The weather was warm and while I drove I was drinking water to keep hydrated and about 30-45 minutes north of Ramallah I felt the need for a pit stop so I pulled the jeep over and walked away from the jeep which was parked along side the two lane country road. I walked away from the jeep into the brush as a means of concealment so if the jeep attracted unwanted attention I was away from it and hidden so I could then take the correct action if need be.

As I got ready to do my business I moved the Uzi from around my neck hanging down like a neck tie would, so I moved the weapon to my left shoulder, The reason being if it should happen to slide of my should it would not effect my aim, which could have resulted in wet pants.

I had just started when a Hamas looking Arab approached me from the right side asking me if I needed help. I replied that I was fine and he should freeze or suffer bad things to come. He kept walking towards me starting in on the usual BS we are family, we are cousins let me help you.

I told him that just because my forefather Avraham slept with some arab whore did not in my mind make us family and we all should learn that having sex with arab whores is not the thing to do.

My response was not what he thought he would get as it was far outside the norms of the middle east, which by the look on his face caused his thought process to short circuit which gave me time to finish and get myself together as it were. He then started to walk towards me again.

I told him he was either a terrorist looking for a victim or he was a fag but the end result would be the same that I would kill him where he stood. I then pivoted so he could see I was armed, which made him freeze.

He then got this grin on his face and said Yahud, Jew if every Jew was like you their would never be a Palestinian state but most Jews were week and they would get their state in the end and then he walked off.

He was latter found by the IDF and had a large knife.

Case #2

I was going to meet a friend from Sweden in the old city of Jerusalem for lunch and then to take him around the old city. I was dressed in civilian cloths i.e jeans t shirt and sandals and kippah on my head. I was armed with a micro Uzi and a Hi Power that I carried cocked and locked but under my t shirt.

I had just entered the old city via the Yaffo gate and was walking across the open area that is just inside the gate before you get to the maze that is the old city.

I was walking toward the east for those of you that have been in the old city and to the north was 3 or 4 members of the "blue" police civilian police and to my right was a group of 8-10 arab males aged 18-25.

One of the arabs walked away from the group and approached me asking if he could see the micro uzi, I told him he was insane and to get away from me. He again started with the family crap as he started to walk with me. I told him to get the hell away from me.

The arab the lunged at me grabbing for the Uzi, I gave him an elbow strike to the side of the head and grabbed him with my left arm wrapping him up and talking him down with me to the street while I drew the Hi Power from under my shirt.

I stuck the pistol into his face and thumbed the safety off, he was stunned by the blow to the head and before I could blow his head off out of my periphery vision I saw people running towards me. Thinking I was about to gt swarmed by his friends I raised the pistol towards the people running at me.

The people running towards me happened to be the police, I ordered them to grab the group of arab males and to get a pair of cuffs so we could cuff up the asshole I was sitting on.

The whole time I had in my right hand a cocked and unlocked Hi power which was loaded with hollowpoint ammo, at a time 99% of Israeli government and civilians were still using ball ammo.

We cuffed up the now bleeding arab and then I knew that virtue was the better part of valor so I removed the mag from my Hi Power and removed the round from the chamber and since I carried the `13 round mags down one round I just topped off the mag.

The cops were amazed at how fast I had been able to draw and chamber a round since at the time most of the people carried condition 3. I didn't have the heart to tell them that I carried with one up the tube and cocked and locked.

From the group of arabs we learned that when he saw me and the micro uzi he wanted to try to take it since with such a weapon he could murder a lot of Jews.


The thing that both incidents have in common is spontaneous jihad, since both attacks were unplanned and were done at the spur of the moment. The question is how can we identify those hadji's that might be leaning to spontaneous jihad, we can't.

So how do we defend against it?

By never letting your guard down and being ready to be as un PC as you can be if their is a verbal dialog leading up to their desired attack.

I have noticed that by being very crude about the family connection and other things tends to short circuit their thought process, it is the mental version of getting of the X.

Yoni

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 22, 2008, 09:31:06 AM

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a6a9bbad-4eb6-4f77-b092-b96362aad330   
 
Dear Barack Obama
A letter from an anxious Israeli to the presidential candidate on the eve of his visit to Jerusalem.

Yossi Klein Halevi,  The New Republic  Published: Saturday, July 19, 2008



Barack Obama
Dear Senator Obama,

Welcome to Israel. When you arrive here on July 22, you will encounter a people intrigued by your candidacy and, given the current crisis of Israeli leadership, envious of your capacity to inspire. Issues that have worried some Americans about your background have scarcely been noted here. The whispering campaign labeling you a Muslim wasn't taken seriously by mainstream Israelis. Nor are we fazed by your middle name: Half of Israel's Jewish population has origins in Muslim cultures. Despite black-Jewish tensions in America, your color evokes little concern here; Israel rescued tens of thousands of African Jews and turned  their arrival into a national celebration. Even Rev. Wright didn't cause much of a stir, maybe because we're used to being embarrassed by our own religious leaders.

Still, as much as Israelis want to embrace you, there is anxiety here about your candidacy. Not that we doubt your friendship: Your description of Israeli security as "sacrosanct," and your passionate endorsement of Israel's cause at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington, were greeted with banner headlines in the Israeli press. Instead, Israelis worry that, as president, you might act too hastily in trying to solve the Palestinian problem, and not hastily enough in trying to solve the Iranian problem.

 

On the surface, the Israel you will encounter is thriving. The beaches and cafes are crowded, the shekel is one of the world's strongest currencies, our high-tech companies are dominating NASDAQ, our wineries are winning international medals, and we even export goat cheese to France.

But beneath the exuberance lies a desperate nation. The curse of Jewish history--the inability to take mere existence for granted--has returned to a country whose founding was intended to resolve that uncertainty. Even the most optimistic Israelis sense a dread we have felt only rarely--like in the weeks before the Six Day War, when Egyptian President Gammal Abdul Nasser shut down the Straits of Tiran, moved his army toward our border, and promised the imminent destruction of Israel. At the time, Lyndon Johnson, one of the best friends Israel ever had in the White House, was too preoccupied with an unpopular war to offer real assistance.

We feel our security unraveling. Terror enclaves have emerged on two of our borders, undoing a decades-long Israeli policy to deny terrorist bases easy reach to our population centers. The cease-fire with Hamas is widely seen here as a defeat--an admission that Israel couldn't defend its communities on the Gaza border from eight years of shelling, and an opportunity for Hamas to consolidate its rule and smuggle in upgraded missiles for the inevitable next round of fighting. The unthinkable has already happened: missiles on Haifa and Ashkelon, exploding buses in Jerusalem, hundreds of thousands of Israelis transformed into temporary refugees. During the first Gulf War in 1991, when Tel Aviv was hit with Scud missiles, residents fled to the Galilee. During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the Galilee was hit with Katyushas, residents fled to Tel Aviv. In the next war, there will be nowhere to flee: The entire country is now within missile range of Iran and its terrorist proxies.

 

Above all else, we dread a nuclear Iran. With few exceptions, the consensus within the political and security establishment is that Israel cannot live with an Iranian bomb. In the U.S., a debate has begun over whether the Iranian regime is rational or apocalyptic. In truth no one knows whether the regime, or elements within it, would be mad enough to risk nuclear war. But precisely because no one knows, Israel will not place itself in a position to find out. As we contemplate the possibility of an Israeli military strike, we worry about the extent of support from you at what could be the most critical moment in our history. When Israelis discuss the timing of a possible attack, they often ask: If Obama wins the election, should we hit Iran before January?

True, you told AIPAC that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." But that was the one moment in your speech that failed to convince. Last December you appeared to endorse the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which broadly hinted that Iran may not be seeking a nuclear bomb after all--a claim that may have soothed Americans worried about Dick Cheney launching another preemptive war, but appalled not only Israeli intelligence but also French and British intelligence (and that has since been at least partially retracted). In the Iowa debate, you responded to a question about the NIE by stating that "it's absolutely clear that this administration and President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology...They should stop the saber-rattling, should have never started it, and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front."

From where Israelis sit, it's clear that Iran temporarily suspended its weaponizations program--which is, in fact, the least important part of its effort to attain nuclear power--for the same reason that Muamar Qadaffi abandoned his nuclear program: fear of America after the Iraq invasion. A senior European Union official told me last year how grateful he was to America and Israel for raising the military threat against Iran. "You make our job easier," he said, referring to European-Iranian negotiations.

I am convinced that you regard a nuclear Iran as an intolerable threat, as you put it to AIPAC, and that, under your administration, negotiations with Iran would be coupled with a vigorous campaign of sanctions. And you've made the convincing argument that you could summon international goodwill far better than the current administration. No nation would be more relieved by an effective sanctions campaign than Israel. We know what the consequences are likely to be of an attack on Iran--retalitory missiles on Tel Aviv, terrorism against Jewish communities abroad, rising anti-semitism blaming the Jews for an increase in oil prices.

We worry, though, that the sanctions will be inadequate and that the Iranians will exploit American dialogue as cover to complete their nuclearization. Unless stopped, Iran's nuclear program will reach the point of no return within the early phases of the next administration. We need to hear that under no circumstances would an Obama administration allow the Iranian regime to go nuclear--that if sanctions and diplomacy fail, the U.S. will either attack or else support us if we do.

 

The rise of Hamas has only confirmed what Israelis have sensed since the violent collapse of the peace process in September 2000: that the Palestinian national movement is dysfunctional. The bitter joke here is that we're well within reach of a two-state solution--a Hamas state in Gaza and a Fatah state in the West Bank.

In your speech to AIPAC, you intuited an understanding of the Israeli psyche--hopes for peace, along with wariness. But our wariness isn't only a response to terrorism. More profoundly, we fear being deceived again by wishful thinking, by our desperation for peace, as we allowed ourselves to be during the years of the Oslo process. At that time, many Israelis began a painful, necessary process of self-reckoning, asking ourselves the crucial question of how Palestinians experienced this conflict, in effect borrowing Palestinian eyes. Many of us forced ourselves to confront the tragedy of a shattered people, one part dispersed, another part occupied, yet another uneasy citizens in a Jewish state.

Most of all, we allowed ourselves the vulnerability of hope. We lowered our guard and empowered Yasser Arafat, convincing ourselves that he had become a partner for peace. The subsequent betrayal wasn't Arafat's alone: Even now Fatah continues to convey to Palestinians the message that Israel is illegitimate and destined to disappear. Many Israelis have become so wary of being taken for fools again--which this generation of Jews had vowed would never happen to us--that talk of hope seems like unbearable naivete.

Most Israelis want a solution to the Palestinian problem as keenly as does the international community, and understand, no less than our critics abroad, that the occupation is a long-term disaster for Israel. The Israeli irony is that we have shifted from dreading the creation of a Palestinian state to dreading its failure. Fulfilling the classical Zionist hopes for a democratic Israel with a Jewish majority, at home in the Middle East and an equal member of the international community, ultimately depend on resolving the Palestinian tragedy. The Jewish return home will not be complete until we find our place in the Middle East.

But empowering the Palestinians requires renewing the trust of the Israeli public toward them. And that, in turn, requires some sign from Palestinian leaders that Israel's legitimacy is at least being debated within Palestinian society rather than systematically denigrated. Repeating a commitment to "peace" is meaningless: Peace, after all, can include a Middle East without a Jewish state.

For many years, Israelis denied the right of the Palestinians to define themselves as a nation, considering Palestinian nationalism an invention by the Arab world to undermine Israel. We experienced our conceptual breakthrough in the 1990s. Now it's the Palestinians' turn. Admittedly, Israelis, as the powerful protagonists, could more readily develop a nuanced understanding of the conflict. Psychologically, though, we too are the underdog: Israel may be Goliath to the Palestinian David, but we are David to the Arab world's (and Iran's) Goliath. We cannot empower the Palestinians while fearing our consequent diminishment.
You can be a crucial voice in encouraging the transformation of Palestinian consciousness. Perhaps parts of Palestinian society and of the broader Arab world would be able to hear from you what it cannot hear from us: that the Jews aren't colonialist invaders or crusaders but an indigenous people living in its land. Perhaps you can help the Middle East reconcile itself to our existence, and in so doing, help us complete our return home.

As you go through the requisite visits to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and the President's House, the Israeli public will be hoping to hear, beyond affirmations of your commitment to Israeli security, that America under President Obama will understand what maintaining that security involves. We hope that you will insist on a peace based on acceptance of the permanent legitimacy of a Jewish state, and on a Middle East free of the apocalyptic terror of a nuclear Iran. We, too, need the hope that you have promised America.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor of The New Republic and a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerualem. He is author of At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for Hope with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land.

Title: Worrying and hoping won't save your butt
Post by: ccp on July 22, 2008, 04:21:17 PM

Gm,

Here is my response to this guy.  Feel free to forward it on over to him:

***True, you told AIPAC that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." But that was the one moment in your speech that failed to convince.***

***I am convinced that you regard a nuclear Iran as an intolerable threat,***

As you go through the requisite visits to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and the President's House, the Israeli public will be hoping to hear, beyond affirmations of your commitment to Israeli security, that America under President Obama will understand what maintaining that security involves***

Talk about hand wringing. :-(

Pal, forgettaboutit.  BO ain't goin to be there for Jews.  Comprende?
You really want to trust your life and those of your family, friends, and countrymen to a man who has already shown he has no qualms about daily lying, waffling, wanting to sell out his *own*, country, and does whatever is politically expedient?

Why, instead of talking up *our* country abroad BO spends all of his time tearing us down in the eyes of the world.

Yossi, you want to trust your life with this guy?  What are you a nut job?  I hope the leadership of Israel has more fortitude than you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 23, 2008, 01:12:08 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/23/video-al-jazeera-throws-birthday-party-for-freed-hezbollah-child-killer/

Partyin' like it's 799!

Title: The Obama show lands in Israel
Post by: rachelg on July 24, 2008, 04:29:29 AM

The Obama show lands in Israel
He got a rock-star reception here, but an intriguing question lingers: Which U.S. presidential candidate is better for this country?

By Aluf Benn
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/24/obama_in_israel/

Jul. 24, 2008 | The 2008 U.S. presidential race has been marked by several historical firsts, one of which is the globalization of the campaigning. Visits to Israel and the Palestinian Authority have become part of the trail to the White House this time around; never before have the nominees from both parties visited during an election year. But this is not a typical campaign -- it's a struggle between two visions of America and its place in the world.

John McCain visited back in March but did not make much of a splash. Barack Obama by contrast, touring Israel on Wednesday, received rock-star treatment from the media. Israel's top politicians, immersed as they are in political crisis and expecting a leadership change following Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's corruption case, scrambled for a slot in Obama's 24-hour schedule.

Obama's itinerary included much of the usual for high-level foreign VIPs: visiting the Holocaust Memorial and the Western Wall in Jerusalem, calling on President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and making a quick visit to the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. He also took a helicopter trip to Sderot, the border town near Gaza that has been hit by thousands of Palestinian rockets in recent years. Now Sderot is quiet, thanks to a cease-fire with Hamas, but Obama had his own near encounter with local terrorism. Several hours before his arrival on Tuesday, a Palestinian bulldozer operator ran over passersby near Obama's hotel in Jerusalem. Two dozen people were wounded before the perpetrator was shot and killed.

As expected, Obama has said all the right things in terms of what the Israeli establishment wants to hear. Like any other American politician, he repeated his commitment to Israel's security and its special relationship with the United States, condemned terrorism, and pledged to prevent the Iranian nuclear threat. But while acknowledging his charm, his Israeli interlocutors seem to sense that Obama is not proficient in the nitty-gritty of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking and does not expect any quick breakthrough toward peace. Clearly, he has more pressing issues on his foreign policy agenda; Israel's problems are way down his list, after Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and the economy and energy reform back home.

Nevertheless, Obama's high-profile visit here is no accident. Israel has played an arguably overblown role in the 2008 campaign, as Obama's rivals have sought to push falsehoods about his "Muslim background" (he is Christian) and his associations with known anti-Israel figures to scare away Jewish voters and other supporters. This tactic appears to have been effective. In many meetings with Jewish American visitors this year, I have heard strong doubts about voting for Obama in November. "I have never supported a Republican, but this time it's different," was a recurring theme I heard. "I have a dilemma," confided one young Jewish financier from New York. "McCain is more pro-Israel than Obama, but he will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, who may overturn Roe v. Wade." A tough choice for some, undoubtedly.

Mindful of the possible defection of Jewish voters to McCain, Obama's campaign has been at pains to convince the U.S. electorate that he is genuinely pro-Israel. He was pushing his message to the limits of political correctness when in June he announced his support for an "undivided Jerusalem" at the annual gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington. In the charged lingo of the conflict, this term is anathema to the Palestinians, and Obama backed away from it the next day. But he kept courting Israel (as well as American supporters) by writing an Op-Ed in Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, for the country's 60th anniversary. He even deemed appropriate Israel's bombing last year of Syria's suspected nuclear reactor -- you can't really go much further than that as a Democrat who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war.

Despite all the excitement and commentary this week, an intriguing question lingers here: Which candidate would be better for Israel? Taking into account that campaigning is not synonymous with political reality, there are several possible answers to this question.

Instinctively, the Israeli establishment is warmer to McCain. His gray hair, wrinkles and combat record are key elements of the Israeli concept of leadership. Think of David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin or Ariel Sharon. We tend to be suspicious of young, TV-savvy leaders without experience in matters of war and peace, and prefer the tribal elders. Moreover, McCain appears to be more receptive to using force, which is the usual point of contention between Israeli and Western public opinion. For these reasons, he appears like a good uncle, a follow-up to Bush's supportive eight years.

Obama offers a more exciting -- albeit more challenging -- vision to Israelis. If he can bring about a change of perception that America is once again optimistic in its strength, more accepted in the world and less dependent on oil, it would boost Israel's strategic position. But in order to get there, Obama wants -- and needs -- to be friendlier with the Europeans, Arabs and Iranians, all of whom are less friendly to Israel in various degrees. The inference, then, is that an Obama administration would pressure Israel to change its behavior and withdraw from the occupied territories and the settlements. To Israel's right wing, this amounts to an unacceptable sellout. To the left, it's fulfilling the old dream of "strong American intervention" to impose peace.

What will Obama actually do in this region, if elected? He (and perhaps even McCain) will likely try to appear more involved in Israeli-Arab peacemaking, if only to show a change from the Bush years. Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, veterans of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, are part of Obama's entourage for this visit. Both are known supporters of active American mediation in the Middle East. But realistically, they have little room to maneuver. If they seek a potential agreement quickly under a next administration, they might try the Syrian track first. If they want to show compassion to the Palestinians, which could give America more credit across the Middle East and elsewhere abroad, they risk the usual long and frustrating path.

Ultimately, many Israelis see little difference between American presidents in terms of the U.S. relationship with Israel. Over and above personal chemistry, U.S. policy has tended to follow a basic set of rules: Whenever a key American interest is at stake -- say, when Israel is selling arms to China -- then declarations of close friendship are set aside and brutal arm-twisting is applied until Israel falls into line. If a vital Israeli interest is involved -- as in, say, the Palestinian issue, American military aid, or Israel's nuclear deterrent -- then Washington tends to follow Jerusalem's lead. When any issue falls in between, like the Iranian question, there is some give and take, but the American side essentially has the final word. Note how the Bush administration decided to talk to the Iranians recently, shattering Israeli hopes (or illusions) of an impending U.S. military attack.

This is why Israelis in general pay relatively little attention to the American campaign, and why, once the traveling Obama show moves on, the excitement will dissipate. Few here who aren't politics buffs see much difference between Democrats and Republicans, or understand the subtleties of congressional vs. presidential power. And pre-election expectations tend to be wrong: Neither Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were favorites of Israel's leaders, although both turned out to be among the friendliest presidents ever to Israel. This time, too, despite all the media attention and commentary, we will have to wait until after Election Day to really find out what lies ahead, even if the next U.S. president is the candidate who brought his historic campaign to our shores this week.

Aluf Benn is the diplomatic editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz and has been a regular contributor to Salon since 2001.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 24, 2008, 05:26:12 AM

***"I have never supported a Republican, but this time it's different," was a recurring theme I heard.***

Really?  I don't believe for even a nanosecond that hardly any, if any Democrat American Jews will vote for McCain or any Republican.
All the ones I know are Democrats to the death.  To them Republicans are worse than Nazis.


***once the traveling Obama show moves on, the excitement will dissipate. Few here who aren't politics buffs see much difference between Democrats and Republicans, or understand the subtleties of congressional vs. presidential power***

Fact - the show isn't for Israelis - the show is for Americans, and particularly American Jews.  I guess they truly think that when it comes time to pull the lever that Jewish crats will either vote for McCain or not vote.  I can tell you that will never happen. 

***Note how the Bush administration decided to talk to the Iranians recently, shattering Israeli hopes (or illusions) of an impending U.S. military attack.***

This may be true but the reason is because American will is weak.  The Iranians will have nuclear bombs and eventually they will put them atop missles. The only way out of this that I see is for there to be a true regime and political philisophy change in Iran's leadership.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 24, 2008, 06:46:37 AM

I'm still hoping that the talks with Iran are being done for political cover before President Bush orders a strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

The realist in me says that neither the US or Israel will do anything until it's too late.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 24, 2008, 07:01:31 AM

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/07/print/winning_the_war_with_islamic_f.php

Counterterrorism Blog

Winning the War with Islamic Fanaticism

By Andrew Cochran

I am pleased to post the views of Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker, Chairman of "Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East," on this topic, and to associate myself with and assent to his views in this post.
-------------
American-Israeli analyst and news commentator Micah D. Halpern wrote an interesting column last week for his blog—The Micah Report—entitled “The Qualitative Edge” , in which he suggested that Israeli deterrence of enemies has been accomplished through maintaining superior military power: better equipment, better training, better intelligence and greater motivation than its enemies. Halpern states that this doctrine has worked for the past 60 years against Israel’s adversaries, but notes that now Israel is confronted by enemies that are motivated by fervent religious ideology that includes a willingness to die for the cause, putting Israel’s superior military power at bay. In effect, Halpern is asking: how does a military power confront the true-believing enemy that is not only willing to die, but actively seeks death as a way of psychologically defeating the superior power it faces? Halpern suggests that Israel and the West need to find a new model to confront this “new” type of enemy.

With due respect to Dr. Halpern whose article essentially is correct otherwise, a new model is not needed. However, what is needed is the resolve to fight relentlessly against those that use terrorism—especially against innocent non-combatants—as a method of gaining an advantage in the psychological aspect of war. Although the daily missile and rocket attacks from Gaza have been terrorizing Sderot and its environs, as well as Ashkelon with the Grad missile attacks, Israel’s retaliatory attacks on the Hamas leadership were having a pronounced effect on that terrorist organization. The same can be said about Hizballah. Whereas the rank and file may be willing to become shahadin (self-sacrificing homicidal murderers), Hassan Nasrallah and his fellow leaders of Hizballah have been very careful to seek protection when the bullets fly and the bombs fall. In a similar manner, much of the Iranian leadership has displayed no desire to become martyrs for a greater Shiite caliphate—their life is too sweet to be sacrificed—besides, they always send proxies in their stead.

The answer to terrorism—whether it is perpetuated by Palestinian Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, Lebanese Iranian-inspired Shiite fundamentalists, or the fanatic Iranian ayatollahs themselves—is to fight it vigorously, just like we fought the Japanese kamikaze pilots at the end of World War II. The allies didn’t flinch when attacked by the kamikazes—we didn’t call for, or agree to, a truce at that point. We fought with one goal in mind: total defeat of the enemy. Whereas we don’t wish to harm the civilian populations of our adversaries, we should be seeking an overwhelming defeat of those who not only wish, but also actively seek, our destruction. We are in a war, and we need to remember that fact at all times. Truces called by the other side are meant for their advantage; we should not give in to the temptation for a cease-fire when we have our enemies on the ropes. The time for magnanimity is when the enemy has been utterly crushed, and not before.

We need to understand the mentality of our fanatic fundamentalist enemies. Life is totally black or white for them—there are no shades of grey. Surviving a battle with the superior forces of their enemy is seen as a victory by them—proof that we in the West are too soft to defeat them ultimately. Hizballah thus views the 2006 Lebanon War as a victory since the superior military might of Israel was incapable of crushing the Iranians’ Lebanese proxy. So too, Hamas looks at the current cease-fire as a proof that Israel cannot destroy the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. For that matter, every time that we agree to talk to the Iranians in Iraq, they see it as proof that they are capable of eventually driving us out of the region. And it goes without saying that every time the West offers the Islamic Republic of Iran a bigger incentive to stop its nuclear program, the more adamant Khameneí and his spokesman Ahmadinejad become in their insistence that Iran will never back down ultimately from its “national rights”.

If Israel and the West are to succeed in defeating Islamic fundamentalism, which seeks to return the world to an era long before the Enlightenment—to an era of misogyny and wars of religion—we must realize that our fundamentalist enemies mean to defeat us and subjugate us or put us to the sword. They are fighting as if the future status of heaven and earth are hanging in the balance; it is high time that we learn to take this battle seriously. The fate of Western civilization, indeed of this planet, will be determined by our response to the threats we face today emanating from the Middle East. If we fail to deal with the threat today, by tomorrow the battle will be at our doorstep. .

Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of "Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East," a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching government officials and the public of the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism and the need to establish genuine democratic institutions in the Middle-East as an antidote to the venom of such fundamentalism.

By Andrew Cochran on July 23, 2008 10:30 AM

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 24, 2008, 07:15:47 AM

**Training the next generation of Israel's "partners in peace".**


news
Pictured: The TV rabbit preaching hatred and telling  young Muslims to 'kill and eat Jews'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:38 PM on 23rd July 2008

An Islamic TV station using a Bugs Bunny lookalike to preach hatred to children has been slammed by religious leaders in the UK who fear it could brainwash vulnerable British children.

Assud the rabbit, who vows to 'kill and eat Jews' and glorifies the maiming of 'infidels' appears on Palestinian children's show, Tomorrow's Pioneers.

The rabbit is a number of characters who is punished by viewer's vote when he breaches Sharia law.

In one episode, Assud admits stealing money and is seen begging for mercy after young viewers and parents phone in demanding his hands are cut off as punishment.


Assud the rabbit is threatened with punishment for stealing on Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's Pioneers

At that point the 11-year-old presenter intervenes - and rules that the bunny should only have his ears severed because he has repented.

The rabbit is played by an actor in fancy dress and is one of the main characters on the show broadcast in Gaza by the al-Aqsa channel - known as Hamas TV.

Religious leaders across the UK have today spoken out against the controversial show which can be viewed via satellite.

The programme is also easily viewed on internet sites such as YouTube, sparking fears that British children could be subjected to the radical Islamic message.

The Association of Muslim Schools, which represents the UK's 143 Muslim schools, said it was opposed to any shows that incite violence.

Spokesman Dr Mohamed Mukadam said: 'It goes without saying that any programme which promotes the killing or injuring of human beings is wrong.


Assud encourages children to 'eat and kill Jews' and preaches hatred

'Regardless of religion, shows that incite or inspire others to inflict violence of any kind should be condemned.

'Such shows are against the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, and we would urge people of all ages not to watch them.' 

Set up as a regional station prior to the Palestinian elections in January 2006, al-Aqsa TV now airs on a satellite slot.

It broadcasts what many call a mixture of news of Islamic propaganda, but has picked up a substantial following across the Arabic-speaking world.

Tomorrow's Pioneers was first aired in April 2007, and features young host Saraa Barhoum and her co-host, a large costumed animal.

The show originally featured a Mickey Mouse-style character called Farfur who urged children to fight against the Jewish community and form a world Islamic state.

Farfur was later replaced by a bumble bee called Nahoul, who told viewers to 'follow the path of Islam, of martyrdom and of the Mujahideen'.

He was 'martyred' earlier this year and replaced by Assud, who tells children in his first episode: 'I, Assud, will get rid of the jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up.' 


UK religious leaders fear young British children could be subjected to the rabbit's hate teachings

In a discussion with 11-year-old host Saraa Barhoum, the young viewers are referred to as 'soldiers'.   

Assud asks Saraa: 'We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not?'.

To which she replies: 'Yes, we are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland.'

The phone-in show accepts calls from children as young as nine on topics about life in Palestine.

During one show broadcast in February, Assud vows to kill and eat all Danish people over the cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad which appeared in a newspaper.

He also pledges to assassinate the illustrator and Saraa also agrees that she would martyr herself for the cause of Palestine.

Saraa, who has seven brothers and sisters, was invited to host the show after entering a singing competition.

But speaking last year, she defended the programme - and insisted it was not responsible for spreading extremism.

She said: 'We are not terrorists. We do not support terrorism. We are normal people, but we are defending our homeland.

'The Israelis hit next door to my house with a shell. I was wounded on my feet and my little brother Youssef was wounded in the legs.

'We, as Muslims, are against suicide bombers. We are against the death of civilians on all sides. We are only the enemy of those who took our land and kill us every day.'

The show is regularly translated and posted online by The Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent media monitoring group based in the United States.

Al-Aqsa was today was unavailable for comment.

Find this story at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1037512/Pictured-The-TV-rabbit-preaching-hatred-telling-young-Muslims-kill-eat-Jews.html

Title: Fatah takes refuge in Israel?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2008, 09:07:57 AM

150 Fatah supporters enter Israel after Hamas takes over east Gaza

GAZA CITY (CNN) -- About 150 pro-Fatah Palestinians seeking refuge from a Hamas crackdown in eastern Gaza City were allowed into Israel on Saturday, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN.

They were let in at the request of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas after Hamas took control of a neighborhood in eastern Gaza City on Saturday.

The Palestinians entered through a security checkpoint in Nahal Oz in the Gaza Strip's northern region Saturday afternoon, the spokesman said.
"They were asking to enter the state of Israel after being threatened by Hamas gunmen," the spokesman said.

The spokesman said the Palestinians, some of whom were wounded, were allowed to cross the border after they disarmed. He also said they would be asked about the events leading them to seek refuge in Israel.
Those who suffered injuries were taken to a facility to receive medical treatment.

It was a rare act that could be interpreted as a sign of Israel's support of the Fatah party, which is led by Abbas.

"It was a sort of humane gesture," the IDF spokesman said.

Hamas forces took control of the al-Shojaeya neighborhood in eastern Gaza City late Saturday, ending several hours of deadly fighting.
The Hamas forces were battling a family suspected of harboring Fatah members wanted in last week's Gaza beach bombing.

Hamas police surrounded the clan, and a battle began with rocket-propelled grenades, rockets and rifles, sources said.
The violence in the large neighborhood left four people dead, including two police officers, and wounded at least 60 others. Watch a report on the violence »

The IDF confirmed that some of the Palestinians who entered Israel on Saturday were members of the clan.

Hamas Interior Minister Said Salam said in a news conference that bomb-making materials were found. He asked why so many people would have fled to Israel if they weren't guilty.

Hamas forces began raiding houses in the 15-block neighborhood after the fighting died down, arresting at least 12 men Saturday night.
Earlier, the Hilles clan, a family known to support Fatah, refused Hamas police demands to hand over 20 activists suspected in the bomb attack, sources said.

Hamas security forces in Gaza had already detained hundreds of people affiliated with Fatah since five Hamas militants and a child died in the July 25 beach bombing. Fatah sources say about 450 were apprehended.
Among the dead in the beach attack was Amar Musubah, a Hamas military commander, who has been the target of Israeli military assassination attempts.

Fatah denied responsibility for the attack.
Hamas sources said Saturday the group will release 10 Fatah members arrested earlier in Gaza.

In addition, Hamas released Fatah spokesman Ibrahim Abu-Naja.
Hamas also shut down a radio station, accusing it of airing pro-Fatah broadcasts.

The two Palestinian factions have been bitterly divided since Hamas drove Abbas' security forces from Gaza last year.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 03, 2008, 09:12:20 AM

There is a long history of the "palestinians" seeking shelter in Israel when needed. Of course they'll be back to terrorism as soon as they get on their feet.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 05, 2008, 05:06:15 PM

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/08/04/gaza-anomalies-blow-pcps-circuits-result-the-sounds-of-silence/

Israel and the "palestinians" and p.c. myths.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on August 12, 2008, 07:51:16 AM

On other posts GM and others have discussed the inherit evils and dangers of a Theocracy and their rejection of democracy; obviously Islamic countries were used as an example.  Yet I think Israel too is facing a crossroad;

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080810gd.html

The Palestinian population is growing by leaps and bounds; "Olmert was absolutely clear; They (Palestinians) will demand the vote - Israel will have to choose between granting them their demand and ceasing to be a Jewish State or rejecting it and ceasing to be a democracy."

It is an interesting conundrum. 

Title: Analysis: An uncompromising voice for Israel's transience
Post by: rachelg on August 13, 2008, 05:11:29 PM

Analysis: An uncompromising voice for Israel's transience
Aug. 13, 2008
JONATHAN SPYER , THE JERUSALEM POST
 http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1218446195852&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This week, the body of leading Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish was flown by Jordanian military helicopter from Amman to burial in Ramallah. The funeral in the PA's main city was headline news in much of the Palestinian media.

"Every good intelligence officer must read poetry," Israeli poet Haim Gouri wrote when profiling Darwish in Ha'aretz five years ago, quoting Egyptian intellectual Dr. Hussein Fawzi.

Fawzi's point was that had Israeli officials read Egyptian poetry following the Six Day War, they would have known that another war was inevitable. This sage advice applies equally to the example of Darwish.

Those who correctly predicted the failure of the peace process of the 1990s found Darwish's verse invaluable in reaching their assessment. His words should be examined equally closely today.

There is no better or more articulate representation of the prism through which Fatah-type Palestinian nationalism views itself, its enemies and the nature of the struggle between them.

In 1988, Darwish wrote a poem that became the anthem of the first intifada. The poem shocked Israelis who hoped for historic compromise with the Palestinians. In it, Darwish expressed a fundamental tenet of Palestinian nationalism - namely, the absence of any moral content whatsoever to Israel's claim to existence.

The poem contains the following lines:

"You who pass through the sea of transient words/ Take your names and leave. Steal what you want/ of the blue of the sea and the sands of memory... from you the steel and the fire and from us our flesh. From you another tank and from us a stone/ From you another gas bomb and from us the rain

"Take your portion from our blood and just leave... because we have in this land what you do not have - a motherland."

These lines describe a clash of existential proportions, between a force of nature and a force of anti-nature. On the one hand - the rain and the motherland and the sky and the sea. On the other, an artificial entity made up of transient words, gas bombs, tanks and theft.

Palestinian nationalism contains, of course, many political perspectives. But all tendencies are united in the fundamental article of faith that Jewish claims to connection with the land are fictitious, fraudulent and lacking in moral or factual basis.

It was for this reason that Darwish, when questioned on the poetry of Yehuda Amichai, said that while he regarded Amichai as a talented writer, he felt himself engaged in a "competition: with the Israeli.

Darwish described this competition in the following terms: "Amichai wants to use the landscape and history for his own benefit, based on my destroyed identity. So we have a competition: Who is the owner of the language of this land?"

Note well - not a competition between poets of rival nations. Rather, an argument between destroyer and destroyed. The idea - to which Amichai was committed - that both Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab/Muslim identities might contain genuine cultural roots and content did not feature as a possibility.

From this basic understanding follows the conclusion that the artificial construct must inevitably disappear, worn away by the natural forces represented by its adversary. As Darwish has it: "Remember my son, Crusader fortresses, that were gnawed by the weeds of Nissan/ after the soldiers left."

Darwish gave up his Israeli citizenship to make his physical and spiritual home among the intellectual supporters of the PLO. He was far more than a spectator. He authored the Palestinian "Declaration of Independence" of 1988. He scripted Yasser Arafat's famous speech before the UN General Assembly in 1974. His funeral took place in the mukata compound in Ramallah, wrapped in the flag, with a rifle salute, at a site close to the grave of Arafat.

In a long poem written in Ramallah at the height of the second intifada in 2002, "State of Siege," Darwish expressed once more what he regarded as the inevitable fate of Israel. In a line evoking the memory of Moshe Dayan, he wrote: "Here is a general/ searching for an old state/beneath the ruins of the future Troy."

Troy - the ancient kingdom depicted in Greek mythology, whose fate was to be destroyed without trace at the end of its long war with Greece.

Yet despite this seeming self-confidence in his people's ultimate victory, Darwish ended his life a disillusioned man. He was horrified at the Hamas coup in Gaza of 2007, and the seeming fragmentation of the Palestinian national movement whose identity he had spent his life helping to build.

He described his anguish at the "monochrome flag" of Hamas "doing away" with the "four-color flag of Palestine."

Hamas, firmly entrenched in Gaza, paid only the most minimal of lip service to the passing of the "national poet."

A survey of movement's Web sites on Wednesday revealed that none even mentioned Darwish's funeral on their front page (it was covered reverentially on the sites of the West Bank PA).

For all his association of the party he supported with nature itself, it appears that history and time may have a different view than Darwish regarding which forces are transient, and which firmly rooted.

Perhaps they may also differ with him on which local political projects seem closest to the verdict of Troy that he called down upon his enemies with such assurance.

Jonathan Spyer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.

Title: The Bolsheviks of Gaza
Post by: rachelg on August 19, 2008, 05:54:33 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1218710396756&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Bolsheviks of Gaza
Aug. 18, 2008
Sam Ser , THE JERUSALEM POST

Anna Geifman's cappuccino is getting cold as she talks about Hamas and its motives. The energetic professor makes one point that leads to another, and then to four more.

"I can talk about terrorism from today until doomsday," Geifman says with a laugh, catching her breath and then adding, more seriously, "or until they stop."

In Jerusalem, discussions of Palestinian terrorism do seem as if they'll go on until doomsday, and the academics doing the talking are a dime a dozen. What makes Geifman different is that her expertise lies in another field, even in another era: revolutionary Russia. It's a subject she teaches her students at Boston University and one that, she says, is strikingly similar to modern times.

"Everything you see today - every single aspect of terrorism - you can see it in the Russia of a century ago," she says.

Before our lives were changed by the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, Geifman notes, Russian society was devastated by rampant violence, from the turmoil leading up to the peasant revolt of 1905, through the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the establishment of the Soviet Union. Political violence in Russia - what we call terrorism today - developed primarily in Moscow and was perpetrated by "combat organizations" whose first targets were government officials.

"This was old-time, traditional terrorism - targeting people very carefully, assassinating people who were senior members of the government, people who affected policy," Geifman says. "But then, they basically killed whoever they could attack, and very often there was no connection. Anyone who wore a uniform became a target - being a mailman was a very dangerous occupation, for example."

Think attacks on police recruitment centers in Iraq are unique? Think again, says Geifman, noting that a quarter of the police in Riga were gunned down.

Think al-Qaida's informal, decentralized network of cells and spinoffs is an innovation? Not so, she continues, saying that Moscow's combat organizations spawned acolyte groups in outlying areas that often operated independently from the headquarters that, sometimes, were totally unaware of their existence.

As the bloodshed increased, Geifman says, "the violence descended into indiscriminate killing. They were no longer attacking people in uniform, but anyone who 'looked bourgeois.' If you had glasses, or a watch, or an umbrella, then obviously you were too rich to be a proletarian. That is where the descent into sheer terror begins."

At some points in the early part of the 20th century, Geifman says, as many as 18 terrorist acts were carried out in Russia every day. That rivals the murderous activity here in 2002, for example, or more recently in Iraq. Likewise, the terrorism was similar.

"They would blow up train stations, they would blow up cafés," Geifman says. "One such bombing was justified with the remark, 'We just wanted to see how the bourgeois squirm in death.'"

Not only were the targets of the attacks indiscriminate, but so were the attackers. Every other person, it seemed, was declaring himself a "revolutionary terrorist" and joining one of myriad groups, with fanciful names like "The League of the Red Fuse," in a hodgepodge of violent orders that blurred together.

Like the mind-numbing proliferation of Palestinian terrorist groups (that was so brilliantly lampooned by Monty Python) and the endless permutations of jihadi militias, Russian revolutionary terrorists' claims of ideological affiliation and aims became so convoluted that they often even confused themselves. Terrorists testifying at their trials, Geifman notes, were often unable to explain what they believed - or, sometimes, to even accurately recall the full name of their organization.

"Some were honest enough to say, 'Who the hell cares about ideology? The main thing is to kill.'"

SUCH SIMILARITIES between Russian terrorists and those on Israel's doorstep are the subject of much of Geifman's work these days. Since making aliya earlier this year - she plans to divide her time between teaching in Boston and writing in Jerusalem - Geifman has spent extended weekends in Sderot, meeting the people of the bombarded city and trying to raise awareness of their plight. Knowledge of Russian history, she believes, will provide valuable insight on the situation in Gaza City.

"Israelis know all about Hamas," she says, "but they don't know anything about the Russian precedent. People have no clue that the origins of the war on terrorism are in Russia."

Geifman took a circuitous route to that knowledge herself. After moving from the Soviet Union to Boston with her family in 1976, the teenager "felt so un-American" that she took to studying Russian history as something of a refuge. It led to her eventually writing a biography of Viktor Chernov, leader of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party for which terror was a chief strategy, as well as Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia and other works.

Since a sabbatical visit to Israel in 2000, Geifman has focused on modern parallels to political violence in revolutionary Russia, especially in the Middle East. She has also become more Zionistic and more religiously observant.

Mostly, though, Geifman tries to sound the alarm about the dangers of thinking that Hamas is moderated by its control of the Gaza Strip.

"Whenever I hear someone suggest that Hamas might become a more responsible movement now that it is in charge, I think, 'Why don't you read a little about the Bolsheviks and see if you still believe that?'" she says.

It bothers her to hear speculation about Hamas being more open to negotiating with Israel and softening its radical positions, when history suggests otherwise.

"You want to know what happens when terrorists come to power? As soon as terrorists come to power, they begin building on what they did to get there. Look at the Bolsheviks, who were terrorists before they came to power in 1917. They used this terror-based revolution to build a terror-based state."

It's no surprise, for example, that Hamas is so heavily invested in its "security forces," considering that the Bolsheviks established the forerunner to the KGB less than a month after taking over. Terror states, Geifman says, are based on a legacy, an ideology and a practice - specifically, the legacy, ideology and practice of terrorism.

So when anyone suggests that seeing a terrorist group like Hamas come to power in Gaza might actually be a positive development, Geifman says, "It scares me like you can't imagine."

If her analogy of Hamas as the Bolsheviks of Gaza is accurate, then there is "no way that Hamas will turn away from terrorism. No way! They will remain an organization committed to terror," she says. "And the first victims of Hamas rule will not be the Israelis, but the Palestinians themselves - just as the the Bolsheviks' primary victims were not the Poles, nor the Czechs, nor the Americans, nor anyone else, but the Russians and the Ukrainians."

Avoiding this comparison, Geifman believes, turning to psychology, is an effect of the terrorism with which Western society is bombarded.

"I think we suffer - I think the whole world now suffers - from a collective Stockholm syndrome," she says. "Our problem is that we so want to believe in the goodness of people that we can't see how bad some people are. [There are people who] don't want to call these people terrorists. Well, you can call them pussycats, if you want. But they're not going to stop killing."

Geifman draws on the Beslan school massacre for comparison with the Gaza terrorist groups' missile barrages on Sderot and the Western Negev, noting that "they often fire their rockets in the morning, as children are going to school, and in the afternoon, as they are on their way home from school." Children, she notes, are symbols of life, and as such serve as particularly attractive targets for groups whose culture is "death-based."

At this, Geifman turns to thoughts from her growing religious observance, recalling the Torah's directive to "choose life."

"As Jews, we have an obligation to choose life, and to defend it. Otherwise," she says, "death takes over." In spite of this bleak view, though, Geifman says she is "very optimistic" that Hamas will eventually fade away.

Why? "Because," she says, "in history, not a single death cult survives."

Furthermore, how they meet their end is instructive.

"One of the basic characteristics of violence in culture is that it is like a living organism, in that it is mobile, and it must remain in motion in order to survive," Geifman explains. "So long as the violence is directed externally, it can maintain its momentum - but once it is prevented from that goal, if you wall it off, it can't stop. Like any organism, it must keep moving. So the violence turns on [its originators]. Consider the Nazis: When they could no longer kill others, they killed themselves."

If history is a guide, she says, Hamas ought to pay attention.

"[Terrorist] leaders think that they control death, but in reality they are merely agents of death," she says. "That is why every revolution ultimately swallows itself."

Title: Israel: No Nukes for Iran
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on August 29, 2008, 05:56:48 AM

'Israel reaches strategic decision not to let Iran go nuclear'
Aug. 29, 2008

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel will not agree to allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons and if the grains start running out in the proverbial egg timer, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, the government has recently decided in a special discussion.

According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, whether the United States and Western countries will succeed in toppling the ayatollah regime diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether an American strike on Iran will eventually be decided upon, Jerusalem has put preparations for a separate, independent military strike by Israel in high gear.

So far, Israel has not received American authorization to use US-controlled Iraqi airspace, nor has the defense establishment been successful in securing the purchase of advanced US-made warplanes which could facilitate an Israeli strike.

The Americans have offered Israel permission to use a global early warning radar system, implying that the US is pushing Israel to settle for defensive measures only.

Because of Israel's lack of strategic depth, Jerusalem has consistently warned over the past years it will not settle for a 'wait and see' approach and retaliate in case of attack, but rather use preemption to prevent any risk of being hit in the first place.

Ephraim Sneh a veteran Labor MK which has left the party recently, has sent a document to both US presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. The eight-point document states that "there is no government in Jerusalem that would ever reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran. When it is clear Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, an Israeli military strike to prevent this will be seriously considered."

According to Ma'ariv, Sneh offered the two candidates the "sane, cheap and the only option that does not necessitate bloodshed." To prevent Iran's nuclear aspirations, Sneh wrote, "real" sanctions applied in concert by the US and Europe is necessary. A total embargo in spare parts for the oil industry and a total boycott of Iranian banks will topple, within a short time, the regime which is already pressured by a sloping economy and would be toppled by the Iranian people if they would have outside assistance.

The window of opportunity Sneh suggests is a year and a half to two years, until 2010.

Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an attempt to lobby those two states. Both countries have announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade.

"Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel's security doesn't impress these guys," Sneh said wryly.

Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh replied quietly "it's a shame, because Ido will light all this up." He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the recently appointed commander of the Israeli Air Force and the man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, should this become the necessity.

"Investing in Iran in 2008," Sneh told his Austrian hosts, "is like investing in Krups Steelworks in 1938, it's a high risk investment." The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale.

In related news, Israel Radio reported that Iran has finished installing an additional 4,000 centrifuges in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The Islamic Republic also announced it will install an additional 3,000 centrifuges in coming months.

The pan-Arabic Al Kuds al Arabi reported Friday that Iran has equipped Hizbullah with longer range missiles than those it had before the Second Lebanon War and also improved the terror group's targeting capabilities.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not verify independently, Hizbullah would begin a massive rocket onslaught on targets reaching deep into Israel's civilian underbelly in case the Jewish State would launch an attack on Iran.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1219913194872&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2008, 07:00:17 AM

The use of Georgian airfields adds an interesting angle.


NATO guarantees that an attack against one member country is an attack against all are no longer what they used to be. Had Georgia been inside NATO, a number of European countries would no longer be willing to consider it an attack against their own soil.

For Russia, the geopolitical stars were in perfect alignment. The U.S. was badly overstretched and had no plausible way to talk tough without coming across as empty rhetoric. American resources have been drained by the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the war on terror. The European Union is still a military dwarf that swings no weight in the Kremlin. And the ineptitude of Georgia's leadership gave Russian leaders a huge new window of opportunity.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili evidently thought the U.S. would come to his side militarily if Russian troops pushed him back into Georgia after ordering an attack last Aug. 8 on the breakaway province of South Ossetia. And when his forces were mauled by Russia's counterattack, bitter disappointment turned to anger. Along with Abkhazia, Georgia lost two provinces.

Georgia also had a special relationship with Israel that was mostly under the radar. Georgia's Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili is a former Israeli who moved things along by facilitating Israeli arms sales with U.S. aid. "We are now in a fight against the great Russia," he was quoted as saying, "and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House because Georgia cannot survive on its own."

The Jerusalem Post on Aug. 12 reported, "Georgian Prime Minister Vladimir Gurgenidze made a special call to Israel Tuesday morning to receive a blessing from one of the Haredi community's most important rabbis and spiritual leaders, Rabbi Aaron Leib Steinman. "I want him to pray for us and our state," he was quoted.

Israel began selling arms to Georgia seven years ago. U.S. grants facilitated these purchases. From Israel came former minister and former mayor of Tel Aviv Roni Milo, representing Elbit Systems, and his brother Shlomo, former director-general of Military Industries. Israeli UAV spy drones, made by Elbit Maarahot Systems, conducted recon flights over southern Russia, as well as into nearby Iran.

In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter bombers in the event of preemptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) would fly over Turkey.

At a Moscow news conference, Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia's deputy chief of staff, said the extent of Israeli aid to Georgia included, "eight types of military vehicles, explosives, landmines and special explosives for clearing minefields." Estimated numbers of Israeli trainers attached to the Georgian army range from 100 to 1,000. There were also 110 U.S. military personnel on training assignments in Georgia. Last July 2,000 U.S. troops were flown in for "Immediate Response 2008," a joint exercise with Georgian forces.

Details of Israel's involvement were largely ignored by Israeli media lest they be interpreted as another blow to Israel's legendary military prowess, which took a bad hit in the Lebanese war against Hezbollah two years ago. Georgia's top diplomat in Tel Aviv complained about Israel's "lackluster" response to his country's military predicament, and called for "diplomatic pressure on Moscow." According to the Jerusalem Post, the Georgian was told "the address for that type of pressure is Washington."

The daily Haaretz reported Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili - who is Jewish, the newspaper said - told Israeli Army radio that "Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers" because he explained rather implausibly, "a small group of our soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to Israeli training."

The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis was agreed at the highest levels with the approval of the Bush administration. The official liaison between the two entities was Reserve Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, who commanded Israeli forces on the Lebanese border in July 2006. He resigned from the army after the Winograd commission flayed Israel's conduct of its Second Lebanon War.

That Russia assessed these Israeli training missions as U.S.-approved is a given. The U.S. was also handicapped by a shortage of spy-in-the-sky satellite capability, already overextended by the Iraq and Afghan wars. Neither U.S. nor Georgian intelligence knew Russian forces were ready with an immediate and massive response to the Georgian attack Moscow knew was coming. Russian double agents ostensibly working for Georgia most probably egged on the military fantasies of the impetuous President Saakashvili's "surprise attack" plans.

Mr. Saakashvili was convinced that by sending 2,000 of his soldiers to serve in Iraq (that were immediately flown home by the U.S. when Russia launched a massive counterattack into Georgia), he would be rewarded for his loyalty. He could not believe Mr. Bush, a personal friend, would leave him in the lurch. Georgia, as Mr. Saakashvili saw his country's role, was "Israel of the Caucasus."

The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis appears to have been cemented at the highest levels, according to YNet, the Israeli electronic daily. But whether the IAF can still count on those air bases to launch bombing missions against Iran's nuke facilities is now in doubt.

Iran comes out ahead in the wake of the Georgian crisis. Neither Russia nor China is willing to respond to a Western request for more and tougher sanctions against the mullahs. Iran's European trading partners are also loath to squeeze Iran. The Russian-built, 1,000-megawatt Iranian reactor in Bushehr is scheduled to go on line early next year.

A combination of Vladimir Putin and oil has put Russia back on the geopolitical map of the world. Moscow's oil and gas revenue this year is projected at $201 billion, a 13-fold increase since Mr. Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin eight years ago.

The Bush administration's global democracy crusade, as seen by the men in the Kremlin, and not an insignificant number of friends, is code for imperial hubris. The Putin-Medvedev tandem's response is a new five-point doctrine that told the U.S. to butt out of what was once the Soviet empire, not only former Soviet republics, but also former satellites and client states.

Only superannuated cold warriors saw a rebirth of the Cold War's Brezhnev Doctrine, or the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other "socialist states," e.g., the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. But it does mean the Russian bear cannot be baited with impunity - a la Georgia.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large for The Washington Times and for United Press International.

Title: Rachel, comments?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 07, 2008, 01:01:55 AM

Pasted from the Obama thread:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: JDN on September 05, 2008, 10:19:28 PM
GM; It seems odd for me to be defending Islam and "criticizing Christianity since I am a practicing Christian, truly believe in God's power and attend Church on most Sundays.That said, I beg to differ with your conclusions/questions/comments.

To ignore God's (Christian God) Law and make your own is also not acceptable is classic Christian theology.

I am not a theologian, but I'll try to express my opinion.  However, I think if your read the Bible, a theocratic state is thought to be ideal.  Israel is a theocratic state; while perhaps not Christians,

**Israel is a parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy. Most Israelis are secular Jews.**

 the Old Testament has a strong influence.  The Catholic Church (I am not Catholic) at one time and I bet even today if asked privately would support a Christian theocratic state.  Our founding fathers decided not to be a Christian Nation, but rather a nation for all religions; rather wise of them. 

And "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing  them..." has nothing to do with feeding the poor, tending to the sick, etc.
albeit all good.  It is very clear, MAKE DISCIPLES all nations, i.e. convert them to Christianity period.  That is the sole objective of missionary work; feeding the poor, educating them, tending to the sick gives them the inside track to conversion, but their objective is to convert people.  The rest is just a means to an end.

**I disagree. I've spoken to more than a few that have gone on missions and they tend to cite such things as:

"On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"**

Yes, Jesus resisted earthly power; he looked upon his power as absolute far greater than any earthly power.  As for material things, they simply are not needed if you have the Lord in your heart and look forward to heaven; your final reward.  Live a good life, fight for the Lord, make disciples of all nations and you will be rewarded in heaven; is that much different than Islam?

**Yes, Mohammed created a political-theological entity with the mandate to make all submit to islam.**

I am not an expert on the Qu'ran (I read it a long time ago and need to do again), but then again, the Bible, especially the Old Testament is full of versus and chapters telling how God punished the disbelieving.  Actually, especially in the Old Testament, God is Love, but God is also a God of wrath; don't mess with him or oppose him or thousands will die and not a tear will be shed.

**The key difference being that in Christianity (at least modern christianity), humans are not tasked with being direct agents of god's wrath. If god chooses to unleash biblical plagues, christians aren't expected to brew up bioweapons to fulfill god's desires. Reading the qu'ran without reading the sunna and ahadith and commentaries doesn't lend to getting a good grasp of islamic theology.**

The Bible has become watered down.  But if you simply read the Bible, it's a "you are with Me or against Me" story; period; it is very black and white. Those that are not with Me and don't believe in Me and/or have a false God are condemned to Hell.  And no tears are to be shed for them.  And if one city after another of non believers is destroyed, well, that's their fault for not believing and following God's word.  And in the Bible a lot of cities of non believers were destroyed by the Lord.

**There is a big difference between the old testament and the new theologically. And again, modern christianity does not teach that christianity should be spread at swordpoint. Islam has been spread at swordpoint since it's inception and is being spread around the world by violence, as we speak.**

That being said, I am truly grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers not to make the U.S. a Christian Nation, but rather a nation that welcomes and tolerates all faiths.  I do not think any state should be a theocratic state, yet like Israel, I understand the attraction.

**Again, Israel is a secular parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy. A core element of christian theology that allows for freedom of religion is the concept of free will. God gives free will and thus humans are free to accept or reject him. Allah does not grant free will.**

========
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: G M on September 05, 2008, 10:52:08 PM
[
**Israel is a parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy. Most Israelis are secular Jews.**

**I disagree. I've spoken to more than a few that have gone on missions and they tend to cite such things as:

"On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"**

I disagree: I think you misunderstood.  While food is nice and so is water/wine, and that may help conversions, however, the Kingdom of heaven is for those who believe; period.  How "nice" you are is just frosting on the cake, but "believe in me and you will be saved".  And so you can do all the good works you want, but if you don't truly believe and follow the Lord, you are damned.  It is very cut and dried; there is no grey.  That being said, if you truly believe, then you will help the hungry and thirsty and those that are fed and given water may be more prone to believe.  But the point is without belief, regardless of all your good works, you are going to hell.  Nobody gets invited to heaven without belief regardless of what good works they did.

As for Israel, is it truly a parliamentary democracy"?  hmmm I am a big fan of Israel, I only wish them well, but a true "democracy" it is not. If that was true, then the Palestinians should soon be in charge; one man one vote?  Isn't that a democracy?  And while "most Israelis are secular Jews" they are still Jews. It is a Jewish State.  I think most Israelis would admit they are a Jewish State and be proud of it.

===========
I've known more than a few Americans that were Jewish and supporters of Israel, but Jewish only in a secular manner with very little religious observance, if any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel

Wikipedia isn't a great source, but it's quick.
==========
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mentioned this article a month or two ago but no one seemed interested;
but it does make some good points about "democracy" in Israel. 

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20071206gd.html 
 
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 07, 2008, 06:49:49 AM

Israel has the right to restrict the so-called "palestinians" from it's lands, just as Indian tribes can restrict you from their lands. And you don't get to vote in tribal elections either.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 07, 2008, 07:25:16 AM

Come on GM you can do better than that...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 07, 2008, 07:25:39 AM

Target of Jihad   
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Wafa Sultan appeared on Al-Jazeera again earlier this month, and the shock waves are still reverberating throughout the Islamic world. The day after her appearance Al-Jazeera issued a public apology for her “offensive” remarks, but did not specify what exactly she said that was so terrible. Last week, however, the influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi was not so circumspect. Qaradawi, whom Saudi-funded academic John Esposito has praised as a “reformist,” in 2006 exhorted Muslims to fight against Israel by invoking the notorious genocidal hadith in which Muhammad says that on the Day of Judgment “even the stones and the trees will speak, with or without words, and say: ‘Oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim, there’s a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” But now he has directed his rage against Sultan, a fifty-year-old Syrian-American psychologist: “She said unbearable, ghastly things that made my hair stand on end.” Specifically, “she had the audacity to publicly curse Allah, His Prophet, the Koran, the history of Islam, and the Islamic nation.” He repeated that she “leveled accusations against Islam and the Muslims, and cursed Allah, His Prophet, the Islamic nation, the shari’a, and the Islamic faith and culture.”
These are serious charges, and Qaradawi states them in terms that his jihadist minions will understand as meaning that she must be killed. Given that Qaradawi has justified suicide attacks against Israeli civilians and American soldiers in Iraq, it is clear that he has no distaste for violence, and thus law enforcement officials should take his latest fulminations against Wafa Sultan very seriously indeed.

But for Sultan herself, of course, they are nothing new. This courageous woman has been a target of jihadist outrage ever since she burst onto the international scene with an interview also on Al-Jazeera on February 21, 2006. The video of this interview has now been viewed over a million times, and led to Sultan’s receiving numerous death threats. In it, she excoriated the violence that all too many Muslims have committed in the name of Islam, and the tendency of all too many others, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to justify that violence by pointing to mistreatment that Muslims have allegedly suffered:

The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust], and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

Reasonable enough. And so was what Sultan said on Al-Jazeera this month. Defending the notorious Danish cartoons of Muhammad that continue to roil the Islamic world, she pointed out:

But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad ‘Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword’ cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings.

Qaradawi, however, was in no mood to reexamine anything. Sultan’s statements were “all based on ignorance,” he complained. “If only she had some knowledge... But she doesn’t have any knowledge. She doesn't know the Koran or the Sunna. When she cited a hadith to back up her statements, she used a hadith that scholars consider unreliable.” Which unreliable hadith? Muhammad’s statement that “Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword.” Qaradawi asserted: “This hadith is unreliable. The Prophet did not get sustenance by the sword. If she had read the Koran, she would have known that it forbids killing people: ‘Anyone who kills another person for any reason other than manslaughter or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he has killed all of mankind.’”

Of course, anyone can see that “other than manslaughter or spreading corruption in the land [fasaad]” is a rather large exception, and the next verse makes Qaradawi’s claim that the Qur’an “forbids killing people” even more questionable. He quoted Qur’an 5:32, which immediately precedes a verse directing Muslims to crucify or amputate a hand and a foot on opposite sides from someone who fights against Allah and Muhammad or spreads “corruption in the land.”

And as for the unreliability of the hadith about the shadow of Muhammad’s sword, Qaradawi doesn’t bother to tell us that a hadith in which Muhammad says “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords” appears in Bukhari, the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable, and in which only a very few ahadith are considered unreliable by any Islamic scholars. Not only does it appear, but it appears in three different places in Bukhari and in two places in Sahih Muslim, the hadith collection considered second most reliable. This repetition is further attestation of its authenticity from a Muslim standpoint, since the multiple renderings are considered to have come from different narrators, indicating that many people heard Muhammad say this.

Qaradawi made even wilder charges, falsely claiming (with stinging irony in light of his support for suicide attacks) that Sultan “sanctions the killing of Muslims in Gaza and elsewhere, claiming that they deserve to be killed.” Such charges, and Qaradawi’s claim that Sultan “had the audacity to affront all that is sacred – the entire Islamic nation, its past, its present, and its future.” Yet as we have seen, it was she who was telling the truth, not this renowned “reformist” Sheikh, and thus it is she who has yet again shown up the hollowness of the denial, obfuscation, and finger-pointing that all too many Islamic leaders engage in rather than embarking upon the searching self-reflection urged upon them by Wafa Sultan and other defenders of universal human rights and human dignity.

Wafa Sultan is a national and international treasure. The American government should be rushing to protect her against any who might be motivated to act by the distortions of the thuggish Qaradawi. Is that happening?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 07, 2008, 07:29:31 AM

JDN,

What's the flaw in my point? As an American, you do not have the right to travel onto an Indian reservation with intact borders if they do not wish to allow you to do so. Even if you own property and dwell within the boundaries of a "checkerboard" reservation, you cannot vote in tribal elections unless you are a tribal member.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 07, 2008, 08:17:47 AM

I will reply more later, but but the American Indian's rights were granted by the US Government and can be taken away.  To complete the analogy in essence you are saying that the Palestinians granted Israel their rights and has the right to enter at will as do representatives of the US Government, i.e. a Sheriff, etc.  Further, Indian reservations are under the control of the US Government and therefore you are saying the Palestinians control Israel?

I think your analogy is one of the tail wagging the dog.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 07, 2008, 08:41:13 AM

Quote from: JDN on September 07, 2008, 08:17:47 AM

I will reply more later, but but the American Indian's rights were granted by the US Government and can be taken away. 

**The Indian tribes that have a treaty with the US gov't are known as federally recognized tribes. The USG recognizes the tribes as sovereign nations within the US. The USG retains federal jurisdiction over tribal lands, but other governmental entities like states have no legal jurisdiction.**

To complete the analogy in essence you are saying that the Palestinians granted Israel their rights and has the right to enter at will as do representatives of the US Government, i.e. a Sheriff, etc. 

**First of all, there is no such thing as a "palestinian". There are arabs that lived in that area, but there is no distinct "palestinian" ethnicity. It's a made up psyop that dates back to the 60's, if I recall correctly. Thus far, the Israelis have been able to successfully fight to maintain their existence. The "palestinians" have made it clear that they will kill every last Israeli, given the opportunity.

Secondly, only federal law enforcement, such as Bureau of Indian Affairs special agents/police and the FBI have jurisdiction in Indian Country aside from tribal police. Sheriffs are county level, and don't have jurisdiction, even if they reservation lands are within the county. If I recall correctly, California has some strange deviation from this standard, but this is true elsewhere.**


 Further, Indian reservations are under the control of the US Government and therefore you are saying the Palestinians control Israel?

**No, if the "palestinians" ever had the upper hand, then we have the next holocaust.**

I think your analogy is one of the tail wagging the dog.

**I think you are missing the point. If Israel can't preserve it's "tribal sovereignty", then why do Indian tribes get to here? With tribal casinos and oil and gas leases, some tribes are becoming very wealthy. I know of one where every tribal member is a millionaire on paper. Should non-indians be able to flood into their lands and vote themselves shares of the tribal wealth?**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 08, 2008, 09:35:46 AM

I understand Indian Reservations are "sovereign nations"; but only at the "generosity" of the USG.  This sovereignty can be easily restricted, changed, or taken away and further, as you pointed out, "the USG retains federal jurisdiction of tribal lands."  As for the State of CA it seems to regulate their ability to gamble (number of machines, etc.) and also the sheriff's contend (although debateable) that they have "free and unrestricted access".  At minimum, Sheriff's do have the right to investigate crime, arrest, etc.  That being said, I have dealt with Indian Tribes before and it is a pain in the ass legally speaking.  But that is another subject.

But Israel?  It is hardly a good analogy.  No one has jurisdiction over them, rather Israel is the one with jurisdiction.  Your analogy is contrary to the situation in the Middle East.

A better analogy is the one pointed out in the article.  Prime Minister Olmert himself used the comparison to the South African-style struggle.  He implied that Israel is like South Africa and is in essence now imposing an apartheid system.  Morally, most would say that is wrong and as even Olmert states that it is wrong and the world will one day turn against Israel as it did turn against South Africa. 

Now, Israel has direct control over four million Palestinians in the occupied territories.  They have been under Israel's military rule for 40 years!  Much of the world has already turned against Israel for subjecting the Palestinians to being second class people.  The analogy to apartheid is real and repulsive to most people in a democracy.  And as the article points out, the Palestinian population is growing; soon they will be the majority.

If they say, as the article points out, let us have one country and demand equal rights and are the majority,  the Palestinians will control and Israel will change from being a "Jewish democracy" to a multiethnic post Zionist democratic state.  That is a true democracy, everyone's desire, but I understand your point, it would be disastrous for the Jews of Israel.

The article's point; Israel is between a rock and a hard place with no easy way out.  Not today, not next year, but the time will come.  But it will come and I bet the the world with vote "democracy" (one cannot vote in good conscience for apartheid) and not for the Jews.   Hopefully, a solution can be found before the Palestinians become a democratic majority.

PS as for the use of the term "Palestinians" note Israel Prime Minister Olmert uses the term himself therefore I assume it has come in to common usage.

Title: Israeli STrategy post Russia-GA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 08, 2008, 03:23:23 PM

Another serious read from Stratfor:


ISRAELI STRATEGY AFTER THE RUSSO-GEORGIAN WAR

By George Friedman

The Russo-Georgian war continues to resonate, and it is time to expand our view of
it. The primary players in Georgia, apart from the Georgians, were the Russians and
Americans. On the margins were the Europeans, providing advice and admonitions but
carrying little weight. Another player, carrying out a murkier role, was Israel.
Israeli advisers were present in Georgia alongside American advisers, and Israeli
businessmen were doing business there. The Israelis had a degree of influence but
were minor players compared to the Americans.

More interesting, perhaps, was the decision, publicly announced by the Israelis, to
end weapons sales to Georgia the week before the Georgians attacked South Ossetia.
Clearly the Israelis knew what was coming and wanted no part of it. Afterward,
unlike the Americans, the Israelis did everything they could to placate the
Russians, including having Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert travel to Moscow to
offer reassurances. Whatever the Israelis were doing in Georgia, they did not want a
confrontation with the Russians.

It is impossible to explain the Israeli reasoning for being in Georgia outside the
context of a careful review of Israeli strategy in general. From that, we can begin
to understand why the Israelis are involved in affairs far outside their immediate
area of responsibility, and why they responded the way they did in Georgia.

We need to divide Israeli strategic interests into four separate but interacting
pieces:

The Palestinians living inside Israel's post-1967 borders.
The so-called "confrontation states" that border Israel, including Lebanon, Syria,
Jordan and especially Egypt.
The Muslim world beyond this region.
The great powers able to influence and project power into these first three regions.

The Palestinian Issue
The most important thing to understand about the first interest, the Palestinian
issue, is that the Palestinians do not represent a strategic threat to the Israelis.
Their ability to inflict casualties is an irritant to the Israelis (if a tragedy to
the victims and their families), but they cannot threaten the existence of the
Israeli state. The Palestinians can impose a level of irritation that can affect
Israeli morale, inducing the Israelis to make concessions based on the realistic
assessment that the Palestinians by themselves cannot in any conceivable time frame
threaten Israel's core interests, regardless of political arrangements. At the same
time, the argument goes, given that the Palestinians cannot threaten Israeli
interests, what is the value of making concessions that will not change the threat
of terrorist attacks? Given the structure of Israeli politics, this matter is both
substrategic and gridlocked.

The matter is compounded by the fact that the Palestinians are deeply divided among
themselves. For Israel, this is a benefit, as it creates a de facto civil war among
Palestinians and reduces the threat from them. But it also reduces pressure and
opportunities to negotiate. There is no one on the Palestinian side who speaks
authoritatively for all Palestinians. Any agreement reached with the Palestinians
would, from the Israeli point of view, have to include guarantees on the cessation
of terrorism. No one has ever been in a position to guarantee that -- and certainly
Fatah does not today speak for Hamas. Therefore, a settlement on a Palestinian state
remains gridlocked because it does not deliver any meaningful advantages to the
Israelis.

The Confrontation States
The second area involves the confrontation states. Israel has formal peace treaties
with Egypt and Jordan. It has had informal understandings with Damascus on things
like Lebanon, but Israel has no permanent understanding with Syria. The Lebanese are
too deeply divided to allow state-to-state understandings, but Israel has had
understandings with different Lebanese factions at different times (and particularly
close relations with some of the Christian factions).

Jordan is effectively an ally of Israel. It has been hostile to the Palestinians at
least since 1970, when the Palestine Liberation Organization attempted to overthrow
the Hashemite regime, and the Jordanians regard the Israelis and Americans as
guarantors of their national security. Israel's relationship with Egypt is publicly
cooler but quite cooperative. The only group that poses any serious challenge to the
Egyptian state is The Muslim Brotherhood, and hence Cairo views Hamas -- a
derivative of that organization -- as a potential threat. The Egyptians and Israelis
have maintained peaceful relations for more than 30 years, regardless of the state
of Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Syrians by themselves cannot go to war with
Israel and survive. Their primary interest lies in Lebanon, and when they work
against Israel, they work with surrogates like Hezbollah. But their own view on an
independent Palestinian state is murky, since they claim all of Palestine as part of
a greater Syria -- a view not particularly relevant at the moment. Therefore,
Israel's only threat on its border comes from Syria via surrogates in Lebanon and
the possibility of Syria's acquiring weaponry that would threaten Israel, such as
chemical or nuclear weapons.

The Wider Muslim World
As to the third area, Israel's position in the Muslim world beyond the confrontation
states is much more secure than either it or its enemies would like to admit. Israel
has close, formal strategic relations with Turkey as well as with Morocco. Turkey
and Egypt are the giants of the region, and being aligned with them provides Israel
with the foundations of regional security. But Israel also has excellent relations
with countries where formal relations do not exist, particularly in the Arabian
Peninsula.

The conservative monarchies of the region deeply distrust the Palestinians,
particularly Fatah. As part of the Nasserite Pan-Arab socialist movement, Fatah on
several occasions directly threatened these monarchies. Several times in the 1970s
and 1980s, Israeli intelligence provided these monarchies with information that
prevented assassinations or uprisings.

Saudi Arabia, for one, has never engaged in anti-Israeli activities beyond rhetoric.
In the aftermath of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Saudi Arabia and Israel
forged close behind-the-scenes relations, especially because of an assertive Iran --
a common foe of both the Saudis and the Israelis. Saudi Arabia has close relations
with Hamas, but these have as much to do with maintaining a defensive position --
keeping Hamas and its Saudi backers off Riyadh's back -- as they do with government
policy. The Saudis are cautious regarding Hamas, and the other monarchies are even
more so.

More to the point, Israel does extensive business with these regimes, particularly
in the defense area. Israeli companies, working formally through American or
European subsidiaries, carry out extensive business throughout the Arabian
Peninsula. The nature of these subsidiaries is well-known on all sides, though no
one is eager to trumpet this. The governments of both Israel and the Arabian
Peninsula would have internal political problems if they publicized it, but a visit
to Dubai, the business capital of the region, would find many Israelis doing
extensive business under third-party passports. Add to this that the states of the
Arabian Peninsula are afraid of Iran, and the relationship becomes even more
important to all sides.

There is an interesting idea that if Israel were to withdraw from the occupied
territories and create an independent Palestinian state, then perceptions of Israel
in the Islamic world would shift. This is a commonplace view in Europe. The fact is
that we can divide the Muslim world into three groups.

First, there are those countries that already have formal ties to Israel. Second are
those that have close working relations with Israel and where formal ties would
complicate rather than deepen relations. Pakistan and Indonesia, among others, fit
into this class. Third are those that are absolutely hostile to Israel, such as
Iran. It is very difficult to identify a state that has no informal or formal
relations with Israel but would adopt these relations if there were a Palestinian
state. Those states that are hostile to Israel would remain hostile after a
withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, since their issue is with the existence
of Israel, not its borders. 

The point of all this is that Israeli security is much better than it might appear
if one listened only to the rhetoric. The Palestinians are divided and at war with
each other. Under the best of circumstances, they cannot threaten Israel's survival.
The only bordering countries with which the Israelis have no formal agreements are
Syria and Lebanon, and neither can threaten Israel's security. Israel has close ties
to Turkey, the most powerful Muslim country in the region. It also has much closer
commercial and intelligence ties with the Arabian Peninsula than is generally
acknowledged, although the degree of cooperation is well-known in the region. From a
security standpoint, Israel is doing well.

The Broader World
Israel is also doing extremely well in the broader world, the fourth and final area.
Israel always has needed a foreign source of weapons and technology, since its
national security needs outstrip its domestic industrial capacity. Its first patron
was the Soviet Union, which hoped to gain a foothold in the Middle East. This was
quickly followed by France, which saw Israel as an ally in Algeria and against
Egypt. Finally, after 1967, the United States came to support Israel. Washington saw
Israel as a threat to Syria, which could threaten Turkey from the rear at a time
when the Soviets were threatening Turkey from the north. Turkey was the doorway to
the Mediterranean, and Syria was a threat to Turkey. Egypt was also aligned with the
Soviets from 1956 onward, long before the United States had developed a close
working relationship with Israel.

That relationship has declined in importance for the Israelis. Over the years the
amount of U.S. aid -- roughly $2.5 billion annually -- has remained relatively
constant. It was never adjusted upward for inflation, and so shrunk as a percentage
of Israeli gross domestic product from roughly 20 percent in 1974 to under 2 percent
today. Israel's dependence on the United States has plummeted. The dependence that
once existed has become a marginal convenience. Israel holds onto the aid less for
economic reasons than to maintain the concept in the United States of Israeli
dependence and U.S. responsibility for Israeli security. In other words, it is more
psychological and political from Israel's point of view than an economic or security
requirement.

Israel therefore has no threats or serious dependencies, save two. The first is the
acquisition of nuclear weapons by a power that cannot be deterred -- in other words,
a nation prepared to commit suicide to destroy Israel. Given Iranian rhetoric, Iran
would appear at times to be such a nation. But given that the Iranians are far from
having a deliverable weapon, and that in the Middle East no one's rhetoric should be
taken all that seriously, the Iranian threat is not one the Israelis are compelled
to deal with right now.

The second threat would come from the emergence of a major power prepared to
intervene overtly or covertly in the region for its own interests, and in the course
of doing so, redefine the regional threat to Israel. The major candidate for this
role is Russia.

During the Cold War, the Soviets pursued a strategy to undermine American interests
in the region. In the course of this, the Soviets activated states and groups that
could directly threaten Israel. There is no significant conventional military threat
to Israel on its borders unless Egypt is willing and well-armed. Since the
mid-1970s, Egypt has been neither. Even if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were to
die and be replaced by a regime hostile to Israel, Cairo could do nothing unless it
had a patron capable of training and arming its military. The same is true of Syria
and Iran to a great extent. Without access to outside military technology, Iran is a
nation merely of frightening press conferences. With access, the entire regional
equation shifts.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, no one was prepared to intervene in the Middle
East the way the Soviets had. The Chinese have absolutely no interest in struggling
with the United States in the Middle East, which accounts for a similar percentage
of Chinese and U.S. oil consumption. It is far cheaper to buy oil in the Middle East
than to engage in a geopolitical struggle with China's major trade partner, the
United States. Even if there was interest, no European powers can play this role
given their individual military weakness, and Europe as a whole is a geopolitical
myth. The only country that can threaten the balance of power in the Israeli
geopolitical firmament is Russia.

Israel fears that if Russia gets involved in a struggle with the United States,
Moscow will aid Middle Eastern regimes that are hostile to the United States as one
of its levers, beginning with Syria and Iran. Far more frightening to the Israelis
is the idea of the Russians once again playing a covert role in Egypt, toppling the
tired Mubarak regime, installing one friendlier to their own interests, and arming
it. Israel's fundamental fear is not Iran. It is a rearmed, motivated and hostile
Egypt backed by a great power. 

The Russians are not after Israel, which is a sideshow for them. But in the course
of finding ways to threaten American interests in the Middle East -- seeking to
force the Americans out of their desired sphere of influence in the former Soviet
region -- the Russians could undermine what at the moment is a quite secure position
in the Middle East for the United States.

This brings us back to what the Israelis were doing in Georgia. They were not trying
to acquire airbases from which to bomb Iran. That would take thousands of Israeli
personnel in Georgia for maintenance, munitions management, air traffic control and
so on. And it would take Ankara allowing the use of Turkish airspace, which isn't
very likely. Plus, if that were the plan, then stopping the Georgians from attacking
South Ossetia would have been a logical move.

The Israelis were in Georgia in an attempt, in parallel with the United States, to
prevent Russia's re-emergence as a great power. The nuts and bolts of that effort
involves shoring up states in the former Soviet region that are hostile to  Russia,
as well as supporting individuals in Russia who oppose Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin's direction. The Israeli presence in Georgia, like the American one, was
designed to block the re-emergence of Russia.

As soon as the Israelis got wind of a coming clash in South Ossetia, they -- unlike
the United States -- switched policies dramatically. Where the United States
increased its hostility toward Russia, the Israelis ended weapons sales to Georgia
before the war. After the war, the Israelis initiated diplomacy designed to calm
Russian fears. Indeed, at the moment the Israelis have a greater interest in keeping
the Russians from seeing Israel as an enemy than they have in keeping the Americans
happy. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney may be uttering vague threats to the
Russians. But Olmert was reassuring Moscow it has nothing to fear from Israel, and
therefore should not sell weapons to Syria, Iran, Hezbollah or anyone else hostile
to Israel.

Interestingly, the Americans have started pumping out information that the Russians
are selling weapons to Hezbollah and Syria. The Israelis have avoided that issue
carefully. They can live with some weapons in Hezbollah's hands a lot more easily
than they can live with a coup in Egypt followed by the introduction of Russian
military advisers. One is a nuisance; the other is an existential threat. Russia may
not be in a position to act yet, but the Israelis aren't waiting for the situation
to get out of hand.

Israel is in control of the Palestinian situation and relations with the countries
along its borders. Its position in the wider Muslim world is much better than it
might appear. Its only enemy there is Iran, and that threat is much less clear than
the Israelis say publicly. But the threat of Russia intervening in the Muslim world
-- particularly in Syria and Egypt -- is terrifying to the Israelis. It is a risk
they won't live with if they don't have to. So the Israelis switched their policy in
Georgia with lightning speed. This could create frictions with the United States,
but the Israeli-American relationship isn't what it used to be.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 08, 2008, 10:05:50 PM

Quote from: JDN on September 08, 2008, 09:35:46 AM

I understand Indian Reservations are "sovereign nations"; but only at the "generosity" of the USG.  This sovereignty can be easily restricted, changed, or taken away and further, as you pointed out, "the USG retains federal jurisdiction of tribal lands." 

**Would you support the elimination of reservations in the interest of "democracy"?**

As for the State of CA it seems to regulate their ability to gamble (number of machines, etc.) and also the sheriff's contend (although debateable) that they have "free and unrestricted access".  At minimum, Sheriff's do have the right to investigate crime, arrest, etc.  That being said, I have dealt with Indian Tribes before and it is a pain in the ass legally speaking.  But that is another subject.

http://www.9-1-1magazine.com/magazine/1997/0997/features/mentzer.html
**The article gives a good overview of the jurisdictional issues involved.**

But Israel?  It is hardly a good analogy.  No one has jurisdiction over them, rather Israel is the one with jurisdiction.  Your analogy is contrary to the situation in the Middle East.

A better analogy is the one pointed out in the article.  Prime Minister Olmert himself used the comparison to the South African-style struggle.  He implied that Israel is like South Africa and is in essence now imposing an apartheid system.  Morally, most would say that is wrong and as even Olmert states that it is wrong and the world will one day turn against Israel as it did turn against South Africa. 

**So suicide is moral? How about the moral outrage on how jews, christians and other non-muslims are treated in the middle east? There is no "right of return" for the once thriving Jewish population centers in middle eastern countries. Much like Saddam killing masses, the "world opinion" is silent. Mass murder and oppressions is ignored, unless the US or Israel can somehow be blamed for it.**

Now, Israel has direct control over four million Palestinians in the occupied territories. 

**No it doesn't. They have the Gaza strip and the West bank under the PA.**

They have been under Israel's military rule for 40 years!  Much of the world has already turned against Israel for subjecting the Palestinians to being second class people. 

**The "world opinion" is the result of two things: The onslaught of propaganda and stealth anti-semitism covered as "anti-zionism".**

The analogy to apartheid is real and repulsive to most people in a democracy.  And as the article points out, the Palestinian population is growing; soon they will be the majority.

**The "palestinians" are nothing but a tool for the surrounding arab nations to use against Israel. If they really cared about the "palestinian plight" they wouldn't have warehoused them in "refugee camps" for decades.**

If they say, as the article points out, let us have one country and demand equal rights and are the majority,  the Palestinians will control and Israel will change from being a "Jewish democracy" to a multiethnic post Zionist democratic state.  That is a true democracy, everyone's desire, but I understand your point, it would be disastrous for the Jews of Israel.

The article's point; Israel is between a rock and a hard place with no easy way out.  Not today, not next year, but the time will come.  But it will come and I bet the the world with vote "democracy" (one cannot vote in good conscience for apartheid) and not for the Jews.   Hopefully, a solution can be found before the Palestinians become a democratic majority.

PS as for the use of the term "Palestinians" note Israel Prime Minister Olmert uses the term himself therefore I assume it has come in to common usage.

**It's come into common usage, it doesn't make it right, though.**

Title: Re: Israel-
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2008, 01:19:29 AM

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
---------------------------

 

GEOPOLITICAL DIARY: OLMERT’S CANCELED TRIP TO MOSCOW, THE BROADER PICTURE

The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert canceled
his trip to Moscow scheduled for Sept. 14. The trip was apparently canceled because
of a recommendation made Sept. 7 by the Israeli police to indict Olmert on bribery
charges. While the explanation seems plausible, it is unlikely. If Olmert was unable
to go because of political heat at home, a high-level Israeli official could have
gone in his place or the visit could been rescheduled.

Instead, the cancellation seems to indicate that Israel is switching its strategy on
how to handle a resurgent Russia, from a policy of accommodation to one of potential
confrontation.

The relationship between Russia and Israel has had its fair share of ups and downs,
beginning with a close alliance between the nascent Jewish state and the Soviet
Union in the late 1940s. This was followed by a period of Soviet patronage of
Israel's enemies, mainly Egypt and Syria, which was designed primarily to strike at
U.S. interests in the Middle East but which also threatened Israel as an ancillary
effect. But with the end of the Cold War, Moscow's influence receded from the Middle
East.

Israel's biggest existential threat is not from its Arab neighbors but rather from a
global power seeking to establish its own interests in the Middle East. In other
words, Israel's neighbors only become a threat once they obtain outside patronage
making them bold, organized and armed enough to strike at Israel from all sides.

While Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and is eyeing a similar
relationship with Syria, there is no guarantee that an emergent global power would
not offer alternatives to Israel's neighbors -- alternatives that have been lacking
in the post-Cold War world.

Russia is exactly such a power. A resurgent Russia once again looking for potential
allies in the Middle East (such as Iran, Syria or perhaps in a highly hypothetical
scenario even Egypt) that would challenge the United States has always been one of
Israel's main concerns. Therefore, Israel actively engaged in checking Russian power
by selling weapons to Georgia. The idea was to contain Moscow and force it to deal
with challenges on its periphery, thus keeping it from mucking about in the Middle
East. 

Israel got wind of Moscow's plans for Georgia before the Aug. 8 intervention and
decided that a confrontation with the Kremlin was not a wise strategy, precisely
because Israel understands the danger in Russian support of Syria and Iran. Hence, a
week before Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia, Israel announced that it would
end all weapon sales to Georgia. This was followed by a general acquiescent attitude
toward Moscow after the Georgian intervention, to the obvious chagrin of the
Americans who were looking for a concerted effort against the Kremlin. The
subsequent Olmert visit on Sept. 14 was supposed to affirm an accommodating policy
toward Moscow and to secure guarantees from the Kremlin that Iran and Syria would
not be emboldened to threaten Israel.

However Russia has not fallen into line with Israel's overtures. This is not because
Moscow is hoping for open confrontation with Israel, but rather because Russia's
current priority is to keep Americans embroiled in the Middle East. To do that, from
the Kremlin perspective, Iran has to remain a threat and -- if possible -- Syria
ought to re-emerge as a threat. Russian actions, designed to allow Moscow room to
maneuver in the Caucasus and Europe, have therefore -- as an ancillary consequence
-- threatened Israel's national security.

Specifically, a resurgent Russia supporting Iran with nuclear technology and
advanced strategic air-defense systems, like the late-model variants of the S-300,
is a direct threat to Israel even though Moscow's actual intention is to embolden
Tehran against the United States. A particularly nightmarish scenario for Israel
would be a refocused and reorganized Syria (or a hypothetical post-coup Egypt) with
renewed Russian patronage.

This changes the strategic calculus that Israel has had since the end of the Cold
War. For the past 18 years Israel's biggest concern was not the strength of the Arab
states, but rather their weakness -- the fear that if there was a war with its
neighbors Israel's military superiority would be so catastrophic that it would
destroy the enemy to the point where the resulting chaos would usher in not another
secular state but an Islamist one that would sponsor waves of terror attacks against
Israel.

Israel therefore found itself in the odd position of wanting (and often overtly
trying) to keep various Arab secular dictators in power in order to avoid having to
deal with a worse alternative. With Russia back in the game, a secular regime backed
by the Kremlin is much worse than an unaligned Islamist regime from Israel's
perspective. Therefore, Israel may still have a few cards to play should Russia jump
back into the sandbox, starting with destabilizing neighbors that choose to side
with Moscow.

Title: Israel asks for corredor to attack Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2008, 08:01:44 AM

second article of the morning:

Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran  By Amos Harel and Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondents  Tags: U.S., bunker buster, Iran 
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:

Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.

Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of "If you want, coordinate with him."

Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.

The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.

The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister's plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.

Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.

The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush's visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush's visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.

However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel's "offensive" requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.

During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.

The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.

A senior security official said the Americans were preparing "with the greatest speed" to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.

The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.

At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.

However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html

Title: A losing battle, so far
Post by: rachelg on September 13, 2008, 07:41:09 AM

Editor's Notes: A losing battle, so far
Sep. 4, 2008
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220526712951&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

In August 2007, because certain intelligence agencies were not convinced of Israeli claims that President Bashar Assad was engaged in the construction of a nuclear weapons facility, Israel sent sent 12 members of the Sayeret Matkal commando unit into Syria in two helicopters to collect soil samples outside the site in question.

Needless to say, this was a highly dangerous operation. And it very nearly went wrong. The commandos were almost exposed when a Syrian patrol drove past the landing site where the helicopters were parked.

But it was well worth it. The results provided "clear-cut proof" of the nuclear project," investigative journalist Ronen Bergman writes in his new book, The Secret War with Iran.

A month later, Israel bombed the site, and in so doing reemphasized the Begin Doctrine - Israel's insistence that, for the sake of its own survival, it will not allow the deployment by hostile neighbors of weapons that might be used to destroy it.

Bergman's book, which will be published next week in the United States, is an expanded, updated version of his Hebrew-language The Point of No Return, which was Israel's best-selling non-fiction work in 2007.

The new volume is anything but a mere translation. For one thing, the world has moved on, or more accurately, moved closer to confrontation, in the intervening period. For another, Bergman has added further revelatory content to the 2007 book's disclosures.

Plainly, the author has been allowed access to a range of material hitherto kept classified by various intelligence services. Plainly, too, what he is publishing is material that Israel is content to have widely disseminated and some of which cannot be independently verified. The book was submitted to censorship, and not all of its content was approved, he told me when he dropped off a copy a few days ago, though it did sometimes seem as though he had run into the censor on a relatively benign day.

Most notable, perhaps, in this context, is the fact that the guardians of Israel's military secrets have allowed Bergman to provide a fairly extensive account of that September 6, 2007, raid on Syria's nuclear facility - whose purpose he states unambiguously was "the production of plutonium for the manufacture of atomic bombs" and whose construction, he reports, was a tripartite endeavor: "At a series of secret meetings between representatives of the three sides, held mainly in Teheran, it was decided that Syria would supply the territory, Iran the money [$1 billion-$2b.], and North Korea the expertise..."

Last year's raid was the subject of some of the heaviest military censorship that I have encountered in the past 25 years: Israel was desperate to take no official responsibility for the attack, and in this way to allow Damascus plausible deniability, to avoid a deterioration into war. There was no official confirmation of the raid, and for a long time after it, all references in the Israeli media had to include conditioning phrases such as the "reported" Israeli strike.

Apparently such concerns no longer apply. Bergman has been freed to describe, without the censor's usual required attribution to "foreign sources," the entire process by which the Syrian facility was built - with details of the shipments of material from North Korea and the dispatch of Korean scientists. He sets out the circumstances of that high-risk August fact-finding mission by Sayeret Matkal. And he is allowed to note that "a number of North Koreans" were killed in the Israeli attack.

Although destroying the site was an Israeli operation, Bergman makes clear further that "the Israelis and the Americans decided to act," and that the two countries coordinated on the official silence policy after the raid was successfully completed. "Prime Minister Olmert and President Bush decided that both countries would maintain a policy of total nonreaction, without exceptions, and without winks or nods. If the Syrians had not been in a hurry to issue their own statements, the whole matter might not have been disclosed at all."

If the sanctioning of these details about last year's raid on Syria is interesting, given the immensely sensitive nature of Israeli-Syrian relations and the continued potential for both diplomatic breakthrough and bitter conflict, then the sanctioning of some of Bergman's disclosures about the Iranian nuclear project, and notably the Bush administration's attitude to it, seems potentially incendiary.

A few weeks ago, the White House took the unusual step of issuing a specific denial of a report on Army Radio, picked up by the Post, which claimed that a Bush official recently told his Israeli counterparts that the president is planning to strike Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office. Only this week, a newspaper in The Netherlands claimed that Dutch intelligence has abruptly halted an "extremely successful" ongoing operation to sabotage Iran's nuclear program because of an assessment that such an American strike is indeed just weeks away.

In his book, Israel's military censor has allowed Bergman to add two highly significant revelations in this context: The first is that after the American intelligence community issued its controversial National Intelligence Estimate late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, Vice President Richard Cheney sent a message to Olmert stating that despite this conclusion, "the possibility of an American military operation against Iranian nuclear targets and military infrastructure had not been discarded."

The second is that, as of May 2008, "the Mossad's estimate" is that Bush, "out of religious and ideological motives, will order a strike."

FOR ALL the behind-the-scenes Israeli access granted Bergman, and the censor's apparent generosity, his account of what he calls "the 30-year clandestine struggle against the world's most dangerous terrorist power" overflows with tales of incompetence and outright failure in the battle against Iran - some narrow and specific, some more fundamental - many of which reflect terribly on Israel.

He reminds readers who might prefer to forget the uncomfortable truth that Israel supplied arms to Ayatollah Khomeini's regime at the turn of the 1980s, in an operation codenamed "Seashell," which was critical in "turning the tide of the war" against Iraq in Iran's favor.

In one illustration of the disastrous consequences for the seller of misguided arms dealing, he points out that one of the machine guns sold by Israel to Iran at that time, a Browning, later transferred to Hizbullah's arsenal, was used to murderous effect in the July 12, 2006, attack on the IDF Humvees patrolling the Lebanon border in which three soldiers were killed and Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev fatally wounded and captured - the attack that sparked the Second Lebanon War. (A senior Iranian official who helped broker those arms deals, Bergman further reveals, later became a top Iranian representative in Lebanon and a Hizbullah founder, and pushed for the 2006 abduction-attack on Teheran's orders. Some of the Hizbullah gunmen who carried out that attack, he also writes, were trained in Iran.)

He reports how Israel has insistently failed to acknowledge that a November 1982 car bombing by the nascent Hizbullah at Israel's military government headquarters in Tyre, southern Lebanon, in which 75 Israeli security personnel and 27 Lebanese were killed, was an Iranian-sponsored suicide bombing. Indeed, it was the first such suicide attack - "the bomb that spawned a movement,' as he calls it.

More Israelis were killed in that blast, which reduced a seven-story building to rubble, than in any since. The car used in the attack, a Peugeot, was identified. The bomber's identity is known: Ahmad Qassir has a monument to his memory in his home village near Baalbek. Yet "to this day," Bergman notes, "Israeli intelligence claims that there was no intelligence failure; that there was not even a terror attack, just a problem with gas cylinders."

The refusal to grapple with the reality of the suicide-bomb challenge right away left Israel more vulnerable than it need have been to the relentless series of such bombings that have followed - beginning with another attack in the very same city a year later, in which 28 more Israelis were killed.

"This thing has been burning inside me for years," Bergman quotes Haifa Judge Yitzhak Dar as saying. Dar was on a team that investigated the blast for the IDF, concluded it was a car bombing, but saw its report buried. "Despite the conclusions we reached, everybody wanted to believe that it was negligence about gas cylinders, and not a terror attack," laments Dar. "Thus, they wasted a very valuable year of preparations for the next attack, one which could have been prevented with a little awareness of the potential for the use of car bombs."

Bergman reports that IDF Military Intelligence got wind in advance of Hizbullah plans to kidnap "a very senior American intelligence officer a week before the CIA station chief in Beirut, Col. William Buckley, was indeed seized (and tortured and killed) in March 1984 in an Imad Mughniyeh-led Hizbullah operation, but that the Mossad doubted the information and didn't bother to pass it on to the CIA.

He summarizes Israeli intelligence's grave, ongoing failure to penetrate Hizbullah by reporting that a Mossad man, who for years served in the unit that sought to recruit spies inside the organization, held up his hands, without all the fingers extended, to indicate the number of successes over 24 full years.

By contrast, he discusses Hizbullah's staggering penetration of Israeli security circles... and the sometimes ridiculous ease with which this is sometimes achieved. During the Second Lebanon War, for instance, he notes, "militiamen who had learned Hebrew at the so-called Cultural Center of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut listened in to IDF radio networks, using advanced communications equipment and codes supplied to them by IDF members who were working with them in drug trafficking." (My emphasis added.)

Hizbullah knew far, far more about Israel's military planning and capabilities for that war than Israel remotely conceived, in short, while Israel knew far, far less than it thought it did about Hizbullah. "In truth," says Bergman, "Israel had gone to war in almost total darkness."

One small, very specific illustration: The spacious bunker from which the attack on the Goldwasser-Regev patrol was planned, which had been established over many weeks right under Israel's nose across the border, and which was connected by a fiberoptic cable network to Hizbullah's command headquarters in Beirut, did not merely remain undiscovered before the attack, thus facilitating it. It remained undiscovered "throughout the entire war, even though Israeli soldiers controlled the area from the first day. It was a miracle that Hizbullah guerrillas never took advantage of it to strike at Israeli troops again after the abduction on July 12."

The debilitating underestimation of Hizbullah is mirrored, in Bergman's narrative, by other basic failures in trying to grapple with Hizbullah's state sponsor, Iran.

Most centrally, he charges, Israel, along with the US and the rest of the West, only recognized relatively recently how far Iran has progressed toward its nuclear goal because for years everybody was looking the wrong way: Most eyes were focused on Russia, which was deemed to be the main potential international maverick that might enable Teheran to attain the bomb. But the real threat - the player that gave Iran the vital resources to stride forward - was Pakistan, via its notorious nuclear salesman Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

THE SAGA Bergman recounts is not unremittingly bleak. The raid on Syria marked an important reassertion of Israeli military capability. The killing of Hizbullah terror chief Mughniyeh in the heart of the Syrian capital in February - for which no party has claimed responsibility - should also have sent a certain deterrent message. The defection to the CIA of top Iranian intelligence adviser Gen. Ali Reza Askari last year was another success.

Bergman also lists a series of sabotage operations that have prevented Iran from being even closer still to the bomb: A leading expert on electromagnetics who worked at Iran's Isfahan enrichment facility found dead at his home last year, and reports of an explosion at his laboratory; three or four planes crashing inside Iran in 2006 and 2007 with personnel connected to the security of the nuclear project on board; insulation units for the centrifuge enrichment process discovered to be unusable; various explosions caused by faulty equipment at the main Natanz facility and at Isfahan, including the wrecking of 50 centrifuges when two transformers blew up at Natanz in 2006. In language presumably negotiated painstakingly with the censor, the last of these incidents is attributed to "efforts implemented jointly with the United States."

Overall, Bergman writes, "Since Meir Dagan became Mossad director in 2002, Israel has significantly improved its knowledge about goings-on inside Iran, and has even taken certain preemptive actions."

Nonetheless, it seems that Iran has essentially cleared its technical hurdles now, and is into the home stretch - racing against the clock to get the bomb before international pressure, of whatever kind, forces a halt.

The latest information, according to Bergman's Mossad sources, is that some 3,000 centrifuges, in 18 cascades, are now enriching uranium, "under great technical difficulties," at Natanz. Nearby, the Iranians are building a plant to hold another 30,000 to 50,000 centrifuges - and building it underground to ensure no repeat of Israel's successful raid on Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Already, Natanz is protected by no fewer than 26 anti-aircraft missile batteries, and this and other of its nuclear facilities, he writes (despite others' claims to the contrary), already have the advanced Russian-made S-300 missiles among their defenses.

Meanwhile, at the Parchin military complex, notwithstanding the complacent conclusion of the NIE last year, the Iranians are hard at work on the final phase of the journey to the bomb - having made "considerable progress" in mastering the process of emplacing enriched uranium into the device that starts the devastating chain reaction. They are also making headway, Bergman writes, "in acquiring the expertise required to manufacture nuclear warheads that can be fitted to their missiles."

Satellite images of Parchin, he notes, show the erection of structures that can be used for the assembly of explosives needed in nuclear warheads. "Identical structures had over the years been spotted close to the installations where the Soviet Union developed and manufactured its nuclear warheads."

Why, given all this, did the NIE draw the opposite conclusions about Iran's nuclear weapons program? In part, Bergman asserts, because Iran outfoxed the American intelligence services by means that included the calculated leaking of bogus material purporting to indicate that the effort had been frozen in 2003.

BERGMAN'S COMBINATION of overview and revelation makes for a horrifying read. Essentially, his book demonstrates an ongoing incapacity - by Israel, the US and the rest of the free world, but, critically, featuring Israel as the first potential casualty - to internalize the extent of the Iranian threat and act effectively to thwart it. The powers that are faced off against expansionist Islam have consistently underestimated the cunning, viciousness and determination of the chief state sponsor of that ideology, Iran, and its various offshoots, proxies and allies, notably including Hizbullah and Hamas.

Time and again, Western weakness, capitulation and inaction has emboldened Islamic extremism. Between 1980 and 1997, for instance, Iran assassinated close to 200 "dissidents" in attack after attack across Europe, and European nations, on the whole, barely lifted a finger to stop them. Why would Iran not be emboldened?

A relentless campaign of kidnappings, murders and suicide bombings forced the US out of Lebanon, forced the French out of Lebanon, forced Israel out of Lebanon, and ultimately led to Hizbullah's increasingly dominant status in Lebanon. (Among the often forgotten victims were 12 members of Lebanon's tiny lingering Jewish community, who were kidnapped and killed by the nascent Hizbullah from West Beirut, in 1985 and 1986.) Right now, Iran and Hizbullah are plotting to "avenge" Mughniyeh's death with kidnappings of Israeli businessmen, and they are free to act because they have operatives ready and waiting in countries all around the world. Why wouldn't it? The tactic has worked so well over the decades.

As Bergman writes in a sober concluding chapter, "Iran and Hizbullah are more sophisticated, effective and determined adversaries than Israel and the United States have previously encountered in the Middle East. These new enemies, the Shi'ites of Iran and Lebanon, have repeatedly outwitted Israel and the West, beating them across the board in politics, in intelligence gathering and in war."

Now Iran is on the brink of attaining the ultimate tool for expanding the Islamic Revolution, the nuclear bomb, and still the international community hesitates and bickers and even undermines its own ineffectual trade sanctions.

Ten years ago, Dr. Iftikhar Khan Chaudry, a former research officer in Pakistan's nuclear project, sought political asylum in the United States, claiming he would be killed if he returned home. In his affidavit, which was found to be credible and led to his being granted the refuge he sought, he detailed how A.Q. Khan had marketed Pakistan's nuclear expertise and materials to clients including Libya, Iraq and North Korea, exposing the clandestine network for the first time. Outrageously, it took the US until September 2003 to confront Pakistan about Khan's activities.

Chaudry also specified how Khan had set up Pakistan's nuclear channel to Iran, having himself been present when five Iranian scientists visited Pakistan at the start of the partnership. The Iranians were "introduced to the method in which uranium is processed for the purpose of creating a nuclear bomb," Chaudry told the Americans. And he added, "It is also apparent that Iran intends to utilize a nuclear weapon - in the future, when a nuclear weapon would be operational - against the State of Israel."

"The Secret War with Iran, as waged since the fall of the shah and the arrival of Khomeini, has been a tale of ruthless single-mindedness on their side and confused laxity on ours.

Read it and weep?

No. Read it and work - before it's too late.

("The Secret War with Iran" will be published in the US next week by Free Press.)

I took a little break from this forum because among other reason  I was having difficulties controlling my temper.
 
I personally feel anger is a selfish emotion. It is caused by person thinking is some sense how can they say that to "ME" or how can they do to "ME" .   I don't mean I am against self defense, standing up for what I believe in, fighting evil and injustice,  or vehemently disagreeing with someone but that anger is not the proper emotion or response for handling any of those situations.   GM,  I am sorry for my anger.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 13, 2008, 07:50:14 AM

No worries Rachel. Everyone wants to choke me sooner or later, some more often than not.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2008, 04:28:03 PM

We are glad to have you with us once again. 

Title: Israel slated to buy 1,000 'bunker-buster' bombs from US
Post by: rachelg on September 14, 2008, 03:06:54 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221142470441&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Israel slated to buy 1,000 'bunker-buster' bombs from US
Sep. 14, 2008
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

The US Department of Defense has notified Congress of a potential sale to Israel of 1,000 smart bombs capable of penetrating underground bunkers, which would likely be used in the event of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The notification to Congress was made over the weekend by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the Pentagon responsible for evaluating foreign military sales. Congress has 30 days to object to the deal.

The deal is valued at $77 million and the principal contractor would be Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

The bomb Israel wants is the GBU-39, developed in recent years by the US as a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision and low-collateral damage strikes.

Israel has also asked for 150 mounting carriages, 30 guided test vehicles and two instructors to train the air force in loading the bombs on its aircraft.

The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world. The 113 kg. bomb has the same penetration capabilities as a normal 900 kg. bomb, although it has only 22.7 kg. of explosives. At just 1.75 meters long, its small size increases the number of bombs an aircraft can carry and the number of targets it can attack in a sortie.

Tests conducted in the US have proven that the bomb is capable of penetrating at least 90 cm. of steel-reinforced concrete. The GBU-39 can be used in adverse weather conditions and has a standoff range of more than 110 km. due to pop-out wings.

In its recommendation to Congress, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency wrote that Israel's strategic position was "vital to the United States' interests throughout the Middle East."

"It is vital to the US national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives," the statement read.

The agency's announcement came amid growing concern that the Pentagon was not willing to sell Israel advanced military platforms such as bunker-buster missiles in an effort to dissuade Jerusalem from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

Bunker-buster missiles would be a fundamental component of an air strike against Iran, since many of the nuclear facilities, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment complex, have been built in underground, heavily fortified bunkers.

During the Second Lebanon War, Israel reportedly received an emergency shipment of bunker-buster missiles from the US to use against underground Hizbullah facilities.

Yiftah Shapir, from the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said the GBU-39 is one of the most advanced in the world and would improve Israel's standoff fire capabilities.

"The bomb is extremely accurate," he said. "All you have to do is punch in the coordinates, fire and forget."

He said they could be used to attack Iranian underground facilities like Natanz but that they could only penetrate a few meters.

"Hundreds of these would have to be used in an attack on Natanz for it to be successful," Shapir said.


GM/ Marc Thank you

Title: Interesting change in news here
Post by: ccp on September 15, 2008, 01:51:16 PM

This contradicts a report in the JP a few days back that the US refused to deliver the bunker bustin bombs to the Israelis.

I wonder how much of a success this could be if Israel goes alone?

If only we were more energy "independent" we wouldn't have to be concerned as much about the "backlash".  We can thank the greens and their accomplices in the Democratic party (and some Cans) who refused to let us drill offshore and to pursue nuclear energy for this predicament at least in part.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2008, 02:08:31 PM

http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000121.html

December 31, 2004
BOYCOTT ISRAEL? DO IT PROPERLY..

Ed Weiss

(Editor's Note: Now that doing economic damage to Israel is the moral fashion, with European groups organizing boycotts, the Presbyterian Church voting to "selectively" divest from companies doing business in Israel and the Episcopal Church suggesting it may follow suit, the following article is a welcome reminder of the damage the boycotters, if they were -- perish the thought -- consistent, would do to themselves.)

O.K. So I understand that you are ticked off at Israel, and in love with the Palestinians. That's fine with me, as long as you have truly weighed up all the facts.

So, you want to boycott Israel? I'll be sorry to miss you, but if you are doing it—do it properly. Let me help you.

Check all your medications. Make sure that you do not have tablets, drops, lotions, etc., made by Abic or Teva. It may mean that you will suffer from colds and flu this winter but, hey, that's a small price for you to pay in your campaign against Israel, isn't it?

While we are on the subject of your Israeli boycott, and the medical contributions to the world made by Israeli doctors and scientists, how about telling your pals to boycott the following.....

An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis. So, if you know anyone suffering from MS, tell them to ignore the Israeli patent that may, more accurately, diagnose their symptoms.

An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralyzed hands. This device electrically stimulates the hand muscles, providing hope to millions of stroke sufferers and victims of spinal injuries. If you wish to remove this hope of a better quality of life to these people, go ahead and boycott Israel.

Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood. This innovation replaces the inhalation mask with an improved drug delivery system that provides relief for child and parent. Please tell anxious mothers that they shouldn't use this device because of your passionate cause.

These are just a few examples of how people have benefited medically from the Israeli know-how you wish to block.

Boycotts often affect research. A new research center in Israel hopes to throw light on brain disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's disease. The Joseph Sangol Neuroscience Center in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer Hospital aims to bring thousands of scientists and doctors to focus on brain research.

A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralize the highly contagious smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the existing vaccine.

Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Doctors Ciechanover and Hershko's research and discovery of one of the human cells most important cyclical processes will lead the way to DNA repair, control of newly produced proteins, and immune defense systems.

The Movement Disorder Surgery program at Israel's Hadassah Medical Center has successfully eliminated the physical manifestations of Parkinson's disease in a select group of patients with a deep brain stimulation technique.

For women who undergo hysterectomies each year for uterine fibroids, the development in Israel of the ExAblate 2000 System offers a non-invasive alternative to surgery.

Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine.

These are just a few of the projects that you can help stop with your Israeli boycott.

But let's not get too obsessed with medical research, there are other ways you can make a personal sacrifice with your anti-Israel boycott.

Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. So, set a personal example. Throw away your computer!

The Pentium NMX Chip technology was designed at Intel in Israel. Both the Pentium 4 microprocessor and the Centrium processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 in Israel by four young Israeli whiz kids. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R.& D. facilities outside the US in Israel.

So, due to your complete boycott of anything Israeli, you now have poor health and no computer. But your bad news does not end there. Get rid of your cellular phone!

Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its biggest development center in Israel. Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists.

Feeling unsettled? You should be. Part of your personal security rests with Israeli inventiveness, borne out of our urgent necessity to protect and defend our lives from the terrorists you support.

A phone can remotely activate a bomb, or be used for tactical communications by terrorists, bank robbers, or hostage-takers. It is vital that official security and law enforcement authorities have access to cellular jamming and detection solutions. Enter Israel's Netline Communications Technologies with their security expertise to help the fight against terror.

A joint, non-profit, venture between Israel and Maryland will result in a five day Business Development and Planning Conference in March. Selected Israeli companies will partner with Maryland firms to provide innovations for homeland security.

I also want you to know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita -- 109 per 10,000 -- than any other nation. Israel has the highest number of start-up companies per capita and in absolute terms, the highest number, except for the U.S. Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies outside of Silicon Valley. Israel is ranked second in the world for venture capital funds, behind the U.S. Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita.

Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth. These immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom or expression, economic opportunity, and quality of life.

Believe it or not, Israel is the only country in the world which had a net gain in the number of trees last year.

So, you can vilify and demonize the State of Israel. You can continue your silly boycott, if you wish. But I wish you would consider the consequences, and the truth.

Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world—and to you—in science, medicine, communications, security. In relation to our population we are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth.

Ed Weiss lives in Ra'anana, Israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2008, 02:13:08 PM

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/107

DESPITE REJECTION AND ISOLATION, ISRAEL KEEPS GIVING

by Richard Baehr
inFocus
Spring 2008

In 60 short years as a modern state, Israel has become a nation of remarkable achievements. Over 2.9 million Jews have moved to Israel since 1948 from Africa, Arab nations, Europe, India, Latin America, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, not to mention 1.1 million persons from the former Soviet Union. Over the years, the Israeli population has grown from an estimated 750,000 to over 7 million. This includes a Christian and Muslim Arab population that comprises nearly 20 percent of the current population. Thanks to basic laws that defend democratic principles, all of these peoples and religions are provided the opportunity to join the Israeli "melting pot," similar to that of the United States.

The unlikely story of Israel does not end there. Israeli entrepreneurship and research have improved the lives of people in a variety of areas: medicine, agriculture and irrigation, communications, computer technology, security, aviation safety, alternative energy development, business services, and disaster relief and rescue, to name just a few. This has been accomplished by a nation with barely 0.1percent of the world's population, which has been forced, due to the unremitting enmity of its neighbors, to devote an astronomical 10 percent of its GDP to defense.

Despite these amazing achievements, no country in the world is more roundly rejected by the community of nations.

Location, Location, Location

It is Israel's misfortune to be the only non-Muslim state located in the center of the Arab world. Reborn in war in 1948, Israel has never since been free from the threat of war or terror directed against its population from surrounding state and non-state actors.

Despite repeated attempts (some successful) to make peace with its neighbors, Israel is treated as a pariah state. While most of the criticism is focused on the measures that Israel takes to prevent its citizens from being harmed by terrorism, the scorn can be traced back to the very founding of the state. Indeed, the anger at Israel persists, not because of its policies, which have shifted dramatically over the years, but because many of Israel's Arab neighbors still do not want to recognize it. This is the case despite peace agreements with two of its neighbors - Egypt and Jordan - in addition to intermittent peace negotiations with the Palestinians for 15 years. In fact, the isolation and hostility have, if anything, worsened.

International Isolation

Israel's isolation is not only regional. Approximately 40 percent of all resolutions passed by the United Nations at the behest of Arab nations have condemned Israel for its security policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians or Arab nations. Human rights commissions, and international courts have convicted Israel of all kinds of alleged violations of international law and international human rights standards, while ignoring truly atrocious human rights violations, including suicide bombings, and the indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars at Israelis. They also neglect to mention the continued threats to "wipe Israel off the map" (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) or "drive the Israelis into the sea" (Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar).

While Israel fights for its survival, the international community routinely calls Israel's very legitimacy as a nation into question. Entire international conferences such as those at Durban in 2001, and the upcoming "Durban 2" are devoted to the "scourge" of Zionism.

In the face of this constant drubbing, Israel has repeatedly sought to explain itself to the world. Efforts at hasbara, or public relations, have repeatedly failed. The Palestinians have cornered the "victim" market, making it nearly impossible for Israel to gain world sympathy. Israel has thus taken upon itself to create a "rebranding" program, to attempt to communicate its achievements and contributions, instead of the steady and unrelenting coverage of war, terrorism, and the rebuke from other nations and international bodies that issue most reports on the country.

Business and Technology

For 60 years, Israel has given the world the products of its high tech society. These are innovations to make life better for billions of people on the planet. Quietly, Israel has become one of the world's leading technology, science, and medical research centers.

Much of Israel's innovation can be traced to an unusually well-educated workforce. Israel has the highest number of university degrees per capita in the world, with a high concentration of them in science, medicine, and engineering. Half of Israelis with degrees also hold advanced degrees. This commitment to higher education occurs in a country where most students do not even begin university study until after their military service is completed, usually at age 22. Israel's science and technology universities - including the Technion, Weizmann Institute, and Talpiot program of the Israel Defense Forces - graduate some of the best-trained scientists and engineers in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation in the world, and has one of the highest rates of per capita patents filed. Israel is the nation with the highest number of scientists and technicians per 1,000 in the workforce, with far higher levels than in the U.S., Japan, and Germany. Over 25 percent of Israel's workforce is employed in technical professions, putting Israel first in the world in this category, too.

Thus, it is not by accident that Israel trails only the United States in the number of startup technology companies. In fact, Israel ranks behind only the United States and Canada in NASDAQ-listed companies. It is also number two in the world in the allocation of venture capital funds, after the United States. Israel is the only country outside the United States where Cisco Systems and Microsoft have located R & D facilities. Google, IBM, and Intel all have large operations in Israel.

In the area of software and communications, products that are a part of every day life around the world owe their development to Israel's high tech industry. These include: voice mail technology, AOL's Instant Messenger, Intel's Pentium 4 microprocessor and Centrino chipsets, most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems, the original cell phone made by Motorola, the first PC anti-virus software, the first key-chain storage system, the largest communications router in the world from Cisco, and other advanced computerized security systems.

Thanks to these innovations, Israel has achieved remarkable and consistent economic growth, with a current per capita income of approximately $20,000 per resident, and a GDP approaching $150 billion. Indeed, Israel has become a developed country, much like many of the nations in Western Europe.

Tikkun Olam

Israel's relative wealth is only one part of the picture. One of the bedrocks of the Jewish faith is a concept known as tikkun olam, or repairing the world. As such, Israel has emerged as a leader in the field of medicine and medical research. Indeed, Israel has been on the cutting edge of embryonic and adult stem cell research, including research in neurodegenerative disease, such as ALS, and the regeneration of heart tissue.

Israeli researchers developed the first instrumentation to diagnose breast cancer without radiation, the first ingestible video camera inside a pill to view the small intestine for cancer and digestive disorders, and a computerized system to ensure proper administration of medications in institutional settings. They also developed the Ex-Press shunt to treat glaucoma, and were in the forefront of the introduction of both bare metal and drug-eluting stents.

Israelis developed a device that helps the heart pump blood, a blood test for MS, a new acne treatment that causes bacteria to self-destruct without damaging skin or tissue, a vaccine against mosquito-borne West Nile virus, a new painless device to allow diabetics to inject themselves with insulin, a device for monitoring coronary disease inside a cell phone, a bone "glue" for faster recovery from injuries, a DNA nano-computer to detect cancer and release drugs to treat the disease, and a nose drop that serves as a five-year flu vaccine.

Due, in part, to its innovations in medicine and, in part, to the fact that Israel has too much experience with disaster resulting from war, Israelis are on the cutting edge of search and rescue. Israeli teams are often called on to help locate and rescue victims after earthquakes and other natural disasters. The experience and knowledge gained in rescuing Israelis from buildings and buses blown apart by terrorists, have been applied to save victims of natural disasters in Turkey, Greece, Mexico, Cameroon, India, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Armenia, Georgia, and Sri Lanka, as well as victims of violence in Bosnia, Romania, Kenya, Kosovo, Rwanda, Argentina, and Cambodia.

Green Machines

Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, had a dream of "turning the desert green." While Ben Gurion was dreaming of expanding Israeli agriculture to arid environments, subsequent generations of Israelis had different visions of "green." Israel is now a leader in environmentally-friendly technologies.

Israel is the only country in the world that is rapidly increasing its number of trees. Israelis developed and installed (in California) the first large-scale solar powered and fully functional electricity generating plant. Israeli scientists have developed sensors that pick up signs of stress in plants, the technology for an all electric bus for urban use, an engineless nano remote-piloted vehicle, the world's first jellyfish repellent, a toilet system with small and large flushes that saves billions of gallons of water per year, and a nano-lubricant that could end the need to change car oil.

All the while, Israel continues to chase Ben Gurion's dream. With the help of science, Israelis have made vast desert areas of their country bloom. They have done so through special drip irrigation and water desalination systems that Israeli scientists and agronomists have since introduced on all five continents, including projects in India, China, Spain, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, and Jordan.

Looking Back

What is particularly remarkable about these achievements is that Israel has created all of it amidst a constant barrage of terrorist attacks, not to mention full-scale wars every few years. As such, Israel has shown that it is a resilient nation; it will not be brought to its knees by war, terror, boycotts, and international isolation. Unfortunately, this success is one more source of intense envy and resentment for Israel's Arab neighbors; Israel is a key innovator in modern science and technology, and they are not.

As Israel celebrates its 60th anniversary in May 2008, the Palestinians will expectedly mark the day as al-Naqba, the disaster. To the continued amazement of those who understand Israel's achievements in recent decades, much of the world will offer its condolences to the Palestinians, and share the Palestinian belief that the world might have been better without Israel's creation in 1948.

For the foreseeable future, most of the world (with the United States as the principal exception) will continue to enjoy the innovations that Israel produces while simultaneously berating the Jewish state for defending itself. For its part, Israel will continue to provide the world with the fruits of its labor with the ironic hope that, one day, the Jewish state will simply be seen as one state among many.

Richard Baehr is a visting fellow at the Jewish Policy Center, and co-founder and political director of The American Thinker, a web-based policy journal.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2008, 02:17:18 PM

Ok, so aside from new and exciting forms of terrorism, let's see this list of "palestinian" contributions to humanity.

The floor is yours, JDN.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 19, 2008, 10:18:17 AM

Don't look for an argument from me; my hat is off to Israel and frankly to most Jewish people as a group; I find most of them to be warm, hardworking, intelligent, entreprenurial and quite successful.

As for Israel specifically, I think they have accomplished a lot and I have the highest respect for their achievements and economic success; I cheer for them.  However, given their success, I do wonder why Israel is and has been for many many years our number one recipient of foreign aid?  This year they are due almost 2.5 billion dollars, more than 10 percent of our total foreign aid budget yet as you point out, they are a very successful, rich and thriving nation.  Plus they get numerous special financial perks.  Yet the world is going hungry and disease is rampant.  Given Israel's wealth, perhaps there is a more appropriate use of the money? Also, to be fair, one has to wonder if our budget and support, plus private funds had not propped up Israel these many many years how successful they would have been. Sort of like the rich kid in college who takes daddy's advice, money, and protection to start his business and then says "look at me; I'm successful" versus the blue collar guy who never got a handout and became a success.  I respect both, but...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 20, 2008, 04:38:06 PM

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3362402,00.html   

Israel still top recipient of US foreign aid

President Bush's administration to submit proposed budget for US foreign aid in 2008 to Congress; requests over 12 percent increase in foreign aid from 2007; Lebanon to receive some USD 52 million, Israel to get USD 2.4 billion
Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush's administration will submit its proposed budget for US foreign aid in 2008 to Congress on Wednesday, requesting USD 20.27 billion - a more than 12 percent increase in foreign aid from 2007.
 
However America's foreign aid budget composes only a small portion of its overall budget of USD 2.9 trillion.
 
Israel, long since the US' top recipient of foreign aid, will receive USD 2.4 billion. Since 1979 and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel has annually received up to USD 3 billion in aid.
 
As part of with an initiative by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the civilian aid has been steadily decreased over the course of the past 10 years, going from USD 1.2 million to being completely cancelled this year. At the same time military aid to Israel has increased from USD 1.8 billion to USD 2.4 billion.
 
Egypt received the second largest aid package from the US and will receive USD 1.3 billion in military aid as well as USD 415 million in civilian aid. Jordan will receive USD 264 million in economic aid as well as USD 200 million in military aid.
 
Aid to the Palestinian Authority has been frozen following Hamas' victory in the recent PA elections. Despite this President Bush has asked Congress to authorize the transfer of USD 63.6 million in aid to the Palestinians, to be appropriated by the United States Agency for International Development.
 
Lebanon is expected to receive some USD 52 million in aid in 2008, this in addition to the special aid the administration already sought for Lebanon in 2007 – totaling at USD 580 million.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 20, 2008, 04:41:28 PM

We give lots of money to those entities surrounding Israel too. So where is all of the accomplishments from the neighboring arab nations? Why the difference in outcomes?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 20, 2008, 10:01:15 PM

Egypt's population in over 10 times that of Israel; yet the aid given is less than half...  And the money buys off Egypt..., but you know that.  As for the rest of the Middle East, they are given crumbs...

But that is not my point.  You said, and I agree, Israel is a rich and successful country; soooo my question is why are we giving them "up to three billion dollars" of foreign aid???  Israel is rich, and I admire their success, but... how would they have done on their own without our money and UN votes???  Frankly, I wonder...  Taking nothing away, but their success is slightly tainted; sort of like my analogy of the rich guy and the poor guy I gave above.  I admire them, both, but...  I mean you said America is the most charitable nation on earth.  So why not to give the aid to countries that really need aid; countries with hunger and disease issues, etc.?  That's what giving" and "charity" is all about, isn't it?  Giving to the needy?  Versus giving to the rich?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 20, 2008, 10:49:37 PM

JDN,

You are avoiding the point. We aren't the only country that gives out money, and many arab nations are far from poor, so why the difference in outcomes?

__________________________________________________________________

ARAB BANK PAYS OUT BLOOD MONEY
Life Insurance for Palestinian Suicide Bombers

By Christoph Schult, Britta Sandberg and Ansgar Mertin
An Arab bank pays a type of life insurance to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But now it could soon face a lawsuit from American lawyers representing the victims.


REUTERS
Palestinian suicide bomber Bassam Takruri killed seven people when he blew himself up on a Jersualem bus on May 18, 2003. His family then received $200 a month for over a year, after opening an Arab Bank account.

On the morning of the day before he planned to blow himself up, Bassam Takruri wore a freshly ironed shirt, a blazer and polished shoes. At 10 a.m., the student said goodbye to his father, who gave him ten shekels in pocket money. It was a beautiful Saturday in May in the Palestinian town of Hebron.

Everything seemed normal, at least for the rest of the family. The 18-year-old Bassam, a boy with dark, earnest eyes, was ambitious. He wanted to become an engineer. His father called him his best son. But he spent the last night of his life away from this family -- something many suicide bombers do so as not to lose their nerve at the last moment.

On the Sunday morning of the day Bassam picked for his terror attack, Steve Averbach strapped on his pistol in a Jerusalem suburb just as he had been doing for years. Averbach was a police officer. It was early, not even 6 a.m. and his two small sons Sean and Adam and his wife Julie were still sleeping. At a stop in the northern part of Jerusalem, he boarded the No. 6 bus, a green accordion-stretch model. At around 5:45 a.m. it reached the stop at French Hill.

Averbach scrutinized each new passenger. After serving in the anti-terrorist unit of the Jerusalem police department, he was now teaching the police, civilians and private security how to handle a weapon. His colleagues even called him "Weapon Steve."

As the bus began to pull away, a man ran up to the side and the bus driver stopped and opened the door. The man was wearing the black suit and skullcap of an observant Jew. But his beard was too thin. Seeing a bulge underneath the man's jacket, Averbach quickly stood up and headed toward the stranger. But Bassam, disguised as a devout Jew, was quicker than Averbach and he ignited his belt of explosives.

Bassam died and Averbach survived seriously injured for life.

A few weeks after the suicide bombing, the phone at the home of Bassam Takruri's parents rang. On the other end of the line was a representative of Muassafat Usar al Shuhada, or "The Organization of Martyr Families." He told Bassam's mother that the family had received money, but that they would have to open an account at the Arab Bank in order to withdraw the first deposit. The Takruris were puzzled, but they did what the man said. Shortly thereafter money was transferred to the new account. From then on, Bassam's family received $200 (€152) each month for more than a year.

The Arab Bank is one of the largest and most important financial institutions in the Arab world. The Jordan-based private bank, of which 40 percent is still held by the founding Schuman family, is active in 28 countries. The Jordanian monarchy even awarded Abd al Hamid Schuman a medal for his achievements and services to the country.

But the bank has long been suspected of directing money used to finance terrorism in the Palestinian Territories. And accounts at its Palestinian branches are also supposedly used to pay a type of life insurance to the families of youthful suicide bombers, who blow themselves up with the aim of killing as many Israelis as possible. The blood money paid for a son turned murderer is 20,000 Saudi riyal -- roughly €4,000 or $5,000. The funds take a circuitous route to the accounts of those families that prove the death of their son by showing a death certificate at the Arab Bank branch in the Palestinian Territories. Then monthly deposits are made just like in Takruri's case.

Suicide bombers with foresight can take care of all the necessary paperwork before they blow themselves to smithereens. A so-called Martyr Kit includes everything from a death certificate from the Palestinian Authority to an account card at the Arab Bank.

The attack carried out by the student Bassam Takruri on May 18, 2003 was one of the worst at the time. He had several kilograms of explosives strapped around his waist and the power or the blast was so strong that the bus was catapulted from the street. Seven people died and 20 were injured.

As the police found Steve Averbach's body inside the bus, his finger was still on the trigger of his pistol. He told them they should be careful since the weapon's safety was off. Then he lost consciousness. He spent five weeks in intensive care. Shards of glass had punctured his lungs and a ball bearing had penetrated his neck to become lodged between his third and fourth vertebrae. Since that day, Averbach has been paralyzed from the neck down.

A year after the attack he got himself an attorney, an American named Gary Osen from New Jersey. He now wants to sue the Arab Bank on the basis of a 1996 anti-terrorism law making it illegal to support terrorists financially. The 37-year-old Osen has a neat haircut, a sonorous voice, a sober demeanor -- and plenty of experience in damage compensation cases. In Germany, he represented the heirs of the Wertheim family against major retailer KarstadtQuelle. "In our suit we accuse the Arab Bank of supporting the funding of extremist Palestinian groups," says Osen. "Our goal is to make it much more difficult for them to access the money."

His law office represents 200 US clients who lost relatives in Israel in terrorist attacks. The law firm of US star attorney Ron Motley, who led a class-action lawsuit for the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, is representing another 700 people seeking compensation. The lawyers are optimistic they can at least reduce the flow of money coming predominately from Saudi Arabia via Arab Bank accounts into the Palestinian Territories.

According to the lawsuit complaint, the blood money was often collected in Saudi Arabia and then sent via the Arab Bank's New York branch in US dollars to either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Much financial support is thought to come from the Saudi Committee for the Al-Quds Intifada, a charity headed by Saudi Interior Minster Prince Nayef. "This committee," says Osen, "is nothing more than a fundraising organization to support the Palestinian resistance." But a spokesman for the group in the Saudi capital Riyadh denies supporting the families of suicide bombers, claiming the committee only works with official Palestinian organizations and ministries.

But an ad published in the Palestinian daily newspaper Al Quds in November 2001 supports the theory of the US attorneys. The committee placed an advertisement listing the names of injured and imprisoned Palestinians, as well as the names of a few suicide bombers. Their families were instructed to go to a local branch of the Arab Bank in order to receive donations from the committee.

In February 2002, a similar ad was placed in another publication, Al Hayat Al Jadeeda, again asking families of "martyrs" to go to the Arab Bank in order "to receive the tenth payment, totaling $5,316 for each family, donated by the Saudi committee." The generous donors ended up giving $1,594,980 to some 300 families in the occupied territories via the Arab Bank.

Representatives of the financial institution deny that the bank knowingly takes part in such transactions. "Our bank has nothing to do with terror financing," says Bob Chlopak, the Arab Bank's spokesman in the United States. "But a bank isn't a law-enforcement agency. It can't google every single one of its clients before they make a transfer. And no bank is perfect."

Apparently not the Arab Bank either, which had its New York branch on Madison Avenue essentially shut down by the US banking authorities for not having sufficient internal controls on money transfers. In 2005, a unit of the US Treasury Department also slapped a $24 million fine on the bank, which can no longer carry out dollar-denominated transactions and international transfers.

The Israeli army also found documents during searches in the West Bank years ago that allegedly substantiate charges that the Arab Bank has been used by Saudi organizations to finance terrorism. Funds supposedly were transferred to both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Confiscated Arab Bank documents from 2003 intimate that fund transfers via the New York branch ended up with the Tulkarm Charitable Society, which has ties to Hamas.

The 40-year-old bombing survivor Steve Averbach now lives in Ganei Tikva, "the garden of hope," in a quiet street in a quiet suburb of Tel Aviv. In front of his house is a silver van with a blue wheelchair sticker on the back window. Averbach now needs care 24 hours a day. He can't talk on the telephone without help, nor can he feed himself. He can speak, nod his head, laugh and cry. When he cries his caregiver has to wipe away his tears. Every day he has to swallow 40 different pills and his body slumps in his wheelchair.

"I'm not the victim of terrorism," says Averbach looking at his wife Julie. "The victims are my wife and my children." Julie quit her job as an accountant and the Averbachs are living on his meager police pension. If his lawsuit against the Arab Bank is successful he could end up getting a few million dollars in three or four years.

The father of the bomber lives in the Ras al Jura part of Hebron. Jamal Takruri sits on his yellow sofa, a small man with a friendly face. Behind him on the wall hangs a photograph of his son Bassam. The likeness is unmistakable -- the big eyes, the high forehead, the bushy eyebrows. Since their son blew himself up, the family has been living in a small apartment. Israeli bulldozers flattened their house a few weeks after the attack. The apartment that is now their home belongs to the Organization of Martyr Families -- the very group that suddenly offered them the generous financial payments.

Bassam's father has never questioned whether he should accept the funds sent to his Arab Bank account. "We needed the money," he says lighting up a smoke. "We suddenly no longer had a house."

Correction notice: The headline text of this story has been changed to reflect the original German version. In English, it read: "An important Arab bank in the Arab world offers accounts paying a type of life insurance to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." However, in the original German version of the article it read: An Arab bank pays a type of life insurance to the families of suicide bombers." The text has been corrected to reflect this inconsistency.


URL:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465438,00.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 20, 2008, 10:59:48 PM

**All the oil wealth, and where does it go?**

Saudi Charity Begins...Nowhere   
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 07, 2006


Upon hearing Warren Buffett’s announcement on June 25, 2006, of giving $37 billion to charitable foundations, mostly to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, declared that Muslim organizations “are lagging behind,” only because of intimidation by the West. The Muslims, he said, are in “the cycle of fear,” [of] “being accused of funding suspicious organizations that fall under the scrutiny of anti-terrorism investigations.” One wonders why they are funding “suspicious organizations” in the first place.
Instead of blaming America and the West, as CAIR constantly does, it could initiate the establishment of a new Muslim foundation with a similar mission to that of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This new Muslim foundation could supply immunization, HIV and anti-malarial medication, and medical means to reduce cervical cancer incidence and deaths in poor Muslim countries, feed millions of refugees from Muslim atrocities in Darfur, and generally “bring innovations in health” to Third World Muslim countries. Indeed, Awad himself pointed out that, “We in the Muslim world are lagging behind when we should be pioneers as per our Islamic beliefs.”
 
To be sure, there is no shortage in oil billionaires in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. According to Forbes Magazine 2006 list of the World’s Richest People, Saudi and Gulf billionaires are worth at least $134 billion. Muslim billionaires in Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon are worth additional $29.4 billion. This is not taking into account Muslim billionaires and millionaires in Asia and elsewhere. Moreover, the oil boom in the Middle East generated at least 300,000, new wealthy millionaires in the region.
 
According to the Department of Energy, Saudi Arabia is estimated to gain $154 billion in oil revenues in 2006, alone, and has at least $110 billion in foreign assets.
 
Yet, despite all this wealth, Muslim charities do not focus on alleviating the suffering of millions of poor Muslims and provide for their economic development the way the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) does. Instead, Muslim charities, led by the Saudis, continue to pour billions into madrassas to spread Wahhabism and hatred of the West around the globe – and not only in the Muslim world.
 
Testifying before the House International Relations Committee on June 29, 2006, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer stated, “Saudi Arabia has become a leading financier of the Islamic takeover of Somalia.” And in the Middle East, Saudi and Gulf cash, smuggled into Gaza under the watchful eyes of the Egyptians, helped Hamas pay the salaries of at least 130, 000 employees of the Palestinian Authority, according to Middle Eastern sources. And more money is coming. On July 5, The Arab League announced in Cairo the transfer of $50 million to the West Bank and Gaza, and $15 million to pay for o Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and to employees and diplomats in Palestinian embassies and Palestinian representative. In addition, the U.S. “good ally,” Saudi Arabia, “also provided $50 million.” This is at the time that President George W. Bush, declared: "In order for there to be peace, Hamas must be dismantled."
 
Two years ago, the Saudi government gave at least $12 billion per year to Muslim charities. In light of their growing oil revenues, it is reasonable to assume that they are contributing more now.
 
According to testimony  given before the Senate Banking Committee by Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey on on April 4, Saudi money “is going to Iraq. And it's going to Southeast Asia and it's going to any other place where there are terrorists.” He added Saudi promises to stop the financing of terrorism “haven't been uniformly implemented.”
 
While the Saudis work hard to fight domestic terrorism, they have yet to turn off the flow of money from wealthy Saudis and their charities that continue to fuel terrorism against the West. Instead, the Kingdom increased its public relations offensive in the U.S., spending tens of millions of dollars on Washington lobbyist, and in contributions to U.S.-based Muslim organizations such as CAIR, who oppose the government’s condemnation of Palestinian terrorism and Hamas.
 
Last month, CAIR announced that it was “launching a massive $50 million media campaign involving television, radio, and newspapers as part of its five-year program to create a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the U.S.” Following their Saudi paymaster’s lead, CAIR now orchestrates a media offensive demanding that President Bush come to Hamas’s rescue and condemn Israel.
Clearly, the idea that the $50 million CAIR spends to promote Hamas’ culture of death can instead help millions of Muslims to live better, just did not cross Awad’s mind.



Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, Director of American Center for Democracy and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. She is the world’s leading expert on Narco-Terrorism and a noteworthy authority on international terrorism, political corruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, and organized crime. Most recently, she was a consult for the Department of Defense’s Threat Reduction Strategy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 21, 2008, 08:41:03 AM

GM, as Marc has pointed out, you are able to access a great number/quantity of articles; good for you.  Some are interesting and perhaps poignant, but often, none are relevant.  It drives me crazy; you don' like that I pointed out that you were wrong about British Law so you print numerous unrelated articles, mind you, recently as to the WSJ piece adverse to McCain, you don't challenge the WSJ accusations or overall article, rather you point out Cafferty got a traffic ticket - again does this answer the question?  Is it even relevant?  I mean Cafferty didn't even write the article; the WSJ staff wrote the article and who frankly cares if Cafferty got a traffic ticket.  It reminds me of an old boss of mine when I got out of school; to paraphrase, he said, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bu$%^*&.  Quantity, obfuscating the issues is not an answer.

In this instance, you stated that Israel is a rich and successful notion; you noted their numerous individual successes and contributions to science, etc.; I agreed, we both admire the country.  However, I inquired that given Israel is such a wealthy and successful nation, why are they the number one (1) beneficiary of our foreign aid; far and above anyone else?  As your articles pointed out we have been giving close to 3 billion dollars per year to Israel, year after year plus special perks and other benefits; this is more than 10% almost 15% of our total foreign aid budget.  Money, as you indirectly pointed out that could be spent funding projects elsewhere like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing. The world is hungry, the world has disease, we need to help.  So I am still waiting... given that Israel is so successful, why are we giving them so much foreign aid?  It's a simple question; please don't post articles on non related issues.  Just answer the question or if you cannot, simply say "I don't know", or "I agree, it's not right", or "I think we should give them money because many people in Israel are hungry" or "yeah, maybe Israel's success is partially due to our money and support" or ?  But please address the issue rather than avoiding the subject or pointing fingers elsewhere.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 21, 2008, 11:14:32 AM

Quote from: JDN on September 21, 2008, 08:41:03 AM

GM, as Marc has pointed out, you are able to access a great number/quantity of articles; good for you.  Some are interesting and perhaps poignant, but often, none are relevant. 

**I think sometimes you sometimes miss the point.**

It drives me crazy; you don' like that I pointed out that you were wrong about British Law so you print numerous unrelated articles,

**In an attempt to educate you about sharia law. As for me being wrong, time will tell.**

mind you, recently as to the WSJ piece adverse to McCain, you don't challenge the WSJ accusations or overall article, rather you point out Cafferty got a traffic ticket - again does this answer the question?  Is it even relevant?  I mean Cafferty didn't even write the article; the WSJ staff wrote the article and who frankly cares if Cafferty got a traffic ticket. 

**You were trying to float the "McCain was confused" meme, and posted a link to Cafferty's blog. I pointed out that Obama has concerns about his mental competency due to his history of hard drug use.**

It reminds me of an old boss of mine when I got out of school; to paraphrase, he said, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bu$%^*&.  Quantity, obfuscating the issues is not an answer.

**I've asked you to explain why the muslim world has so little in the way of accomplishments. You don't seem to want to address this question. There is an immense amount of oil wealth in the arab world, while Israel has none. So what have the arabs done with it?.**

In this instance, you stated that Israel is a rich and successful notion; you noted their numerous individual successes and contributions to science, etc.; I agreed, we both admire the country.  However, I inquired that given Israel is such a wealthy and successful nation, why are they the number one (1) beneficiary of our foreign aid; far and above anyone else?  As your articles pointed out we have been giving close to 3 billion dollars per year to Israel, year after year plus special perks and other benefits; this is more than 10% almost 15% of our total foreign aid budget.  Money, as you indirectly pointed out that could be spent funding projects elsewhere like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing. The world is hungry, the world has disease, we need to help.  So I am still waiting... given that Israel is so successful, why are we giving them so much foreign aid?

**Israel is a friend in a region filled with barbarism. We should support them for sound geopolitical reasons and because it's the right thing to do.** 

It's a simple question; please don't post articles on non related issues.  Just answer the question or if you cannot, simply say "I don't know", or "I agree, it's not right", or "I think we should give them money because many people in Israel are hungry" or "yeah, maybe Israel's success is partially due to our money and support" or ?  But please address the issue rather than avoiding the subject or pointing fingers elsewhere.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 21, 2008, 12:00:06 PM

Woof GM:

We have here Exhibit A as to why it is a good idea to put in an explanatory sentence or three as to WHY you are posting articles :lol:  If you had included the descriptions you include here with the original post, all would have been clear to JDN.

Yio!
Marc/CD

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 21, 2008, 01:47:19 PM

GM, perhaps sometime I am missing the point; please make one... rather than posting irrelevant articles.

Regarding English Law, "As for me being wrong, time will tell."  Maybe yes, maybe no, but you are WRONG today and therefore your post was wrong today.  Simply admit you are WRONG; period. Just follow the simple logic...

As for McCain being "confused" I was not referring to any mental disease (I find the man competent albeit not brilliant) simply that he does not seem to have an answer and that he wildly fluctuates on his response to the economic issues of today.  Even the WSJ agreed.  Nothing sinister.  Trying to smear the messenger, yet it was a WSJ article, you posted a lengthy post on Cafferty receiving a traffic ticket; so?  A post on a traffic ticket ... that was just plain silly and inane.

And I doubt "that Obama has concerns about his mental competency due to his history of hard drug use" or if anyone else has a concern; his brain worked well enough to get through Harvard and Harvard Law; he could lose a few brain cells and still be far ahead of McCain.

I can't tell you why the muslim world has so little in the way of accomplishment; I don't know.  I  think many problems contribute to their lack of success; money is not the only answer.  But then by your definition, Africa has achieved nothing, Central and Latin America have achieved nothing, nor has most of Asia and frankly, much of Europe.  They are all "failures" by your "success" definition.  Yet in many of these places, the people are very happy.

And I am glad Israel is a friend, but then I am happy Canada, England, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. are friends too; they are all successful yet they don't demand billions of dollars in aid each year; they are successful and they pay their own way.  These successful countries give money to the needy, they don't beg for money for themselves. As for it being "the right thing to do" I am not sure I know what that means.  Isn't it also the right thing to do to give these billions to education, poverty and disease like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in areas where it is really needed?  Giving and charity is not giving to the rich and successful; it's giving to the needy, isn't it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 21, 2008, 01:59:13 PM

"his brain worked well enough to get through Harvard and Harvard Law"

Actually his undergrad was Columbia. :-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 21, 2008, 02:08:47 PM

But as someone once said, "Columbia is not too shabby either".   :-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 21, 2008, 03:51:59 PM

Quote from: JDN on September 21, 2008, 01:47:19 PM

GM, perhaps sometime I am missing the point; please make one... rather than posting irrelevant articles.

Regarding English Law, "As for me being wrong, time will tell."  Maybe yes, maybe no, but you are WRONG today and therefore your post was wrong today.  Simply admit you are WRONG; period. Just follow the simple logic...

**Let me help you on this. Does current law in the UK explicitly allow for dv? No. Let's move a step or two beyond your simple thinking and look at how the introduction of sharia law places muslim women in greater jeopardy, a group in theory whom you care for deeply.
As sharia law holds women (and non-muslims) in a much lower legal status than muslim men and does not recognize domestic violence as a wrong when a muslim man uses it to keep his wife in a state of submission (A common theme you'll find in islamic thought, not a shock given that "islam" most closely translates to "submission"). So, if a woman that wishes to divorce a husband that beats her, that is pressured by her familiy/community to go before a sharia court will be as protected as if she went to a british civil court? Do you think that abusive husbands who see wife-beating as an activity blessed by allah will be more or less likely to do so now?

I believe in that post, I used the phrase "woo-hoo". To assist you, I will explain that this was something called sarcasm.

sarcasm

A form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another, scornful meaning. For example, a sarcastic remark directed at a person who consistently arrives fifteen minutes late for appointments might be, “Oh, you've arrived exactly on time!”

In the future, when I use sarcasm or irony or other non-literal statements, I'll be sure to label them as such so there is no confusion.**



As for McCain being "confused" I was not referring to any mental disease (I find the man competent albeit not brilliant) simply that he does not seem to have an answer and that he wildly fluctuates on his response to the economic issues of today.  Even the WSJ agreed.  Nothing sinister.  Trying to smear the messenger, yet it was a WSJ article, you posted a lengthy post on Cafferty receiving a traffic ticket; so?  A post on a traffic ticket ... that was just plain silly and inane.

**A common theme from you has been McCain's age. Given that the presidency does not involve heavy lifting or a six minute mile, the implication is his mental abilities are imparied due to his age. Cafferty striking a cyclist then driving through at least 2 red lights while dragging the bicycle underneath his car says a lot about his capacity. Try to minimize it, as you will.**

And I doubt "that Obama has concerns about his mental competency due to his history of hard drug use" or if anyone else has a concern; his brain worked well enough to get through Harvard and Harvard Law; he could lose a few brain cells and still be far ahead of McCain.

**Obama has never released his medical records or his grades from his undergrad/postgrad. Why? What does he have to hide? If Barry-O is as smart as you insist he is, then he should proudly display his academic accomplishments. It would help his otherwise wafer thin resume. He should disclose his medical records, including his usage of hard drugs and any drug treatment he obtained. It would be nice to know he's not using coke now.**

I can't tell you why the muslim world has so little in the way of accomplishment; I don't know.  I  think many problems contribute to their lack of success; money is not the only answer.  But then by your definition, Africa has achieved nothing, Central and Latin America have achieved nothing, nor has most of Asia and frankly, much of Europe.  They are all "failures" by your "success" definition.  Yet in many of these places, the people are very happy.

**Actually, you can't lump all the countries into successful or not successful by region or continent. Examine the "Four Tigers" of asia, as well the the gains made by mainland China, India and Japan being the 2nd. largest economy on the planet and you'll see the core elements that contribute to economic growth. Examine the muslim world, especially the arab nations and I think the contrast will make things clear.**

And I am glad Israel is a friend, but then I am happy Canada, England, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. are friends too; they are all successful yet they don't demand billions of dollars in aid each year; they are successful and they pay their own way. 

**Not exactly. Though they may not receive direct financial aid, they all have profited from the "pax americana", especially in the area of defense spending. Crunch the numbers since WWII and you'll see just how much they've glided along in our wake.**

These successful countries give money to the needy, they don't beg for money for themselves. As for it being "the right thing to do" I am not sure I know what that means.  Isn't it also the right thing to do to give these billions to education, poverty and disease like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in areas where it is really needed?  Giving and charity is not giving to the rich and successful; it's giving to the needy, isn't it?

**Israel exists on a war footing, as they have from the first moments of their existence. Blind giving can only do some much, while contributing to science and technology enriches us all collectively. Frankly, the fact that Israel has accomplished so much while under such constant threat is nothing short of miraculous.**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 21, 2008, 04:17:13 PM

**Supporting Israel=Billions

Keeping a state sponsor of terrorism from getting nukes=PRICELESS**


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

From The Sunday Times
September 16, 2007
Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’
Secret raid on Korean shipment

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv, Sarah Baxter in Washington and Michael Sheridan
IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know – Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria – the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 21, 2008, 04:26:19 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0812/p07s02-wome.html

IN ONE TOWN, GAZANS YEARN FOR PREVIOUS ISRAELI PRESENCE
Mawassi residents say life was better before 2005, when they were part of an Israeli settlement enclave. Few can find work now.

By Rafael D. Frankel | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 12, 2008 edition

 
Correspondent Rafael D. Frankel visits the Gaza town of Mawassi.
MAWASSI, GAZA - Three years have passed since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and in that time the economy of this coastal territory of 1.4 million people has gone from bad to worse.

Gas and food shortages are now being compounded by cash shortages as tens of thousands of people were unable to withdraw money from banks on Monday.

Still, despite their economic hardships, most Gazans insist that they prefer life here without the Israelis.

But in Mawassi – a mixed ethnic Palestinian and Bedouin town that was completely isolated from the rest of Gaza inside a Jewish settlement enclave – it's a different story.

"I want [the Israelis] to come back," says Riyad al-Laham, an unemployed father of eight who worked in the area's Jewish settlements for nearly 20 years. "All the Mawassi people used to work in the settlements and make good money. Now there is nothing to do. Even our own agricultural land is barren."

Located in the middle of Gush Katif, the former block of Jewish settlements here, Mawassi fell within the security cordon the Israeli army threw around its citizens from 2002 to 2005, when attacks from the neighboring Palestinian town of Khan Yunis came almost daily.

During those years, the people of Mawassi continued to work in Gush Katif, mainly as farmhands in hundreds of greenhouses the Jewish settlers operated.

Mr. Laham and many others in Mawassi say they preferred the relative economic security of those days to the current destitution, even if they are now free from Israeli occupation.

"Freedom to go where?" Laham asks. "I have no fuel now for my car. Where can I go? Freedom is a slogan. Even for a donkey you need money – which I don't have."

Three years ago, before Israel withdrew, Mawassi was a town of fertile corn crops and greenhouses, which – like the ones in the Jewish settlements – grew cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and strawberries.

Now, in the ethnic Palestinian section of town, nearly half the land lies barren.

Only shells remain of many of the greenhouses that were stripped of valuable materials.

A city that fed itself with its produce and the money its men made from working with the settlers, Mawassi is now dependent on food handouts from the United Nations.

Like the rest of Gaza, its people lack cooking gas and petrol, even if they feel more secure without Israeli soldiers all around them.

In the Bedouin section of town, Salem al-Bahabsa sits with five of his 24 grandchildren in front of his chicken coop. Goats and sheep wander around the other parts of the Bedouin quarter, where people live mostly in tents with tin roofs.

"We are all now unemployed and depend on charity for food," Mr. Bahabsa says. "My sons were farmers in the greenhouses. We worked in the settlements and had resources. Now, I don't think I could survive without [the UN].... Before was better."

There are voices in Mawassi who disagree, including Laham's brother, Iyad. Reclaiming their beachfront, which became the Jewish settlement of Shirat Hayam in 2001, and the ability to move around Gaza as they please, makes the quality of life here better even if there is no longer a market for their produce, Iyad says.

"It was dark days because of the occupation," says Iyad, an employed English teacher and father of three. "Working is not everything. The checkpoints made our city a prison.... We can't say the occupation days were better than today."

But interviews in the village appear to indicate that Iayd's point of view puts him in the minority.

One main reason that life is worse now, say many villagers, is the lack of attention paid to Mawassi by both the previous Fatah and current Hamas governments since the Israeli withdrawal.

The Israelis "used to take responsibility for us as occupiers," Riyad Laham says. "Neither [Hamas nor Fatah] knocked on the doors to ask what we need. People are fed up.... We have become beggars.

"At 9 a.m. in every other country, everyone is at his desk doing his work," Laham says. "Here, people are by the side of the road with their arms crossed together."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 21, 2008, 04:29:29 PM

**Speaking of Bill and Melinda Gates and global charity.....**


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49710

Bill Gates secretly paid for Gaza greenhouses
Deal to 'enhance peace process,' but Palestinians stripped, looted facilities
Posted: April 13, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com




Bill Gates (Courtesy NPR.org) JERUSALEM – In a revelation that surprised many here associated with the deal, it emerged this week the charitable foundation of Microsoft founder Bill Gates largely was responsible for transferring to the Palestinians the high-tech Jewish greenhouses of the Gaza Strip prior to Israel's evacuation of the area.
The greenhouses, passed in a private charity deal last summer, reportedly have been stripped and looted by Palestinian gangs and Palestinian security officers hired to protect the structures.

"I wish I would have known it was Bill Gates who paid for the greenhouses. I would have sent him a thank you letter," Ahmed Al-Masri, current manager of the Gaza greenhouses, told WorldNetDaily.



Prior to Israel's August withdrawal, the residents of Gaza's Gush Katif slate of Jewish communities ran greenhouses known for producing high-quality insect-free vegetables. The Gush Katif gardens featured some of the most technologically advanced agricultural equipment and accounted for more than $100 million per year in exports to Europe. The greenhouses also supplied Israel with 75 percent of its own produce.

The hothouses, worth several hundred million dollars, were passed to the Palestinians in September in a $14 million deal brokered by former World Bank President James Wolfenson. According to reports, Wolfenson personally contributed $500,000 of his own money and the rest was ponied up mostly by American Jews, including billionaires Mortimer Zuckerman and Leonard Stern.

But an article in Forbes Magazine stated the $29 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's biggest charity, provided most of the money – $10 million – to purchase the greenhouses.

The magazine pointed out the donation falls outside the main focus of the foundation: global health. Gates is not known to involve himself in Mideast diplomacy or charities associated with Israel or the Palestinian territories.

A foundation representative told WND, "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed $10 million to facilitate the transfer of the greenhouses. This was a unique grant, made quickly and quietly because we believed it was in the best interest of all parties and would enhance the peace process."

Zuckerman, a real estate mogul who owns U.S. News and World Report and the New York Daily News, told WND, "We were advised the Gates Foundation wished to keep their gift anonymous. I am happy to acknowledge their contribution if confidentiality is not of concern to them now."

Major players involved in the greenhouse transfer say they were shocked to learn Gates was behind the financing.

Al-Masri was not aware of the donation until he was contacted by WND yesterday.

Officials from the Palestine Economic Development Corporation and the U.S. Agency for International Development involved in the greenhouse transfer said they did not know Gates money funded the deal.

Also unaware was Eitan Haderi, a former Gaza Jewish farmer who represented the Gush Katif community in the greenhouse transfer.

"I am stunned. No one on our side had any idea Bill Gates paid for the greenhouses," Hadei told WND.

But Gates may not have got his money's worth. According to reports, the greenhouses were looted by gunmen following Israel's withdrawal. Computer equipment and, in some cases, entire greenhouses were stolen. The theft has put out of action about 70 acres of the roughly 1,000 acres left by the Jewish communities, according to Al-Masri.

"The looters took their time to dismantle the greenhouses and to uproot entire greenhouses and carry them away," Amid al-Masri previously told reporters.

Another round of looting struck the greenhouses in February when Fatah gunmen hired to protect the greenhouses abandoned their posts because they had not been paid. Witnesses reported some of the security guards themselves participated in the looting.

As WND reported, Palestinian farmers have had trouble reproducing the bug-free produce previously generated by the Jewish owners. The Palestinian owners reportedly asked the U.S. governmental development group USAID to hire former Jewish Gaza greenhouse owners as consultants for their declining vegetable businesses.

Al-Masri yesterday said the Gaza greenhouses are fully functioning and are producing at full capacity. He also said most of the stolen greenhouse equipment has been recovered by the Palestinian Authority police. His claims could not be independently verified before press time.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 21, 2008, 04:32:59 PM

It's been said that "The Saudis are proof that money can buy everything, but civilization". I'd say this applies to more than just the Saudis.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 21, 2008, 06:31:06 PM

GM; I think "Woo Hoo" is better or perhaps "boo hoo" - since although you have a hard time admitting it; the law in the UK does not allow for domestic violence; period.  You are right; my thinking is simple; but then so is the law - it's black and white and you are wrong. All this what ifs, and how about, and in the future makes for an interesting discussion, but it doesn't change the fact of law.  Ask Marc; I think he politely tried to tell you two times that you are wrong.  Good grief; I understand you are in Law Enforcement; don't you enforce the law as it is today? NO more and no less...

Speaking of the Law, as for Cafferty he received a traffic ticket; that's it!  Period; those are the facts; forget the rest.  I got a ticket myself recently for not making a complete stop.  Am I and Cafferty bad; yes, I suppose, but I don't lose sleep over it.  And I doubt he lost sleep over paying his traffic ticket either.  And by the way, that all has what to do with the WSJ article and skewered McCain?  I think the answer is zero.

As for BO's academic accomplishments he graduated cum laude (top 10%) from Harvard Law School and was President of the Harvard Law Review.  Again, I defer to Marc; he can explain what Cum Laude and President of the Law Review means, but take it from me, it means you are very smart.  Versus McCain who almost wash outed of the Academy... That said, smart alone does not make you a good president; I raise the issue of McCain's age simply because the rigors of the job, stress, daily demands, and pressure; it takes a toll on the body.  And at 72 to start the toughest job in the world for which he hopes is an eight year period is too old in my opinion.  He (no one) is at their best. And if BO was 72 I would say the same thing.  I want the man/woman to be at their best or at least close too it.  He's past his prime.   I mean if McCain is elected and reelected do you realize he will be 80 before he leaves office?

As for countries "gliding in our wake" I don't know of any country that has glided in our wake more than Israel.  We have been there over and over again for Israel at great cost to America and I don't mean dollars.  And that is fine with me; I support Israel.  I believe we should continue to be there for Israel.  But, my question is since you were bragging about how they are a successful and wealthy nation (your comments) why do we still give them almost 3 billion dollars per year of "foreign aid".  Other so called successful and wealthy countries do the opposite; they don't ask for aid from us, rather they give their own money to the poor and needy around the world.   In contrast, Israel gives little or nothing to the world's poor; they keep their money and ask for a handout from us.  It just doesn't seem very charitable to me.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 21, 2008, 06:53:29 PM

"Frankly, the fact that Israel has accomplished so much while under such constant threat is nothing short of miraculous."

Amen to that.  I am reminded of the words of the heroic Wafa Sultan, when responding to comments about us Jews being "people of the book"; she said "No, they are people of MANY books- of science, medicine, and art and more."

Making editor of Law Review at Harvard is a really big deal.  Odd is not writing any articles while there , , , kind of like voting "present"  :lol: 

Anyway, time for dinner, gotta go.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 21, 2008, 07:18:16 PM

Perhaps the comment "No, they are people of MANY books - science, medicine and art and more" is an understatement...

And yes, odd, he didn't write, but I think we all wish we could answer "present" as Editor of the Law Review at Harvard.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2008, 01:55:06 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama, McCain and Israel’s National Security
By Yoram Ettinger
Sept. 26, 2008

The policy of US presidents, toward Israel, is a derivative of their worldview, and not of their campaign statements and position papers.

A worldview shapes presidential attitude toward Israel as a strategic asset or a liability and toward Jerusalem, Judea & Samaria and the Golan Heights. A presidential worldview determines the scope of the US posture of deterrence in face of Middle East and global threats, which directly impacts Israel’s national security.

For example, President Nixon was not a friend of the US Jewish community and was not a leader of pro-Israeli legislation in the US Senate. In 1968, he received only about 15% of the Jewish vote. However, his worldview recognized Israel’s importance to US national security, as was demonstrated in 1970, when Israel rolled back a Syrian invasion of Jordan, preventing a pro-Soviet domino scenario into the Persian Gulf. It was Nixon’s worldview which led him to approve critical military shipments to Israel - during the 1973 War - in defiance of the Arab oil embargo and brutal pressure by the Saudi lobby in Washington, and in spite of the Democratic pattern of the Jewish voters.

On the other hand, President Clinton displayed an affinity toward Judaism, the Jewish People and the Jewish State. However, his worldview accepted Arafat as a national liberation leader, elevated him to the most frequent guest at the White House, underestimated the threat of Islamic terrorism, unintentionally facilitated its expansion from 1993 (first “Twin Tower” attack) to the 9/11 terrorist tsunami, adding fuel to the fire of Middle East and global turbulence.

How would the worldview of Obama, McCain and their advisors shape US policy toward Israel?

1. According to McCain, World War 3 between Western democracies and Islamic terror/rogue regimes is already in process. According to Obama, the conflict is with a radical Islamic minority, which could be dealt with through diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and a lower US military profile. Thus, McCain’s world view highlights – while Obama’s world view downplays – Israel’s role as a strategic ally. McCain recognizes that US-Israel relations have been shaped by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests and not by frequent disagreements over the Arab-Israeli conflict.

2. According to Obama, the US needs to adopt the world view of the Department of State bureaucracy (Israel’s staunchest critic in Washington), pacify the knee-jerk-anti-Israel-UN, move closer to the Peace-at-any-Price-Western Europe and appease the Third World, which blames the West and Israel for the predicament of the Third World and the Arabs. On the other hand, McCain contends that the US should persist – in defiance of global odds - in being the Free World’s Pillar of Fire, ideologically and militarily.

3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism constitutes a challenge for international law enforcement agencies and that terrorists should be brought to justice. According to McCain, they are a military challenge and should be brought down to their knees. Obama’s passive approach adrenalizes the veins of terrorists and intensifies Israel’s predicament, while McCain’s approach bolsters the US’ and Israel’s war on terrorism.

4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, erroneous US policy and US presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, McCain maintains that Islamic terrorism is driven by ideology, which considers US values (freedom of expression, religion, media, movement, market and Internet) and US power a most lethal threat that must be demolished. McCain’s worldview supports Israel’s battle against terrorism, demonstrating that the root cause of the Arab-Israel conflict is not the size – but the existence - of Israel.

5. Contrary to McCain, Obama is convinced – just like Tony Blair - that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-Western Islamic terrorism, and therefore requires a more assertive US involvement, exerting additional pressure on Israel. The intriguing assumption that a less-than-hundred year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of 1,400 year old inter-Arab Middle East conflicts and Islamic terrorism, would deepen US involvement in Israel-Palestinians negotiations and transform the US into more of a neutral broker and less of a special ally of Israel, which would drive Israel into sweeping concessions.

Obama’s worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the opening of the “Pandora Refugees’ Box.” On the other hand, McCain’s worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a producer – to a consumer – of national security and from a strategic asset to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region in the world.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=3235#more-3235

Title: Syria masses on Leb border
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2008, 09:07:49 AM

Syria downplays troop buildup on Lebanese border
Damascas says it's merely beefing up border security. But the US issued Syria a strong warning, and Israeli troops are on alert.
By Jonathan Adams
Syria this week continued to mass troops on its border with northern and eastern Lebanon. But officials from both countries dismissed US and Israeli concerns about the buildup as alarmist hype.

Damascus claims it is merely beefing up border security to prevent smuggling and the infiltration of Islamic extremists from northern Lebanon. But some fear Syria wants to use the threat of Sunni Islamic terrorism as a pretext for reentering Lebanon. Syria withdrew its troops from its neighbor in 2005 under intense international pressure.

Last month, Syria's president publicly warned that northern Lebanon had become a haven for Sunni militants who aim to destabilize his country. That warning came before back-to-back car bombings in Damascus (Sept. 27, blamed on Sunni extremists) and in northern Lebanon's Tripoli (Sept. 29) that killed at least 22.

Gulf News, a Dubai-based daily, reported Wednesday that the Lebanese foreign minister had downplayed concerns about the military ramp-up.

The deployment of thousands of Syrian troops along the Lebanese frontier isn't a threat to Beirut and the move should be seen in the context of Damascus's need to safeguard its interests, the Lebanese foreign minister said on Tuesday. "The troop deployment doesn't constitute a source of concern for us as long as they [troops] remain within Syrian territory," Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Sallough told Gulf News.

Last month the Lebanese Army said Syria had massed nearly 10,000 troops on the border. Syria insists their deployment along the border numbers only in the hundreds.

Lebanon's The Daily Star cited a report by Agence France-Presse (AFP) that quoted a Syrian official defending the buildup.

"These measures are aimed to control the border, only from Syrian territory, and we have no other intentions," a Syrian official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "Syria has in effect boosted its security measures with a few hundred [extra] soldiers, and the spy satellites know the truth," the official said. "Our aim is to control the border, combat smuggling and stop saboteurs from crossing these borders," the official said, adding that the issue had been raised during Lebanese President Michel Sleiman's visit to Damascus in August.

On Monday, the US State Department expressed concern that Syria might have designs on Lebanon, and warned against any Syrian incursion. Reuters reported spokesman Robert Wood saying:

"The recent terrorist attacks that took place in Tripoli (Lebanon) and Damascus should not serve as a pretext for, you know, further Syrian military engagement or, should not be used to interfere in Lebanese internal affairs," Wood told reporters. "Obviously we're concerned about this type of activity along the border and that it not lead to any further interference on the part of Syria into Lebanon's internal affairs," Wood said.

Those comments came as the US and Lebanon set up a joint military commission to improve defense ties, according to the Associated Press (AP).

The National Post, a Canadian daily, reported that Israeli officials are also nervous about Syrian intentions.

...Israel placed its armed forces in the Golan Heights on an increased alert on Tuesday and ordered the air force and emergency first aid teams on standby in case of attacks by Syria or Hezbollah. The Israeli alerts came as the country prepared to shut down for 25 hours starting Wednesday afternoon to observe Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), the most solemn and important of Jewish holidays.

The AP noted that Syria-Lebanon ties have actually warmed recently.

...Ties have improved considerably in recent months after Lebanon formed a unity government that includes Syria's ally, the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Syria has agreed to establish formal diplomatic ties with Lebanon for the first time since the countries' creation in the 1940s and promised to officially delineate their borders, a longtime Lebanese demand. Syria also views Lebanon's new president favorably and many doubt it would undermine him with a military incursion.

The Christian Science Monitor reported last month on worsening sectarian violence in northern Lebanon. There, Sunni Muslim fundamentalists are pitted against a small Shiite group that's close to the Syrian government. Sunni jihadists that oppose the Syrian regime regularly pass between northern Lebanon and Syria, the report said.

Since May, Sunni militants in northern Lebanon have clashed with the small Alawite community, which has close links to the Syrian regime. A reconciliation agreement reached earlier this month has quelled fighting for now, but north Lebanon remains tense.

In a 2005 report, the International Crisis Group noted a reason Damascus would want to keep a hand in Lebanese affairs, despite its withdrawal:

Seen from the angle of Lebanon's fractious groups – whether in the opposition or loyal to Damascus – the end of Syria's presence means re-opening issues suppressed since the close of the civil war, from sectarian relations and the distribution of power through to Hizbollah and Palestinian refugees. All these are combustible elements that disgruntled Lebanese and outside actors will be tempted to exploit. In a country awash with weapons, accustomed to being a theatre for proxy wars between Arabs, Palestinian and Israelis, and on the verge of a major redistribution of power and resources, the means and motivations for violence abound.
==========================================
Stratfor
mary
Lebanese media has reported that Syria is massing still more troops on the Syrian-Lebanese border. The move is part of a Syrian effort to rebuild its position in Lebanon.

Analysis
Related Special Topic Page
Israel, Syria and Lebanon: A Tangled Web
Syria is reportedly massing more troops along the Lebanese border, according to various Lebanese news agencies. The Arab daily Al Hayat reported Oct. 8 that the Syrian army had deployed tanks to the border town of Al Qaa along Lebanon’s eastern Bekaa Valley. Eyewitness reports from the area said the Syrian army has dug trenches and erected earthen barriers. The reported troop buildup comes in the wake of an additional Syrian massing of 10,000 troops on the northern Syrian-Lebanese border near the Lebanese city of Tripoli, which began more than two weeks ago.

As Stratfor previously has discussed, the Syrian government is signaling Lebanon and the international community that it is prepared to reassert Syria’s physical presence in its western neighbor. Part of the Syrian plan is to use its covert assets and militant proxies in northern Lebanon to instigate clashes in Tripoli, thereby justifying a Syrian military intervention. Damascus’ show of force has set off alarm bells in Saudi Arabia and among Lebanon’s anti-Syrian March 14 coalition, which greatly fears having the Syrians re-assume the powerbroker status that they held in Lebanon prior to the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

But no group is perhaps more scared by the sight of Syrian forces on the border than Hezbollah, which has seen its relationship with Syria disintegrate following the February assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah. This latest Syrian military buildup is quite significantly on the edge of Hezbollah’s main stronghold, the Bekaa Valley.

So far, Hezbollah has remained silent on the matter. The group cannot endorse Syrian efforts to enter Lebanon because it knows it will soon be victimized by the Syrians. Conversely, it cannot condemn Syrian efforts because the falling-out between Damascus and the Shiite militant groups has not yet fully come out in the public domain.

Syrian tanks are in close proximity to Al Qaa, a Maronite village from which Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea draws many recruits. Deploying troops next to this village not only undermines Hezbollah security, it also points to Syrian fears that Lebanese forces may be planning an offensive against the Mirada militia of Suleiman Franjiyye, who is one of Syria’s closest allies in Lebanon.

Syria continues to assert that the troop buildup is simply its way of watching out for its own security, particularly in the wake of a Sept. 27 car bombing in Damascus and recent clashes in Tripoli (even though many of the clashes in Tripoli have been instigated by perpetrators on the payroll of Syrian intelligence). Damascus intends to show the world that Syria, as well as the Lebanese army, is a victim of terrorism from Lebanon. As the militant threat in Lebanon appears to grow larger (with the aid of the Syrians), Syria will gradually build a case for intervention, much as it did in 1975, after which Syria eventually received a green light from the Israelis and the Americans to enter Lebanon in 1976. Though the general fear in the region is that Syria is on the verge of rolling troops into Lebanon, sources in the region claim that Syria plans to take its time, gradually build a case for intervention and reclaim its position in Lebanon by spring 2009.

In the meantime, Syria can also see what comes out of peace talks with Israel once the Israeli government sorts out its political issues at home. Without a doubt, Syria’s moves have Iran on edge, as Tehran’s main militant proxy in the Levant is under threat. The United States has been the most vocal in its opposition to the Syrian military buildup, revealing an apparent divide between Israel and the United States over the merits of having the Syrians “impose stability” in Lebanon. Whereas Israel is more inclined toward negotiations with Damascus to secure Israel’s northern frontier and contain the threat from Hezbollah, the U.S. administration is much more reluctant to have Syria re-empowered in Lebanon.

The Syrians may be on a longer timetable than previously expected, but that will do little to calm the fears of those in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United States who want to keep Syrian influence curtailed. Without having made any big, overt moves into Lebanon yet, the Syrians have not run a major risk of provoking these powers into acting against Damascus. Instead, Damascus is more focused on preparing the world for what it sees as an inevitable Syrian return to Lebanon.

Title: Doubt timing is a coincidence
Post by: ccp on October 09, 2008, 05:39:56 PM

Another example of enemies taking advantage of our present weakness.

I guess they are watching the US election polls.  The guy McCain who said he would be Hezbollah's "worst nightmare" is probably not going to win against the guy who scoffs at being called naive or "Green around the ears" and  "we must not take the military option off the table" BO.

BO obviously instills fear into the eyes of our enemies. 
Putin probably is thinking he looked into the eyes of BO and sees a creampuff who caves in to any and all poll.  BO just goes with the flow.

Well who wants to make war when we can all just make love....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 09, 2008, 08:32:35 PM

Obama will finish off pax americana. Just wait for the horrors to come.

Title: Black antisemitism
Post by: ccp on October 15, 2008, 08:27:12 AM

Well most of you have probably seen this.  I give credit to JJ only for his honesty in this matter.  Black anger and hatred of Jews and Israel is fron and center.  BO has surrounded himself with folks who feel this way.  It seems the only Jews he had surrounded himself with were far left radicals and socialists.   Yet the mess with economy is sweeping him into the white house.  If hillary was running McCain would be 15 points behind.
BO can faint distancing himself but I don't get any Jews who would support him.  Yes the "schlep to Florida" with this Sarah Silverman.  I hate to say it but some of these Jews make me ashamed.


****  Jackson: Expects Obama to stop "putting Israel's interests first" in making Mideast policy.

Last updated: 12:34 pm
October 14, 2008
Posted: 1:35 am
October 14, 2008

EVIAN, FRANCE


PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

Amir Taheri's next book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out next month.***





 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2008, 08:30:09 AM

Amazing how anti-semitism went from being something from the crazy-right to today's mainstream left.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: SB_Mig on October 15, 2008, 09:58:26 AM

Quote

Amazing how anti-semitism went from being something from the crazy-right to today's mainstream left.

Opinion? Fact?

Pretty broad generalization, if you ask me.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2008, 03:39:08 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-466785/The-new-anti-Semitism-How-Left-reversed-history-bring-Judaism-attack.html#

The new anti-Semitism: How the Left reversed history to bring Judaism under attack

Last updated at 23:07 06 July 2007

On the side of St George's Town Hall in the East End of London, there's a mural commemorating the Battle of Cable Street in 1936, when tens of thousands of Jews and local trades unionists fought side by side to halt a march by Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

They poured out of the docks, factories and sweat shops to repel the Blackshirts, who were being given an official police escort. Their banners read: They Shall Not Pass.

By the end of the day, the police were forced to withdraw and Mosley's thugs had been routed. It was a crushing defeat, from which the Far Right never really recovered and was pivotal in preventing the cancer of Fascism and anti-Semitism then sweeping Continental Europe from establishing a meaningful foothold in this country.

In my previous incarnation as a young labour and industrial correspondent, I used to drink in the Britannia pub, in Cable Street, with an old friend, Brian Nicholson, former chairman of the transport workers' union, who lived a couple of doors down.

From the public bar, a few yards across the square from the old Town Hall, I watched with fascination as the mural was being painted. It took 17 years from conception to completion in 1993 and more than once suffered the indignity of being vandalised by moronic Mosley manques in the National Front and the BNP.

A couple of years ago when the BBC approached me to make what they called an 'authored documentary' on any subject about which I felt passionate, I proposed an investigation into modern anti-Semitism to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Cable Street last October.

My thesis was that while the Far Right hasn't gone away, the motive force behind the recent increase in anti-Jewish activity comes from the Fascist Left and the Islamonazis.

It was an idea which vanished into the bowels of the commissioning process, never to return. Eventually the Beeb told me that they weren't making any more 'authored documentaries'.

I couldn't help wondering what might have happened if I'd put forward a programme on 'Islamophobia'. It would probably have become a six-part, primetime series and I'd have been up for a BAFTA by now.

But I persevered and Channel 4 picked up the project. You can see the results on Monday night.

When some people heard I was making the programme, their first reaction was: 'I didn't know you were Jewish.'

I'm not, but what's that got to do with the price of gefilte fish? They simply couldn't comprehend why a non-Jew would be in the slightest bit interested in investigating anti-Semitism.

If I had been making a film about Islamophobia, no one would have asked me if I was Muslim.

The Labour MP John Mann told me that he experienced exactly the same reaction when he instigated a parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism.

'As soon as I set it up, the first MP who commented to me said: "Oh, I didn't know you were Jewish, John."' He isn't, either.

But the implication was plainly that the very idea of anti-Semitism is the invention of some vast Jewish conspiracy.

Mann's inquiry reported: 'It is clear that violence, desecration and intimidation directed towards Jews is on the rise. Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to attack than at any time for a generation or longer.'

That certainly bears out my own findings. After three months filming across Britain, I reached the conclusion: It's open season on the Jews.

Scroll down for more ...
Ever since 9/11 I've detected an increase in anxiety among Jewish friends and neighbours in my part of North London. As I've always argued: just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

When I went to address a ladies' charity lunch at a synagogue in Finchley, I was astonished at the level of security. You don't expect to see bouncers in black bomber jackets on the door at a place of worship.

I soon discovered this wasn't unusual. Nor is it confined to London. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Mike Todd, took me out on patrol with his officers and members of the Community Security Trust, which provides protection for the Jewish community.

These patrols are mounted every Friday night following a series of unprovoked attacks on Jews on their way to synagogue. We passed a care home surrounded by barbed wire.

At the King David School, there are high fences, floodlights, CCTV cameras and fulltime guards. It was the kind of security you associate with a prison.

They're even installing bombproof windows in many prominent Jewish institutions and running evacuation drills.

This sounded to me like Cold War panic. Surely it's all a bit over the top? Far from it, said Todd.

'We know that people carry out hostile reconnaissance. You do know that there will be attacks potentially and so what we're trying to do is make it a hostile environment to those people who want to engage in anti-Semitic attacks.'

In the past two years, Manchester police reported a 20 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents. I visited a Jewish cemetery in the north of the city which has been repeatedly desecrated - headstones and graves smashed, swastikas daubed on memorials. It was heartbreaking.

That type of cowardly vandalism is almost certainly the handiwork of Far Right skinheads. But the more serious threat comes from Islamist extremists.

Police and the security services say they have uncovered a series of plots by groups linked to Al Qaeda to attack Jewish targets in Britain.

As Channel 4's own Undercover Mosque documentary exposed earlier this year, anti-Jewish sermons are routinely preached in Britain. Anti-Semitic hatred is beamed in on satellite TV channels and over the internet.

On London's Edgware Road, just around the corner from the Blairs' new Connaught Square retirement home, I was able to buy a copy of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, translated into Arabic. It was on open sale alongside the evening paper and the Kit-Kats.

You don't even have to be Jewish to find yourself on the end of anti-Semitic hatred. I met a Jack the Ripper tour guide in East London who was beaten up by a group of Muslim youths, who took one look at his period costume - long black coat and black hat - and assumed he was an Orthodox Jew and therefore deserving of a kicking. They didn't want 'dirty Jews' in 'their' neighbourhood.

During the 2005 General Election, anti-war activists targeted Labour MPs who supported the invasion of Iraq. Fair enough, that's a legitimate enough ambition in a democracy.

But in the case of Lorna Fitzsimons, the member for Rochdale, the campaign to unseat her took a sinister turn.

An outfit calling itself The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) - basically two brothers above a kebab shop - published leaflets 'accusing' her of being Jewish, even though she's not.

'They said I was part of the world neo-Con Zionist conspiracy. I think it's deeply insidious and worrying that they felt there was so much anti-Semitism in the local community that it would galvanise the vote.' In the event, she lost her seat by a few hundred votes and is certain the MPAC smear campaign swung it.

Opposition to the war and loathing of Israel has led the selfstyled 'anti-racist' Left to make common cause with Islamonazis. And 'anti-Zionism' soon tips over into straight- forward anti-Semitism.

When The Observer columnist Nick Cohen - who has always considered himself of the Left and, despite the surname, isn't Jewish either - wrote a piece defending the toppling of Saddam he was deluged with hate mail.

'It was amazing anti-Semitism, you know - you're only saying this because you're a Jew.'

Cohen has also noticed the casual anti-Jewish sentiment around Left-wing dinner tables and in the salons of Islington.

He is appalled by the way in which his old comrades-in-arms have embraced terrorist groups like Hezbollah, one of the most anti-Semitic organisations on Earth.

Check out the way the National Union of Journalists singles out Israel for boycott, even though it has the only free press in the Middle East. Or the academic boycott of Israel by the university lecturers, which as the lawyer Anthony Julius and the law professor Alan Dershowitz argue, goes way beyond legitimate protest. The sheer ferocity and violence of the arguments is nothing more than naked anti-Semitism.

Under the guise of 'anti-Zionism', anti- Semitism is rife on British university campuses. But still the Government refuses to ban groups such as Hizb ut-Tahir, motto: 'Jews will be killed wherever they can be found.'

Then there is self-proclaimed 'anti-racist' Ken Livingstone, who said to a Jewish reporter, Oliver Finegold, who approached him outside County Hall: 'What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?'

When Finegold explained that he was Jewish and was deeply offended by the remark, Livingstone compared him to a 'concentration camp guard'.

Attempting to justify himself, Livingstone put on his best Kenneth Williams 'Stop Messing About' voice and protested that he wasn't being anti-Jewish since he was rude about everyone. That was his Get Out Of Jail Free gambit.

Funny how that excuse didn't work for Bernard Manning.

But under the Macpherson code to which Livingstone subscribes, a racist incident is one which anyone perceives as racist - intended victim or onlooker. It's curious how in multi-cultural, diverse, inclusive, anti-racist Britain, the rules don't seem to extend to the Jews. Livingstone would never have dreamed of being that offensive to a Muslim, or Jamaican, journalist.

Any Tory who made similar remarks would have been hounded from office - and Livingstone would have been leading the lynch mob.

Blaming Israel is the last refuge of the anti-Semite. Livingstone insists he's not anti-Jewish, he just opposes the policies of the Israeli government.

So perhaps he can explain what the hell the conflict in the Middle East has to do with calling a Jewish reporter a German war criminal and a concentration camp guard? Where exactly does the Palestinian cause fit into that equation?

'If you have people like the Mayor of London crossing the line, then making a half-apology, and stumbling through that, then it gives a message out to the rest of the community. That is why anti-Semitism is on the rise again - because it's become acceptable,' says John Mann, whose parliamentary inquiry team was shocked at the scale and nature of what it unearthed.

'Every single member of our committee was stunned at some of the things they found out. It wasn't a Britain that they recognised. It's almost as if it's a throwback. We thought these were things we'd seen in the past, and we hoped had gone.'

As A Labour MP he's appalled at the way many on the Left have become almost casually and routinely anti-Semitic. 'We wouldn't have seen this ten or 15 years ago. This idea that in some way there's a conspiracy of Jews running the world goes back to the Elders of the Protocols of Zion (a long since discredited book, though still popular in the Muslim world) in the last century. We've seen this before, and now it's resurgent.'

Seventy years after Cable Street, we've gone full circle. The Left who once stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Jews against the Blackshirts are now in the vanguard of the new anti-Semitism.

The Britannia has long since closed and the Jewish community has moved on, but the mural remains. The synagogues have been replaced by mosques.

Where the East End was once a hotbed of Far Right extremism, these days it's the stomping ground of George Galloway's Respect Party, a grubby alliance of Islamic extremists and the old Socialist Workers Party - at the heart of the new 'We Are All Hezbollah Now' activism.

While we were shooting the final sequence of next Monday's film in front of the mural, a scruffy-looking bloke wandered out of what used to be the Britannia and now seems to have been turned into some kind of glorified squat.

He recognised me, identified himself as a member of Respect, objected to what I was saying to camera and tried to disrupt us.

Outnumbered, he shuffled away again, shouting. He did not pass.

The Second Battle of Cable Street, it wasn't.

? The War On Britain's Jews? is on Channel 4 on Monday at 8pm.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2008, 03:46:35 PM

Posted March 23, 2004 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0323/p25s01-coop.html
An anti-Semitic left hook

By Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com
WASHINGTON - Anti-Semitism traditionally has been associated with the extreme right. Now, it is becoming more common among the extreme left.

Leftist president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe huffed that "Jews in South Africa, working in cahoots with their colleagues here, want our textile and clothing factories to close down." Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who is no right-winger, lashed out against Jews who "rule the world by proxy." One finds pockets of anti-Semitism at anti-globalization rallies, and plenty of it at pro-Palestinian rallies. And in recent years anti-capitalist campaigners have been networking with radical Islamists and neo-Nazi groups via their websites, according to a draft report by the Technical University of Berlin's Center for Research on Anti-Semitism. (This was the same report commissioned by the European Union, which decided for who-knows-what-reason not to officially release it.)

Contrary to what one would think, left- and right-wing extremists are, in major respects, ideological soul mates. Don't be fooled by labels; applying the simplistic terms of "right" and "left" to complex political realities naturally begets confusion.

While ultra-rightists are generally thought of as racist and ultra-leftists as nonracist, the latter are by no means immune to such decrepitude.

And both camps share these core attitudes: a readiness to buy into conspiracy theories, hatred of the rich, contempt for speculators and financiers, a deep suspicion of large corporate enterprises, and a conviction that the privileged few oppress the masses.

These notions manifest themselves in the party platforms of radical groups. Here are excerpts from one such platform (courtesy of Australian writer John J. Ray):

• We demand that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

• We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

• We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen....

• We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

And here is a quote from one such leader:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Karl Marx? No. Vladimir Lenin? No. Ho Chi Min? No.

Adolf Hitler. And the above platform positions were those of his National Socialist party. Note the formal name of that party: the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The far left scapegoats rich people for causing the world's ills. But what if you live in a society where most rich people happen to be members of a different religion or skin color? That makes them particularly easy to recognize and identify. In the popular psyche, the wealthy class becomes synonymous with members of that minority group. So if you're an envy-laden, paranoid conspiracy theorist, there's hardly a distinction between scapegoating the rich and scapegoating the minority group.

That's how the Nazis viewed the Jews. It's how Stalinist Russia viewed the Jews. It's how Islamic militants view the Jews. And it's how many among today's far left view the Jews.

Jews are by no means the only (relatively) affluent minority group that has suffered mass slaughter. The same has been true of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (present-day Turkey), Tutsis in Rwanda, Tamils in Sri Lanka, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, and many others.

Palestinian hatred of Israelis, I suspect, is based on more than just land disputes and the policies of the state of Israel. Much of it likely derives from envy. Jews as a whole are among the most able, hard-working, and intelligent people ever to inhabit the earth. Wherever they go they succeed. They turned Israel into an economic powerhouse for its size, and "made the desert bloom." Success breeds envy. Envy breeds hatred.

Terrorism is the end result. So is an envy-driven economic philosophy best described as hard-left or socialist: Islamic radicals generally advocate government ownership of most sectors of the economy. They detest "middlemen" and the rich. They loathe "foreign exploiters." They're disgusted with materialism and consumerism. And they desire complete economic equality among all citizens (which, in practice, translates into everyone being equally poor).

Obviously, a mutual dislike for Israel's policies is not the only thing that binds Islamic radicals and ultra-leftists together.

Leftism is generally tolerant of different races and religions. But not always. Extremists are not going to let Jews off the hook just because they happen to be a different religion. When it comes to envy versus tolerance, envy very often wins out.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2008, 04:19:09 PM

The Return of Anti-Semitism

Israel has become the flash point—and the excuse—for a global explosion of an age-old syndrome. Why has hating the Jews become politically correct in many places? And what can be done about it?

By Craig Horowitz
Published Dec 8, 2003

On the second floor of the plaza hotel, in a gaudy meeting room with lots of gold-painted wall filigree and faux-Baroque details, about 400 representatives of the Anti-Defamation League from around the country gathered one recent morning for the group’s 90th-anniversary conference.

As they settled in for a sober two-day program reflecting the grim situation Jews find themselves in (speakers included John Ashcroft, Thomas Friedman, and Israel’s ambassador to the U.N.), ADL national director Abraham Foxman rose to give the opening address.

Foxman, a professional noodge who has been sounding the alarm for more than three decades whenever he senses the slightest whiff of anti-Semitism—his new book is Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism—began slowly, talking in an almost melancholy tone about his grandchildren and the uncertain future they face as Jews. But Foxman, who was sheltered during the Holocaust by his Christian nanny, quickly gained momentum and urgency, cataloguing stark examples of what he called “the world’s growing crescendo of irrationality.”

He invoked the shattered glass of Kristallnacht and mentioned Hitler several times, allusions that surely found their target with the mostly middle-aged-and-older crowd. As he has been doing for more than a year now, he described the threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as being “as great, if not greater, than what we faced in the thirties.”

It was Foxman at his best: passionate, indignant, and connecting naturally with other Jews. His fears are their fears. His hopes for the future are their hopes. The speech clearly resonated with the audience.

But there was one small problem. The centerpiece of the speech, its theme, was misleading. There’s no question these are troubled times. But the notion that Jews in 2003 ought to use the Holocaust as a kind of lens to help them see their current predicament more clearly is, to say the least, problematic. The analogy no longer holds.

“Comparing what’s going on today to the thirties is both wrong and dangerous,” says Alan Dershowitz, who also has a new book, The Case for Israel, which is practically a point-by-point guide for responding to the Jewish state’s critics. “The old labels don’t apply, and the old diagnoses don’t address the problem. They substitute emotion for reason, and we can’t win this war with emotion. We need to look forward. We need to start thinking about the 2030s, not the 1930s.”

The war to which Dershowitz is referring is the global explosion of hate and hostility directed at Israel and at Jews themselves. For the past eighteen months or so, members of the Jewish community—intellectuals, activists, heads of various organizations, and laypeople—have been struggling desperately to find an effective strategy to address the new reality.

It’s been slow going. “The organized Jewish community has just not reacted strongly enough,” says Morton Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America.

Part of the reason for this is that they are facing a new problem, an enemy they haven’t seen before. The stunning result of the burgeoning anti-Israel, anti-Zionist emotion is a kind of politically correct anti-Semitism. Foxman’s analogy to the thirties is right in this respect: It is once again acceptable in polite society, particularly among people with left-of-center political views, to freely express anti-Jewish feelings. What only two or three years ago would have been considered hateful, naked bigotry is now a legitimate political position.

The new p.c. anti-Semitism mixes traditional blame-the-Jews boilerplate with a fevered opposition to Israel. In this worldview, the “Zionist entity” has no legitimacy and as a result no right to do what other nations do, like protect itself and its citizens. It is true that immediately labeling someone anti-Semitic because he criticizes Israel is a long-standing, often bogus tactic that has been used by Jews to stymie debate. The new anti-Semitism, however, is in some sense the inverse problem, with criticism of Israel being a kind of Trojan horse in which age-old anti-Semitic feelings are concealed.

“Israel has become the Jew among nations,” says Mort Zuckerman, who in addition to his media holdings is the former chairman of the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “It is both the surrogate—the respectable way of expressing anti-Semitism—and the collective Jew.”

The irony here is that Israel, which was supposed to be the solution to centuries of anti-Semitism, is providing a flash point and a kind of cover for p.c. anti-Semitism. Recently, The Forward, the savvy weekly newspaper that focuses on Jewish life here and abroad, published its annual list of the 50 most influential American Jews. In its introduction, in a dramatic public expression of the thing that’s on every Jew’s mind, the paper explained that this year’s list is dominated by people shaping the debate over the most critical question of the day: “Why has the world turned against us, and what is to be done about it?”

For most Jews, certainly those tied to the common-sense-based, moderate political middle, the momentum change is disorienting. How could this have happened when they believed so strongly in all the right things, like ending the occupation and dismantling the settlements? Fair-minded and compassionate, they regularly expressed concern for Palestinian suffering, and they cheered when Ehud Barak made an offer that appeared to finally clinch a peaceful two-state solution.

But when Yasser Arafat walked away from the peace talks and triggered the incomprehensible wave of suicide bombings, events took a very strange turn. First, the violence guaranteed the election of Ariel Sharon. I was in Jerusalem during election week in 2001, and the city was covered with bumper stickers and signs that read ONLY SHARON WILL KEEP US SAFE. The intifada also decimated Israel’s left. Jews everywhere wanted something done. Enough was enough. They wanted a show of force, and they got it.

American Jews felt adrift at first, then angry, as if they’d been betrayed. If their hearts were in the right place, why hadn’t the results been better?

But after a little more than three years, it’s clear the use of force hasn’t worked either. Palestinian violence hasn’t stopped. And the Sharon government’s hard line has generated runaway sympathy for the Palestinians and at least an equal amount of hostility toward the Israelis. Suddenly, Jews find themselves less and less able to claim the moral high ground as they are now cast as the villains in the conflict. No matter what Israel does—negotiate, fight, put up a fence—it only seems to make things worse.

“I feel sick to my stomach,” says writer and activist Leonard Fein. “I go to meetings where despondence is thick on the table. I also feel scared because Israel is rudderless.”

In the classic, angst-laden, self-absorbed, you-shouldn’t-know-from-it comedic tradition of everyone from Lenny Bruce to Larry David, it is a difficult time to be Jewish. Only now it isn’t funny. “Many people in the Jewish community, especially liberals, don’t know what to think,” says J. J. Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Forward. “They feel powerless. They see their hopes and dreams, indeed their world, in flames, and they don’t have any idea what to do about it.”

One critical issue is how much of the resurgent anti-Semitism is the result of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

Billionaire George Soros infuriated many in the Jewish community a couple of weeks ago when he was quoted by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency blaming the policies of George Bush and Ariel Sharon for the rise in anti-Semitism. But he is certainly not alone in this view, even among Jews.

“I have no doubt that the occupation and our policies in dealing with the Palestinians are an integral part of the return of anti-Semitism,” says Zeev Sternhell, a political-science professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who specializes in anti-Semitism.

Most Jewish leaders, however, instinctively respond that blaming Israel is blaming the victim. “It’s not about this or that Israeli policy,” says Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a mix of anger and exasperation in his voice. “It’s about Israel’s right to exist.”

Indeed, public opinion has swung so far to the Palestinian side that for the first time in decades, the very legitimacy of a Jewish state has been widely called into question. Columnists in mainstream European newspapers like the Guardian in England and Le Monde in France regularly challenge the validity of Israel and of Zionism.

Even here, serious (albeit leftist) publications like The New York Review of Books have published pieces attempting to revive the notion of a one-state solution. In this scenario, all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza would become a binational Jewish and Palestinian state, which would, by virtue of the population figures, become a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority in a very short time.

The language of the debate has become so polarized, so grotesquely distorted—words like genocide, apartheid, and fascism are used regularly—that legitimate criticism of Israel is near-impossible to hear.

This is unfortunate, because within Israel and in the diaspora there continues to be disagreement over policy. Sharon remains a divisive figure even at home, where Israelis have begun to tire of his hard line with the Palestinians. Recently, for example, Moshe Ya’alon, the Israeli Army’s chief of staff, said that the continuing military pressure on the Palestinians was fueling hatred of Israel. He called for gestures to ease Palestinian hardship and for Israeli leadership to do a better job of trying to work with Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia than it did with his predecessor.

In a piece written for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot and reprinted in The Forward, Avraham Burg, former speaker of Israel’s Knesset and currently a Labor Party Knesset member, lamented, “We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed.”

Even more strikingly, Burg writes later in the piece: “Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry.”

In the churning swirl of anti-Israel hostility, some of the most powerful World War II imagery has been excruciatingly (for anyone who suffered during the war) co-opted: Israelis have become Nazis committing genocide against the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon is the modern incarnation of Hitler, the Israeli army is the Wehrmacht, or, worse, the SS, and Ramallah and Jenin are Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

The Israelis are racists, imperialists, colonialists. And the suicide bombers, the murderers who pack bombs with nails and razor blades to cause the maximum civilian carnage, are freedom fighters, objects of sympathy and (in some quarters) even admiration, as long as the innocent people they’re killing are Jewish. (Even Avraham Burg’s emotional plea runs the risk of sounding like an apologia for the murderers.)

Israel, the democracy with a freely elected government; Arab representatives in the Knesset; a thriving, often hysterical free press; and a citizenry that is still, after all that’s happened, overwhelmingly in favor of a negotiated two-state solution (two thirds of Israelis are believed to support a two-state solution), is the object of hate, scorn, and revulsion among the left everywhere in the world.

Even in America. At a crisis center called San Francisco Women Against Rape, volunteers are asked to fill out a three-page application. Most of it is what you’d expect, a request for basic personal information and an introduction that says the center is seeking compassionate women who want to support survivors of sexual assault.

But on the last page, the application states that the center believes “it is important to be informed and take action on other social justice struggles.” One of these struggles is “supporting the Palestinian liberation and taking a stance against Zionism. Can you commit to this?”

Since the implosion of peace talks about three years ago, France, England, Germany, Italy, Poland, Greece, and the rest of Europe have all seen a bone-chilling rise in expressions of anti-Semitism. European synagogues are bombed, Jewish schools are torched, and physical attacks on individuals readily identifiable as Jews have become shockingly routine.

In a recent European Union poll, 60 percent of the respondents chose Israel as the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace. In the Netherlands, of all places, where Jewish citizens were steadfastly protected during World War II, 74 percent of the Dutch fingered Israel.

Belgium wanted to try Ariel Sharon for war crimes committed at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. An Oxford professor would not allow an Israeli student in his class because the man had served in the Israeli Army. In Italy, La Stampa ran a front-page cartoon depicting an Israeli tank with its huge gun pointed right at the baby Jesus. The caption read, “Surely they don’t want to kill me again.”

“The Jewish communities of Europe are seen by the public,” says David Harris, head of the American Jewish Committee, “as extensions of and advocates for a regime in Israel that is rapidly losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the intelligentsia, the media, the left, and the anti-globalization crowd. So the question really becomes, how do you fight anti-Semitism in France or Belgium if the image of their Jewish citizens is inextricably linked to Israel? You either change the image or break the link. And there’s no easy answer for doing either.”

Two key factors in the virulent outbreak of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in Europe may be fatigue and fear. People are tired of the Middle East conflict. They’re burned out on the suffering, the killing, and the blood-soaked barrage of bad news. They are also worried about terrorism. Most Western European countries have growing, restive Muslim populations that are having trouble assimilating. Yet they are gaining political power. France has more than 6 million Muslims, and it is no accident that President Jacques Chirac began to crack down on anti-Semitism only after national elections last summer.

Feelings of fatigue and fear were candidly expressed by Daniel Bernard, the French ambassador to England, when he thought he was speaking off the record at a London dinner party in December 2001. He remarked that the world’s current troubles are all because of “that shitty little country Israel.” Undoubtedly expressing the view of many, he asked, “Why should we be in danger of World War III because of these people?”

The problem in Europe seems destined only to get worse over the next several years. “Europe has both an aging population and a low birthrate,” says Mort Zuckerman. “So they need immigration, and Muslims are the primary group coming in.”

In the Muslim world, where anti-Israel and anti-Jewish extremism are hardly news, the speech by outgoing Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad broke new ground. Not since Hitler has a head of state had the gall to take off the rhetorical gloves with such zeal. Addressing the 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—a group where the sole membership requirement is religion—he called on the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims to defeat the Jews.

“The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them,” he said. The Jews, he continued, “invented socialism, communism, human rights, and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.”

It is one thing that the leaders of all 57 states gave Mahathir a standing ovation—including those from supposedly moderate states like Egypt and Jordan—but their reactions later, after they had had time to consider what he said, were stunning.

The Egyptian foreign minister said the speech was “a very, very wise assessment.” After making it clear he agreed with everything Mahathir said, Yemen’s foreign minister decided to pile on: “Israelis and Jews control most of the economy and the media in the world.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2008, 04:20:12 PM

This fifteenth-century-like hatred and prejudice is infuriating and frustrating for Jewish leadership. It is also endless. Egyptian television just finished airing a 41-part series based on the decades-old screed called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. “It was as anti-Semitic as anything you’ve ever seen,” says Zuckerman.

Making and airing a series like the Protocols is, of course, part of an orchestrated strategy by Arab dictators determined to stay in power. “Mubarak and the others try to distract their populations with hostility towards Israel and the Jews,” says Zuckerman. “You simply can’t believe the things they write in the Arab press. We confront them, but what can you do about that?”

Similarly, the outrageous, flamboyantly anti-Israel behavior of the United Nations has routinely dumbfounded Jewish leaders. In recent weeks, the U.N. has condemned Israel for building a fence to keep out suicide bombers and for destroying three empty buildings in Gaza.

“Israel is held to a different standard,” says Zuckerman. “It is not allowed to live like other members of the family of nations any more than individual Jews were allowed to live like everyone else in their individual countries.”

Aside from the occasional specious accusation from the likes of Pat Buchanan, the Jean-Marie Le Pen of America, that Jews are responsible for the war in Iraq, the battle here is being fought mostly on college campuses.

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who is Israel’s minister for Jerusalem and diaspora affairs, completed a thirteen-college speaking tour here several weeks ago. He wrote an account of his extraordinary road trip for an Israeli newspaper in which he described being welcomed by robust anti-Israel demonstrations, bomb threats, and pro-Palestinian protesters with signs reading RACIST ISRAEL and WAR CRIMINALS. He was even hit in the face with a pie thrown by a Jewish student screaming, “End the occupation.” But the most discouraging moments were surely those he spent talking to some Jewish grad students at Harvard. They told Sharansky the atmosphere on campus is so overwhelmingly anti-Israel that they’re afraid to speak out in support of the Jewish state. They don’t want to be identified as pro-Israel because they fear being ostracized and having their grades affected.

Alan Dershowitz, who is a professor at Harvard Law School, argues that Sharansky overstated the problem. But listen carefully to how he characterizes it: “We are not losing so badly on the campuses today.”

But he believes it is critical that students know all the facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—not just the version put out by the left. “Remember,” he says, “the goal of the campus divestiture movement is not divestiture but to miseducate an entire generation of students so that in fifteen or twenty years, the leaders of America will be like the leaders of France.”

One thing is clear. The traditional means of battling anti-Semitism are as dated as the rules of conflict that once protected humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Nations from attack. “The old bag of tricks may work for your donors and for your own self-image as tough guys fighting back,” says David Harris. “But if the bottom line is, are you changing attitudes? Are you reversing images and stereotypes in Europe and the Muslim world? If that’s the measuring stick, then it’s very hard to say any of the organizations have been particularly effective.”

Part of the problem was the element of surprise. Everyone was caught totally off guard by the wave of hostility that spread across Europe. Foxman argues that the ADL never let down its guard either in America or in Europe, but there was a complacency that had settled over Jews. Perhaps it was what some call the golden age of the nineties, when the Israelis and Palestinians, guided by the Oslo accords, appeared headed toward an agreement.

Whatever it was, Foxman says he regularly got into arguments with people telling him it was time for the ADL to close its doors. “ ‘Stop counting swastikas in bathrooms,’ ” he says people told him. “ ‘The threat is assimilation, not anti-Semitism. We should be spending the money on Jewish education.’ ”

The miasma of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that has settled over much of the world had its genesis at the Camp David–Taba peace talks almost three and a half years ago. Never had the two sides been so close to making a deal on a two-state solution. The deal, which many on both sides never thought they would see, was there for the signing.

Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians a state on 97 percent of the occupied territories with most of East Jerusalem as its capital. The offer included Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees. Short of removing the state of Israel from the Middle East entirely, the offer was everything the Palestinians had been asking for.

In an interview with reporter Elsa Walsh, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar said he told Arafat that if he didn’t make the deal, it would be a “crime against the Palestinians.” Of course, Arafat not only didn’t make the deal, he walked out of the meeting, got on a plane, and left. No negotiating, no stalling, no attempts to massage the offer. Nothing. He never even made a counterproposal.

Initially, Arafat’s recalcitrance looked like not only a crime against the Palestinian people but a huge public-relations blunder as well. In the U.S., in Europe, and even behind closed doors in the Muslim world, people were quickly turning against him. Slowly, however, a revisionist movement began. A second story line, pushed by people like Clinton aide Robert Malley, emerged. This narrative, prominently promoted in a controversial front-page New York Times article, said the offer wasn’t all it appeared to be. And in any event, there were many reasons Arafat simply could not make the deal: It robbed him of his dignity as a Muslim man because peace was offered not won; it required signing an end-of-conflict clause, which meant the Palestinians would have to give up their dream of all the land.

In addition, the revisionists claimed, negotiations went too fast, Arafat was surprised by the offer, he needed more time, he needed more assurances of cover from the other Arab leaders, and on it went. As chief American negotiator Dennis Ross said, in the final analysis, Arafat couldn’t sign any agreement because “to end the conflict is to end himself.”

“Arafat may have believed the moment had come when he could break Israel,” says Leonard Fein. “And it’s not clear he was wrong. After he walked out at Camp David, he was offered a much better deal at Taba.”

Fein is shocked that after all that has happened since then, a third of Israelis say they approve of the Geneva Accords, the peace agreement worked out by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo. Since neither man holds an official position, the deal, which appears to be even sweeter than the one offered by Ehud Barak at Taba, is theoretical.

“But if I were Arafat,” Fein says, “I’d be breaking out the champagne.”

Shockingly, after Arafat walked out of the negotiations three years ago, he was able to turn world opinion 180 degrees almost overnight by restarting the violence. He revved up the second intifada, and the savagery continues on both sides. But strategically it was a very clever move. He knew he could provoke the Israelis to overreact, and that’s exactly what happened.

Now there were horrific visuals of Israeli soldiers bulldozing houses, shooting at crowds, and generally manhandling and mistreating Palestinians, broadcast round the clock on television all over the Arab world. Prince Bandar said that even though he and Crown Prince Abdullah knew intellectually that the violence was Arafat’s fault, they couldn’t ignore the television images.

The American Jewish Committee’s David Harris was living in Europe at the time, and he remembers how the Palestinian narrative began to take hold. “A kind of quick collective amnesia set in among the Europeans, and at times I felt like I was having an out-of-body experience. The people I discussed the issue with largely dismissed, ignored, or relativized the Israeli side of the story.”

Harris believes that embracing the Palestinian story line enabled the Europeans to avoiding facing some difficult questions. Had it been a mistake to support Arafat all along? Why had they been funding Palestinian Authority institutions, including schools that continue to dehumanize Jews and continue to use textbooks and maps that picture a world with no Israel?

Many believe that taking the Palestinian side after Arafat blew up the peace process even provided the Europeans a kind of expiation of their collective Holocaust guilt. According to this view, Israeli violence enabled the Europeans to say, “Look, you are an occupying, colonialist state engaging in war crimes. You no longer have the moral high ground.”

Finally, bashing the Israelis enabled the various governments to try to curry favor with their alienated Muslim populations. “The whole thing just kept spiraling,” Harris says. “And very quickly the story line was this: Israeli violence was unjustified, and therefore they were actually responsible for the Palestinian violence unleashed on them.”

The overarching question is, what to do now? What is the best strategy to deal with the groundswell of hate? Can things be turned around? Paraphrasing Jonathan Swift, Zuckerman says, “You cannot reason people out of what they have not been reasoned into.”

In the Muslim world, the traditional model used by Jewish organizations to fight anti-Semitism is useless. It requires working from the inside by finding sympathetic, like-minded leaders willing to form an alliance for the greater good.

“There are a few ecumenically minded Islamic leaders,” says Harris. “But they’re in the minority, and with only a very few exceptions they tend to be afraid of becoming too public. So without a critical mass of Muslim partners, the best we can do is blow the whistle, shine the spotlight, and urge Western governments to raise the issue.”

In Europe, there are, as bleak as the landscape appears, a few bright spots. French president Jacques Chirac did finally come to the U.S. in September to meet with the leadership of America’s Jewish community; four of his country’s most prominent Jews—David de Rothschild, Ady Steg, Simone Veil, and Roger Cukierman—came with him. Leaders here seem to have mixed emotions about this. I talked to Abe Foxman about the meeting several times, and in our first discussion, he focused on the positive. “He came because he got the message and he cares about what was being said here,” Foxman offered, adding, however, that Chirac waited until long after the national elections in France were over.

“He also came because he believes we have power and influence. It’s the same at the U.N. Even when they’re censuring Israel, leaders of most of the countries are eager to meet with us because they believe in the mythology. They believe the road to Washington is paved through the Jewish community.”

Later, however, Foxman said he was embarrassed for the Jewish leaders the French president brought with him. “It’s not the Middle Ages, where you parade your Jews around and say, ‘See how good everything is?’ ”

Nevertheless, at one of these meetings Roger Cukierman, who is the head of crif, the largest Jewish organization in France, raised a critical issue that most American Jews, at least, are loath to talk about. Cukierman said that the beginning of the anger toward Jews and the explosion of hate in France—which has both the largest Jewish and Muslim populations in Europe—can be pinpointed to September 2000, when Palestinian-Israeli violence restarted in earnest.

Surely it feeds on preexisting anti-Semitism, but there was, J. J. Goldberg says, a new catalyst. “I would argue that it’s not the same anti-Semitism that’s been going on for 2,000 years.”

When Palestinian violence began and Israel sent troops into the West Bank, justifiably or not, it was like putting a match to a dry field, and the fires have been burning out of control ever since.

And the harsh reality is this: Palestinian society is in tatters, the infrastructure has been wrecked, the economy essentially destroyed, and death for the cause has been romanticized as the highest value. But Palestinians are winning the war of perception, with the war played out on television screens across Europe and the Middle East. They are scoring regular world-opinion-changing victories in the media, successfully romanticizing suicide bombers as heroes.

It is possible even Ariel Sharon has begun to get the message. During a Cabinet meeting on November 30, Gideon Meir, deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry, gave a presentation to Sharon depicting the way Israel is portrayed in the foreign media. “I showed him examples of both distorted coverage and legitimate pictures of bad Israeli behavior,” Meir says, pointing out that the prime minister was appalled by both. “I would not say that everything is anti-Semitism, but these images go a long way towards inflaming hatred of the Jews.”

But of course it’s not just about the media coverage. “Anti-Semitism is being spread through those who teach Islam, and it’s metastasizing,” says Orthodox feminist Blu Greenberg. “It took Christianity 2,000 years to clean up its act and now it’s being taught again through a religious system. I’m frightened for my grandchildren.”

Most American Jewish leaders believe they are up against huge forces around the world and that ultimately they cannot fight this fight alone. “We have to make people understand that anti-Semitism is not a uniquely Jewish problem,” says Harris. “It’s a cancer which left unchecked infects and ultimately kills democratic societies,” he says. “That’s the message we have to get out.”

 

 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.nymag.com/nymetro/news/religion/features/n_9622

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 15, 2008, 04:46:40 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30241_At_the_Official_Obama_Site-_How_the_Jewish_Lobby_Works

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29344&only&rss

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29358

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29126&only&rss

**If I didn't know better, I'd think Obama was some fringe leftist candidate, rather than the democrat nominee.**

Title: An articulate faker
Post by: rachelg on October 16, 2008, 05:53:07 PM

Obama and Biden both said they are Zionists and have Aipac approval. That is good enough for me.

I don't particularly care if Hilter said he would vote for Obama.
 I don't care at all who antisemitites  vote or don't vote for.  Growing Antisemitism is a problem but I don't see McCain as the solution



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017548997&pagename=JP

ost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
An articulate faker
Oct. 16, 2008
marty peretz , THE JERUSALEM POST

A JPost.com exclusive blog

Jesse Jackson may say that he is supporting Barack Obama for president. But, whatever he says, the truth is that he is not. Jackson didn't support Obama when he was running against Hillary Clinton and he's not supporting him now. Ever since Jackson quite literally wiped some of Martin Luther King's blood on to his own jacket, he has lived the life of a faker. An articulate faker, to be sure, but a faker nonetheless. He is no faquir. On the contrary, he lives a lush life on cash ostensibly collected for his causes and for his declining number of followers. What the hell is PUSH (People United for Humanity) or, for that matter, the Rainbow Coalition? Their success can only be measured by the cash he euchres out corporations he has threatened with a boycott.

How does Jackson really feel about Obama? There is on the public record his desire to smash Obama's gonads or to pulverize his testicles. Of course, he stated his wishes in more obvious and common words. Never mind: his intentions are clear. But he will never be able to bust Obama's balls. For the truth is that Obama has already busted Jackson's. He wasn't permitted even a moment at the Democratic national convention platform in Denver. Which is also how Jimmy Carter was treated by the Obama folk, and he after all is a former president -although a recognizably nutsy former president- of the United States.

Readers of The Jerusalem Post already have read about Jesse Jackson's comments to the very reliable Amir Taheri, author of The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution and a columnist for the New York Post and other newspapers. Taheri's dispatch also made news in the United States. Jackson was delivering a speech - that is really his entire vocation, a paid speechmaker- in the French lakeside of village of Evian where he was last week. It is for sure that he was not drinking bottled water. But he needs no alcoholic excuse for his observations in his oration and in his personal comments to the journalist.

It was Jesse Jackson indelibly himself. His message? That Zionist time was up. That justice had not been seen by the Palestinians. (As if justice is a one-way transaction and its only acceptable content was for Israel to give up all. Perhaps what it has given up already provides no salient danger signs.) And then the usual claptrap of the demagogues: "Zionists...have controlled American policy for decades." The most important of Obama's changes would occur in the Middle East where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end. "Bush was so afraid...of upsetting Israel..."

So now Jackson is a foreign policy realist, like that odd couple Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. It's too bad for Jackson that both Obama and Joe Biden have declared themselves Zionists." Yesterday, Obama's staff repudiated Jackson's nonsense and pointed once again to the candidate's Middle East confidants and advisers, Dennis Ross, especially.

I want to go back to Jackson's designs on Obama's genitalia. Let's put those wishes in the context of his assertions that he considers Obama "family." By the way, there is nothing in either of the candidate's memoirs to suggest that he feels anything similar. But what, then, does the outburst by Jackson about Barack's testes suggest? An ungrateful son. To an envious and psychologically unprotected father. You can parse out the rest of the metaphor yourself.

What is certain is that Obama was never in Jackson's shadow and never under his tent. Obama is too savvy for that... and too careful with the meaning of words to allow himself to be submerged in Jackson's demagoguery. When he said that he was a Zionist he meant it. So what do we make of Jesse trying the gambit of the putting on of hands? In his heart of hearts, and maybe not even so far down, I think he wants to destroy the candidate. Do not punish a good Christian Zionist for the workings of Jesse Jackson's demented mind.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 16, 2008, 06:01:53 PM

If Obama is a zionist, why did he surround himself with Israel-hating advisors?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on October 16, 2008, 06:13:49 PM

His adviser on the Middle East is Dennis Ross who I really like. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 16, 2008, 06:26:10 PM

**What of Samantha Power's plan for Israel? **


http://sandbox.blog-city.com/speaking_truth_to_power.htm

Speaking truth to Power

posted Monday, 3 March 2008

Samantha Power is the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, and she has a professorship at Harvard (in something called "Global Leadership and Public Policy"). She is also a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. This isn't an honorific: she has worked for Obama in Washington, she has campaigned for him around the country, and she doesn't hesitate to speak for him. This morning, the Washington Post has a piece on Obama's foreign policy team, identifying her (and retired Maj. Gen. Scott Garion) as "closest to Obama, part of a group-within-the-group that he regularly turns to for advice." Power and Garion "retain unlimited access to Obama." This morning's New York Times announces that Power has an "irresistable profile" and "she could very well end up in [Obama's] cabinet." 

She also has a problem: a corpus of critical statements about Israel. These have been parsed by Noah Pollak at Commentary's blog Contentions, by Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr at American Thinker, and by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line.

Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Power gave an astonishing answer:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our "principles."

This quote has dogged Power, and she has gone to extraordinary lengths to put it behind her. Most notably, she called in the Washington correspondent of the Israeli daily Haaretz, Shmuel Rosner, to whom she disavowed the quote:
Power herself recognizes that the statement is problematic. "Even I don't understand it," she says. And also: "This makes no sense to me." And furthermore: "The quote seems so weird." She thinks that she made this statement in the context of discussing the deployment of international peacekeepers. But this was a very long time ago, circumstances were different, and it's hard for her to reconstruct exactly what she meant.
It must be awful, at such a young age, to lose track of why you recommended the massive deployment of military force, and not that long ago. So let me help Samantha Power: I can reconstruct exactly what she meant.

Power gave the interview on April 29, 2002. This was the tail end of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Israel's offensive into the West Bank in reaction to a relentless campaign of Palestinian suicide bombings that had killed Israeli civilians in the hundreds. The military operation included the clearing of terrorists from the West Bank city of Jenin (April 3-19). At the time, Palestinian spokespersons had duped much of the international media and human rights community into believing that a massacre of innocent Palestinians had taken place in Jenin. It had not, but the name of Israel had been smeared, particularly in academe. At Harvard, pro-Palestinian activists canvassed the faculty for support of a petition calling on Harvard to divest from Israel. (It was published on May 6.)

Power at the time was executive director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, which she founded in 1999. In 2001, she had recruited a celebrity director for the Carr Center: Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian intellectual and journalist who, like herself, had come to prominence writing about atrocities in the Balkans and Africa. A profile of Ignatieff in March 2002 described the division of labor in the Carr Center: "He shares administrative responsibilities with Samantha Power, the center's executive director. The division of labor works wonderfully, he says: 'She does all the work.'" Power later told a Canadian journalist that "their social relationship was based on three Bs: baseball, bottles and boys. They talked about the Boston Red Sox, of whom she is a fanatic supporter; they spent evenings together 'yelling and laughing' over bottles of wine, and she found him a kind and sympathetic confidant when it came to affairs of the heart."
The Carr Center under this management team generally steered clear of the Middle East. But in that spring of 2002, the pressure to come up with something was very great. Ignatieff, who had been to the Middle East a few times, took the lead. On April 19, 2002, only ten days before Power emitted her "weird" quote, Ignatieff published an op-ed in the London Guardian, under this headline: "Why Bush Must Send in His Troops." I wrote a thorough critique of this piece over five years ago, so I won't repeat my dissection of its flaws. As I showed then, the op-ed includes every trendy calumny against Israel.
More relevant now are Ignatieff's policy conclusions. "Neither side is capable of making peace," he determined, "or even sitting in the same room to discuss it." The United States should therefore move "to impose a two-state solution now."
The time for endless negotiation between the parties is past: it is time to say that all but those settlements right on the 1967 green line must go; that the right of return is incompatible with peace and security in the region and the right must be extinguished with a cash settlement; that the UN, with funding from Europe, will establish a transitional administration to help the Palestinian state back on its feet and then prepare the ground for new elections before exiting; and, most of all, the US must then commit its own troops, and those of willing allies, not to police a ceasefire, but to enforce the solution that provides security for both populations.
Ignatieff ended with a grand flourish:
Imposing a peace of this amplitude on both parties, and committing the troops to back it up, would be the most dramatic exercise of presidential leadership since the Cuban missile crisis. Nothing less dramatic than this will prevent the Middle East from descending into an inferno.
So this was the thrilling idea that swept the Carr Center that April: a "dramatic exercise of presidential leadership," through a commitment of U.S. troops to impose and enforce a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Middle East would be saved. The "amplitude" of this notion made divestment seem small-minded. Samantha Power did not misspeak ten days later in her Berkeley interview. She was retailing a vision she shared with her closest colleague. Power went a bit further than Ignatieff, when she spoke about how this show of presidential courage "might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import." Ignatieff would never have written that. But it was implicit in his text anyway.
So Ignatieff's op-ed was exactly what Power meant. That she should claim no recollection of any of this context seems... weird. Or perhaps not. Remember, Ignatieff wasn't talking about deploying "international peacekeepers," the context Power now suggests for her words. He specifically proposed United States troops, followed by anyone else who was "willing." Their job wouldn't be to keep the peace, but to "enforce the solution." Far better today for Power to have some kind of blackout, than to tell the truth about the "dramatic exercise" she and Ignatieff envisioned.
("Iggy," by the way, left Harvard in 2005 to plunge into Canadian politics, and he is now deputy leader of Canada's opposition Liberal Party. He still has strong views on what Americans should do. "I've worn my heart on my sleeve for a year," he recently announced. "I'm for Obama.")
Is there a conclusion to be drawn from this genealogy of a truly bad policy idea? Ignatieff himself may have hit on it. Last year he published a reflection on what he'd learned since experiencing real (as opposed to academic) politics. "As a former denizen of Harvard," he wrote, "I’ve had to learn that a sense of reality doesn’t always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what’s what than Nobel Prize winners."
Just substitute Pulitzer for Nobel

Title: Israel warns of talks with Iran
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2008, 08:15:00 AM

***Then Israel warned Obama last night that his claim that he was ready to open talks with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness.***

Well The US has already been recognized as weak.  Why does anyone think the anti-Israeli crowd is delighted and supportive of BO.
That doesn't mean he will be weak but we will see...

Hopefully all the *liberal* (cough cough - I mean "progressives" :wink:) Jews who helped BO get elected will also see to it he doesn't sell Israel down the river.  But American Jews will have to continue standing up for Israel.  Because I don't believe that Americans will :-(.

We know a McCain-Liberman block wouldn't have let Israel down, but that is now distant footnote worthy history .

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 07, 2008, 08:28:47 AM

Some Americans will. I do.

As goes Israel, so goes the free world.  I'm not sure Israel will survive Obama's tenure as president.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2008, 08:32:17 AM

Thanks GM.
I meant some if not most Americans.

Title: Rahmbo' takes Washington with Obama
Post by: rachelg on November 08, 2008, 10:58:57 AM

I don't enjoy having the same argument over and over again with slight variations.   Apparently I can't help myself ... Israel is very important to me and I would never knowing take action that would hurt its survival.  Saying  Israel  may not survive  the Obama  presidency implies a lack of understanding of the Middle East and is insulting to Israel.  Israel will survive even if the US elected Cynthia McKinney as President.  The US has not always been Israel's best friend. There have in fact been times when France was a better one.  The  US  Congress is currently and has been for a long time extremely Pro Israel.   Most Americans are also Pro-Israel.  You will notice that Cynthia McKinney seems to have some trouble getting and  staying elected.  It is difficult to be elected to congress if you are not Pro-Israel.

Obama was elected to the Senate with the full support of the Chicago Jewish Community. Aipac and many of Aipac's biggest fundraisers were supportive of his presidency. Many people who know more about Israel than I do and who bleed when Israel bleeds voted for Obama

If my choice was McKinney or Palin for President. I would have voted for Palin.

(In my opinion the best way to Support Israel it to go visit -- if able)

 Also I think it is a compliment to be a called a liberal or a even a bleeding heart liberal.

 Saying  a nuclear Iran is unacceptable or hiring this guy as Chief of Staff  is not the act of someone who is anti-Israel

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910057970&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

'Rahmbo' takes Washington with Obama
Nov. 7, 2008
ALLISON HOFFMAN, Jerusalem Post correspondent in New York , THE JERUSALEM POST

On Rosh Hashana, Rahm Emanuel called his rabbi with a question: Could he violate the holiday to sit in on a conference call about the $700 billion bank bailout package that congressional Democrats were fiercely trying to revive?

It didn't take long for Rabbi Asher Lopatin, who heads Emanuel's modern Orthodox congregation in suburban Chicago, to give him an answer.

"I told him it was my halachic opinion that the financial system was on the point of failing and it could be a disaster, and this was a matter of life and death, to get this passed, as long as the violation was kept to a minimum," Lopatin told The Jerusalem Post.

"This is modern Orthodoxy at work - committed to Judaism, but committed to making it a better world," Lopatin said.

As Democratic officials confirmed Thursday that Emanuel, 49, had accepted the job of chief of staff in US President-elect Barack Obama's new administration, friends and colleagues from Chicago to Washington described him to the Post as a dauntless political warrior and peerless tactician who had cemented his reputation as a consummate Washington general with his leadership of the Democrats' congressional takeover in 2006.

"He tends to be more pragmatic than ideological - as a leader of the party, he's been more focused on the practical aspects of moving the agenda forward," said Richard Foltin, legislative director for the American Jewish Committee's Washington office, who first met Emanuel during his stint as an adviser in president Bill Clinton's administration.

Yet Emanuel was also described as a fiercely principled Jew and supporter of Israel, where his pediatrician father, Benjamin, was born and volunteered for the Irgun before moving to America.

Emanuel, whose family name comes from the first name of an uncle killed in a 1933 skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem, went to summer camp in Israel as a boy and grew up speaking Hebrew with his father.

"He is unabashed about his own connection to Israel," said Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of the Jewish United Fund-Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago.

"If he goes to the White House, he'll be going to serve the president - but Israel will have a friend in the White House," Kotzin told the Post.

Emanuel's selection was to be formally announced on Friday.

The man nicknamed "Rahmbo" - derived from his political style, not his record as a volunteer helping the IDF during the First Gulf War - got his start in politics after graduating from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981, where, a talented dancer, he studied ballet.

Emanuel worked for a consumer rights organization in Chicago and then for a Senate campaign in 1984, as well as for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, before becoming a fund-raiser for now Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in 1989.

In 1991, after returning from Israel, Emanuel joined Clinton's campaign as a fund-raiser and stayed on as a White House adviser - developing a power base in the capital, and also becoming a model for Josh Lyman of The West Wing, the popular television show written by Clinton alumni.

Emanuel returned to Chicago in 1998 after marrying his wife, Amy Rule, and went to work for investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein - a move that he acknowledged in a 2002 interview with The New York Times had netted him $7.3 million, enough to guarantee financial stability for his family, if not to compete with the millions his younger brother, Ari Emanuel, rakes in as a powerful Hollywood talent agent. (The younger Emanuel also serves as the model for a television character - the explosive Ari Gold of the HBO show Entourage.)

In 2002, Emanuel decided to make a run for an open congressional seat on Chicago's North Side.

He earned support among adults who had been his father's patients as children and from the legions of police officers and firefighters who took the endorsement of Emanuel's uncle, a police sergeant. However, he faced a bruising battle in the Democratic primary that included anti-Semitic broadsides raised by Polish supporters of one of his opponents.

In response, he gathered religious leaders to condemn the smears, which included allegations that his loyalty was to Israel, rather than to America.

"They tried to bring out the worst of ethnic divisions, and by being strong, he showed he wasn't going to tolerate anti-Semitism," recalled Lopatin, who was among the clergy Emanuel called on.

Emanuel - whose spokeswoman did not reply to a request from the Post for an interview - later said the moment was one of his proudest.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 08, 2008, 11:09:34 AM

I hope you are right, Rachel. I'll take no pleasure if i'm proven correct.

Title: America energized
Post by: rachelg on November 08, 2008, 11:19:40 AM

GM, I certainly pray I am right too.



America energized

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910057331&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

ditor's notes: America energized
Nov. 6, 2008
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Barack Obama's dazzling electoral success was built on that empowering 'Yes, we can!' mantra. His presidential success will depend on defeating those malicious global forces that peddle darkness and misery, and that are sneering to themselves right now: 'No, you can't.'

It was a near impossible task. A largely unknown freshman senator. A largely unknown black freshman senator. A largely unknown black freshman senator facing off, most arduously, against the might of the Clinton political machine, and then against the power and the resources of the Republican Party.

But winning over his country, as President-elect Barack Obama did so extraordinarily this week - triumphing with astonishingly wide and representative support from an America hurting financially, bloodied internationally and desperately seeking a fresh, new and confident leadership - was nonetheless the easy part.

The real job starts now.

In his victory speech, only the latest example of his consistently soaring oratory, Obama hailed the dazzling election outcome as a response from those "who've been told for so long, by so many, to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve," but who had nonetheless "put their hands on the arc of victory" and bent it "once more toward the hope of a better day."

Americans plainly did precisely that - they voted their faith in Barack Obama's ability to achieve a "better day."

The real challenge is not to disappoint them. America's future depends on it. And so, to a considerable extent, does Israel's.

Obama's electoral success was built on insistent light and optimism - on that empowering "Yes, we can!" mantra.

Obama's presidential success will depend on outmaneuvering, deterring and ultimately defeating those malicious global forces that peddle darkness and misery, and that are sneering to themselves right now: "No, you can't."

THE PRESIDENT-ELECT acknowledged in his speech "the enormity of the task that lies ahead." He cited the challenges posed by "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century."

He chose not to specify the threat posed by Islamic extremism, and its most pernicious state sponsor, Iran. But his efforts to resolve those two wars to which he was referring - in Iraq and Afghanistan - and to effect a return to financial stability, will greatly depend on his wisdom in confronting that Islamist danger.

Blocking Iranian Islamist ambition, indeed, is central to the vow at the heart of his victory speech: "To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you."

The stirring sentiment will count for nothing if this confrontation is ducked. For only by thwarting the death-cult Islamists can the new leader of the free world liberate the moderates who seek reconciliation; it simply won't work the other way around.

The defeated candidate, John McCain, would likely have been more ready to resort to military intervention to stop Iran's nuclear program, its ticket to regional domination, but would likely, too, have struggled to win American, never mind international, support for such action.

President-elect Obama, by contrast, has offered direct diplomacy - to convey that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable - with all other options, including military force, available if the mullahs prove uncooperative. That approach brings the greater prospect of wider international consensus. But it also will take time. And time is precisely what Iran is delightedly manipulating.

The incoming president will have to make Iraq a priority, to honor his pledge for a speedy resolution of that conflict. But a successful strategy in Iraq also depends on quashing Iranian malevolence. The two must go hand-in-hand; Iran, its thousands of centrifuges spinning, cannot be temporarily put aside.

By repeatedly characterizing Israel as a fundamentally illegitimate nation whose demise must be expedited, Iran both genuinely threatens us and cunningly outflanks Arab objections to its nuclear drive. Weak Arab despots, undermined in country after country by the Islamist mindset they dare not vigorously confront, shy away from publicly and strenuously opposing Iran's march toward greater regional dominance. In their skewed reality, if Iran is gunning for Israel, how can they object?

But they are only too aware that the mullahs' threat is directed toward their regimes as well. Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf states - all are silently trembling. All are watching the confrontation between an emboldened Iran and an America that has appeared to be in retreat in this region. All are quietly praying that Obama can reverse that flux.

Meanwhile, Iran conveys immense amounts of materiel into a Gaza controlled by its partners in Hamas, where the past few months of deceptive tahadiyeh calm will almost inevitably, sooner or later, be shattered by violence more intense than that which preceded it.

And to the north, in Lebanon, Iran's Hizbullah organization quadruples its pre-2006 missile arsenal, brings all of Israel into range, deepens its subterranean infrastructure and, above ground, gains ever-greater control of government.

These are the flexing tentacles of those "who would tear the world down." These are the forces who would bend "the arc of history" to dash all "hope of a better day." These are the bleak fundamentalists whom a president Obama will have to wisely face down if he is to bring dependable support "to those who seek peace and security."

THIS KIND of energized American presidency, critical to Israel's well-being, will simultaneously pose real challenges for Israel.

President George Bush insisted, in the face of all common sense, that a substantive agreement could be reached by the end of 2008 between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He was misdirected, however, by none other than Olmert himself, who seems to have seen in Abbas a grit and determination to reform the unloved Fatah and steer the Palestinians toward viable compromise - a grit and determination that, sadly, Abbas has neither displayed nor perhaps even seen in himself.

President Obama would do well to eschew delusional expectations and unrealistic timetables. But he may urge Israel to set out, once and for all, its red territorial lines - to belatedly determine the parameters of a secure sovereign entity.

And plainly, he has his own starting point. As he told me in our interview during his Israel visit in July, "I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security... Israel may seek '67-plus' and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party."

A president Obama seeking wisely to thwart Iran may well also thoroughly reorient American policy as regards Syria - with immediate implications for Israel. Whereas Bush was less than delighted, initially, by Olmert's readiness to embrace President Bashar Assad's calculated negotiating overtures, Obama could seek to encourage substantive progress. If Assad wants better relations with Washington, and Obama wants to woo Damascus away from Teheran, Israel may have to make some painful calculations about the Golan Heights.

WHAT ALL that requires from Israel, in turn, is wise, inspiring, unifying and consensus-building leadership.

And it is in that area that Barack Obama's presidential election victory tentatively prompts another emotion here: envy.

Improbable candidate Obama galvanized tens of millions of Americans, and gave many of his countryfolk a sense of first-time enfranchisement, a near-euphoric sense of stake.

He told his people, late on that historic Tuesday, to "summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."

In America, he declared, "we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

Watching and listening to that lofty rhetoric in our troubled region thousands of miles away, we must hope - for America's sake and for our own - that Obama in deed is as good as his word. And hope, too, for leadership here that can first conceive, and then achieve, such vital resolve and ambition.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 08, 2008, 04:09:54 PM

Rachel:

Good posts.

Title: BO lied about firing advisor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2008, 12:14:24 PM

Obama Lied About Firing Anti-Israel Adviser

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Lied About Firing Anti-Israel Adviser

In May of this year, Barack Obama fired Middle East adviser Robert Malley when it was revealed that Malley had been holding secret talks with Hamas.


Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece


One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.


Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council. “I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.


Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”


Ben LaBolt and the Obama campaign were lying.



Report: Obama Sends Advisor Malley to Cozy Up to Egypt and Syria

Source:http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128308

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) According to a report on Middle East Newsline, President-elect Barack Obama has dispatched his "senior foreign policy adviser", Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria to outline Obama's policy on the Middle East.

Malley reportedly relayed a promise from Obama that the United States would seek to enhance relations with Cairo and reconcile differences with Damascus.

"The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests," an aide to Malley was quoted as saying. The aide said Obama plans to launch a U.S. diplomatic initiative toward Syria. Malley met both Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad "to explain Obama's agenda for the Middle East."

F-16s for Egypt
Aides to Malley also said that Obama told Mubarak that the United States would maintain military and civilian aid and sell advanced F-16 aircraft to Cairo. Egypt has not ordered F-16s in nearly a decade.

Malley was an advisor to President Bill Clinton and played an active role in the Camp David summit with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. He later published an article in which he laid some of the blame for the failure of those talks on Israel's doorstep.

International Crisis Group
In May 2008, Malley said in an interview that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, as part of his work for a conflict resolution think-tank called the International Crisis Group. This aroused ire and concern in pro-Israel circles, and prompted a spokesman for Obama to say that “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”

One of the sponsors of the International Crisis Group is billionaire George Soros, who sits on its board and its executive committee. Other members of the board include former United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and former general Wesley Clark, who called US support for Israel during the Second Lebanon War a "serious mistake" and said that "New York money people" - a phrase interpreted by many as a reference to Jews - were pushing the United States towards a confrontation with Iran.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 10, 2008, 01:58:30 PM

Crafty,
Please carify.
Is the Ronen report more recent than the report from May? (no date noted on your post)
Does this mean that Malley was recently dispatched to the Middle East and was thus not really fired?

Title: Obama sends “former” advisor who met with Hamas to hold talks with Syria?
Post by: rachelg on November 10, 2008, 05:36:11 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/10/obama-sends-former-advisor-who-met-with-hamas-to-hold-talks-with-syria/

LGF’s all over it but I’m leery of the fact that the only reports thus far are from Middle Eastern media I’ve never heard of. Plus, it’s unlikely that Obama’s first move vis-a-vis Israel would involve a guy who ended up under the bus six months ago for his willingness to chat with one of the few groups even The One won’t meet with. There’s no one less toxic whom he could have picked for this task among his 300 foreign policy advisors?

Then again, maybe this is his way of comforting those within the precincts of tolerance who are feeling anxiety at the fact that our new chief of staff comes from an Israeli family. Exercise caution until the British papers follow up on it (American papers won’t bother), but for what it’s worth, here’s the scoop:

    This caution has been justified by Obama’s first staff appointment, offering the chief of staff position to Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanual. The Chicago representative is the son of an Israeli who was a member of the Irgun, famous for its role in the Deir Yassin massacre of Palestinians in 1948.

    On the flipside, it emerged that Obama had sent his senior foreign policy advisor Robert Malley to both Cairo and Damascus these past few weeks to outline the president-elect’s plans for the region, which indicates a willingness to further strengthen ties with staunch US ally Egypt and begin boosting relations with Syria.

And here, as LGF reminds us, is what Team Barry had to say when Malley — supposedly never a formal advisor to the campaign — copped to meeting with Hamas:

    Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.

    “I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.

    But Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”

In a way I hope it’s true that he’s back working for them since Obama’s reasons for not meeting with Hamas have always been a transparent fraud. “We should only sit down with Hamas,” he said during the campaign, “if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.” Iran’s guiltier than Hamas is on all three counts yet he’s perfectly willing to meet with them, which makes the lesson in Gaza clear: If you want an audience with the new world pope, work on graduating from a terrorist group to a terrorist state.

Exit question one: It’d be a lot easier to throw rocks here if the Bush team hadn’t already started meeting with Iran, huh? Exit question two: Since Team Barry’s now, allegedly, granting amnesty to former aides who sinned against the campaign, when does Samantha Power come back aboard?

Update: This piece in Forbes confirms that Malley did meet with Syria — but in his role for the International Crisis Group. The only evidence that he was there at Obama’s behest appears to be an assumption made by Syrian state media that he was still working for the campaign:

    What really attracted attention, though, was that on the same day a Web site closely associated with the government published a translation of a lecture Malley had delivered at Yale, offering effusive praise for it.

    The site referred to Malley as a senior adviser to Barack Obama on the Middle East, even though the Obama campaign says Malley’s role was never official. In any case, the campaign dropped him as too controversial after it was reported that he had met with Hamas officials. The Web site further stated that Malley’s opinions would shape the next U.S. president’s ideas about the Middle East, noting that, unlike the Bush administration, Malley supported a peace agreement between Syria and Israel–which would weaken Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

    The site noted that Obama had twice echoed Malley in stating that the failure of the war in Iraq had strengthened Iran’s influence. But if the Obama campaign has indeed severed its ties to Malley, it seems that Syrian officials are overestimating his influence.

The cloak and dagger theory here would be that he is still working for the campaign and meeting with people under aegis of the ICG to maintain plausible deniability, but if that’s the case, why would Syrian media blow his cover? All it’ll do is piss Obama off.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 11, 2008, 12:49:24 AM

**Rachel, why don't you email the author of this article and get his sourcing for this meeting between Malley and Assad.**

Obama’s Road to Damascus   
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, November 11, 2008

History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations. An aide to Malley reports, “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests” than has President Bush. The Bush administration, it should be noted, has rightly recognized Syria to be not only a chief supporter of the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, but also the headquarters of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the longtime sponsor of Hamas—the terrorist army whose founding charter is irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel. Yet unlike President Bush, Obama and Malley have called for Israel to engage in peace negotiations with Syria.

A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee).

In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998).

Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”

In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for the failure of the peace process.

Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch. It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).

Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq).

In addition, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing …”

Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran. Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.

Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah…. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”

This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—clearly has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.

It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”

But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”

John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on November 11, 2008, 04:40:59 AM

GM,

There are two facts I am not disputing
Mallley was an advisor to Obama and he is now visiting the middle east.   The very important question is-- Is Malley currently speaking for Obama. if he is it is bad.    I have seen no proof in any article posted that he is. Why is this not being covered in Jpost or other reputable sources in the Middle East? Front Page and Aurtz Sheva don't do it for me. 


Please don't give me homework assignments. If you want to write the editor  you should.   While you at it  please write a two page paper explaining why Malley   possibly  would have lied about being Obama current adviser to Israel



http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html

*A digression, if I may, regarding Malley and impressive sounding titles. A Washington Post article on Senator Obama's foreign policy advisors described him as having been President Clinton's Middle East envoy. Now this would come as a surprise to Ambassador Dennis Ross who actually was Clinton's Middle East envoy. Indeed, there is a paucity of mentions of Malley in Ross's exhaustive history of the Middle East peace process during the Clinton years, The Missing Peace, where more often than not he is described as a note-taker-once serving as Yasser Arafat's stenographer.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 11, 2008, 07:56:21 AM

A fascinating conversation Rachel and GM.

Please forgive this momentary intrusion as I note the following:

=========


JERUSALEM, Israel — The U.S. is providing Israel with high-powered X-band radar capable of detecting missile launches up to 1,500 miles away — and sensitive enough to detect small- and medium-range missiles being fired from Iran and Syria.

The radar will grant Israel about 60-70 seconds more warning time when missiles are launched. The system's massive range means targets as far away as southern Russia can be monitored.

• Click here to see exclusive footage the X-band radar system at work in Israel.

Every second of warning counts, as Syrian missiles can hit Israel in just four minutes, and Iranian missiles can reach Israel's borders in just 11 minutes.


Israel will not have direct access to the intelligence the radar collects. American satellites will be used with the radar, and only Americans will have access to the technology and the information.

About 120 American technicians and security guards will be stationed in Israel's southern Negev Desert to oversee the operation, the first time in the country's 60-year history that they've allowed a foreign military presence to be based here.

In September the U.S. Senate passed an amendment allocating $89 million for activating and deploying the X-band radar. Iran was quick to attack the funding in an editorial in the Tehran Times.

"If it were proposed that this fraction of the tax revenues should be allocated to reduce the pains in the hearts of one thousand owners of foreclosed properties in the working class neighborhoods of Chicago ... no doubt the same senators who enthusiastically and unanimously voted for the bill would have rejected it outright with no hesitation or mercy," the paper wrote.

According to military experts, the radar was intended to send a message to Iran, and to Israel as well. It shows Iran the U.S. is beefing up its capabilities in the region, and it also is intended to calm Israel and prevent it from rushing into a military strike.

Israeli military analyst Alon Ben-David said this was Bush's last gift to Israel.

"Having a U.S. force deployed permanently in Israel is a gift, but it also binds Israel. Israel will have to take into account the presence of an American force before considering any military action that might generate a response from the other side," he told FOX News. "But on the other hand, this is a very clear signal of the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel."


=========

Carry on!
Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 11, 2008, 08:43:10 AM

Rachel,

I wasn't firing a shot at you, I just figured you'd be able to ask more relevant questions than I, given your ground truth experiences in the region.

Either way, I'm sure we'll know Malley's status soon enough.

Title: Obama adviser denies Hamas meeting
Post by: rachelg on November 11, 2008, 04:41:33 PM

GM,
My apologies .  Thank you for the compliment. I respectively decline to write a letter to frontpage magazine. I am not a big fan and am not interested in being in a conversation with them. If you are really that interested I'm sure you could send them intelligent questions yourself.


Here is what Jpost had to say about the issue.


t  http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910089501&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Obama adviser denies Hamas meeting
Nov. 11, 2008
Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

US President-elect Barack Obama's office flatly denied a Hamas official's claim Tuesday that advisers to Obama met with representatives from the terrorist organization while on a visit to the region.

"This assertion is just plain false," Obama's senior foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, told The Jerusalem Post.

Earlier in the day, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper published an interview with Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef in which he said that a secret meeting was held in Gaza ahead of the US election on November 4.

"We are maintaining contact with them," Yousef said. "We first made contact on the Internet and then met with some of them here in the Gaza Strip. They advised us not to reveal this information lest it influence the elections or become manipulated by [Republican candidate John] McCain's campaign."

With the campaign over, he added, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh would be sending a letter of congratulations to Obama.

Yousef also said that he personally had friendly relations with a few of Obama's advisers whom he had met when he lived in the US.

Obama stressed throughout the campaign that he would not meet with members of Hamas so long as it didn't accept the international community's three demands - that it halt violence against Israel, recognize Israel and accept previous agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.

One of Obama's Middle East policy advisers, Rob Malley, resigned during the Democratic candidate's campaign once it became known that he had met with Hamas members in the course of his conflict resolution work with the International Crisis Group.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 13, 2008, 01:38:47 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/13/egyptian-tv-lets-rape-all-the-israeli-women/

Waiting for all the moderate muslims to take to the streets to protest this mindset. Any second now....

Title: Still getting the AIPAC thumbs up?
Post by: G M on November 16, 2008, 07:41:02 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16/obama-will-back-saudi-peace-plan/

Obama will back Saudi peace plan
posted at 10:24 am on November 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey   


Barack Obama has decided to base his diplomatic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Saudi peace plan, the Times of London reports today.  A “senior Obama adviser” tells the Times that Obama will back the plan that divides Jerusalem into two capitals and pulls Israel back to pre-1967 borders:

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.

Apparently, Obama has changed his position from his speech at AIPAC.  In early June, he told the Israeli-supporting political action group that Jerusalem “must remain undivided,” drawing thunderous applause and roars of criticism later from Palestinian groups.  Within hours, Obama retreated to the Bush administration position — that Jerusalem should be left to the two sides to negotiate in the final settlement.

Welcome to Obama 3.0 on Jerusalem.  Now he has switched sides to the exact opposite of what he argued at AIPAC.  One has to wonder what all of those Jewish voters who supported Obama will think of this new position on Israel’s borders and security, but somehow I doubt it would get thunderous applause at AIPAC.

In Israel, the reception could be more mixed.  Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and leading candidate for Prime Minister from Ariel Sharon’s Kadima party, backs the Saudi peace plan in concept, including the division of Jerusalem.  The Israeli Left supports it as well, with Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert both endorsing the plan.  Likud candidate Benjamin Netanyahu opposes it entirely.

Obama reportedly told Mahmoud Abbas that “Israel would be crazy” not to accept the plan.  He concluded that the Saudi plan would give Israel peace with the entire Muslim world.  Really?  It might make it palatable for some states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to start diplomatic relations with Israel, and perhaps even Syria if they get back the Golan Heights.  But who believes that Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and the proxy armies of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad will suddenly discover brotherly love with such a settlement?  They want Israel wiped off the map, literally in Iran’s case, and the Israelis driven into the Mediterranean.

Israel can decide on its own to take a risk and adopt the smaller borders in exchange for the promise of peace.  Obama should have stuck with his AIPAC speech, or the initial retreat from it.

Title: 'Obama didn't endorse Arab Peace Plan'
Post by: rachelg on November 17, 2008, 05:40:27 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404745738&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Obama didn't endorse Arab Peace Plan'
Nov. 16, 2008
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Former US ambassaodr to Israel Dennis Ross, who is a senior advisor to president-elect Barack Obama on Middle East policy, denied Monday a Sunday Times report to the effect that Obama is planning to base his peacemaking efforts in the Middle East on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

"I was in the meeting in Ramallah," Ross said. "Then-Senator Obama did not say this. The story is false."

The Arab Peace Initiative, based on the Saudi peace plan of February 2002, calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories taken in the Six Day War, including east Jerusalem, in exchange for normalizing ties with the Arab world.

Quoting an adviser to Obama, the report states that during his visit to the Middle East in July, the President-elect said Israel would be "crazy" to refuse a deal that could "give them peace with the Muslim world."

According to the paper, Obama's advisers feel that the time is right for such a deal as Arab countries fear rising radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. They have reportedly told Obama he shouldn't lose time and must begin pushing his policies within his first year in office while he still enjoys maximum goodwill.

Senior Jerusalem officials last month dismissed a sudden surge of interest both in Israel and abroad in the initiative, saying it was a function of both a diplomatic process that has stalled and the transition periods in Israel, the US and the Palestinian Authority.

"Whenever the process stalls, there will be those who will pull out the Saudi plan," one senior official said. "And the Saudis have an interest in pushing this out there now, to put on a 'constructive face' with which to greet the new US president."

Herb Keinon contributed to this report

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on November 17, 2008, 07:49:12 AM

I think some/many in Israel simply want peace and true democracy for everyone; Jews and non Jews alike.
Maybe Obama can finally help make a difference.


Holocaust's unholy hold
The deeper we are stuck in our Auschwitz past, the more difficult it becomes to be free of it.
By Avraham Burg
November 16, 2008
Reporting from Nataf, Israel -- Even today, when economic storms are shaking markets around the world, posing a threat to the stability of entire countries and societies, Israel continues to conduct its business far from the turmoil, as if swimming in a private ocean of its own. True, the headlines are alerting the public here about the crisis, and the politicians are hastily recalculating their budgets. But none of this is dramatically changing the way we think about ourselves.

To Israelis, these issues are mundane. What really matters here is the all-important spirit of Trauma, the true basis for so many of our country's life principles. In Israel, the darkest period in human history is always present. Regardless of whether the question at hand is of the future relations between Israel and our Palestinian neighbors in specific and the Arab world in general, or of the Iranian atomic threat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it always comes down to the same conversation. Every threat or grievance of major or minor importance is dealt with automatically by raising the biggest argument of them all -- the Shoah -- and from that moment onward, every discussion is disrupted.

The constant presence of the Shoah is like a buzz in my ear. In Israel, children are always, it seems, preparing for their rite-of-passage "Auschwitz trip" to Poland. Not a day passes without a mention of the Holocaust in the only newspaper I read, Haaretz. The Shoah is like a hole in the ozone layer: unseen yet present, abstract yet powerful. It's more present in our lives than God.

It is the founding experience not just of our national consciousness but of more than that. Army generals discuss Israeli security doctrine as "Shoah-proof." Politicians use it as a central argument for their ethical manipulations.

The Shoah is so pervasive that a study conducted a few years ago in a Tel Aviv school for teachers found that more than 90% of those questioned view it as the most important experience of Jewish history. That means it is more important than the creation of the world, the exodus from Egypt, the delivering of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, the ruin of both Holy Temples, the exile, the birth of Zionism, the founding of the state or the 1967 Six-Day War.

The Shoah is woven, to varying degrees, into almost all of Israel's political arguments; over time, we have taken the Shoah from its position of sanctity and turned it into an instrument of common and even trite politics. It represents a past that is present, maintained, monitored, heard and represented. Our dead do not rest in peace. They are busy, active, always a part of our sad lives.

Of course, memory is essential to any nation's mental health. The Shoah must always have an important place in the nation's memorial mosaic. But the way things are done today -- the absolute monopoly and the dominance of the Shoah on every aspect of our lives -- transforms this holy memory into a ridiculous sacrilege and converts piercing pain into hollowness and kitsch. As time passes, the deeper we are stuck in our Auschwitz past, the more difficult it becomes to be free of it.

What does the primacy of the Shoah mean in terms of our politics and policy? For one thing, it becomes virtually impossible to find a conversation carried out with reason, patience, self-control or restraint. Take Iran as an example. With regard to Iran, as with any other security matter that has potentially existential consequences, we have no thoughts at all -- only instincts and trauma-driven impulses. Who has ever heard of alternative approaches to the Iranian issue, of strategic arguments underlying the passionate emotions, the old fears and violent rhetoric?

Few people in Israel are willing to try to perceive reality through a different set of conceptual lenses other than those of extermination and defensive isolation. Few are willing to try on the glasses of understanding and of hope for dialogue. Instead, the question is always: Is a second Shoah on the way?

This is one of the strongest reasons why I voluntarily withdrew from political life in Israel. I couldn't help feeling that Israel has become a kingdom lacking in vision and without a prophetic horizon. On the surface, everything is in order; decisions are carried out, life moves on, the ship sails along. But where is this movement heading? No one knows. The sailors are rowing without seeing anything; the lower-ranking officers are holding their eyes up to the leadership, but the leaders are not capable of seeing past each coming, rising, tumbling wave. No one is looking ahead, searching for a new continent. Instead, we are looking backward, held hostage by memory.

I cannot be an accomplice in such a way of life, with no spiritual compass or moral direction. Never -- or so I've been taught from infancy -- have the Jewish people existed only for the sake of existence; never have we survived only in order to survive; never have we carried on for the sole purpose of carrying on by itself.

The Jewish existence was always directed upward. Not only toward our king and father in the heavens, but also our gaze upward was an answer to the great call of humanity; an answer of liberty in the times of enslavement in Egypt, an answer to the need of a righteous and egalitarian law in the days of Sinai when we wandered through the desert, an answer to the call of human universalism manifest in the Scriptures of the great prophets, and finally, an answer to the cry opposing unjust and imperial occupation throughout late antiquity.

Even the Zionist idea was not merely an attempt to rescue the Jews from violent anti-Semitic prosecutors, but rather was a heroic attempt to establish a model society. Zionism meant to create a society that avoided any form of discrimination or oppressive policy toward non-Jews, of the kind under which Jews had suffered for more than two millenniums.

This utopian vision has fallen silent in Israel. Concerns for personal survival and well-being, as well as fear about the ongoing bloodshed and security emergencies, about Gaza and Iran and the realities of demographics and population, have silenced the moral debate and blocked the horizons of vision and creative thinking.

I believe Israel must move away from trauma to trust, that we must abandon the "everything is Auschwitz" mentality and substitute for it an impulse toward liberty and democracy.

I fully understand that this will require a slow process of change. It will take more than one or two years for a new Jewish humanism to be accepted, allowing Israel to become a less traumatic place, a country in which school trips do not only present Israel's high school students with extermination camps. Israel must rethink its strict law of return (which defines Jewishness the same way Hitler did), its relationship with Germany, and it must reaffirm its commitment to being a democratic state of the Jewish people, a state that belongs to all of its citizens, in which the majority decides on its character and essence, with the utmost sensitivity to all the "others" -- and especially the Arab non-Jewish minority.

I have a vision of Israel as the driving force behind a global peace process and worldwide reconciliation and as a society guided by a deep sense of responsibility to world justice, but it's difficult to accept this vision when we are confronted every day with the hardship and perpetual bloodshed reflected in our newspapers. My hope is for a Jewish people that insists "never again" -- not only for Jewish victims but for anyone who suffers around the globe today.

Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli parliament, is a businessman and author, most recently, of "The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes," published this month by Palgrave Macmillan.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2008, 08:55:41 AM

OTOH, a goodly percentage of the other side is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmnpMXOpaM4&NR

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 17, 2008, 09:47:44 AM

"I think some/many in Israel simply want peace and true democracy for everyone; Jews and non Jews alike.
Maybe Obama can finally help make a difference."

Unless Obama can magically fix the islamic death culture, the "peace talks" are meaningless.

Title: Eight Israelis held by terrorists in Mumbai Chabad House'
Post by: rachelg on November 27, 2008, 05:59:18 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702336066&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Nov. 27, 2008
DAVID HOROVITZ, matthew wagner, and jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Indian commandos and police were evacuating civilians and cordoning off the area apparently in preparation to storm the Chabad House in Mumbai, India, where a rabbi, his wife and several other Israelis were being held hostage, according to IBN, an Indian news agency.

Chabad spokesman in Israel, Moni Ender, said there were eight Israelis inside the house, including Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg.

Several other Israelis were reportedly being held at the Oberoi Hotel, Israel Radio reported.

Newscasters were calling it the "final assault" on the Nariman House, where Chabad headquarters are located, adjacent to the Leopold Cafe, a major tourist center in Mumbai's Colaba area, which was also attacked Wednesday night.

According to a report by Reuters, the terrorists have expressed their desire to negotiate with the Indian government for the release of the hostages. The government, however, has repeatedly stated that it will not negotiate.

Several senior Indian police and security officers have been killed in the joint attack, which has caused police to take more cautious measures before storming the Chabad House, said Indian reporters.

Earlier, Reuters reported that one terrorist had been killed by Indian special forces in the Chabad House, but four others still remained barricaded inside, where they were holding off efforts to reach those inside.

Sky News reported that a loud explosion had been heard at the Chabad House. There was no official word as to the cause of the explosion, which could indicate the onset of an attempt to storm the compound.

On Thursday morning, Moshe Holtzberg, the toddler son of the Chabad emissaries, was rushed from the house in the arms of one of the Chabad House's employees, Sandra Samuel.

"I took the child, I just grabbed the baby and ran out," said Samuel, 44, who has worked as a cook for the center for the last five years.

She said that the rabbi and his wife, along with two other unidentified guests, were alive but unconscious.

"Pray that we should hear good news," urged a Chabad spokesman, Rabbi Zalman Shmotkin, in a telephone conversation with The Jerusalem Post from New York in the early hours of Thursday morning, Israel time.

Shmotkin also said that the had gunmen seized a police vehicle, which allowed them access to the area around the Chabad House.

Joshua Runyan, the news editor of the Chabad.org/news website, told the Post that there had been "several reports that shots were fired in the vicinity of the Chabad House, and unconfirmed reports on CNN of casualties in the Nariman House." Nariman House, Runyan said, was the original name of the Chabad House, which was purchased two years ago.

Runyan, who is in Jerusalem, said that a friend of the rabbi's had received an email from Holtzberg, unrelated to the attacks, at around the time of the attacks or shortly before they began, but that there had been no contact with Holtzberg since. "Since then, we've been trying all the numbers," he said.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem confirmed that hostages had been taken in the Chabad House area. The ministry had yet to make contact with some 20 Israelis in the Mumbai area.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni spoke with the Israeli consul general in Mumbai, who briefed her on the attacks, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. According to the statement, the ministry and the consulate were making "maximum efforts to ascertain the situation of the Israelis in the city as quickly as possible."

Livni sharply condemned the attacks, saying, "This is further painful evidence that the terrorist threat is the greatest challenge which Israel and the international community have to face. Nothing justifies the unforgivable slaughter of innocents."

Indian news agencies reported that three people were killed in or close to the Chabad House. The dead were not hostages, the reports said.

Phone calls by the Post to the Chabad House and to the Holtzbergs went unanswered late Wednesday night and in the early hours of Thursday morning.

Friends of the Holtzbergs placed messages on various Internet sites appealing for information about them.

Israel Radio reported that consulate staff were visiting local hospitals. Runyan said the Chabad House was a popular tourist destination and that "Israelis regularly come by and visit."

In an article on the chabad.org Web site, Runyan wrote that "Chabad-Lubavitch representatives in New York and Israel are working alongside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the US Consulate in Mumbai and a volunteer team of local residents to ascertain the well being of the Holtzbergs and other Jews in the area."

He added: "People are urged to say Psalms for Gavriel Noach ben Freida Bluma and Rivka bas Yehudis, and anyone affected by the tragedy."

Elie Leshem contributed to this report

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 27, 2008, 06:32:46 AM

The Indian Hostage Rescue teams seem to have done some good work thus far. Hopefully they'll be able to save more hostages.

Title: The Evil Obsession
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 06, 2008, 05:36:55 AM

The UN's obsession with demonizing Israel
By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / November 30, 2008
THE PRESIDENT of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, last week denounced the policies of a certain Middle Eastern nation. They are "so similar to the apartheid of an earlier era," he said, "that the world must unite against them, demanding an "end to this massive abuse of human rights" and isolating the offending nation as it once isolated South Africa: with a punishing "campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions."

Of which country was he speaking?
Was it Saudi Arabia, where public facilities are segregated by sex, and where a pervasive system of gender apartheid denies women the right to drive, to dress as they choose, to freely marry or divorce, to vote, to appear in public without a male "guardian," or to give testimony on an equal basis with men?

Was it Jordan, where the law explicitly bars Jews from citizenship and where the sale of land to a Jew was for decades not only illegal, but punishable by death?

Was it Iran, where homosexuality is a capital crime - at least 200 Iranian gays were executed last year - and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asserted at Columbia University that there are no homosexuals in Iran?

Was it Sudan, where tens of thousands of black Africans in the country's southern region, most of them Christians or animists, have been abducted and sold into slavery by Arab militias backed by the Islamist regime in Khartoum?

It was none of these. The General Assembly president, a radical Maryknoll priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister during the Sandinista regime in the 1980s, was not referring to any of the Middle East's Muslim autocracies and dictatorships, virtually all of which discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities. He was speaking of the Jewish state of Israel, the region's lone democracy, and the only one that guarantees the legal equality of all its citizens - one-fifth of whom are Muslim and Christian Arabs.

D'Escoto's call for Israel to be shunned as a pariah and strangled economically came on the UN's Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, an annual occasion devoted to lamenting the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty in the 20th century, denouncing the national liberation movement - Zionism - that made that rebirth possible, and championing the cause of the Palestinian Arabs. The event occurs on or about Nov. 29, the anniversary of the UN vote in 1947 to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. There are impassioned speeches, in which Israel's sins are enumerated and condemned, and the statelessness of the Palestinians is bewailed. Unmentioned is the fact that Palestine's Arabs would have had their state 60 years ago had they and the Arab League not rejected the UN's decision and chosen instead to declare war on the new Jewish state.

Like so much of what takes place at the UN, the obsession with demonizing Israel and extolling the Palestinians is grotesque and Orwellian. More than 1 million Israeli Arabs enjoy civil and political rights unmatched in the Arab world - yet Israel is accused of repression and human-rights abuse. Successive Israeli governments have endorsed a "two-state solution" - yet Israel is blasted as the obstacle to peace. The Palestinian Authority oversees the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich, and wants all Jews expelled from the land it claims for itself - yet Israel is labeled an "apartheid state" and singled out for condemnation and ostracism.

Make no mistake: In likening Israel to apartheid-era South Africa, the UN is engaged not in anti-racism but in anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, the world's foremost anti-Semites demanded a boycott of Jewish businesses. Today they demand a boycott of the Jewish state.

"No good German is still buying from a Jew," announced Hitler's Nazi Party in March 1933. "The boycott must be a universal one . . . and must hit Jewry where it is most vulnerable." Seventy-five years later, the president of the General Assembly urges the world to throttle Israel's 6 million Jews with "boycott, divestment, and sanctions." There is no significant difference between the two cases -- or the animus underlying them.

When the UN adopted its odious "Zionism is racism resolution" in 1975, US Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan minced no words. "The United States," he declared, "does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act." Where is such a voice of moral outrage today?

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on December 09, 2008, 07:15:16 PM

I am not a fan of Bibi (but I think he is going to win the election  and it thought this was an interesting perspective.

http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2008/12/the-driving-axi.html
Without being aware of it, most of us automatically label anyone driving faster than us 'a maniac'... and anyone driving slower than us is 'an idiot'.

The same is pretty much the case with religion.  We file those who are even a little more religiously observant than us under the broad heading; 'fanatic', while those who are less observant are 'heretics'.

So, it should go without saying (although, naturally, I feel the need to say it) that politics are also subject to this involuntary, mental filing system.  Those to the right of us are militaristic fascists while those to the left of us are communist surrender monkeys.

In advance of Likud's primaries yesterday, Bibi Natanyahu held a press conference to try to head off this kind of pigeon-holing and said unequivocally that not only would he not be giving any cabinet positions to those who he considered radical elements within Likud (e.g. supporters of Moshe Feiglin), but that the numeric standing in the Likud primary results would not have any affect whatsoever on his choices for top government positions.

He made it clear that the results of the primaries were important in that they demonstrated public support for a slate of candidates... but that he reserved the right to fill the top cabinet slots with the best qualified individual regardless of their post-primary standing.

In a rational world that should have been enough to silence much of the hysterical hair-pulling over the eventuality that many of the top primary spots would (and did) go to players from Likud's ideological right wing.

But rational behavior is, sadly, not in large supply in Israel's political circles.

Kadima's Livni is running scared and Labor's Barak is essentially a grease spot in the rear view mirror.  The two of them know that their only chance of swaying precious undecided voters and winning back seats from Likud in the coming election is to cry wolf about how "Likud will begin implementing their extremist policies" the moment they come to power. Heck, Meretz (as reported in Ynet) has gone so far as to say that "Likud has formed a new anti-peace front!" .

[~sigh~]

Deep breaths everyone.   It's not like Meretz, Labor and Kadima haven't had their turn at the wheel since the last election.  It's not as though there was a disruptive opposition keeping them from carrying out their 'pro-peace' agenda.

Unfortunately, Kadima and Labor managed their plans for peace about as well as they did their plans for the last war. Meaning they had no clear plan at all, other than to make staggeringly stupid unilateral concessions to an assortment of enemies who have expressed no interest whatsoever in becoming our friends.

Israel is nominally a democracy... which means you can vote for whatever party floats your boat.  And you should!  I'm less frightened of a democracy with a strong, responsible opposition than of one where everyone marches in lockstep.  But To ignore historical facts and expect the electorate to continue endorsing the same, clueless leadership (if you can even call what we've had to endure 'leadership'), is just lunacy.

Just in case some talking points are needed, let me be the first to offer a few:

You do not talk to people who are shooting at you.  Not bullets... and certainly not missiles.  And you certainly don't act as though they aren't shooting.  Any other nation on earth would consider such belligerency an open act of war.  Somehow we have gotten into the habit of treating it as if it were some inescapable, chronic problem like pollution. Abandoning any segment of the population to the bombs and missiles is to essentially give the land they are living on to your enemy.  Any government that willingly does so is done.  Move on.

Being against the particulars and/or timing of a peace initiative does not make one 'anti-peace'.  It means that after a number of identical failures, it is time to try something else... or perhaps time to take a short break from trying in order to assess whether the other side actually is capable of (or interested in) making peace.

Kadima and Labor have no monopoly on talking with - and even assisting - our enemies.  Bibi has made it clear that he will continue a responsible dialog with the Palestinian leadership.  In fact, he has been saying for some time that the only way to create  a viable peace partner is to bolster their economy to the point that they don't need Israel or International aid to survive.

Freeing terrorists from jail and returning them to the same handlers who sent them on their murderous missions in the first place will not promote peace.  You can call them confidence-building gestures, but the only thing it does is erode the confidence of Israelis that the government has a clue how to stop the relentless attacks.  Promoting responsible economic planning and enabling manageable economic growth for the Palestinians might give them something to think about other than killing us.  I'm not sure, but I'm willing to give Bibi a chance to test that theory.

One of the primary criticisms leveled at Bibi from the right during his tenure as leader of the opposition is that he didn't make life difficult enough for the Kadima/Labor coalition government.  During the war in Lebanon Bibi became the defacto spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, and afterward acted much more forcefully to to ride herd on the right than to hamstring the left.  So it is funny to suddenly hear  Meretz, Labor and Kadima screaming and maneuvering in the most irresponsible manor as though they are already in the opposition.

Labor arrogantly labeled Likud predictions of missiles falling on Ashkelon as 'scare mongering'. Yet the Grad Ketyushas that fell on Ashkelon last week (and the countless rockets that continue to fall on Sderot, Ashkelon and the western Negev) are apparently less important to Labor and Kadima than the number of Knesset seats they can coax from a balky electorate.

At a certain point, failed policies and failed regimes must be peacefully set aside and new ideas tried.  Livni and Barak have demonstrated beyond all doubt that they don't have a new idea between them (other than how to attack the Likud).  And that's okay.  The job of the opposition is to be critical of those in power.  So it is time to make sure that Kadima and Labor are placed firmly where they can carry on criticizing and do a minimum of harm (and a maximum of good); in the opposition.

I'll be the first to admit that Bibi is not the ideal candidate.  But he is arguably the only one responsible for this country being well-positioned to weather the current global economic storm... and he has spent years demonstrating that he can and will act responsibly to place the good of the country before his own (ample) political aspirations.

The new Likud is full of promising new faces and ideas (as well as old party hacks), and Bibi has promised to look well down his party list... and also to the ranks of other political parties... to select the leaders most capable of helping him face Israel's current and future challenges.  Personally, I can't ask more than that.

Say what you want about Bibi, but he is not anti-peace or an extremist on any account.  Nor is he shackled to any militant extremists or radical political elements.  Anyone who says either is either willfully ignorant or woefully unfamiliar with Israel's parliamentarian system.

Is Bibi perfect?  Not by a long shot.  But is it long past time to push aside the architects of years of fecklessness and failure in order to try an entirely different approach to domestic and foreign policy?  In my humble opinion; Yes.

You are entitled to your own opinion and vote (that's why it's called a democracy), but stop telling me why not to vote for the Likud/Bibi, and start telling me what your party has to offer this country that hasn't already been proven a dismal failure.

Update:  I just saw the following quote from Livni in which she is trying to sound strong by advocating a token military response to continued rocket fire from Gaza (I swear, you can't make this stuff up!):

    "A [military] response is important; even if it doesn't automatically end the Palestinian rocket fire, there is something important in the impression, and Israel's deterrence ability.  The strategic goal in my eyes is to prevent the establishment of an extremist Islamic terror state along Israel's southern border." [emphasis mine]

Um, news flash for Livni... that ship sailed.  Maybe you missed the meeting where it was discussed, but Israel already has an extremist Islamic terror state along its southern border.  What's your next big plan?

Yet another update (my lunchtime reading was chock full of shameless sound bites):

Disgraced Kadima Prime minister Ehud Olmert said today:

    "The Likud ...is...a right-wing party that will isolate Israel in a corner..."

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this the same person who carried water for Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan by repeatedly assuring us that withdrawal from Gaza would improve Israel's international standing and make us the darling of the international community?

That worked out well, didn't it? Even failed states and remorseless despots still shun Israel, and our 'friends' still try to arrest our generals for war crimes!

Title: A minority in peril/ Israel prepares for Christmas
Post by: rachelg on December 23, 2008, 04:50:09 PM

Two short videos from the Jerusalem Post. You have to watch a brief ad for  Israeli Charity Yad Ezra before the videos start.


Israel prepares for Christmas-- Free Trees from the JNF
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868833295&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull




A minority in peril--Palestinian Christians at Christmas time


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1229868830030

Title: Bush pardons man who aided Israel in '48
Post by: rachelg on December 24, 2008, 07:35:37 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868839309&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The last words Charles Winters spoke to his son nearly 25 years ago - "Keep the faith" - guided the Miami businessman as he sought a rare presidential pardon for his late father's crime: aiding Israel in 1948 as it fought to survive.

Charles Winters, a Protestant from Boston, was convicted in 1949 for violating the Neutrality Act when he conspired to export aircraft to a foreign country. He was fined $5,000 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Winters' son, Jim, found out about his father's daring missions and imprisonment only after his death in 1984.

On Tuesday, President George W. Bush officially forgave Charles Winters, issuing a pardon posthumously to a man considered a hero in Israel.

"I'm overwhelmed," said Jim Winters, 44, a Miami maker of artistic neon signs. "It happened 16 years before I was born. He went to jail and he didn't want his kids to know. He was old-school and proud."

Charles Winters was one of 19 people to receive pardons - one other person had his sentence commuted - as Bush left Washington to spend the Christmas holiday at Camp David in Maryland. No high-profile lawbreakers were on the list.

In the summer of 1948, Charles Winters, a produce exporter in Miami, worked with others to transfer two converted B-17 "Flying Fortresses" to Israel's defense forces. He personally flew one of the aircraft from Miami to Czechoslovakia, where that plane and a third B-17 were retrofitted for use as bombers.

"He and other volunteers from around the world defied weapons embargoes to supply the newly established Israel with critical supplies to defend itself against mounting attacks from all sides," New York Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Gary Ackerman, Jose Serrano and Brian Higgins wrote in a Dec. 15 letter urging Bush to pardon Charles Winters.

"Without the actions of individuals like Mr. Winters, this fledgling democracy in the Middle East almost certainly would not have survived as the surrounding nations closed in on Israel's borders," the lawmakers wrote.

The three B-17s were the only heavy bombers in the Israeli Air Force, and historians say counterattacks with the bombers helped turned the war in Israel's favor. In March 1961, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir issued a letter of commendation to Charles Winters to recognize his contributions to the Jewish state's survival.

Two men charged with Winters, Herman Greenspun and Al Schwimmer, also were convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, but they did not serve time. President John F. Kennedy pardoned Greenspun in 1961, and President Bill Clinton pardoned Schwimmer in 2000.

"Rules are rules, but it's interesting that my dad was the low man on the totem pole in the operation, but he's the only one who had to serve time," said Jim Winters.

Reginald Brown, an attorney who worked on the pardon, said Bush's action "rights a historical wrong and honors Charlie's belief that the creation of the Jewish state was a moral imperative of his time."

Film director Steven Spielberg also wrote a letter to Bush appealing for a pardon for Charles Winters.

"There are probably many unsung heroes of America and of Israel, but Charlie Winters is surely one of them," wrote the director of "Schindler's List," the Oscar-winning movie about the Holocaust. "While a pardon cannot make Charlie Winters whole, and regrettably he did not live to see it, it would be a fitting tribute to his memory and a great blessing to his family if this pardon is granted."

After Charles Winters died on Oct. 30, 1984, half his ashes were buried in a Christian cemetery near the Jewish cemetery of the Knights Templar in Jerusalem. The rest were scattered from the top of Mount Tabor in Israel.

The only other pardon granted posthumously in recent years was given to Henry O. Flipper, the first black graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Flipper was drummed out of the Army after white officers accused him of embezzling about $3,800 from commissary funds. Flipper initially discovered the funds missing from his custody and concealed their disappearance from superiors, hoping the money would return. Clinton gave Flipper a full pardon in 1999.

Bush has granted 190 pardons and nine commutations during his two terms. That's fewer than half as many as Presidents Clinton or Ronald Reagan issued during their eight years in office.

Well-known names were rare on Bush's holiday pardon list. There have been efforts to get Bush to pardon former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, who was convicted in 2000 with four others in a scheme to rig riverboat casino licensing; disgraced track star Marion Jones, who lied about using steroids; Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, former U.S. Border Patrol agents who were convicted of shooting a drug smuggler in 2005 and trying to cover it up; and Michael Milken, the junk bond king convicted of securities fraud.

In his most high-profile official act of forgiveness, Bush saved Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, from serving prison time in the case of the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. Bush could still grant him a full pardon, although Libby has not applied for one.

Title: Operation Cast Lead/All police HQs in Gaza destroyed/policy of restraint is over
Post by: rachelg on December 27, 2008, 10:20:50 AM

'All police HQs in Gaza destroyed'
Dec. 26, 2008
Jpost.com staff and ap , THE JERUSALEM POST
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111714969&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Just days after the cabinet gave the military final approval to counter ongoing Palestinian rocket fire against communities in the western Negev, the IDF launched a massive operation, striking Hamas installations throughout the Gaza Strip on Saturday.

The wide-scale offensive on Hamas installations in the Gaza Strip was codenamed 'Operation Cast Lead,' after a Hanukkah poem by H.N. Bialik referring to a "dreidel cast from solid lead."

At least 200 people were reported killed - the majority of them Hamas operatives - and nearly 400 wounded in the attacks. It was not clear if the aerial offensive would be coupled with a ground offensive. Asked if Hamas political leaders might be targeted next, military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich said, "Any Hamas target is a target."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a press conference that the IAF had succeeded in eliminating senior Hamas commanders during the offensive. According to witnesses, among the dead was Hamas police chief Maj.-Gen. Tawfik Jaber.

Despite the massive casualties, Hamas remained defiant, vowing revenge and calling on all other Palestinian factions to join in the fight.

"Today we are stronger then we've ever been," one spokesperson for the group said at a press conference. "We won't raise the white flag, we won't give anything up, we won't retreat."

"We call on the Arab states in the region to take a stance against this massacre and not to be satisfied with just condemnations," he continued.

Minutes after the first wave of air strikes hit areas in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestinians reported a second wave which targeted installations in the center and the north of the Strip. Channel 2 reported that 60 planes were involved in the attack, and nearly 100 targets were hit. Military officials said more than 100 tons of bombs were dropped on Gaza by mid-afternoon.

Hamas's Interior Ministry said that all security compounds in Gaza were destroyed.

---

Analysis: The policy of restraint is over
Dec. 27, 2008
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111718275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Israeli air strikes on Hamas targets in Gaza on Saturday, hugely dramatic in their scope, nonetheless mark only the beginning of an ongoing, potentially lengthy operation aimed at restoring calm to the South, rather than a one-off response to the escalated Kassam rocket fire. The policy of restraint, officials say, is over.

For months, Israel has been refining its intelligence information on the key physical locations that are crucial to the rule of Hamas in the terror state that the Gaza Strip has become since the Islamist group seized power there in June 2007.

And rather than seeking to target the fast-moving offshoots of that terrorist rule - the Kassam crews that set themselves up in residential Gaza neighborhoods, fire into Israeli residential areas and then quickly melt away - Israel has elected to fire into the heart of the terror beast.

Defense Ministry officials, from Ehud Barak on down, were Saturday preparing the Israeli public for what they said was likely to be a difficult period ahead.

Hamas is threatening a further escalation in rocket fire - with missiles reaching to Beersheba - and the mobilization of a new wave of suicide bombers.

The international fallout, even amid the relative inattention of the Christmas-New Year period, began remarkably quickly, with a chorus of calls for Israeli restraint, including predictable fury in the Arab world and a vehement protest from France at Israel's ostensibly disproportionate response.

Amid the military preparations, it will quickly become clear whether Israel has made parallel diplomatic preparations, with articulate officials prepped and ready to highlight to the watching world how untenable has been the situation of Hamastan firing into Israel for eight years, with interim lulls to rearm, and no cessation even after Israel pulled all its civilians and all military infrastructure out of Gaza in 2005.

The word from the defense establishment on Saturday afternoon was that some 60 planes had participated in the strikes at dozens of Hamas military and logistical targets. Preparations were in place for an intensification of military action, with the potential use of ground forces, officials said. No call up of reserves was under way but, again, the preparations were in place should it be deemed necessary.

Naturally, the effort launched Saturday to defang a rocket-firing, Iranian-backed terror army across a hostile border invites immediate comparison with the bid to destroy Hizbullah's terrorist infrastructure in southern Lebanon two and a half years ago.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert relentlessly insisted that he was the man best placed to learn the lessons of that indecisive and ultimately unsuccessful resort to force - a war mis-stewarded by an inexperienced prime minister, a defense minister, Amir Peretz, who was entirely unqualified for the job, and a chief of staff, Dan Halutz, who placed exaggerated confidence in the air force's capacity for destroying carefully protected underground infrastructure and a highly mobile Hizbullah fighting force.

We are now going to find out whether those lessons from 2006 - on military preparation, on the need for effective military-political coordination, on operating in an immensely complex regional and global context, and on setting realistic goals for the use of military force - were indeed well learned.

---

'

 Links to video and slideshow
Israeli Air Forces launches major assault against Hamas in Gaza

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230111719583

Slideshow

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111719289&pagename=JPost%2FPage%2FSlideShow&photoId=10

---

Here is the Bialik poem the name was taken from
http://festivals.iloveindia.com/hanukkah/poems/for-hanukkah.html

'For Hanukkah' by H. N. Bialik is a short cute poem for Hanukka holiday.

For Hanukkah

Father lighted candles for me;
Like a torch the Shamash shone.
In whose honor, for whose glory?
For Hanukkah alone.

Teacher bought a big top for me,
Solid lead, the finest known.
In whose honor, for whose glory?
For Hanukkah alone.

Mother made a pancake for me,
Hot and sweet and sugar-strewn.
In whose honor, for whose glory?
For Hanukkah alone.

Uncle had a present for me,
An old penny for my own.
In whose honor, for whose glory?
For Hanukkah alone.

Title: A time to fight /The Warped Mirror: The cycle of stupidity
Post by: rachelg on December 28, 2008, 07:40:14 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111721985&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
A time to fight
Dec. 28, 2008
, THE JERUSALEM POST

On Friday, a Hamas spokesman made Israel the following proposal: You keep the stream of humanitarian aid and supplies flowing into Gaza and we will keep launching rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.

It was an offer Israel had little choice but to refuse.

For weeks Israel has been imploring Hamas to stop shooting across the border, to stop tunneling in preparation for the next round of violence, and to allow our farmers to tend their fields. The Islamists responded that they were not afraid of the IDF and that they reserved the right to resist "the occupation" - meaning the existence of a Jewish state. They brazenly told Israel to get used to the idea that no amount of humanitarian gestures would stem their behavior.

At 11:30 a.m. Saturday, Israel finally told Hamas that it would not be bled, slowly, to death. Thanks to excellent intelligence and superb training, a haughty enemy was caught off-guard. Targets up and down the Strip were hit and large numbers of Hamas personnel including senior military figures were killed. Key facilities were turned into rubble; well-camouflaged equipment was destroyed.

In launching "Operation Cast Lead," Defense Minister Ehud Barak, declared, "There is a time for calm and there is a time for fighting, and now is the time for fighting." And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, flanked by Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, said that Israel had done everything possible to avoid this escalation, but that its entreaties for quiet had been met with disdain.

The IDF's mission is not to bring down the Hamas regime, but to bring quiet to the South. In a sense we are asking Hamas to stop being Hamas. The Islamists need to decide whether they want to go down in flames or are prepared to take on the responsibilities that come with control over the Strip. They may give Israel no choice but to topple their administration.

To their credit, Israeli decision makers are avoiding the kind of bombastic rhetoric all of us came to regret in the course of the Second Lebanon War and its aftermath. Now, what ordinary Israelis demand is that their government deliver, as promised, quiet to the South. We do not expect this operation to be fast or easy. We do expect it to succeed.

Israelis must unite and be vigilant. Regrettably, we've already seen rioting among some east Jerusalem Palestinians. The possibility of disturbances among our Arab citizens cannot be discounted. Hamas rockets may reach targets heretofore thought to be beyond enemy range; their threats to launch suicide attacks must be taken with utmost seriousness. And Diaspora Jews also need be on alert.

ON A quiet post-Christmas weekend, the events in Gaza have captured world attention. From an unsympathetic foreign media, we are already hearing complaints that Israel's retaliation is "disproportionate" and a form of "collective punishment." That over 200 Palestinians have been killed compared to only one Israeli leads some journalists to conclude that Israel is inherently in the wrong. One British news anchor wondered why her government had not already demanded that Israel halt its operation. There was a grudging understanding that Hamas uses Palestinian non-combatants as human shields, along with an unreasonable demand that Israel magically find a way not to harm any of them.

The formula for purchasing the affection of those who suffer from moral relativism is sickeningly clear: if one Jew is killed, we get very little piety. If, heaven forbid, an Israeli kindergarten was to take a direct hit - Israel might, temporarily, gain the sympathy of news anchors from Paris to London to Madrid.

At that price we would rather forgo their sympathy.

Nevertheless, we expect our diplomats to work 24/7 to make Israel's case to the international community. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has begun that process. In an English-language address she said, "Enough is enough" - Israel would not continue to absorb rockets, mortars and bullets without retaliating.

At this newspaper, we wonder how an international community that can't bring itself to explicitly support Israel's operation against the most intransigent of Muslim fanatics expects to play a positive role in facilitating peace in this region.

Hamas must be stopped. And the civilized world must help stop it.

---

The Warped Mirror: The cycle of stupidity
Posted by Petra Marquardt-Bigman
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/Bigman/entry/the_cycle_of_stupidity_posted

It was just a few days ago that Hamas mocked Israel for its failure to respond to the barrage of rockets that rained down on communities near the border with Gaza. A leaflet distributed by the armed wing of Hamas, Izzadin Kassam, boasted that Israel was "hopeless and desperate" in the face of the relentless attacks: "The enemy is in a state of confusion and doesn't know what to do ... Their fragile cabinet has met in a desperate attempt to stop the rockets while thousands of settlers have found refuge in shelters which, by God's will, will become their permanent homes."

That was the openly stated goal of Hamas: to force all Israelis in the expanding range of the rockets in Hamas's arsenal to live in permanent fear for their lives.

Unsurprisingly, the notion that Israel has the right to defend itself and protect its citizens from such a threat is not accepted everywhere. One place where it is not accepted is in the topsy-turvy world of some members of the British commentariat: just a few hours after Israel had launched its attack against Hamas installations in the Gaza Strip, Sean Rayment, a defense and security correspondent, announced in his Telegraph blog that "Israel is addicted to violence":

To be sure, Rayment paid lip service to Israel's right to defend itself "against terrorism and wanton aggression", but while reputable newspapers carried a Reuters report stating that "Hamas estimated that at least 100 members of its security forces were killed", Rayment asserted that the 155 casualties that were reported at the time of his writing were civilians, including many women and children. Needless to say, he condemned the Israeli strikes on Hamas as "disproportionate".

Over at the Guardian's website, readers were given to understand that Israel's military move against Hamas could only increase the group's popularity in the Gaza Strip  - that was unsurprisingly also what the Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi had suggested in an interview with the BBC. It was emphasized that Ashrawi was "no friend of the Islamists"; yet, speaking from her Ramallah home, she had decried the Israeli strikes as "nothing short of a massacre, an outrage", and she left little doubt that whatever had happened and would happen was to blame on Israel: "The cycle of violence is generated by the occupation and by the ongoing state of siege that is attempting to collectively punish a whole people. This will enhance the standing of Hamas. People are sympathising with Hamas as the people who are being ruthlessly targeted by Israel. They are seen as victims of ongoing Israeli aggression."

Of course, blaming Israel for whatever choices the Palestinians make has become Ashrawi's trade mark in the course of her long and distinguished career as successful spokesperson for the Palestinian cause. She actually used to be widely admired among Israel's left until she couldn't get herself to condemn the lynching of two Israeli soldiers by a Ramallah mob in October 2000. As this horrific murder illustrated all too well, no matter what happens, Ashrawi will always decry the "cycle of violence" for which in her view only Israel bears ultimate responsibility.

But it is really time to start talking about a cycle of stupidity: if Hamas can proudly announce that they are not interested in a cease-fire and boast that it is their ambition to force hundreds of thousands of Israelis to live in permanent fear for their lives, it is quite obvious that Israel will have to move against the group. The resulting military operations will inevitably affect all people in Gaza, no matter how hard Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage. If Palestinians and the wider Arab world then conclude that they should react by cheering Hamas on, they will only get more of the same from Hamas - and if people like Hanan Ashrawi keep justifying this self-destructive conduct by invoking the tired slogan of a "cycle of violence" in which the Palestinians unfailingly appear as the "victims of ongoing Israeli aggression", one can only conclude that the Palestinians would like to be seen as unable to take any responsibility whatsoever for their conduct.

Unfortunately, this is not just a Palestinian problem: as a survey earlier this year revealed, it doesn't matter much in the Arab world how well a political leader governs and what he achieves for the welfare of his people - the only thing that is important is that he is perceived as "standing up" to the West or Israel: that's why the three most popular political figures in the Arab world are Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No doubt that this popular trio will not miss the opportunity now to cheer on Hamas and echo Hanan Ashrawi's assessment - and of course, these three would have no quarrel with the verdict of the Telegraph's Sean Rayment that it is Israel that is "addicted to violence".

---

Slideshow Cast Lead Day Two

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456496905&pagename=JPost%2FPage%2FSlideShow

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 28, 2008, 07:43:02 AM

Israel needs to hammer the savages until they cry "uncle".

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 28, 2008, 11:36:30 AM

It's really bothersome to have rockets rain down on you day and night. If it were only during the day you could get some sleep at night or if only at night, you might get some work done during the day. But day and night is inadmissible. No wonder the IDF struck back.

One always fears a repeat of past mistakes and in this case the Second Lebanon War is still fresh in most people's minds. That war was a disaster. What's to prevent this one from following the same course? I think the main difference is that the Israeli action in the previous war was a reaction, not something where they planned ahead and got all the logistics just right before starting the action. In this case, Operation Cast Lead has been in preparation for six months. This time it was Hamas that was taken by surprise, not the IDF. In a sense the same difference there was between the Six Day War started by Israel vs. the Yom Kippur War started by the Arabs.

The 1967 war was decided in the first few hours when the various Arab air forces were wiped out still on the ground. After that it was mostly mopping up. In the first few minutes of this war all the Hamas police stations, about 40 of them were wiped out. Supposedly 50% of the Hamas rockets have been destroyed. Many tunnels are no more cutting off the Hamas supply lines. Unfortunately, without troops on the ground it is very difficult if not impossible to win decisively. I'm afraid that ground troops will soon enter Gaza. There was no call-up of the reserves prior to the bombing to make sure that the surprise was complete. But now some 6,500 reservists have been called up. I don't look forward to a ground war but it might be considered indispensable for achieving the war aims.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have peace?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 28, 2008, 12:18:07 PM

Peace through victory is the only option left to Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on December 28, 2008, 01:56:18 PM

Quote from: G M on December 28, 2008, 07:43:02 AM

Israel needs to hammer the savages until they cry "uncle".

It is not that part of me does not agree with you.  We all have dark thoughts.   However the Palestinians are not savages they are human beings created in the images of G-d that have forgotten it . Their society is savage, nihilististic, and a death cult  and that needs to fought on multiple levels including strong use of military force.

There will continue to be  the the death of children and more or less innocent bystanders  but I  blame that on Hamas   (deliberately  placing military elements so they are surrounded by schools and apartment buildings) not the Israelis.

However because the Palestinians are nihilists and a death cut a military victory ( at least a  military victory that an ethical democracy could carry out) will not solve all of Israelis problems.    As Golda Meir said "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"   I am not a nihilist and I believe in miracles but-... :cry:

I want Israel (and America for that matter) to be the strongest and toughest  kid on the block because that  will keep it safer.  However, This " situation" is not only about a piece of land or the safety and security of citizens.  The  fighting is for something much greater than that. 

Chanukah remembers a time when there was miraculous  battle victories but what the holiday is known for is  light.
Israel and America needs to be known for its light.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 28, 2008, 04:46:35 PM

Ok, are we in agreement or not? I can't tell....   :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JAK on December 29, 2008, 05:35:19 AM

Tzipi Livni: I will “Topple” Hamas
 Monday December 22, 2008 08:55 by Justin Theriault - 1 of International Middle East Media Center - IMEMC Editorial Group

On the horizon of upcoming prime minister elections in Israel, the leading candidates vow to “remove” Hamas leadership from the Gaza Strip.

Tzipi Livni, currently Israel’s foreign minister, said in a statement on Sunday that her primary goal if she is elected to the office of prime minister will be to overthrow the Hamas government in Gaza.  “The Hamas government in Gaza must be toppled, the means to do this must be military, economic and diplomatic,” Livni said in her statement.

Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party, Livni’s main rival in the up-coming elections, said that, "in the long-term, we will have to topple the Hamas regime." He continued his statements with "in the short-term...there are a wide range of possibilities, from doing nothing to doing everything, meaning to conquer Gaza."

Israel has began a public relations campaign, targeting key members of the United Nations Security Council, as well as EU countries, in order to gain support for a full-scale military invasion into Gaza, which would have devastating effects on the local populations already suffering from Israel’s year and a half long siege.

Throughout the course of the last year and a half, ever since the Hamas government was democratically elected into office, the Israeli government has imposed a brutal economic strangulation of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, denying citizens of their human rights by imposing a blockade on needed resources; including humanitarian aid, money transfers to banks, and desperately needed medical supplies.  Israel has also bombed Gaza’s only power plant.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 29, 2008, 05:56:55 AM

Quote from: JAK on December 29, 2008, 05:35:19 AM

Throughout the course of the last year and a half, ever since the Hamas government was democratically elected into office, the Israeli government has imposed a brutal economic strangulation of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, denying citizens of their human rights by imposing a blockade on needed resources; including humanitarian aid, money transfers to banks, and desperately needed medical supplies.  Israel has also bombed Gaza’s only power plant.

Do you have a link to this opinion piece? I'm curious who "International Middle East Media Center - IMEMC Editorial Group" might be.

You see, we in Venezuela, democratically elected Hugo Chavez Frias and now we want to get rid of him. People make mistakes. But there are some international interests such as Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua (ABCN) who are being paid off by Chavez to get support in international forums. Just because ABCN support Chavez for their own selfish purposes that does not mean they are right or that they represent the will of the people who elected Chavez. In a similar vein, Germany democratically elected Hitler and Chile elected Allende. But they have since put things to right. In other words, a democratic election is not the end of history.

Maybe the Gazans love Hamas and that is their right. But when Gazans rain missiles on Israel, they can expect retribution.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2008, 07:00:35 AM

http://www.imemc.org/about_us

About the International Middle East Media Center

IMEMC is a media center developed in collaboration between Palestinian and International journalists to provide independent media coverage of Israel-Palestine.
IMEMC was founded by the Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement between People in 2003. (www.pcr.ps)

Being a joint Palestinian-International effort, IMEMC combines Palestinian journalists' deep understanding of the context, history, and the socio-political environment with International journalists' skills in non-partisan reporting.

IMEMC provides fair and comprehensive coverage of events and developments in Israel-Palestine.

Recently, IMEMC Started to provide Spanish Language coverage as an attempt to outreach a wider readership. The Spanish edition of IMEMC is completly run by volunteers, from Barcelona, Palestine and other places.

IMEMC started to provide News in Arabic through the Palestine News Network (PNN) website, Click arabic.pnn.ps.

The cooperation between IMEMC & PNN, provides a more comprehensive coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict..
IMEMC is a founding member of the network of United Radio and TV Stations (NUR Media) english.nurmedia.org

IMEMC provides coverage of news, political developments and daily incidents combined with feature stories, political analysis, interviews and selected opinion pieces.

IMEMC provides a daily news cast in English and Italian languages, which provides nearly five minutes featuring main incidents of the day.

In addition IMEMC produces a weekly audio summary of socio-political developments in Israel-Palestine to keep you updated.

IMEMC also provides field reports on main issues of interest to its targeted audience.

What you need to know to make the most of the IMEMC news website:

In the center of the IMEMC site, the most recent news articles, covering the main socio-political developments, are shown.

The 'latest news' section provides an up to the hour coverage of developments. The list is meant to update readers on incidents taking place in all West Bank and Gaza Strip areas. Information is mainly provided by IMEMC affiliates and collaborators in the field.

The human interest section presents stories which give a more personal side to the conflict.

Opinion/Analysis articles can be contributed to the site by any number of contributing writers, from both inside and outside Palestine. Including you!

As you open any article, a list of articles related to the topic presented is available in a sidebox. These are meant to provide readers of specific interests with a convenient and easy way to look at other developments related to a specific issue. You can also use the filters to view all articles of a certain type, area, or topic that particularly interests you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2008, 07:11:51 AM

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190943.php

Here is some more "reporting" from IMEMC.  :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 29, 2008, 08:39:09 AM

Home News World News Middle East IsraelAnalysis: Israeli politics lies behind Gaza attacks
The people of Sderot, a small town in southern Israel a few miles from the Gaza Strip, have 15 seconds to take cover whenever the wail of sirens gives warning of another rocket attack.
 
By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor
Last Updated: 12:40AM GMT 29 Dec 2008

Israeli Maya Iber inspects damage at her destroyed house after a rocket attack on Sderot by Palestinian militants on Dec 21 Photo: GETTY IMAGES
For almost five years, this has been their daily ordeal and Sderot's bus stops have been specially reinforced to serve as armoured shelters from the regular salvoes fired out of Gaza.

With a general election due on Feb 10, no Israeli government could afford to appear indifferent to this threat, especially as Palestinian fighters are deploying rockets with longer ranges and heavier warheads, with some weapons capable of hitting the port of Ashdod 20 miles from Gaza. In all, some 500,000 Israelis live within range of Gaza's rockets.

The political imperative to act undoubtedly lay behind Israel's decision to launch the attack. It will have weighed most heavily on the minds of Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and leader of the centrist Kadima party, and Ehud Barak, the defence minister and leader of the Labour party.

Both will be fighting the election against Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister from the right-wing Likud party. As they enter this contest, neither can afford to appear anything but hawkish.

Yet the scale of the response exposes Israel to international criticism. Almost 300 Palestinians have been killed in the last two days alone. By contrast, rockets fired from Gaza have killed 17 Israeli civilians in the last seven years.

Since Israel completed its withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005, about 150 Palestinians have been killed by its security forces in the territory for every dead Israeli civilian. Faced with this astonishing ratio, Israel's government will find it extremely hard to argue that its response has been proportionate.

Moreover, the subtext to the operation in Gaza is a failure of policy on both sides. Since Hamas seized control of the territory in June 2007, its only tactic has been to fire rockets at southern Israel, thereby provoking a draconian – and predictable – response.

Meanwhile, Israel has blockaded Gaza of all but essential humanitarian supplies and launched regular military raids. On the rare occasions when the territory's border posts have been open, Palestinian fighters have occasionally attacked them, forcing their closure and maximising Gaza's isolation and the ordeal of its people.

Its 1.5 million inhabitants are effectively prisoners. This cycle of attack, retaliation and more attack has achieved nothing save inflict suffering on both sides.

Last year, a truce arranged by neighbouring Egypt brought a measure of calm. That has now collapsed amid recriminations over who was to blame.

Israeli forces killed three Palestinian fighters and destroyed a tunnel linking Gaza with Egypt during an operation in November. A barrage of rockets fired at Israeli towns was the response, with 70 being launched last Wednesday alone.

The only hope lies in restoring the ceasefire. But any political progress will have to await the outcome of Israel's election. In the meantime, the military campaign goes on.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2008, 10:08:48 AM

Forgive me CCP, but I am baffled why you would post such twaddle.

Hamas, in contravention to "Palestine's" international legal obligations, is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  Exactly why is Israel supposed to faciliate it and its actions towards that end? 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 29, 2008, 10:39:46 AM

"I am baffled why you would post such twaddle"

I did a search as to possible reasons why Israel is attacking Gaza now, and this came up so I thought I would post it.

Actually I wondered if actions were now because of impending change in *American* political power not because of Israeli politics.

Are they doing it before BO gets in as part of a calculation?

BO clearly has ties to the anti semitic Black camp.  Though he does have/had a lot of Jews working for his interests and hopefully they will keep him from selling out Israel - but we will see.


 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: sgtmac_46 on December 29, 2008, 12:19:21 PM

Quote from: ccp on December 29, 2008, 10:39:46 AM

"I am baffled why you would post such twaddle"

I did a search as to possible reasons why Israel is attacking Gaza now, and this came up so I thought I would post it.

Actually I wondered if actions were now because of impending change in *American* political power not because of Israeli politics.

Are they doing it before BO gets in as part of a calculation?

BO clearly has ties to the anti semitic Black camp.  Though he does have/had a lot of Jews working for his interests and hopefully they will keep him from selling out Israel - but we will see.

 

Clearly a change in the American situation must be a concern, and is likely calculated in to the response.  But the REASON for the attack is quite clear....Hamas' continued threat to Israel and the continuing launch of rockets in to Israel's civilian areas.

I imagine that if the US had a (more) unfriendly neighbor across the border in Mexico, and they allowed the launching of rockets in to US southern cities....I DOUBT our response would be anything so measured.  Mexico would likely cease to exist as a separate entity.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 29, 2008, 01:09:26 PM

Quote from: captainccs on December 28, 2008, 11:36:30 AM

It's really bothersome to have rockets rain down on you day and night. If it were only during the day you could get some sleep at night or if only at night, you might get some work done during the day. But day and night is inadmissible. No wonder the IDF struck back.

I think that is why the world is objecting; no one questions the right of Israel to exact retribution, but it seems to be a disproportionate reaction.  If I read correctly, less than
5 Israeli's have been killed and/or injured, yet there are over 400 dead and hundreds of wounded Palestinians, many of them innocent women and children.
Not to mention supplies, first aid, etc. not getting through; is there any wonder why Israel is being condemned?




World rallies around Palestinians amid Gaza offensive
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Protests reported in Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, Britain and Venezuela
In Iraq, demonstrators set fire to Israeli flag, photo of President Bush
Hezbollah leader speaks via satellite to protesters in Beirut, Lebanon
Greek protesters hurl stones outside Israeli Embassy; police fire tear gas

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Israeli attacks on suspected Hamas strongholds in Gaza have triggered protests in more than a dozen countries.

A girl in Caracas, Venezuela, holds a sign reading, "No more massacre in Gaza" at Israel's embassy Monday.

The attacks entered their third day Monday, with more than 300 people in Gaza reported killed and hundreds more wounded. Israel says the military assault is in response to ongoing rocket strikes on Israel, which have killed two Israelis.

In London, England, dozens of protesters gathered outside the Israeli Embassy, waving flags and trying to push their way closer to the building, as police tried to hold them back and erect a barricade.  Watch protesters push toward embassy
Police in Germany said about 2,000 protesters marched peacefully down Berlin's Kurfuerstendamm Boulevard and dispersed after about three hours.
Protesters also have taken to the streets in Denmark, France, Italy and Spain, according to news reports. There also were reports of demonstrations in Caracas, Venezuela.

Iranian media reported that thousands took part in anti-Israel demonstrations in Tehran on Monday, which the government declared a day of mourning for the Palestinians in Gaza.
Photographs of the rallies posted by Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency showed black-shrouded women and men holding shoes in the air -- widely considered an insult in the Middle East -- while others held Palestinian flags and signs that said "Down with U.S.A." in English and Farsi.

Greek riot police clashed with protesters in Athens during a demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy, according to police and images broadcast on state television.

Barak: Israel at 'war' with Hamas
U.N. chief calls for end to Gaza violence
Aid reaching Gaza, but U.N. says it's not enough
TIME.com: Strategic price of Israel's Gaza assault
Protesters hurled stones in an attempt to break through the police cordon around the heavily secured embassy. Police responded with tear gas.

In Iraq, hundreds of supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated in al-Mustansiriya Square in eastern Baghdad. The demonstrators carried Iraqi and Palestinian flags, banners and pictures of al-Sadr and his father.
The demonstrators threw an Israeli flag on the ground, put President Bush's picture on top of it and set both on fire.
In the Muslim world, demonstrations also were held in Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya and Bahrain, the BBC and other news outlets reported.  See world leaders' reactions to offensive »

Also, thousands of Lebanese demonstrators packed the streets of Beirut as part of a rally called by the militant group Hezbollah. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah addressed the crowd via satellite from an undisclosed location.

Protests were also held in Israel, where students at universities in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem demonstrated against the Israeli military operation, ynetnews.com reported.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on December 29, 2008, 01:40:44 PM

JDN: "no one questions the right of Israel to exact retribution, but it seems to be a disproportionate reaction."

I'm no expert but I think the disproportionality you correctly notice is an intentional part of Israel's goal of deterrence.  Often we see - a) attack and no consequence.  You suggest  - b) receive attack then kill back the same number(?)  Israel it seems is saying - c) attack and you will consistently receive a disproportionate response until as one insightful analyst put it - they say uncle.

Also, if your enemy is committed to destroy you and you have provocation, justification and opportunity, taking out their ability to wage war against you - while you can - seems prudent. 

Title: Scenes from an Asymmetric War
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 29, 2008, 02:01:06 PM

Add to Doug's comments the fact that Hamas intentionally embeds its infrastructure in civilian areas so that retaliation ensures non-combatant casualties, and then they makes sure there are plenty of cameras around to document those casualties. Further, it's been pretty convincingly documented that "Paliwood" propagandists in fact fake some of the riveting footage and body counts, stage some of the scenes of carnage, change combatant clothing to civilian clothing and so on. Bottom line is that this is asymmetric warfare and Hamas is using what it has plenty of--civies in squalid conditions--to get better bang for their propaganda buck.

Think the most asinine statement ever made by a Secretary of State occurred when Warren Christopher asked, during the planning for the rescue of the American hostages being held by Iran, if the Delta Force soldiers could shoot any Irani military members in the leg rather than killing them. Expecting Israel to only hit Hamas but not the civies they embed themselves among involves a similarly flawed understanding of force projection.

Title: WSJ
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2008, 02:03:55 PM

Israel's air assault on Gaza in response to Hamas rocket attacks is inspiring familiar international denunciations. But the best commentary we've heard might be this one: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."

 
AP
Northern Gaza Strip as seen from Netiv Hasara, Israel, Dec. 27, 2008.
Barack Obama said those words in July while visiting Israel as a Presidential candidate.

Now as President-elect, Mr. Obama is maintaining an appropriate silence while deferring to the Bush Administration before his Inauguration. But his July remarks capture the essence of Israel's right to self-defense. Moreover, the more successful Israel is this week in damaging Hamas as a terrorist force, the better chance Mr. Obama will have to make progress in facilitating a genuine Mideast peace.

Naturally, the conventional diplomatic and journalistic wisdom is that the longer the fight goes on the more difficult the "peace process" becomes. The usual suspects at the United Nations are condemning Israel and blaming it for "excessive" force. Even Nicolas Sarkozy -- who holds the rotating European Union presidency and is considered Israel-friendly for a French president -- criticized Jerusalem's "disproportionate" response.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
But as Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi explain, the Israeli public isn't about to make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel has already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.

The chronology of this latest violence is important to understand. Israel withdrew both its soldiers and all of its settlers from Gaza in August 2005. Hamas won its internal power struggle with Mr. Abbas's Fatah organization to control Gaza in 2007. Since 2005 Hamas has fired some 6,300 rockets at Israeli civilians from Gaza, killing 10 and wounding more than 780.

Hamas did agree to a six-month cease-fire earlier this year, during which the rocket attacks declined in number but never completely stopped. But Hamas refused to extend the truce past December 19, and the group has since resumed attacks, firing nearly 300 missiles, rockets and mortars. The 250,000 Israelis in the southern part of the country live under constant threat, often in bomb shelters, and the economy has suffered. Yet the world's media seem to pay attention only when Israel responds to that Hamas barrage.

Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes have hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces -- both to its leadership and, on Sunday, to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army.

In Today's Opinion Journal
 

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Israel's Gaza DefenseOrszag's Health WarningSudan's Slaves

TODAY'S COLUMNIST

The Americas: Hollywood Celebrates Che Guevara
– Mary Anastasia O'Grady

COMMENTARY

Palestinians Need Israel to Win
– Michael B. Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi'Stimulus' Doesn't Have to Mean Pork
– Clifford WinstonThe War on Terror Has Not Gone Away
– Thane RosenbaumCarbon Limits, Yes; Energy Subsidies, No
– William Tucker
Hamas claims the goal of its rocket attacks is merely to force Israel to ease its strict travel restrictions into and out of Gaza. But those restrictions are intended to prevent suicide bombers from blowing up Israeli citizens in cafes as they did during the intifadah earlier this decade. If Hamas wants its people to have freer movement, it can stop sponsoring terror killings.

Even as Arab leaders have formally condemned Israel's attacks, they have also noted Hamas's escalation. Mr. Abbas yesterday said "We talked to them [Hamas] and we told them 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop' so that we could have avoided what happened." Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, assailed Israel's air strikes but also held Hamas responsible. They understand that Hamas, like Hezbollah, is increasingly allied with Iran and its goals for fomenting regional instability.

Israel itself faces a difficult decision of whether to escalate with a ground attack on Gaza. That would help further diminish Hamas, though at the cost of more casualties and greater international disapproval. The worst outcome would be a ground assault, a la the one in Lebanon in 2006, that stirred anti-Israel sentiment but stopped short of achieving its military goals.

The Bush Administration's support for Israel is welcome, though we should note the violence comes at the end of a four-year Bush effort to midwife a Palestinian peace. There's a lesson here for Mr. Obama, who is about to discover that the terrorists of the Middle East aren't about to change their radical ambitions merely because America has a new President.

Title: Disproportionate force
Post by: captainccs on December 29, 2008, 03:02:55 PM

Instead of focusing on street protests I think it is much more interesting to focus on weaponry in the issue of civilian and collateral damage.

During WWII, the response by the Allies was massive. The fire-bombings were terrific and terrifying. The estimate of death in Dresden was between 35 and 100 thousand. The fire was so intense that people were sucked in and roasted. The death toll from the Tokyo fire-bombing is also estimated at 100,000. And this was done with conventional weapons, incendiaries and high explosives. The intent was to demoralize the enemy into surrender and it worked.

With modern communications and battlefield TV, war has entered into people's living rooms and such a high level of violence is no longer permissible for civilized warriors. Terrorist are permitted everything.  :x

Civilized warriors have responded with innovative smart weapons that concentrate the damage on the objective to be destroyed and minimize collateral damage. Without these smart weapons the civilian dead in Gaza would not be less than 100 but maybe in the thousands. The GBU-39 seems to be the latest smart weapon being used by the IAF for pin-point destruction of targets.

Quote

Small Diameter Bomb / Small Smart Bomb

The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) transition program (formerly known as Miniaturized Munitions Capability) provides the warfighter with increased kills per sortie on current and future manned and unmanned aircraft. The Small Diameter Bomb system includes two variants of the Small Diameter Bomb, a bomb carriage system, a mission planning system and logistics support. The GBU-39 variant of the 250-pound class bomb is equipped with an INS/GPS guidance system suitable for fixed and stationary targets. The GBU-40 second variant adds a terminal seeker with automatic target recognition capabilities more suitable for mobile and relocatable targets.

At just 5.9 feet long and 285 pounds, the bomb’s small size increases the number of weapons an aircraft can carry, therefore raising the amount of targets it can kill in one sortie. Because of its size and precision accuracy, it also reduces collateral, or unintended, damage in the target vicinity. In the urban conflict in Iraq, the warfighter struggles at times to find a weapon that gives them a desired effect on a target without an excessive effect, so the small diameter bomb will be a nice addition. Complementing the weapon is a smart miniature munitions carriage system. This system can carry four small diameter bombs, enabling an aircraft to quadruple its load out. The carriage system functions similar to an aircraft stores management system by communicating with and controlling up to four weapons.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htm

The GBU-39 can be dropped 40 miles from the target which means that the IAF fighter bombers don't have to overfly the target. It seems that this capability neutralizes the Russian Tor-M1 Air Defense systems that have been delivered to Iran. The IAF planes never get close enough to be in danger of them.

Quote

More benefits include brains, accuracy

The SDB is an all weather standoff weapon, meaning it can be dropped and will fly itself to the target using satellite guidance and or laser targeting up to 40 full miles away & hit within 6 feet of the mark, 40 miles is a heck of a lot of distance from a target for such accuracy. It puts Israeli fighters over Iran some distance away from the hot zone of the Iranian facilities which are now setup with brand new Russian TOR-M1 air defense systems. The Tor is pretty lethal, but it has very short range. It can only engage targets very close in… At 40 miles with 8 small bunker busters pre-programmed from the airbase before the mission to hit multiple points of an underground facility (spreading out the lethality better than a single 1000 pound buster,) Israeli fighters never even come close to the Tor-M1s girding the Iranian facility. Making the Tor defenses expensive paperweights.

http://hashmonean.com/2008/09/15/israels-game-changer-gbu-39-buster-may-prove-highly-lethal-to-iran-video/

The video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4EgoXobjwA&eurl=http://hashmonean.com/2008/09/15/israels-game-changer-gbu-39-buster-may-prove-highly-lethal-to-iran-video/&feature=player_embedded)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2008, 03:56:23 PM

Quote from: JDN on December 29, 2008, 01:09:26 PM

Quote from: captainccs on December 28, 2008, 11:36:30 AM

It's really bothersome to have rockets rain down on you day and night. If it were only during the day you could get some sleep at night or if only at night, you might get some work done during the day. But day and night is inadmissible. No wonder the IDF struck back.

I think that is why the world is objecting; no one questions the right of Israel to exact retribution, but it seems to be a disproportionate reaction.  If I read correctly, less than
5 Israeli's have been killed and/or injured, yet there are over 400 dead and hundreds of wounded Palestinians, many of them innocent women and children.
Not to mention supplies, first aid, etc. not getting through; is there any wonder why Israel is being condemned?

Do me a favor and find the protests from when Saddam was using WMD on the Kurds and Shiites, or when Syria destroyed Hama.

**Cricket sounds**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2008, 04:02:08 PM

September 21, 2001

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hama Rules

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

 

   

In February 1982 the secular Syrian government of President Hafez al-Assad faced a mortal threat from Islamic extremists, who sought to topple the Assad regime. How did it respond? President Assad identified the rebellion as emanating from Syria's fourth-largest city — Hama — and he literally leveled it, pounding the fundamentalist neighborhoods with artillery for days. Once the guns fell silent, he plowed up the rubble and bulldozed it flat, into vast parking lots. Amnesty International estimated that 10,000 to 25,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, were killed in the merciless crackdown. Syria has not had a Muslim extremist problem since.

I visited Hama a few months after it was leveled. The regime actually wanted Syrians to go see it, to contemplate Hama's silence and to reflect on its meaning. I wrote afterward, "The whole town looked as though a tornado had swept back and forth over it for a week — but this was not the work of mother nature."

This was "Hama Rules" — the real rules of Middle East politics — and Hama Rules are no rules at all. I tell this story not to suggest this should be America's approach. We can't go around leveling cities. We need to be much more focused, selective and smart in uprooting the terrorists.

No, I tell this story because it's important that we understand that Syria, Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all faced Islamist threats and crushed them without mercy or Miranda rights. Part of the problem America now faces is actually the fallout from these crackdowns. Three things happened:

First, once the fundamentalists were crushed by the Arab states they fled to the last wild, uncontrolled places in the region — Lebanon's Bekaa Valley and Afghanistan — or to the freedom of America and Europe.

Second, some Arab regimes, most of which are corrupt dictatorships afraid of their own people, made a devil's pact with the fundamentalists. They allowed the Islamists' domestic supporters to continue raising money, ostensibly for Muslim welfare groups, and to funnel it to the Osama bin Ladens — on the condition that the Islamic extremists not attack these regimes. The Saudis in particular struck that bargain.

Third, these Arab regimes, feeling defensive about their Islamic crackdowns, allowed their own press and intellectuals total freedom to attack America and Israel, as a way of deflecting criticism from themselves.

As a result, a generation of Muslims and Arabs have been raised on such distorted views of America that despite the fact that America gives Egypt $2 billion a year, despite the fact that America fought for the freedom of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, and despite the fact that Bill Clinton met with Yasir Arafat more than with any other foreign leader, America has been vilified as the biggest enemy of Islam. And that is one reason that many people in the Arab-Muslim world today have either applauded the attack on America or will tell you — with a straight face — that it was all a C.I.A.-Mossad plot to embarrass the Muslim world.

We need the moderate Arab states as our partners — but we don't need only their intelligence. We need them to be intelligent. I don't expect them to order their press to say nice things about America or Israel. They are entitled to their views on both, and both at times deserve criticism. But what they have never encouraged at all is for anyone to consistently present an alternative, positive view of America — even though they were sending their kids here to be educated. Anyone who did would be immediately branded a C.I.A. agent.

And while the Arab states have crushed their Islamic terrorists, they have never confronted them ideologically and delegitimized their behavior as un-Islamic. Arab and Muslim Americans are not part of this problem. But they could be an important part of the solution by engaging in the debate back in the Arab world, and presenting another vision of America.

So America's standing in the Arab-Muslim world is now very low — partly because we have not told our story well, partly because of policies we have adopted and partly because inept, barely legitimate Arab leaders have deliberately deflected domestic criticism of themselves onto us. The result: We must now fight a war against terrorists who are crazy and evil but who, it grieves me to say, reflect the mood in their home countries more than we might think.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: sgtmac_46 on December 29, 2008, 05:53:58 PM

Quote from: JDN on December 29, 2008, 01:09:26 PM

Quote from: captainccs on December 28, 2008, 11:36:30 AM

It's really bothersome to have rockets rain down on you day and night. If it were only during the day you could get some sleep at night or if only at night, you might get some work done during the day. But day and night is inadmissible. No wonder the IDF struck back.

I think that is why the world is objecting; no one questions the right of Israel to exact retribution, but it seems to be a disproportionate reaction.  If I read correctly, less than
5 Israeli's have been killed and/or injured, yet there are over 400 dead and hundreds of wounded Palestinians, many of them innocent women and children.
Not to mention supplies, first aid, etc. not getting through; is there any wonder why Israel is being condemned?

When you are attacked in such a manner, a 'proportionate' response isn't what is called for.....a PUNITIVE response that is overwhelming is what is called for.  The goal is to make the price of attacking you so terrible as to be beyond the desire of your enemy to want to pay.  5/500 seems reasonable in that context.  You kill 5 of my people, i'll slaughter 500 Hamas security personnel. 

More to the point, if Hamas terrorists didn't want civilians getting killed, they wouldn't hide amongst them.  The IDF doesn't hide amongst it's civilians to do it's fighting, they meet their enemy where he lives to PROTECT Israeli civilians.  Innocent civilians are dying SOLELY because of the desire of terrorists to hide themselves amongst them.


The terrorists WANT Palestinian civilian casualties for propaganda purposes....but those in the media who aren't smart enough to put the blame squarely on their shoulders do nothing but aid the terrorists.

Title: Telephone Proportions?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 29, 2008, 06:05:29 PM

I guess it'd be proportional for Hamas to phone Israelis to let them know where the rockets are due to land? Note that these calls warn Hamas of impending attacks.

Israel phones in warning to flee Gaza Strip strikes
By Abraham Rabinovich in JerusalemThe AustralianDecember 30, 2008 12:01am+-PrintEmailShare
 
RESIDENTS at certain addresses in the Gaza Strip have been receiving unusual phone calls since the Israeli air assault began on Saturday - a request that they and their families leave their homes as soon as possible for their own safety.

More unusual than the recorded message is the Arabic-speaking caller, who identifies himself as being from the Israeli defence forces, The Australian reports.

Dipping into their bag of tricks for the updated Gaza telephone numbers, Israel's intelligence services are warning Palestinian civilians in Gaza living close to Hamas facilities that they may be hurt unless they distance themselves from those targets.

In some cases, the warning comes not by telephone but from leaflets dropped from aircraft on selected districts.

Such warnings clearly eliminate the element of surprise, but for Israel it is of cardinal importance to minimise civilian casualties, and not just for humanitarian reasons.

The principal calculation is fear that a stray bomb hitting a school or any collection of innocent civilians could bring down the wrath of the international community on Israel, as has happened more than once in the past, and force it to halt its campaign before it has achieved its objectives.

Israel Radio reported that leaflets had been dropped at the beginning of the operation in the Rafah area near the border with Egypt, warning residents that the tunnels to Egypt through which weapons and civilian products were smuggled would be bombed.

Many of the residents, mostly youths, are employed in the tunnels. Initial reports said two people were killed when the tunnels were bombed.

Gaza is one of the most densely built-up areas in the world, making it extremely difficult to pinpoint targets without collateral damage.

Israeli officials say that the small percentage of civilians killed so far is due to precise intelligence regarding the location of Hamas targets and accurate bombing and rocketing.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24855309-2,00.html

Title: 300 Dead? 300 Dead what???!/Revenge of the nerds
Post by: rachelg on December 29, 2008, 07:49:46 PM

http://www.israellycool.com/  http://muqata.blogspot.com  are both liveblogging the current situation in Israel

Well there have been so many great posts I  don't really need to bother but I thought these two  post by Treppenwitz were good.
 

Sunday, December 28, 2008
300 Dead? 300 Dead what???!

Last night as I watched the various international news outlets, I was dismayed to see them relating to the rising death toll in Gaza as if Israel had indiscriminately mowed down a huge swath of unsuspecting innocents.

As the death toll went from 225 to nearly 275, Zahava and I watched with our mouths agape as a BBC interviewer (or maybe it was Sky News... I forget) asked an Israeli Government spokesperson "How do you respond to this enormous number of casualties... many of whom might be women and children?"

Did you get that?  "Enormous"... "Might be".  They might be women and children.  They might also be, oh I don't know, terrorists...or angels or flying pigs!  You don't have a friggin clue, do you?  But that doesn't stop you from speculating, does it???!!!  GAH!!!

Even Hamas itself, didn't say that "many" of the dead were women and children.  In fact, Hamas had been reporting that most of the dead were, in fact, Hamas officials and security forces!

But let's leave the bias aside for a moment and talk about the 'enormous' numbers that really count:

Two waves of 60 aircraft each flew bombing sorties from approximately noon on Saturday through to the early hours of Sunday... and then resumed bombing runs throughout Sunday.

Considering that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have deliberately placed their entire command and control structure, as well as their munitions factories and training facilities, in the midst of densely populated civilian areas, it is nothing short of miraculous that after a day and a half of nearly non-stop bombing the result is only 300 deaths!

Think for a moment about how many people live in a typical apartment building.  Now double that since our Gaza neighbors aren't particularly careful about zoning and fire regulations...and it isn't hard to imagine that even one poorly aimed bomb could result in a higher death toll than 300!

Unlike Hamas, which has been perpetrating ongoing war crimes against Israel by deliberately targeting civilian population centers with kassams, ketyushas and mortars (even as recently as ten minutes ago!), Israel has made an Herculean effort to make sure that only military targets are hit.  Heck, we're even taking their wounded over the border and treating them in Israeli hospitals!  Try that in the other direction and see if anyone comes back alive!

And another talking point that the international press never seems to miss is that the Kassams and Ketyushas are 'primitive weapons that rarely injure or kill anyone'.  WTF?!  That's like having a mean drunk for a neighbor who comes home from the pub every night and takes a few wild shots at your house with his old service revolver before passing out amongst the shrubs.  What's the big deal?  He almost never hits anyone, right?  Why all the fuss??!

It's enough to make me want to grab them by their Balliol College ties and throttle them until their arrogant public school accents begin to sound suspiciously like East End cockney!

Will there be 'collateral damage' in the form of civilians injured and killed (including women and children) as a result of Israel's current military campaign?  Without a doubt. But what I can't help but ask these affected idiots on my TV screen is 'where was your concern for civilian casualties when it was Jewish civilians being targeted?!'

[Update:  On a similar note here on the home-front, Labor MK, Science, Culture, and Sport Minister Raleb Majadele (who is an Israeli Arab) boycotted Sunday's Cabinet meeting over Israel's military attacks on Gaza.  Several MKs have asked aloud why he never bothered to use his cabinet post to raise so much as a public objection during all the time that Gazans have been bombarding Israel.  I think the term we're looking for here is 'Fifth Column'. ]

Posted by David Bogner on December 28, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack (0)
Saturday, December 27, 2008
An open letter to...
... the Vatican which is now calling for an end to middle east violence...

... the U.N. Secretary General who is suddenly "deeply alarmed by the bloodshed..."

... the U.S. Secretary of State who is demanding an immediate cease fire...

... the European Union that is calling for "an immediate end to hostilities..."

... the Russians who are asking for all sides to return to the negotiating table.

I have just one question for all of you:


Where was your concern for human life when it was Israeli civilians being targeted all these years?!

Oh, and to the French who are condemning Israel's response to more than 10,000 rockets fired at her civilians as "disproportionate"... please just kiss my a- -.  The only possible contribution you can offer to this conflict is to give the Arabs the benefit of your one expertise in warfare; Please teach them how to surrender. 

---

Revenge of the nerds

This morning I started counting all the on-line headlines that were along the lines of:

    "[fill in country / organization name] ... calls on Israel to immediately halt attacks on Gaza"

I stopped counting after 17.  Disgusting!

You'd think millions of Sudanese refugees were being butchered in the streets of Darfur.  Oh wait, what am I thinking?  That's not newsworthy!

No, it's just little Israel - the nerds of the global schoolyard - being taken to task for daring to step out of character and defend ourselves.  For all our patents, scientific breakthroughs, high-tech start-ups and Nobel prizes, the world still finds it amusing when we're forced to take a break from running the world media and banks, to run for the bomb shelters.

There is a comforting familiarity to the international amnesia over cause & effect here in the middle east.  It's an almost willful desire to transform a straight-forward Casus Belli and measured (not to mention legal) military response, into a murky chicken and egg scenario (i.e. the well-worn 'cycle of violence').

The worst part is that the world's tired excuse for the years of silence and neglect that has led to a good portion of Israel's population living in bomb shelters, is that they insist they can't impose the rule of international law on Gaza.  Gaza is chaos, they say... a failed proto-state.  The world wants order, of course... but they throw up their hands at the futility of asking Gaza to adhere to the rules of civilization.

I forget... while the Red Cross has been busy screaming for Israel to spare the poor Gazans, has anyone asked if they ever got around to demanding access to kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, even once?  Oh right, no can do... that's Gaza.  That's out of our jurisdiction!

In reality it's a simple case of the nerdy kid getting beaten up on the way to school for his lunch money - or for the sheer hell of it - isn't it?  He's asked his friends for help.  He's asked his teachers for protection.  He's even gone to the principal's office a few times to see if there is something - anything! - that can be done to stop the beatings.  But nobody wants to confront the bullies.   Off school grounds there isn't much anyone can do!

So finally, on the last day of school, the nerdy kid - who has done nothing to the thugs to arouse their endless violence except continue to come to school and exist -- realizes that if he doesn't take a baseball bat to the thugs who've been torturing him all year long, next year they might actually kill him.

It's really that simple.

Yet as I've predicted in the past (before the 2nd Lebanon war), this one will almost certainly go according to a predictable trajectory.  For new readers, it goes something exactly like this:

Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in 1956, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to this tried and true formula for military success:

   1. Instigate a war with whatever you have at hand; terror attacks, rocket fire or an actual invasion.
   2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you... get a few world powers or the UN to force your opponent into a cease fire.
   3. Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy.  That would ruin everything!  All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.
   4. Once a truce has been called, you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed.  Not once!

In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War - a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel's army -  as a military victory!  No kidding... it's a national holiday over there!

So why does anyone think this time will be different?  Within hours of Israel beginning its surgical strikes against purely military targets in Gaza, all of Israel's detractors, and most of it's 'friends', began calling for 'calm', 'a cease fire', 'a return to the negotiating table', 'restraint'... 

Not one of those things is in Israel's interest right now!  The only thing that is in Israel's interest at this point is for the world to STFU (hint: that doesn't stand for Slice The Fudge, Ursula), and finally let an Arab government reap what it has been sowing for years.

You say that it's Israel's fault because we've been embargoing a democratically elected government in Gaza?  You ask what choice did the poor Gazans have but to lash out?

I have news for you... democracy is about more than just elections.  Democracy is what that an elected government says and does while it is campaigning, as well as what it says and does once it assumes power.

Without mentioning names (and thereby invoking Godwin's Law), suffice it to say that we don't have to look very far back to identify certified monsters who were swept into power on the crest of overwhelming democratically expressed popular support.

Hamas has stated publicly before, and since, their election (and it is written quite clearly in their charter) that their entire raison d'être is to destroy Israel.  You take them at their word on absolutely everything else... except that.  Why do you suppose that is?

Mark my words... the only way this ends well for Israel (and by 'well' I mean that it buys us more than a few weeks of relative calm), is if Hamas is forced to actually say the words "We surrender" in front of the whole world.  Anyone want to give odds on that happening?

I honestly don't know how badly Israel has to demolish Gaza's infrastructure before someone over there waves a white flag.  My guess is that so long as there is a single Hamas leader left breathing, nobody will dare step up and do the responsible thing for the people of Gaza.

That's okey-dokey with me.  We know where pretty much all of their bunkers are at this point, and so long as we are able to resist calls to "immediately halt attacks on Gaza", I have no ethical problem with introducing every last democratically elected Hamas official to Allah.

Do you think for one moment that Hamas would hesitate to do the same to us if the tables were turned?  No?  So why are you demanding a higher standard of conduct from us?

We may indeed be the nerdy kid.  But if our friends won't stand by us;  if the teachers, and even the principal, refuse to protect us when we tried to play by the rules;  well, as you've pointed out so many times before... your rules don't apply once we're off school grounds.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2008, 08:21:04 PM

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/woe-is-me-pity.html

"Death to all juice"!  :lol:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2008, 08:34:49 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23053_MSNBC_Footage_of_Palestinian_9-11_Celebrations&only

A quick reminder of the savages' regard for us.

If they are looking for sympathy, they can find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

Title: Scuds in Wisco
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 29, 2008, 08:53:15 PM

I was living in married student housing at the University of Wisconsin when the first Scud hit Israel; the Palestinian family across the hall proceeded to whoop it up as though the Packers had just won the Super Bowl. Couldn't believe people were celebrating the fact that a weapon with a very poor targeting system, possibly topped with chemical munitions, got lobbed at a population center.

Have some Semite in me, with coloration and a nose that broadcasts it. Suddenly understood why the people across the hall were so standoffish.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 01:05:00 AM

Groundhog Day for the Fifth Column of Malice   
By Melanie Phillips
Spectator.co.uk | Tuesday, December 30, 2008

So there is indeed now a war. In Gaza. Actually, there are two wars going on: one involving rockets and warplanes, and the other involving the media, as Barry Rubin notes:
Nothing is clearer than Hamas’s strategy. It gives Israel the choice between rockets and media, and Hamas thinks it is a situation of, ‘We win or you lose.’...The smug smiles are wiped off the faces of Hamas leaders. Yet they have one more weapon, their reserves, they call up the media. Those arrogant, heroic, macho victors of yesterday--literally yesterday as the process takes only a few hours--are transformed into pitiful victims. Casualty figures are announced by Hamas, and accepted by reporters who are not on the spot. Everyone hit is, of course, a civilian. No soldiers here. And the casualties are disproportionate: Hamas has arranged it that way. If necessary, sympathetic photographers take pictures of children who pretend to be injured, and once they are published in Western newspapers these claims become fact.

All too predictable – and going to plan, with assistance from the
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who condemned ‘excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians’, and Navi Pillay, the ludicrous UN High Commissioner for ‘Human Rights’, who ‘strongly condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.’ Of course, the UN has been silent about the actual violations of international law by the Palestinians, as pointed out here by Justus Reid Weiner and Avi Bell:

The Palestinian attacks violate one of the most basic rules of international humanitarian law: the rule of distinction, which requires combatants to aim all their attacks at legitimate targets - enemy combatants or objects that contribute to enemy military actions. Violations of the rule of distinction - attacks deliberately aimed at civilians or protected objects as such - are war crimes.

Furthermore, say Weiner and Bell, Israel actually has a legal duty to take action against Hamas under the Genocide Convention:

In carrying out their attacks on Israeli Jews as part of a larger aim to kill Jews, as demonstrated by the Hamas Covenant, many of the Palestinian terrorists are also violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention, Israel and other signatories are required to ‘prevent and punish’ not only persons who carry out such genocidal acts, but those who conspire with them, incite them to kill and are complicit with their actions. The Convention thus requires Israel to prevent and punish the terrorists themselves, as well as leading figures that have publicly supported the Palestinian attacks. Article 2 of the Convention defines any killing with intent ‘to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’ as an act of genocide.

But for exercising its legal duty in accordance with international law, Israel is condemned and told to stop by politicians such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The moral inversion is staggering. Miliband has called for an immediate ceasefire by Israel. The implication is that Israel should suffer the Palestinian rockets attacks indefinitely.

If anything has been ‘disproportionate’, it’s been Israel’s refusal to take such action during the years when its southern citizens have been terrorised by rockets and other missiles raining down on them from Gaza. No other country in the world would have sat on its hands for so long in such circumstances. But whenever Israel defends itself militarily, its response is said to be ‘disproportionate’. The malice, ignorance and sheer idiocy of this claim is refuted here comprehensively by Dore Gold, who points out that Israel’s actions in Gaza are wholly in accordance with international law. This permits Israel to launch such an operation to prevent itself from being further attacked. Moreover, it defines ‘disproportionate’ force as when

force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians.

But Israel has demonstrably not been targeting civilians but Hamas terrorists. Despite the wicked impression given by the media, most of the casualties in this operation have been Hamas operatives. Even Hamas itself has admitted that the vast majority of sites Israel has hit were part of their military infrastructure. UNRWA officials in the Gaza Strip have put the number of deaths at 310, of whom 51 were civilians. The rest were Hamas terrorists.

Certainly, some civilian casualties are regrettably inevitable in any such situation – but particularly so in Gaza, since Hamas has deliberately sited its terrorist infrastructure amongst the civilian population.

Those who scream ‘disproportionate’ think – grotesquely -- that not enough Israelis have been killed. But that’s in part because Israel cares enough about human life to construct air raid shelters where its beleaguered civilians take cover; Hamas deliberately stores its rockets and other apparatus of mass murder below apartment blocks and in centres of population in order to get as many of its own people killed as possible as a propaganda weapon. Hamas is thus guilty of war crimes not just against Israelis but against the Palestinian people. Yet on this there is – fantastically, surreally – almost total silence in the west, which blames Israel instead. Historical resonances, anyone?

In any event, if by ‘disproportionate’ is meant merely an imbalance in the numbers who are killed on either side, this is actually inescapable if the infrastructure of aggression is to be defeated. Many more died in Afghanistan than in the 9/11 attacks; yet that war was necessary to destroy the Taleban. Many more died in Nazi Germany or Japan than in Britain or America during World War Two. Yet the scale of the Allied offensive was necessary to defeat Nazism and prevent yet more carnage amongst its designated victims.

The disgusting fifth column in the Gaza conflict, however, is – as ever – the western media. It was telling to witness the sight of British TV camera crews heading out to Israel on Saturday night. The point was that they weren’t already there – because their editors had not thought it necessary to send them to cover the resumed rocket attacks on southern Israel. Indeed, hardly anyone in Britain is aware that Israel is only now finally responding to some 6000 rocket attacks since 2001, with a fifty per cent increase after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. British journalists were only dispatched to the battle zone when Israel finally retaliated – because, appallingly, it is only Jewish violence that is ever the story.

As a result, Israel is painted – wholly unjustly and untruthfully -- as the aggressor. The ineffable BBC reported in radio bulletins on Saturday that Israel’s attack had ‘put back the chance of peace in the region’. Most sane people would think that the reason peace in the region had been put back was that Hamas was continuing to wage aggressive war. And indeed, even now it is still firing rockets at Israel, including Katyushas and Iranian Grads which are reaching as far as Ashkelon and Ashdod. Today they killed another Israeli in Ashkelon and injured many more -- including several Israeli Arabs.

If the media have mentioned the attacks on Israel at all, they have done so as an afterthought. The main story is ‘disproportionate’ Israeli violence. As far as I can see, there has been no mention of the extraordinary fact that on the day prior to the start of the Israeli operation, a Palestinian from the Gaza Strip was admitted to hospital in Israel for medical treatment for a severe wound -- inflicted upon him by a stray Hamas rocket which had been fired at Israel.

What other country would treat its enemies in own hospitals – which Israel does routinely with Palestinians from Gaza -- even when they are wounded as a direct consequence of their own side trying to murder yet more Israelis? What other country would provide or enable the supply of electricity, gas and other essentials to people who use such facilities to continue trying to murder as many Israelis as possible? On Sunday, for instance, as Ha’aretz reported, the Kerem Shalom crossing was opened to let through 26 trucks carrying food and medical equipment. Today it was opened again and about 40 trucks had entered with food and medical supplies by midday. Yet organizations such as Amnesty International have condemned Israel's imposition of all ‘blockades’ on the Gaza Strip as ‘collective punishment’, and Jeremy Hobbs, Director of Oxfam International, has called on Israel ‘immediately [to] lift its inhumane and illegal siege’.

Yet it is Hamas that is refusing wounded Gazans access into Egypt for treatment -- and indeed the Egyptians even opened fire on them. So where are the screams about Egyptian and Hamas brutality? Where are Amnesty and Oxfam’s condemnation of Hamas and Egypt? And might all those from the Foreign Secretary down screaming about a ‘humanitarian disaster’ in Gaza pause for one second and look at the well-fed, healthy Gazans parading across their TV screens? If that’s a ‘humanitarian disaster’ – with supplies constantly pouring through the illegal tunnels from Egypt, along with billions of dollars-worth of missiles with which to commit mass murder -- what do they call what’s happening in Zimbabwe, which for some unaccountable reason inspires among the high-minded merely indifference?

Such bigotry and malice are not confined to British media and NGOs. On Salon, Glenn Greenwald whines about

America’s one-sided support for whatever Israel does from our political class, and one-sided condemnation of Israel's enemies (who are, ipso facto, American enemies) -- all of it, as usual, sharply divergent from the consensus in much of the rest of the world.

Oh really? Well, Hamas has been blamed for this war by Mahmoud Abbas, who said Hamas could have avoided this attack if it had prolonged its ‘cease-fire’. It has been blamed for this war by Egypt; and Arab states which are terrified of Islamism in general and Iran in particular are privately rooting for Israel to wipe Hamas out. Even the Israeli left is supporting this operation. The only people taking the side of the genocidal terrorists of Hamas are the western media, parroting their propaganda and thus inciting yet more to join the murderous rampage against Israel as well as ratcheting up the pressure on world leaders to force Israel to stop before Hamas is destroyed.

Isn’t there a case for legal action against these media outlets on account of their blood libels, for indirectly aiding the perpetrators of attempted genocide?

Melanie Phillips is a British social commentator and author and a columnist for the Daily Mail. Her articles can be found on her website, www.melaniephillips.com.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JAK on December 30, 2008, 01:18:21 AM

Does anyone else find it strange that a little over a month after Obama won the Presidential election that Hamas let the cease fire between themselves and Israel lapse(19DEC2008)?  Will Obama appease the Arab world and condemn Israel for it's act of self defense or will he stand behind what he said that if attacked Israel has a right to self defense.

JAK

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 01:57:49 AM

I think this open question is part of why Israel has made it's move now.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 02:01:40 AM

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=15194

Iran Hardliners Register Volunteers to Fight Israel

29/12/2008

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A group of Iranian hard-line clerics is signing up volunteers to fight in the Gaza Strip in response to Israel's air strikes that have killed at least 300 Palestinians, a news agency reported on Monday.

"From Monday the Combatant Clergy Society has activated its website www.rohaniatmobarez.com for a week to register volunteers to fight against the Zionist regime (Israel) in either the military, financial or propaganda fields," the semi-official Fars news agency said.

Israel patrols the coastal waters around Gaza and has declared areas around the enclave a "closed military zone."

The hard-line Iranian group, which is headed by some leading clergy, says it has no affiliation with the government and was formed shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on Sunday, ordering them to defend Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attacks "in any way possible."

A religious decree is an official statement by a high-ranking religious leader that commands Muslims to carry out its message. While there is no religious and legal force behind it, Khamenei is respected by many Iranian and non-Iranian Shi'ites.

Iran refuses to recognize Israel, which accuses Tehran of supplying Hamas Islamists with weapons. Iran denies the claim, saying it only provides moral support to the group.

Israel said the strikes, that have killed 307 Palestinians, were launched in response to almost daily rocket and mortar fire from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip after the Islamist Hamas group ended a six-month ceasefire a week ago.

Fars said the hard-line group provided volunteers with a registration document called "Registration form for dispatching volunteers to Gaza." It said more than 1,100 people so far had registered for military service against Israel.

Khamenei said on Sunday that whoever was killed in the fight to defend Palestinians was "considered a martyr."

Iran will send its first ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said.

"Iran has dispatched its first plane load of aid, including medicine, to Gaza on Sunday. The second cargo is on the verge of being dispatched," Qashqavi told reporters on Monday. "The first aircraft arrived in Egypt last night."

Israel, which patrols the coastal waters around Gaza, tightened its blockade of the Gaza Strip two years ago after Hamas won a parliamentary election.

The Jewish state turned back a Libyan ship from delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza earlier this month.

Tens of thousands of Iranians protested on Monday to condemn the Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, which began with air strikes on Saturday.

Protesters burned Israeli and U.S. flags and demanded a stronger response from international organizations to stop Israel's raids, a Reuters witness said.

They also called on Islamic countries to boycott "Zionist companies."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 04:26:18 AM

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/30/bon-voyage-jihad-cindy-mckinney/

At least Obama wasn't on the boat. Not yet, anyway....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 04:31:18 AM

- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com -

Israel Targets Terror Labs Funded by U.S. Islamic Group
Posted By Patrick Poole On December 30, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 02, . Positioning, Homeland Security, Israel, Middle East, US News, World News | 3 Comments

The Jerusalem Post [1] reported on Monday that Israeli Defense Forces aircraft bombed suspected Hamas terror laboratories located at the Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza (IUG).

According to the article, IUG professors were using the labs to build explosives for the terrorist organization. A BBC [2] report confirmed that the IUG science building was the target of the Israeli retaliatory strikes.

Thus far unreported is that the IUG science and technology lab was financed and constructed with the assistance of the Dublin, Ohio-based [3] Arab Student Aid International (ASAI). In fact, the IUG website has a [4] page dedicated to ASAI’s ongoing contributions to the Hamas institution and specifically mentions the labs financed by the Ohio Islamic group. Additionally, the ASAI website [5] promotes its assistance in creating the IUG science and technology center, which was completed in 2002.

In a previously published [6] article I revealed ASAI’s extensive financial ties to the IUG, including direct cash payments to the Hamas school in addition to the facilities construction projects supported by ASAI. The Washington Post also [7] revealed in April 2006 that ASAI had financed the Western education of a number of top Hamas leaders.

The organization’s primary benefactor is Prince Turki Ben Abdul Aziz, a former high-ranking Saudi government official and half-brother to King Abdullah. Prince Turki has lived in exile in Egypt since the 1970s following a highly-publicized marriage scandal, his 100+ entourage occupying the top three floors of the Cairo Ramses Hilton. The prince serves as ASAI’s chairman of the board, and the labs built by ASAI at the IUG bear his name.

The ties between Hamas and the IUG have been long established. The university was founded by Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, and many Hamas leaders hold faculty and administrative positions at the school.

In an August 2007 policy report for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy entitled “[8] Better Late than Never: Keeping USAID Funds out of Terrorist Hands,” Matthew Levitt, former deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department and author of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad (Yale Univ. Press), detailed the integral role that IUG plays as part of the Hamas terrorist infrastructure:

Indeed, Israeli and Palestinian scholars alike characterize the IUG as a Hamas institution. Meir Hatina described it as one of the key institutions that “coordinated [Muslim] Brotherhood activities in the Gaza Strip and later constituted a springboard for Hamas.” Similarly, in his book Islamic Fundamentalism in the West Bank and Gaza, Ziad Abu Amr depicted the IUG as “the principal Muslim Brotherhood stronghold,” referring to the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, which became Hamas in December 1987. “The University’s administration, most of the employees who work there, and the majority of students are Brotherhood supporters,” he concluded.

Hamas itself has corroborated these ties. In a 2003 interview in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal boasted of the group’s participation in building the IUG in 1978. And according to FBI surveillance of a 1993 Hamas meeting in Philadelphia, Muin Kamel Muhammad Shabib, a member of the organization’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, briefed attendees on “the situation in Palestine” and the status of “Islamic works” tied to Hamas, naming the IUG as one of “our institutions.” In fact, even a cursory search of articles on LexisNexis through March 2007 produces 149 articles mentioning the IUG and Hamas together. Yet, only after congressional and media scrutiny exposed the taxpayer-funded awards to the Hamas-linked institution was USAID funding for the university terminated.

Other reports have detailed how the IUG has also been used for weapons storage, launching rockets, and holding hostages. In February 2007, Palestinian security forces [9] captured seven Iranian military trainers and confiscated 1,000 Qassam rockets located at the IUG. Another [10] article reported that 2,000 AK-47s were also confiscated, as well as evidence that captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, abducted by Hamas in June 2006, had previously been held at the university.

A May 2007 International Herald Tribune [11] article described IUG’s centrality in the Fatah-Hamas factional fighting in Gaza, with the university used to launch attacks against their rivals and for military training:

Hamas fighters have been inside Islamic University for days, trying to protect it from another Fatah attack like one last year that badly damaged the school, one of the prime means for Hamas to convert Palestinians to its Islamist cause. Hamas guards at the university have been killed by snipers in previous days, and on Friday, Fatah fighters fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortars at the school, setting a building on fire, and exchanged gunshots with Hamas men inside.

Fatah said that Hamas fighters were using the university as a base for attacks on nearby police stations.

After the IUG strikes on Monday, IDF spokeswoman Avital Leibovich gave an [12] interview to investigative reporter Aaron Klein, characterizing the militant nature of the IUG and the use of its facilities for the manufacture of Hamas explosives. “This is the first university in world that gives out bachelor’s degrees in rocket manufacture,” she said.

IUG figured prominently in the recent Holy Land Foundation [13] terrorism finance trial, with federal prosecutors entering documents into evidence showing that Holy Land officials used the IUG to [14] funnel funds to Hamas.

With Israel declaring “all-out war” against Hamas, the present conflict will hopefully provide incentive for law enforcement officials to further roll back the extensive Hamas support network in the U.S. Considering the success that prosecutors had in securing convictions on all 108 counts against the Holy Land Foundation defendants, investigating the degree of involvement of Arab Student Aid International in the financing and construction of the IUG Hamas terror labs might be a good place to start.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/israel-targets-terror-labs-funded-by-us-islamic-group/

URLs in this post:
[1] reported: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111723191&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
[2] report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm
[3] Arab Student Aid International: http://www.arabstudentaid.org/index.htm
[4] page: http://www.iugaza.edu.ps/external/eng/stab.asp
[5] promotes: http://www.arabstudentaid.org/achievements.htm
[6] article: http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=1344813
[7] revealed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042900125_pf.html
[8] Better Late than Never: Keeping USAID Funds out of Terrorist Hands: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2653
[9] captured: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54062
[10] article: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3361595,00.html
[11] article: http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5773548
[12] interview: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=84806
[13] terrorism finance trial: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/the-us-terror-support-network-exposed
[14] funnel funds: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/IUG_hlf_trial2.pdf

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 04:32:33 AM

- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com -

Israel Targets Terror Labs Funded by U.S. Islamic Group
Posted By Patrick Poole On December 30, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 02, . Positioning, Homeland Security, Israel, Middle East, US News, World News | 3 Comments

The Jerusalem Post [1] reported on Monday that Israeli Defense Forces aircraft bombed suspected Hamas terror laboratories located at the Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza (IUG).

According to the article, IUG professors were using the labs to build explosives for the terrorist organization. A BBC [2] report confirmed that the IUG science building was the target of the Israeli retaliatory strikes.

Thus far unreported is that the IUG science and technology lab was financed and constructed with the assistance of the Dublin, Ohio-based [3] Arab Student Aid International (ASAI). In fact, the IUG website has a [4] page dedicated to ASAI’s ongoing contributions to the Hamas institution and specifically mentions the labs financed by the Ohio Islamic group. Additionally, the ASAI website [5] promotes its assistance in creating the IUG science and technology center, which was completed in 2002.

In a previously published [6] article I revealed ASAI’s extensive financial ties to the IUG, including direct cash payments to the Hamas school in addition to the facilities construction projects supported by ASAI. The Washington Post also [7] revealed in April 2006 that ASAI had financed the Western education of a number of top Hamas leaders.

The organization’s primary benefactor is Prince Turki Ben Abdul Aziz, a former high-ranking Saudi government official and half-brother to King Abdullah. Prince Turki has lived in exile in Egypt since the 1970s following a highly-publicized marriage scandal, his 100+ entourage occupying the top three floors of the Cairo Ramses Hilton. The prince serves as ASAI’s chairman of the board, and the labs built by ASAI at the IUG bear his name.

The ties between Hamas and the IUG have been long established. The university was founded by Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, and many Hamas leaders hold faculty and administrative positions at the school.

In an August 2007 policy report for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy entitled “[8] Better Late than Never: Keeping USAID Funds out of Terrorist Hands,” Matthew Levitt, former deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department and author of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad (Yale Univ. Press), detailed the integral role that IUG plays as part of the Hamas terrorist infrastructure:

Indeed, Israeli and Palestinian scholars alike characterize the IUG as a Hamas institution. Meir Hatina described it as one of the key institutions that “coordinated [Muslim] Brotherhood activities in the Gaza Strip and later constituted a springboard for Hamas.” Similarly, in his book Islamic Fundamentalism in the West Bank and Gaza, Ziad Abu Amr depicted the IUG as “the principal Muslim Brotherhood stronghold,” referring to the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, which became Hamas in December 1987. “The University’s administration, most of the employees who work there, and the majority of students are Brotherhood supporters,” he concluded.

Hamas itself has corroborated these ties. In a 2003 interview in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal boasted of the group’s participation in building the IUG in 1978. And according to FBI surveillance of a 1993 Hamas meeting in Philadelphia, Muin Kamel Muhammad Shabib, a member of the organization’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, briefed attendees on “the situation in Palestine” and the status of “Islamic works” tied to Hamas, naming the IUG as one of “our institutions.” In fact, even a cursory search of articles on LexisNexis through March 2007 produces 149 articles mentioning the IUG and Hamas together. Yet, only after congressional and media scrutiny exposed the taxpayer-funded awards to the Hamas-linked institution was USAID funding for the university terminated.

Other reports have detailed how the IUG has also been used for weapons storage, launching rockets, and holding hostages. In February 2007, Palestinian security forces [9] captured seven Iranian military trainers and confiscated 1,000 Qassam rockets located at the IUG. Another [10] article reported that 2,000 AK-47s were also confiscated, as well as evidence that captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, abducted by Hamas in June 2006, had previously been held at the university.

A May 2007 International Herald Tribune [11] article described IUG’s centrality in the Fatah-Hamas factional fighting in Gaza, with the university used to launch attacks against their rivals and for military training:

Hamas fighters have been inside Islamic University for days, trying to protect it from another Fatah attack like one last year that badly damaged the school, one of the prime means for Hamas to convert Palestinians to its Islamist cause. Hamas guards at the university have been killed by snipers in previous days, and on Friday, Fatah fighters fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortars at the school, setting a building on fire, and exchanged gunshots with Hamas men inside.

Fatah said that Hamas fighters were using the university as a base for attacks on nearby police stations.

After the IUG strikes on Monday, IDF spokeswoman Avital Leibovich gave an [12] interview to investigative reporter Aaron Klein, characterizing the militant nature of the IUG and the use of its facilities for the manufacture of Hamas explosives. “This is the first university in world that gives out bachelor’s degrees in rocket manufacture,” she said.

IUG figured prominently in the recent Holy Land Foundation [13] terrorism finance trial, with federal prosecutors entering documents into evidence showing that Holy Land officials used the IUG to [14] funnel funds to Hamas.

With Israel declaring “all-out war” against Hamas, the present conflict will hopefully provide incentive for law enforcement officials to further roll back the extensive Hamas support network in the U.S. Considering the success that prosecutors had in securing convictions on all 108 counts against the Holy Land Foundation defendants, investigating the degree of involvement of Arab Student Aid International in the financing and construction of the IUG Hamas terror labs might be a good place to start.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/israel-targets-terror-labs-funded-by-us-islamic-group/

URLs in this post:
[1] reported: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111723191&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
[2] report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm
[3] Arab Student Aid International: http://www.arabstudentaid.org/index.htm
[4] page: http://www.iugaza.edu.ps/external/eng/stab.asp
[5] promotes: http://www.arabstudentaid.org/achievements.htm
[6] article: http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=1344813
[7] revealed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042900125_pf.html
[8] Better Late than Never: Keeping USAID Funds out of Terrorist Hands: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2653
[9] captured: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54062
[10] article: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3361595,00.html
[11] article: http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5773548
[12] interview: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=84806
[13] terrorism finance trial: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/the-us-terror-support-network-exposed
[14] funnel funds: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/IUG_hlf_trial2.pdf

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 05:57:04 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3647103,00.html

Report: Egypt to warn Israel of Hizbullah attack

Al-Hayat newspaper reports Turkey, Egypt plan to warn Israel ground operation in Gaza could lead to opening of northern front. Two countries discuss plan to reach truce
Roee Nahmias

Turkey and Egypt plan to warn Israel that if a ground operation is launched in the Gaza Strip, Hizbullah might open another front in south Lebanon, Turkish sources told al-Hayat newspaper.
 
The report, published on Tuesday, said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit visited Ankara on Monday and presented his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan with a document detailing a four-point plan aimed at restoring order and ending the Israeli operation in Gaza.
War on South
Northerners prepare for possible attacks / Hagai Einav
Gaza operation and deteriorating situation in southern Israel prompt northern communities to prepare for possible attacks. Kiryat Shmona, other towns inspect bomb shelters, Ziv Medical Centers instructs staff to stay nearby
Full Story
 
The plan includes a ceasefire, the opening of Gaza crossings the removal of the blockade on the Strip, and the creation of regional and international guarantees that will keep the crossings open and the agreement honored.
 
According to the plan, if Turkey and Egypt work together, they can pressure and convince Israel and influence world opinion.
 
A source from the Turkish Foreign Ministry told al-Hayat there was a general understanding between the two nations on the Egyptian proposal.
 
Aboul Gheit said that Turkey had a proposition of its own, and there were still some points to be clarified regarding a truce and whether the Rafah crossing was included in the crossings the Egyptian document refers to.
 
Commentary: Will Nasrallah attack?
Despite reports of a possible attack from the north, recent speeches by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah indicate he is not headed for war with Israel.
 
Since Israel launched its Operation Cast Lead in Gaza on Saturday, Nasrallah spoke out mainly against Egypt and almost completely avoided mentioning Israel.
 
It seems the Hizbullah leader will settle for mass rallies in support of Gaza and against Israel and the US, and a PR campaign against Egypt.
 
Lebanese sources said Hizbullah would not respond to Israel from Lebanese soil, and that the organization "has no interest in doing so".
 
Nonetheless, Lebanese security forces have increased their alert level ahead of any possible scenarios, including the possibility that Palestinian organizations in Lebanon may try to fire rockets at Israel.
 
The sources also stressed that "rebellious" bodies that may endanger Lebanon in this context were already "under tight supervision".
 
In his speech on Sunday, Nasrallah denied any knowledge of the eight rockets that were discovered last week in southern Lebanon and aimed at Israel. The Hizbullah head accused Israel of planting the rockets in order to frame Lebanon.
 
Stating that his organization was ready for any confrontation if Israel decided to act in Lebanon, Nasrallah's ton of voice indicated he was conveying more of a warning to Israel than an actual threat.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 30, 2008, 07:17:33 AM

***I was living in married student housing at the University of Wisconsin when the first Scud hit Israel; the Palestinian family across the hall proceeded to whoop it up as though the Packers had just won the Super Bowl. Couldn't believe people were celebrating the fact that a weapon with a very poor targeting system, possibly topped with chemical munitions, got lobbed at a population center***

I have a long time Muslim Egyptian patient and her husband.  She is going for elective surgery and I asked her which hospital and she couldn't think of the name off the top of her head.  I named a few places and she said not those.  Then suddenly she said it is a hospital where "all the Jews live".  I said oh Short Hills - St Barnabas.  She said yes that's it.
It is true that area has a huge Jewish population and I realized right away where she meant when she offered this clue.  But don't you think it odd that is what she thought of to try to help me understand which hospital?  I am sure she has no idea I am a Jew.  I made nothing of it.

Otherwise they are wonderful people and I feel a bond with them, but I don't think I would explain where a hospital is by the local population for example JFK hospital is "where a lot of Indians live". 

What would you make of this?  I am not sure what to make of it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 07:49:54 AM

It came from her pre-attack surveillance of Jewish populations.


Kidding!


Mostly....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2008, 07:51:11 AM

Quote from: G M on December 30, 2008, 04:26:18 AM

At least Obama wasn't on the boat. Not yet, anyway....

Then again, given the disparity of the number of Israeli's killed (5)  versus the terrible number of innocent women and children being killed,
Obama might listen to world and UN opinion and perhaps support more boats/trucks bringing medical supplies, food, and humanitarian
care.  And while of course always leaning toward and favoring Israel, I think he might be a bit more impartial than the Bush
administration has been in this matter.


Asked Sunday if the Obama administration would be as supportive of Israel as the Bush administration has been,
Obama's senior adviser said the president-elect would "honor" what he sees as "the special relationship between the United States and Israel."

"But he will do so in a way that will promote the cause of peace, and work closely with the Israelis and the Palestinians on that -- toward that objective," David Axelrod said.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 07:56:09 AM

Quote from: JDN on December 30, 2008, 07:51:11 AM

Quote from: G M on December 30, 2008, 04:26:18 AM

At least Obama wasn't on the boat. Not yet, anyway....

Then again, given the disparity of the number of Israeli's killed (5)  versus the terrible number of innocent women and children being killed,

And what is the terrible number of innocent women and children killed? Please cite your sources.

You never showed me the protests of Saddam's use of WMD on the Kurds and Shiites or Syria's destruction of Hama. Your selective outrage is noted.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 08:09:09 AM

Quote from: ccp on December 30, 2008, 07:17:33 AM

What would you make of this?  I am not sure what to make of it.

In my part of the world it would not seem strange at all. While we don't usually have hyphenated citizens (Afro-Venezuelan), we don't have a problem recognizing people's ancestry and origin. Until Chavez none of it was cause for comment or discrimination. My business partner was a black man and everyone refers to him as "The Black Gamboa" to which he proudly announces that he is the descendant of African kings and Amerind princesses. My dad used to call him "My black son." This is true integration, where you are no longer afraid of the differences. Instead, you celebrate them. As the French like to say: "Vive la difference."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 30, 2008, 08:21:35 AM

Quote

Then again, given the disparity of the number of Israeli's killed (5)  versus the terrible number of innocent women and children being killed,
Obama might listen to world and UN opinion and perhaps support more boats/trucks bringing medical supplies, food, and humanitarian
care.  And while of course always leaning toward and favoring Israel, I think he might be a bit more impartial than the Bush
administration has been in this matter.

And again, you fail to address the inanity of citing a disparity which Hamas is striving mightily to achieve. Your circular foolishness fails to provide much in the way of illumination and instead serves to underline your gross ignorance of asymmetric warfare as practiced by terrorists.

Time to get huffy and spout platitudes, I guess. . . .

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2008, 08:25:50 AM

Wow; did you learn that at Wisconsin?  (My mom graduated from there and I was born and raised
as a child in Milwaukee - I had to laugh at your earlier comment about the Packers)   :-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 08:36:01 AM

In Venezuela we have a large number of Arabs. I have no idea what the proportion of Catholics to Muslims might be. The important fact is that they are as assimilated as any other group might be. I have done business with Arabs as both buyer and seller and the experience has been most satisfactory in all cases.

There is a commercial section in downtown Caracas (El Silencio) where you have Arab and Jewish stores side by side. Back during the Six Day War we used to comment that had Golda Meir and Gamal Abdel Nasser sat down for a coffee in El Silencio, there would never have been a war.

I went to high school in Canada with some other Venezuelans. Most were very friendly while in school but once back in Venezuela, they chose to ignore me, I suppose because I did not fit their social profile back home. While at MIT I saw many interesting friendships, for example, Indians and Pakistanis hitting it off. But once people go back home, away from the freedom of academic life,  they are forced to conform to the local convention. Think of Romeo and Juliet, same issue!

But probably the worst part of the Middle East conflict is that the Muslim nations use the Palestinians as cannon fodder. No one wants them, they have been kicked out of Jordan and Lebanon and currently are not allowed into Egypt. Saddam Hussein used to pay them to act as suicide bombers. Iran backs Hizzbolah and Hamas which is part of the reason Egypt does not like Hamas. The Palestinians are nothing but a geo-political football to be kicked around at will. Arafat  was not even Palestinian! He just used them to line his pockets. Add to the mix an obsolete religion that wants the world to go back to the 7th century and the hopes for any kind of peaceful solution are non-existent unless it comes from the Palestinians themselves. I would not hold my breath.

Title: Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2008, 10:15:29 AM

Stratfor
---------------------------

 

GEOPOLITICAL DIARY: THE LATEST PHASE OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN FIGHTING

The Israeli military attacked Hamas-controlled Gaza this weekend. On Friday, Hamas had terminated its unilateral truce with the Israelis. The decision was accompanied by rockets fired into Israel and claims by Hamas that it had longer-range rockets capable of striking even deeper into the country. The Israelis responded with a massive attack that was designed to smash Hamas' infrastructure, impose heavy penalties on Gaza for Hamas' decision, and attempt to preempt not only rocket attacks but also a new campaign of suicide bombers. Whether the campaign will achieve Israel’s goals or trigger an escalation from the Hamas side is now the issue. What is not at issue is that a new round of fighting in Gaza had been expected for weeks. Hamas had made it clear that it was going to end the truce, and Israel had made it clear that it would consider the war resumed and respond accordingly.

The first question is why Hamas chose to end the truce, opening the door to an Israeli attack. The answer might lie in the fact that Palestinian elections are coming up. While Hamas was a pure opposition party, it was an effective critic of Fatah's governance. But having been responsible for Gaza for a while, Hamas now bears criticism for the conditions there, and thus the party's popularity had slipped. Having failed to make significant inroads into the West Bank -- where Fatah dominated -- and having drawn criticism for its administration in Gaza, Hamas saw its momentum blunted.

Hamas was much more effective as a combat party, fighting the Israelis, than as an administrative party dealing with the intractable problem of Gaza. The longer it remained passive toward the Israelis and the longer it remained responsible for Gaza, the less it was likely to appeal to Palestinian voters. Hamas made a strategic decision to re-establish its credentials as the only Palestinian force effectively fighting Israel. In doing so, it also reinforced the perception of Fatah as collaborating with the Israelis (and an Israeli attack is also a mechanism to prompt Palestinians to rally behind Hamas). From Hamas' point of view -- facing a hopeless situation governing Gaza and a showdown with Fatah -- ending the truce made sense in the long term, on the premise that a conventional attack by Israel would not decisively break Hamas' capability.

The Israeli response was also, on one level, driven by public opinion. Hamas' ability to attack Israeli positions with rockets, or potentially to launch another round of suicide bombings in Israeli population centers, was quite real. If it happened, Israeli public opinion not only would create a crisis for any Israeli government, but also would strengthen those forces that felt that any peace process with the Palestinians was impossible.

Ehud Olmert, still prime minister pending a new government, saw the Hamas move as an opportunity. Hamas created a situation that had to be dealt with. Waiting for his successor to deal with the problem would bog that successor down in an issue with the international community that would cripple any ongoing diplomacy. Launching a security campaign as a lame-duck prime minister takes the issue off his successor's plate. In an odd way, this increases the chance of some sort of settlement with the Palestinians, by allowing Olmert to be cast as a villain.

If this seems more complicated than it should be, that is not an incorrect impression. Underneath all of this is a core reality: A Palestinian state on the 1948 borders is an impossibility for both Palestinians and Israelis. For the Palestinians, it would mean a state divided physically between Gaza and the West Bank, without an independent economic foundation. It would be a fiasco. For the Israelis, the 1948 borders would allow the Palestinians to rocket Tel Aviv easily, with no guarantee that a Palestinian state would or could put a stop to it. The Palestinians need more than the 1948 borders, and the Israelis can't even give that.

Therefore, the current cycle of violence is simply one of many such cycles that are hardwired into the geography of Israel and Palestine and from which there is no escape. It is almost unnecessary to go through the political reasoning that has led each side to this point, except to explain why it is happening now instead of earlier or later. The politics simply determine the time and shape of conflict. Geography determines that the conflict is intractable.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 30, 2008, 10:22:08 AM

Quote

Wow; did you learn that at Wisconsin?  (My mom graduated from there and I was born and raised
as a child in Milwaukee - I had to laugh at your earlier comment about the Packers)

No, alas, I've learned it in numerous venues where folks of a hard left bent ignore cogent comments and instead restate the inane thesis ever more loudly each time they are challenged. Indeed, I'm trying to determine if you are of the useful idiot far left flavor, or if you are a True Believer who actually understands the real ends of groups like Hamas and obfuscates them as they are your ends too.

You no longer strike me as much of a sparring partner, and are instead starting to look like a hanging tire upon which one demonstrates why bad technique is best avoided.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2008, 11:27:01 AM

No, I am not a true believer.  I only, as has much of the world including the UN question Israel's disproportionate reaction,
not their right to react.  Five dead/injured Israeli's versus hundreds of dead/injured?  And mounting...

Israel can kill all the militant Hamas for all I care, but when women and children are being bombed unmercifully,
and sufficient medical care and food is being blocked and/or not getting through to these innocent victims, I would like to think
there is a better way.  Or at least an attempt should be made to find one.

And one person's "cogent comment" is another person's biased viewpoint.  On this matter, the "cogent comments" of much of the world
disagree with Israel.  We each can decide with whom we agree and to what degree.

Hanging tires are rarely used to demonstrate precision and "technique"; rather they are primarily used to improve strength and raw power. 
Strength and power definitely has merit and that is what Israel is displaying now.  But that is not always the answer.  Alternatives exist.

As for my "Wow, did you learn that at Wisconsin" comment, it was said tongue in cheek; obviously my attempt at levity failed.
I truly am from Wisconsin; Madison is a wonderful school, and I still cheer for the Packers.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 11:38:01 AM

Quote from: JDN on December 30, 2008, 11:27:01 AM

Alternatives exist.

Such as?

Where was the international outrage when Saddam was using WMD on the Kurds and Shiites? Where were the protests when Syria hammered Hama into rubble?

What is the death toll of innocents in Gaza? You know this how?

Title: Innocent victims
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 11:43:44 AM

Quote from: JDN on December 30, 2008, 11:27:01 AM

Israel can kill all the militant Hamas for all I care, but when women and children are being bombed unmercifully,
and sufficient medical care and food is being blocked and/or not getting through to these innocent victims, I would like to think
there is a better way.  Or at least an attempt should be made to find one.

You could start by getting the Brave Hamas not to hide behind their womenfolk. How about getting them to establish military bases away from the civilian population. That would go a long toward preventing unnecessary and lamentable civilian deaths.

BTW, since it should apply both ways, also get them to use suicide bombers only on military targets, not on the civilian World Trade Center, civilian busses and other places where civilians gather. That too would go a long way toward unnecessary and lamentable civilian deaths.

What you seem to be missing is that this is asymmetric war. The Palestinian make war on civilians while the Israelis make war on terrorists. The Palestinians kill civilians on PURPOSE! That is their target, that is their purpose. Israelis only kill civilians as collateral damage. Israelis even call up the civilians to please evacuate the areas to be destroyed. Does Hamas do that? No, they want to kill civilians.

Title: Madoff on Market Failures & Martial Metaphors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 30, 2008, 01:10:18 PM

Wow, citing the UN to settle this debate. Perhaps you can next cite Bernie Madoff on market failures.

So let's make sure I have this straight: Hamas embeds itself in civilian infrastructure from which it launches attacks on Israel, knowing full well Israel will respond against Hamas command and control in a manner that will also cause civilian death and injuries. Israel has likely spent tens of millions developing munitions meant to limit and focus that response, but Hamas counts on collateral damage, and has been known to stage scenes of carnage when needed. Broadcasting images and claims that can't be confirmed by unbiased news sources, Hamas seeks to mobilize world opinion against the Israeli attacks they solicited, and you want to reward this behavior by giving Hamas exactly what it seeks. Make perfect freaking sense to me.

You are correct, however, that my choice of a tire for a metaphor was a poor one. You are much more like a noob who wanders onto the training floor certain he is in possession of singular martial truth. One tries to gently demonstrate there are other truths to be found, but no, it always turns into a tail chase where the UN sanctioned right thinking people technique is cited as the one true skill set. The circular dance grows so inane that all that's left is to demonstrate to the rest of the class that the noob's skills don't stand up to a true clash of sticks. Sad part is the noob then complains about how the demonstration was unfair, rather than reflecting on what is says about his singular truth.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2008, 04:53:57 PM

JDN: 

You seem to be a very nice person, but when human lives are at stake, having "nice opinions" that make nice statements about the nice person that you are just don't cut it-- they get real people, nice people, killed.

Here's one report on Israel's efforts to minimize collateral damage.
=====================================

Israel phones in warning to flee Gaza Strip strikes
By Abraham Rabinovich in Jerusalem
The Australian
December 30, 2008 12:01am

RESIDENTS at certain addresses in the Gaza Strip have been receiving unusual phone calls since the Israeli air assault began on Saturday - a request that they and their families leave their homes as soon as possible for their own safety.

More unusual than the recorded message is the Arabic-speaking caller, who identifies himself as being from the Israeli defence forces, The Australian reports.

Dipping into their bag of tricks for the updated Gaza telephone numbers, Israel's intelligence services are warning Palestinian civilians in Gaza living close to Hamas facilities that they may be hurt unless they distance themselves from those targets.

In some cases, the warning comes not by telephone but from leaflets dropped from aircraft on selected districts.

Such warnings clearly eliminate the element of surprise, but for Israel it is of cardinal importance to minimise civilian casualties, and not just for humanitarian reasons.

The principal calculation is fear that a stray bomb hitting a school or any collection of innocent civilians could bring down the wrath of the international community on Israel, as has happened more than once in the past, and force it to halt its campaign before it has achieved its objectives.

Israel Radio reported that leaflets had been dropped at the beginning of the operation in the Rafah area near the border with Egypt, warning residents that the tunnels to Egypt through which weapons and civilian products were smuggled would be bombed.

Many of the residents, mostly youths, are employed in the tunnels. Initial reports said two people were killed when the tunnels were bombed.

Gaza is one of the most densely built-up areas in the world, making it extremely difficult to pinpoint targets without collateral damage.

Israeli officials say that the small percentage of civilians killed so far is due to precise intelligence regarding the location of Hamas targets and accurate bombing and rocketing.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24855309-2,00.html
===========================================

The underlying truth for most of the criticism of Israel is this:

1) Cowardice:  Europe fears its own Arabs/Turks/Muslims

2) Cowardice and Greed:  It ain't "Blood for oil."  Its "Sell out the Jews for oil."

Title: GoldaMeir and Anwar el Sadat
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 05:44:37 PM

It was 31 years ago that this wonderful speech was given. Anwar El Sadat was assassinated for his peace making efforts. What a shame that people don't want peace!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qucRZ8EztKE

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2008, 05:48:59 PM

Crafty, I also think I am misunderstood  :-)

No question, "real people, nice people, get killed"  My only question is how many?  And is there any other way?
IF the answer is no, so be it.  Attack with force and solve (if that is possible) the problem and put up with the bad PR.
And I agree, from a political viewpoint, perhaps better to do now than after the inauguration. 

But absurd comments like "How about getting them to establish military bases away from the civilian population" isn't realistic;
imply they are suppose to fight "fair" - didn't that go out with the American Revolutionary War?  Countless wars have
been fought including WWII in the Philippines, Vietnam, Afghanistan and even in the establishment of Israel where the winning side didn't
stand up and establish separate military bases or fight "fair".

Or to say "I am like a noob (that is a new term to me) who wonders the floor certain he is in possession of singular martial truth..."
What rubbish.  My point is the opposite, there are different ways to solve the problem.  As for the "training room floor" tires (bad metaphor) exist for
strength training, focus mitts and heavy bags for punching and kicking, and mats for floor. Each can be effective on their own, but
it seems to me DBMA emphasis is on being well rounded; having alternatives, not being myopic. 

Like in martial arts, I think it's good to hear and discuss alternatives; weigh them and if appropriate, use them, and if not, don't.  And also like
martial arts/self defense, use of appropriate force is an issue to be considered.  Or you will suffer the consequences whatever they may be.

Title: Widening range, rockets strike Beersheba kindergarten
Post by: rachelg on December 30, 2008, 06:13:18 PM

(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImageSpotlight&blobwhere=1123495332804&ssbinary=true&timestamp=1230234641)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456524549&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Widening range, rockets strike Beersheba kindergarten
Dec. 30, 2008
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Hamas flexed its muscles Tuesday night and fired two rockets into Beersheba as Defense Minister Ehud Barak asked for government approval to call up an additional 2,500 reservists ahead of a planned ground operation in the Gaza Strip.

One of the Katyusha rockets struck a kindergarten in Beersheba, causing damage. Another rocket hit outside the city in an open field.

The IDF bombed the launcher of the Grad-model rockets afterward, as well as the cell responsible. The army said it successfully hit its target.

Defense officials had warned that Hamas had the ability to fire rockets into Beersheba - located some 40 kilometers from Gaza - but Tuesday night's attack was the first time the city's 200,000 residents came under Hamas rocket fire.

Earlier, rockets struck Ashdod and Ashkelon, where two people were killed in attacks on Monday. Grad-model Katyushas also hit open fields near Kiryat Malachi.

In total, more than 50 rockets struck the South on Tuesday, with one scoring a direct hit on a home in Sderot. No one was wounded in the attack, as the family had taken refuge in a nearby secure room.

The IAF, meanwhile, continued to bomb Gaza, hitting over 30 targets in addition to several dozen tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border. IDF sources said the tunnels had been used by Hamas to smuggle weapons and terrorists into the Gaza Strip. On Sunday the air force bombed some 40 smuggling tunnels.

On Tuesday night, Barak sent Cabinet Secretary Ovad Yehezkel a letter asking him to hold a phone vote among members of the cabinet to approve an IDF request to issue emergency call-up orders for an additional 2,500 reservists. On Sunday, the cabinet gave the IDF approval to call up 6,500 reservists.

Defense officials said it was likely that a ground operation would be launched in the next few days to keep up the momentum of the aerial bombardment of Gaza that started Saturday.

Earlier Monday, the IAF struck two targets in Gaza City and Khan Yunis. One of the targets was a Hamas police station. Overnight Monday, at least 10 people were killed and 40 others were wounded when IAF planes bombed a series of targets in the Strip, Palestinian sources said, bringing the death toll to over 380 Palestinians since Operation Cast Lead began.

The IDF confirmed air strikes against dozens of targets in the central Gaza town of El-Bureij (near Khan Yunis) and in Gaza City, including the Hamas Interior Ministry, Foreign Ministry and Treasury, as well as the office of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

On Tuesday, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi appeared in public for the first time since the operation began, and declared, "Difficult times are awaiting us. I am sure we will overcome them."

Speaking at a joint press conference Tuesday afternoon with President Shimon Peres at the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv, Ashkenazi praised the forces participating in Operation Cast Lead, which he said was aimed at "creating a better security reality for the residents of southern Israel."

He also thanked the public for supporting the operation, and expressed appreciation of southern residents, who were "living under constant threat" and providing important support to the operation, "which extends our endurance."

Ashkenazi added that he was "very pleased with the operation at this point."

Earlier Tuesday afternoon during a tour of Ashkelon, Barak said that military action against Hamas would continue until all of the operation's goals were met.

The defense minister said the operation would intensify "as much as needed to meet the goals we set for ourselves - to bring quiet to the South."

He added, "We expect more difficult days ahead which will test civilians' endurance."
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImage&blobwhere=1230456537024&cachecontrol=5%3A0%3A0+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 06:18:56 PM

Quote from: JDN on December 30, 2008, 05:48:59 PM

But absurd comments like "How about getting them to establish military bases away from the civilian population" isn't realistic;

This is no more absurd than thinking that war can be carried out without collateral damage. israel should be commended, not condemned, for the highly humanitarian way they carry out the war.

Maybe you missed my post about the pin-point accuracy weapons Israel is using to minimize collateral damage. Maybe you missed the several posts that talked about how Israel is willing to give away the advantage of surprise to spare civilians by calling them up on the phone.

I want to remind you that your worry does not seem to be the killing of civilians so much as the disproportionate number of dead on either side. I want to remind you that civilian deaths on the Palestinian side are unintentional collateral damage while the dead civilians on the Israeli side are the actual targets the Palestinians are trying to hit. Why don't I hear you whining abut that? Why only whine about dead Arab civilians?

Of course, you have already forgotten about the massive death toll from Palestinian suicide bombers. You only decided to pick on the absurd part of my post. Whatever you are, you are either partisan of murderers and terrorists or clueless.

So let me reiterate, the Israelis are already doing what they can to spare civilians and they should be commended for their efforts.

Title: Do Some Good/Filthy Jewish Blood
Post by: rachelg on December 30, 2008, 06:21:15 PM

Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Do some good
http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2008/12/do-some-good.html
Several people have emailed and left comments asking what they can do to help.

First and foremost, if you are in Israel, the obvious thing to do is go find a mobile blood donation vehicle (or go to a hospital) and give blood.  The blood supply is almost always critically low, so there is never a bad time to do this.  You can donate every three months.

If you aren't in Israel, come.  I know there are better vacation destinations this time of year (even under the best of circumstance), but Israel's life blood is tourism.  Come to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem (or Eilat if you crave the sun) and show your solidarity in a safe, easy way.  Nothing demonstrates your unwavering support like showing up and supporting the local economy.

Can't afford a fancy hotel?  Email me and I'll put you up with us or any of a hundred other friends (including some of your favorite bloggers) who would be happy to make you feel at home.  Really!

Another important task is to provide constant feedback to your elected representatives - no matter where you live - asking them to support Israel in any way possible.  No need to get into a long drawn-out discussion of issues or of wrong & right.  They know the issues.  What they don't know is how their constituency feels about the issues.

The rule of thumb that many elected officials use is that every call, email or letter they receive represents 1000 people who feel the same way but didn't bother to make contact.  Put that way, your short email or voice message can have a tremendous impact.  Get a few friends and family to write or call in and you have a groundswell of support for Israel.

Next, monitor your local media (e.g. newspapers, radio and television) and let them know you are there.  Let them know that you notice when they distort the news... and also tell them when they get it right.  The media is in the business of supplying a product.  They make no secret of their willingness to modify their product to suit their audience.  What you have to do is make sure they know that their audience is firmly pro-Israel.  Complaining to your newspaper does nothing.  Complaining to the people who produce the news does everything!

Last but not least, if you have the resources to make even a small contribution to one of the following organizations, please do so.  There are endless organizations that do good things, but the ones I've listed here have a proven track record of service along with a transparent financial stewardship that shows a very small overhead and the lion's share of the contributions going directly to benefit the end-user.  This is in no way a criticism of any other organization.  Feel free to recommend others in the comments.

So go do some good (and encourage your friends and family to do likewise):

Magen David Adom

Hatzolah

Zaka

Yad Sarah


Here is another site with links of good charities
http://superraizy.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-you-can-help.html

---

Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Filthy Jewish Blood
http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2008/12/filthy-jewish-blood.html
Here's a purely hypothetical scenario:

You are a soldier on a battlefield, and find yourself locked in hand-to-hand combat with an enemy soldier.  During the struggle you manage to wound him badly, rendering him unconscious and in critical condition.  Now that he is no longer a threat to you, his status changes such that you are now obligated to try to treat his wounds as you would any wounded soldier.

You and your comrades manage to stabilize him and carry him on a stretcher to a mobile surgical unit (think M.A.S.H.) where the triage team quickly determines that he needs emergency surgery if he is going to survive. But he has already lost a lot of blood and the surgery will require several units of his blood type. A glance at his dog tag reveals that he has AB negative blood; the rarest blood type in the world, and the surgical unit doesn't have any on hand.

A quick poll of the personnel in the area turns up an ironic surprise; you are the only person with the enemy soldier's blood type.  So you do as you're told; even though less than an hour ago this man was trying to kill you (in fairness, you were trying to kill him too!), you sit down, roll up your sleeve and allow the nurse to start taking your blood to be used during the surgery.

Just as the nurse is is starting to fill the first bag of blood, the enemy soldier (who has been stretched out unconscious in the bed next to yours) wakes up, sees you hooked up to the blood transfusion equipment and begins screaming that he won't accept your blood.  He calls your blood 'filthy' and 'unclean' and swears that he would "rather die than accept the blood of apes and pigs".

At this point you:

A)  Stop the nurse from taking your blood and tell her that you want to grant the enemy's wish and let him die.

B)  Yell back at the enemy soldier that he doesn't have a choice and that once he's under general anesthesia the doctors are going to replace all his blood with 'filthy' blood from you and your comrades!

C)  Ignore the raving enemy soldier and let the medical staff knock him out and take your blood for the operation.

D) Ask the medical staff to try to stabilize him with fluids (if possible) long enough to make a request to the enemy troops to send over typed blood from one of his countrymen.

E) Offer another suggestion of your own.

I'm interested to know how you would act in this hypothetical situation... but I want to make it clear that this is far from hypothetical.

There have been many natural disasters in the Muslim world over the past few decades where Israel has offered to provide medical supplies, emergency personnel and... blood.  This last bit has always been a sticking point.  You see, Jewish blood is considered unacceptable by the people we are supposed to be trying to make peace with.  It is, according to them, 'filthy'.

The New York times almost - but not quite - made reference to this seldom discussed fact in the 19th paragraph of an article.  Here, read the following and tell me if you spot it:

    "Israel sent in [to Gaza] some 40 trucks of humanitarian relief, including blood from Jordan and medicine. Egypt opened its border with Gaza to some similar aid and to allow some of the wounded through"

Did you catch it? Why would Israel need to send blood from Jordan?  We never have a huge surplus of blood, but we always have some on hand!  Is Jordan's medical establishment better prepared than Israel's???  And why would Egypt need to send 'similar aid'?  If Israel is controlling everything going in and out of Gaza right now, why are we suddenly talking about sending trucks of our own humanitarian aid... but blood from Jordan and Egypt?

The truth is, just as Israel has had to come to terms with a Red Diamond as its medical symbol abroad (since the International Red Cross made it clear that the Red Star of David is offensive to too much of the world), we have also somehow had to make peace with the fact that even our blood is considered sub-human and filthy by the very people with whom we are supposed to be making peace!

So I'm asking you... what would you do if you were that hypothetical soldier in the scenario above?  And what would you do if you were Israel today, being told that yes, we'll accept medical supplies and humanitarian aid from you... but not your filthy blood.

Would you really go to the Arab Red Crescent Society of Jordan and ask them to lend you some blood?

Seriously, how do you make peace with people who don't even consider you human?

Title: Re: Do Some Good/Filthy Jewish Blood
Post by: G M on December 30, 2008, 06:42:34 PM

Quote from: rachelg on December 30, 2008, 06:21:15 PM

Seriously, how do you make peace with people who don't even consider you human?

You can't. They aren't interested anyway.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 06:53:26 PM

About the hypothetical soldier, if you feel this person should be saved by giving him a blood transfusion, that's what you should do.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2008, 07:02:01 PM

[/quote]

I want to remind you that your worry does not seem to be the killing of civilians so much as the disproportionate number of dead on either side. I want to remind you that civilian deaths on the Palestinian side are unintentional collateral damage while the dead civilians on the Israeli side are the actual targets the Palestinians are trying to hit. Why don't I hear you whining abut that? Why only whine about dead Arab civilians?

[/quote]

Actually, I think I was quite clear; I don't care how many militant Hamas Israel kills.  The disproportionate issue I brought up pertains to the fact that 5 Israelis have been killed/injured by missiles yet over 60 civilian palestinians have been killed; that does not count the many (over 100) civilians who have been severely injured.  Every time I check CNN I see a child being carried away.  Obviously, the "pin point accurate weapons Israel is using" are not perfect.

And sadly I agree with GM; I am not sure there can be peace nor am I sure they are interested anyway.  This is just one more chapter.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 07:15:52 PM

Quote from: JDN on December 30, 2008, 07:02:01 PM

Every time I check CNN I see a child being carried away.  Obviously, the "pin point accurate weapons Israel is using" are not perfect.

Obviously not as perfect as the Liberal Leftist Media Propaganda Machine. You must new new at this. How many doctored photographs have you seen? Do you recall the fake ambulance photos? Do you recall all the swindles the Liberal Leftist Media Propaganda Machine pulled during the last Lebanon war?

http://captainccs.blogspot.com/2006/08/forgery.html
http://captainccs.blogspot.com/2006/08/firecrackers.html
http://captainccs.blogspot.com/2006/08/hezbollah.html

Title: Is Israel using 'disproportionate force' in Gaza/ Youtube channel for IDF
Post by: rachelg on December 30, 2008, 07:19:06 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456535626&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Is Israel using 'disproportionate force' in Gaza?
Dec. 30, 2008
dore gold , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel is currently benefiting from a limited degree of understanding in international diplomatic and media circles for launching a major military operation against Hamas on December 27. Yet there are significant international voices that are prepared to argue that Israel is using disproportionate force in its struggle against Hamas.

There are good reasons why initial criticism of Israel has been muted. After all, population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001.

The majority of those attacks were launched after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Indeed, rocket attacks increased by 500% (from 179 to 946) from 2005 to 2006.

Moreover, lately Hamas has been extending the range of its striking capability even further, with new rockets supplied by Iran. Hamas used a 20.4-kilometer-range Grad/Katyusha for the first time on March 28, 2006, bringing Ashkelon into range of its rockets for the first time. That change increased the number of Israelis under threat from 200,000 to half a million.

Moreover, on December 21, 2008, Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), informed the government that Hamas had acquired rockets that could reach Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, and even the outskirts of Beersheba. The first Grad/Katyusha strike on Ashdod, in fact, took place on December 28.

There had been no formal cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, but only an informal six-month tahadiya (lull), during which 215 rockets were launched at Israel. On December 21, Hamas unilaterally announced that the tahadiya had ended.

Critical Voices
\
On December 27, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen issued a statement saying that while the secretary-general recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law."

The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians [emphasis added]."

A day later, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel.

Brazil also joined this chorus, criticizing Israel's "disproportionate response."

Undoubtedly, a powerful impression has been created by large Western newspaper headlines that describe massive Israeli air strikes in Gaza, without any up-front explanation for their cause.

Proportionality and International Law

The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetuate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground.

Under international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it. Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza.

When international legal experts use the term "disproportionate use of force," they have a very precise meaning in mind. As the president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Rosalyn Higgins, has noted, proportionality "cannot be in relation to any specific prior injury - it has to be in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression."

In other words, if a state, like Israel, is facing aggression, then proportionality addresses whether force was specifically used by Israel to bring an end to the armed attack against it. By implication, force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians.

The pivotal factor determining whether force is excessive is the intent of the military commander. In particular, one has to assess what was the commander's intent regarding collateral civilian damage.

What about reports concerning civilian casualties? Some international news agencies have stressed that the vast majority of those killed in the first phase of the current Gaza operation were Hamas operatives.

Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead."

It is far too early to definitely assess Palestinian casualties, but even if they increase, the numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties.

During the Second Lebanon War, Professor Michael Newton of Vanderbilt University was in e-mail communication with William Safire of The New York Times about the issue of proportionality and international law.

Newton had been quoted by the Council on Foreign Relations as explaining proportionality by proposing a test: "If someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn down their house." He was serving as an international criminal law expert in Baghdad and sought to correct the impression given by his quote. According to Newton, no responsible military commander intentionally targets civilians, and he accepted that this was Israeli practice.

What was critical from the standpoint of international law was that if the attempt had been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."

Numbers matter less than the purpose of the use of force. Israel has argued that it is specifically targeting facilities serving the Hamas regime and its determined effort to continue its rocket assault on Israel: headquarters, training bases, weapons depots, command and control networks, and weapons-smuggling tunnels. In this, Israel is respecting the international legal concept of proportionality.

Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack, even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage.

This point was made by Luis Moreno-Orampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur."

The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."

In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort.

Proportionality as a Strategic Issue

Moving beyond the question of international law, the charge that Israel is using a disproportionate amount of force in the Gaza Strip because of reports of Palestinian casualties has to be looked at critically.

Israelis have often said among themselves over the past seven years that when a Hamas rocket makes a direct strike on a crowded school, killing many children, then Israel will finally act.

This raises the question of whether the doctrine of proportionality requires that Israel wait for this horror to occur, or whether Israel could act on the basis of the destructive capability of the arsenal Hamas already possesses, the hostile declarations of intent of its leaders, and its readiness to use its rocket forces.

Alan Dershowitz noted two years ago: "Proportion must be defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has produced."

Waiting for a Hamas rocket to fall on an Israeli school, he rightly notes, would put Israel in the position of allowing "its enemies to play Russian Roulette with its children."

The fundamental fact is that in fighting terrorism, no state is willing to play Russian Roulette.

After the US was attacked on 9/11, the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. Given that al-Qaeda was seeking non-conventional capabilities, it was essential to wage a campaign to deny it the sanctuary it had enjoyed in Afghanistan, even though that struggle continues right up to the present.

Is There Proportionality Against Military Forces?

In fighting counterinsurgency wars, most armies seek to achieve military victory by defeating the military capacity of an adversary, as efficiently as possible. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis; most armies seek to decisively eliminate as many enemy forces as possible while minimizing their own losses of troops.

There are NATO members who have been critical of "Israel's disproportionate use of force," while NATO armies take pride in their "kill ratios" against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Moreover, decisive military action against an aggressor has another effect: it increases deterrence. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

The loss of any civilian lives is truly regrettable. Israel has cancelled many military operations because of its concern with civilian casualties.

But should civilian losses occur despite the best efforts of Israel to avoid them, it is ultimately not Israel's responsibility. As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."

International critics of Israel may be looking to craft balanced statements that spread the blame for the present conflict to both sides. But they would be better served if they did not engage in this artificial exercise, and clearly distinguish the side that is the aggressor in this conflict - Hamas - and the side that is trying to defeat the aggression - Israel.

The writer, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Regnery, 2003) and The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007). This article is reprinted with permission of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, www.jcpa.org.

IDF launches YouTube Gaza channel

 http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk

   

"The Israeli army announced yesterday the creation of its own YouTube channel, through which it will disseminate footage of precision bombing operations in the Gaza Strip, as well as aid distribution and other footage of interest to the international community. "

Slideshow Day 3
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456509565&pagename=JPost/Page/SlideShow

Slideshow Day 4

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456528063&pagename=JPost%2FPage%2FSlideShow

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 31, 2008, 07:20:09 AM

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD216508

Special Dispatch - No. 2165
December 30, 2008   No. 2165

As Gaza Fighting Continues, Egyptian Clerics Intensify Antisemitic Statements; Columbus, Ohio Muslim Scholar/Leader Dr. Salah Sultan: Muhammad Said That Judgment Day Will Not Come Until Muslims Fight the Jews and Kill Them; America Will Suffer Destruction

Following are excerpts from interviews with several Egyptian clerics, which aired on Al-Nas TV and Al-Rahma TV on December 28 and 29, 2008.

One of the clerics, Dr. Salah Sultan, is president of the AmericanCenter for Islamic Research (ACIR), a nonprofit organization registered in Ohio and located in Columbus. On his website, he states that the main purpose of the ACIR is to "serve Allah (God) in the best way possible through the principles laid out in the Quran and Sunnah," to address misconceptions and extremism, to build bridges with non-Muslims, and to issue fatwas. He also states on his website that his own mission is "to achieve Allah's consent and Paradise through the reformation of the soul, the family, the society and the nation according to the methodology of the Quran and the Sunnah," and that his vision is "To live happily. To die as a martyr." [1]

TO VIEW THIS CLIP AND OTHERS YOU MUST LOG IN BY SIGNING UP FOR A FREE MEMRI TV REGISTRATION [www.memritv.org ] To register for MEMRI TV, go to the MEMRI TV site and click "Register" at upper right hand side.

Al-Nas TV, December 28, 2008


"Take My Heart... And Use It to Stone All The Jews... Take My Skin, And Turn It Into a Fuse or a Slingshot for a Child or a Newborn Baby"

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Al-Saghir: "I say to the people of Gaza: Take my heart, which has hardened like a stone. Take it, and use it to stone all the Jews. Take my soul, and it will give you shade, for no longer does it fly far away. Take my eye - by Allah, take my eye. Perhaps a handsome youth, who was blinded, could see again. Take my skin, and turn it into a fuse or a slingshot for a child or a newborn baby."

[...]

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa: "Where is the [Islamic] nation? If 20 million people can encircle the Earth, then 20 million people could also drown Israel in a sea of blood." [...]


Al-Rahma TV, December 29, 2008


"We Want to Teach Our Children the Truth About the Jews"; The Jews View "The Rest Of Mankind... as Pigs"

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Hassan: "We want to teach our children the truth about the Jews. We want them to know that the [Jews] will never make peace or agree to it. The Jews will never accept any international resolution, from East or West, because they understand nothing but force.

"I remember what the great terrorist Menahem Begin said: We fight, therefore we exist. These are real terrorists. They are extremists. They are blood-suckers. They are shedders of blood. Review the history of the Jews from beginning to end, from the very first moment to the last moment, which is now. They specialize in the shedding of blood, in crime, and in killing - even the killing of prophets."

[...]

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Amin Al-Ansari: "It is told that the Israelites killed more than 70,000 prophets in a single day. It's not the people they want to eradicate, but Revelation itself. They do not want there to be any revelation, purity, religion, or religious law. The secret behind the war between the Jews and non-Jews is that they want to have a monopoly on the spiritual and ideological leadership of the world, and eventually, the physical leadership.

[...]

"By the 'Chosen People,' they mean that they are a people, and all those who are inferior to them are not peoples. In other words, they are human beings, and all others are not. They are people, and all others are not. They are human beings, selected by God to be the leaders of all beings.

"So what about the rest of mankind? They view them as pigs. That's the truth. Pigs! So why do they look like human beings? So that they will be worthy of being servants of the Jews, who could ride on their backs and suck their blood.

"That's why when a Jew kills a Palestinian child, he considers him to be a little pig. What difference is there between the two?! On the contrary, he might show mercy for the pig, as an animal that should not be harmed. The Palestinian child is worth less to him than a pig." [...]


Al-Nas TV, December 29, 2008


"The Stone Which is Thrown at the Jews Hates These Jews, These Zionists, Because Allah Foretold, Via His Prophet Muhammad, That Judgment Day Will Not Come Before the Jew and the Muslim Fight."

Egyptian cleric Dr. Sallah Sultan: "The arch-murderer who commanded the campaign against Jenin in 2003 went to America a few months later and boarded a NASA space shuttle. The space shuttle was launched by NASA, and a few minutes later, it reached Texas, the land of President Bush. Then this space shuttle shattered to pieces, along with the five top American space scientists, and that commander of the Zionist airforce was on board with them. Where exactly did it shatter and fall? By Allah, Sheikh Mahmoud, although I was living in America, I didn't know that there was a city called 'Palestine' in America. Sheikh Mustafa, the space shuttle fell, of all places, in the city of Palestine, in President Bush's state of Texas.

[...]

"The stone which is thrown at the Jews hates these Jews, these Zionists, because Allah foretold, via His Prophet Muhammad, that Judgment Day will not come before the Jew and the Muslim fight. The Jew will hide behind stones and trees, and the stone and the tree will speak, saying: 'Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' The only exception will be the Gharqad tree."

TV host: "The Jews know this for sure, that's why they plant Gharqad trees."

Dr. Sallah Sultan: "The stone's self-awareness is such that it can distinguish Muslims from Jews."

TV host: "True, and it will support the Muslims."

[...]


"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Is An Attempt To Rule And Corrupt The Entire World"

Dr. Sallah Sultan: "America, which gave [Israel] everything it needed in these battles, will suffer economic stagnation, ruin, destruction, and crime, which will surpass what is happening in Gaza. One of these days, the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in this third Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon.

[...]

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an attempt to rule and corrupt the entire world. When the world concentrates on its desires and lusts, the [Jews] will be free to implement their plan of controlling the world." [...]

Al-Nas TV, December 28, 2008


"I Take My Little Son Baraa, Who Is 10, and Make Him Look at the Torn Body Parts of His Muslim Brothers - In Order to Sow in His Heart Hatred and Loathing for the Zionists"

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gheini: "The truth is that I do not understand why the sons of apes do the things they do to us, especially whenever there is a holiday that may make the nation happy. Let me remind you that it was on the day marking the Prophet's nocturnal journey that Sharon defiled the courtyard of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This was also on a holy day."

[...]

Sheikh Safwat Higazi: "I take my little son Baraa, who is 10 years old, and make him look at the torn body parts of his Muslim brothers, in order to sow in his heart hatred and loathing for the Zionists, so he will know that these are his enemies.

[...]

"Israeli President Shimon Peres used to fill his helmet with the blood of Egyptian POWs, so that whenever he looked at it, he would be reminded that he had fulfilled his duty to his god."

TV host: "The Bahr Al-Baqr massacre is well known."

Sheikh Safwat Higazi: "I cry for us. I think about us. What will become of us? What will we say to our God?"

[...]

"Our generation will bear witness before Allah about each and every traitor and coward. We will have no mercy on them before Allah."

TV Host: "People, this was one of the most powerful messages we had today. These messages are very important. By the way, Dr. Safwat Higazi decided to walk out."



[1] http:www.salahsoltan.com. According to the website, Dr. Sultan is a former professor and president of the Islamic American University in Michigan. He is president of the American Institute for Religious and Cultural Studies, and active in the European Council for Fatwa and Research (headed by Islamist sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, whom he calls "our great scholar"); the Fiqh Council of North America; and the International Association of Muslim Scholars. He served on the board of directors of the Islamic American University, and on the board of trustees of the Muslim American Society. According to his resume, he also serves on the board of trustees of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, and is a member of the Council of Indian Scholars and of the Association of Scholars in Germany. Sultan lectures frequently at the Islamic Society of Greater Columbus, on topics such as the priorities of Islamic work in the U.S. and the role of Muslim men and women in the U.S. According to a calendar on Dr. Sultan's webpage, over the past year he has lectured in Washington, D.C.; New Jersey; Detroit; Dallas; San Diego; Montreal; Cairo; Kuwait; Bahrain; Qatar; and Jeddah, Medina, and Mecca in Saudi Arabia. He has also spoken at the MAS Youth Center Convention Center in Queens and Brooklyn, NY; the Bronx Muslim Center in Bronx, NY; the Union of Imams in Minneapolis, MN; the Omar bin Khatab Mosque and the Bethel Road Mosque in Columbus, OH; the Al-Huda and ICB Mosque in Boston; the Dearborn Mosque in Dearborn, MI; the Islamic Fiqh Council of India in New Delhi; and the European Council for Islamic Rulings and Research in Istanbul. Dr. Sultan worked at the Islamic Center of Greater Worcester, MA and at the Islamic Open University in Washington, D.C

Title: How Gaza Casualties are Computed
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 31, 2008, 08:28:34 AM

Seeing how Hamas has a very vested interest in inflating civilian casualties, and noting that Hamas fighters aren't easy to identify and in fact blend in to the civilian populace as a matter of tactics, this piece ought to illustrate just how undependable casualty figures can be. I'll note moreover that Western journalists are very aware that they are at risk of being killed or kidnapped in Gaza--particularly if they report items that casts Hamas in a negative light--and so depend on stringers, many of whom, if not employed directly by Hamas, understand what they risk if they fail to toe the party line.

EXPLAINER
How Many Civilians Are Dead in Gaza?
Figuring out who's who among the casualties.
By Juliet Lapidos
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at 5:37 PM ET
Israeli aircraft bombed Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip for the fourth day straight on Tuesday. Gaza officials said that, as of Monday, 364 Palestinians have been killed, and the United Nations noted that at least 62 were civilians. How did the U.N. determine which of the victims were combatants?

Gender and age. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency came up with the figure by sending emissaries to visit hospitals and other medical facilities. Under the Geneva Conventions and subsequent international law treaties, civilians are those who do not belong to the armed forces, militias, or organized resistance movements. But in Gaza City, UNRWA counted only female victims and those under the age of 18. North of the city, the agency attempted to get a more complete count by including adult men who were not wearing dark-blue police uniforms and whom community members identified as noncombatants.

At a Monday press conference, an U.N. staffer clarified that the count was only meant to give a credible minimum figure rather than a hard total. Nor did the agency intend to suggest that all men killed in Gaza City were combatants. Making clear distinctions between civilians and militants is difficult since Hamas (which is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, Israel, and other countries) engages in civic activities (like running schools) as well as military operations. Likewise, it's possible that some of the female victims and older children were Hamas combatants.

As a rule, the U.N. does not tally civilian casualties, relying instead on local governments for information. The agency made an exception in Gaza due in part to persistent questions from journalists who wanted to gauge the impact of the Israeli offensive on ordinary Palestinians.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Juliet Lapidos is a Slate assistant editor.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2207637/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 31, 2008, 08:32:23 AM

Quote from: captainccs on December 30, 2008, 07:15:52 PM

Obviously not as perfect as the Liberal Leftist Media Propaganda Machine. You must new new at this. How many doctored photographs have you seen? Do you recall the fake ambulance photos? Do you recall all the swindles the Liberal Leftist Media Propaganda Machine pulled during the last Lebanon war?

Actually, I'm not new at this; I have an excellent working knowledge of photography and photoshop; much greater than most people.  And to answer your question, I have seen ZERO
doctored photographs.

On your own Webpage you state "the only reality one can trust are hundreds of pictures... For good reason a picture is worth a thousand words."
That is true.  The "crime" if there is one is one of choosing which picture to show.  Do I show a picture of a terrorist igniting a missile or carrying a gun, or do I show a wounded child missing a leg because of
an Israeli bomb?  My choice of which picture I publish will affect your viewpoint a thousand times more than the written word. Yet both pictures are true and neither needs to be "doctored" to be effective or
persuasive. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 31, 2008, 08:32:53 AM

Excellent posts Rachel.  You of all people on this forum represent logic rather than virulent condemnation of Palestinians.  Your knowledge of and your love
for Israel and your faith is clear to all to see, it seems to glow, yet you are able to step back and succinctly and quite logically present your points on proportionality for example,
but other issues as well.  I may not entirely agree with all your points on proportionality, but it is well presented, it raises excellent issues and is quite
persuasive and enlightening.  Thank you.

Title: Of Cowardice and Conflation
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 31, 2008, 08:47:31 AM

Quote

You of all people on this forum represent logic rather than virulent condemnation of Palestinians.

Speaking of rubbish, any virulent condemnations have been of acts, not peoples. Indeed, were you paying attention you'd note Fatah, Egypt, and Jordan are being condemned by those who hide behind their civilian populations for failing to support their cowardice.

I don't hear those who take your wan idealism to task condemning Fatah et al; rather our ire is focussed on those who fire missiles indiscriminately into population centers and then hide behind children with their cameras at the ready. Guess if conflation is all you got, that's what you have to run with, eh?

Title: Some Suggestions JDN Could Get Behind
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 31, 2008, 10:24:58 AM

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Some Moderate Proposals   [Victor Davis Hanson]

1) Request that 50% of Israel's air-to-ground missiles be duds to ensure greater proportionality.

2) Allow Hamas another 1,000 free rocket launches to see if they can catch up with the body count.

3) Have Israeli soldiers congregate in border barracks so that Hamas's random rockets have a better chance of killing military personnel, to ensure it can claim at least a few military targets.

4) Redefine "holocaust" to refer to deaths of terrorists in numbers under 400 to give greater credence to Hamas's current claims.

5) In the interest of fairness, allow Hamas to establish both the date that war is supposed to begin and the date when it must end.

6) Send Israeli military advisers to Hamas to improve the accuracy of their missiles.

7) Take down the barriers to return to Hamas a fair chance of getting suicide bombers back inside Israel.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTgzMTdlM2JhYTQ5YTE0NjBlNjdjYmM4MWIzMDIzYWE=

Title: Missiles from Gaza Video
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 31, 2008, 10:32:51 AM

Video about the Gaza missile attacks:

http://sderot.aish.com/SderotPetitions/MissilesFromGaza.php

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on December 31, 2008, 01:45:28 PM

JDN

I'm really glad some of my posts were helpful to you.  Thank you for your kind words they were much too generous.   I think  Marc-- Crafty Dog,  Body-by-Guinness,G M, captainccs, and sgtmac_46 have all  done a much better job at explaining the current situation in Israel than I have.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2008, 02:40:24 PM

Rachel:

I deeply value your presence here and our mix is greatly improved by your contributions.

The Adventure continues,
Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 31, 2008, 02:53:07 PM

http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/12/29/iran_activating_its_proxies/1567/

Iran Activating Its Proxies
By OLIVIER GUITTA (Middle East Times)
Published: December 29, 2008

‘SUPPORT OUR OFFENSIVE’ Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni, shown speaking in Sderot on Dec. 28, calls on the international community to support Israel’s military offensive on Gaza. (Photo by Chameleons Eye via Newscom)


After the six-month truce with Israel expired on Dec. 19, Hamas decided, or perhaps was urged, to resume its attacks on Israel. Thus Hamas went on a rampage campaign, firing rockets at Israel to create terror and death among Israeli civilians.
As could be expected, Israel reacted the way most countries would when attacked, and to protect its population against a group it considers to be a terrorist organization.

A new war in the region is likely to benefit only one country: Iran.

Indeed, following the model of the summer 2006 war against Israel triggered by the capture of two Israeli soldiers by the Lebanese Shiite organization, Hezbollah, Iran would benefit with a new front opening up.

This time Iran is turning to using its Sunni arm, Hamas. Contrary to what a number of experts in the region profess, Sunni extremists and Shiite extremists have no problem joining forces against a common enemy and putting aside their age-old rivalries.

While Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of the Palestinian Resistance Movement, also known as Hamas, was still alive, he refused to Iran's advances time and again. Yassin was adamant not to engage the Shiites. After his death, Hamas became much more open to Tehran's advances. Recently, Iran has become Hamas' main bankroller and as such wants to have a say in what Hamas should or should not do.

Hamas has most certainly benefited from Hezbollah's experience and could try to mimic Hezbollah's performance during the 2006 war. In fact, right after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in Aug. 2005, there were quite a few reports of Hezbollah operatives moving into Gaza to help their newfound Sunni brothers.

In light of this new "unnatural" alliance, it would only make sense that Hezbollah offers support to Hamas.

Hezbollah deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem went as far as saying that "Hezbollah's goal is to liberate Palestine." Qassem also called for "the Arab people to rise up to break the blockade imposed to the Palestinians in Gaza," something he described as a "crime against humanity."

Forcing the world's attention on Gaza allows Iran to divert the world's attention from its nuclear program: It's a win-win scenario at this point.

There is a real danger of Hezbollah launching a second front.

Last week the Lebanese army seized eight Katushya rockets aimed at Israel and ready to be fired. These rockets were found about one mile away from the UNIFIL headquarters and about two miles from the Israeli border. So a new front could open up.

Some analysts think Iran is also attempting to create a rift within the Sunni world.

It is therefore not a coincidence that Qassem accused Egypt of plotting "with the Zionist enemy against the Palestinians" and exhorted the Egyptian people to rise up to demand the opening of the borders with Gaza.

Egypt is not the only one targeted by this Iranian strategy; Saudi Arabia is also in the mix. On Dec. 19, hundreds of Saudi Shiites demonstrated in the eastern province - an area mostly populated by Shiites - in support of Gaza, brandishing portraits of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah and waving Hezbollah flags. Saudi authorities have for a long time been quite concerned with Iran's expansion ambitions to dominate the Gulf region.

--

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on December 31, 2008, 03:04:40 PM

Marc,
Thank you!-- I have certainly gotten way more from my participation on this forum than I have given.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 31, 2008, 03:41:44 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jhIJtXkGElF-5c9Ourf9Vyl5yygw

Oil prices above 40 dollars, buoyed by Gaza violence
1 day ago

SINGAPORE (AFP) — Oil prices remained above 40 dollars a barrel in Asian trade Tuesday as Israel entered the fourth day of its military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
At midday New York's main contract, light sweet crude for February delivery, rose 26 cents to 40.28 dollars a barrel, following a 2.31-dollar rise to 40.02 on Monday at the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Brent North Sea crude for February delivery was up five cents to 40.60 dollars a barrel after closing 2.18 dollars higher at 40.55 on Monday in London.
Prices were higher because of a "political risk premium" resulting from the Israeli-Hamas war but should drift lower on underlying weak demand for energy, said Jonathan Kornafel, Asia director of Hudson Capital Energy, a trading firm.
Israeli warplanes pounded Gaza again on Tuesday in what Tel Aviv called an "all-out" war on Hamas, which ended a ceasefire by firing rockets and mortars at the Jewish state.
The fighting fuelled fears of wider tensions in the oil-rich Middle East, traders said. Thin trade owing to the year-end holiday season also made for some price volatility.
Analysts said the price gains were additionally supported by evidence that the oil producers' cartel OPEC was cutting its output in line with an announcement earlier this month.
Previous OPEC production cuts have often been met with only partial compliance.
"Oil is starting to show some life as we head towards the end of the year," said Phil Flynn at Alaron Trading.
"A weak dollar and violence in the Gaza Strip are contributing but mainly this is year-end short covering," he said.
Short covering occurs when traders, who have sold more than they own in hopes that prices will fall, buy up the contracts as the market starts turning higher.
Monday's jump in oil prices sharply contrasted with recent trade. The New York contract had slid for nine sessions before reversing on Friday, while Brent posted its lowest price in more than four years last Wednesday.
Analysts say recent US economic data showing the world's biggest economy -- and largest energy consumer -- remains in a recession is likely to keep prices under pressure in the short term.
A sharp global downturn has slashed world demand for energy, pulling prices sharply lower from record highs of above 147 dollars in July.
New York crude plunged earlier this month to below 33 dollars, its lowest point for almost five years.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 31, 2008, 03:57:06 PM

Iran needs higher oil prices, and needs to distract the world from it's nuclear program. In addition, it's now probing Obamerica for a response to it's proxy aggression. 

Keep in mind that chess was invented in what is now Iran.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2008, 05:16:09 PM

Summary
Artillery rockets impacted the Israeli town of Beer Sheva on Dec. 30, much farther than Hamas’ rocket arsenal was thought to be able to reach. Their impact offers clues to the status of the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Analysis
Related Links
Israel, Palestinian Territories: Hamas and the Israeli Offensive
Geopolitical Diary: The Latest Phase of Israeli-Palestinian Fighting
Israel: Countering Qassams and Other Ballistic Threats
Geopolitical Diary: A New Shield for Israel
The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern
Related Special Topic Pages
Israel’s Military
Israeli-Palestinian Geopolitics and the Peace Process
Two rockets fired from the Gaza Strip exploded in Beer Sheva, Israel, some 25 miles from their point of origin, Haaretz news reported Dec. 30. This is the farthest inside Israel a Palestinian rocket has ever reached from Gaza. It almost certainly indicates a larger rocket than Hamas and the jihadist groups in Gaza were previously thought to possess.

For years, Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip have used Qassam rockets, which are made out of materials readily available in the territory and essentially assembled in garages. Last year, there were indications that changes to the fuel mixture had given a new version of the Qassam a greatly increased shelf life. (Older versions had to be fired a few days after being assembled.) Though range varies, Qassams have a range of around 6 miles.

Also last year, there were indications that Hamas had obtained a quantity of 122mm BM-21 Grad artillery rockets. These rockets, while crude, are manufactured to comparatively exacting military standards in a number of countries and have proliferated widely. They have a range of more than 12 miles.





(click image to enlarge)
The 25-mile range indicated by the latest strikes in Beer Sheva is more than favorable wind conditions could likely account for, suggesting a larger rocket in Hamas’ arsenal. The range is consistent with the Iranian-made Fajr-3, though of course there are multiple rockets that could reach 25 miles.

While this is still far short of the roughly 50-mile distance to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Dimona (home to the Israeli nuclear weapons program), this escalation in Hamas’ reach will be a major concern for Israel.

But what matters most is not where the rockets came from, but what the rocket strike in Beer Sheva says about the progress of the Israeli campaign in Gaza. As artillery rockets increase in range, they also generally increase in size and weight. A single Grad rocket (there are multiple variants) is more than 10 feet long and weighs in at 100-175 pounds, and requires multiple people to carry it. Whatever hit Beer Sheva at the end of the fourth day of the Israeli operation was almost certainly larger.

Destroying these rockets should have been one of the first objectives of any Israeli military assault on Gaza. While Israel was never going to destroy every last cache of rockets, especially from the air, it does not bode well for Israel that Hamas is demonstrating a new capability at the end of several days of bombardment by the Israeli Air Force — which is specifically targeting, among other things, that very rocket arsenal.

Of course, a potential ground incursion is looming. Israel has already called up some 7,000 reservists and moved tanks and armored vehicles to the border, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak reportedly has asked for the authority to activate an additional 2,520. The Israel Defense Forces are preparing for weeks of protracted fighting to eliminate as much of Hamas’ fighting capability as they can. But the “use-it-or-lose-it” moment for Hamas with its rocket arsenal likely already has passed. The Dec. 30 strike is probably better understood as a defiant Hamas demonstrating how much capability it has retained, which suggests that Israeli air power and intelligence may not have achieved early hoped-for gains.

Whether more of these longer-range rockets appear as the conflict continues will be telling. If Hamas had only two left, and the rest have been destroyed, that is one thing. But if the longer-range barrage continues unabated, then it says something very different about the Israeli campaign. Indeed, the 40 shorter-range rockets that struck the western Negev on Dec. 30 alone also do not bode well for the success of the Israeli air campaign.

Ultimately, Barak’s push to activate more reservists suggests the Israelis know they have probably achieved what can be achieved from the air, and now are preparing for extended ground raids.

Title: The Good Fight & Missiles go Boom
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on December 31, 2008, 08:49:12 PM

The Good Fight in Gaza

Seeing Gaza from the lookout on the Israeli side of the border, it's not obvious that the Palestinian enclave is among the most miserable spots one could possibly live. Still, we know it to be true. But perhaps it is lost on many Americans that living next to Gaza is likewise a miserable experience. The Israelis who cope with a daily bombardment from the crude but increasingly sophisticated rockets produced by Hamas endure what no American would ever abide. Barack Obama was uncharacteristically succinct when he described the situation last summer:

If someone was sending rockets on my house where my daughters were sleeping at night, I would do everything to stop it, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

Yes, and it's evidence only of the extreme paralysis of Israeli politics that it took so long for the Israelis to actually do something. There is no reason to believe that the Israelis are lashing out in some ill-conceived manner -- using their superior military infrastructure to exact revenge for years of unanswered attacks (though such a response would be understandable). In fact, the operation has been in the works for at least six months as the Israelis gathered intelligence on the Hamas leadership and its infrastructure in Gaza. Roggio worries that this looks like a repeat of the 2006 war against Hezbollah. I'm more optimistic.

As Noah Pollak points out, the war against Hezbollah in 2006 did succeed in stopping the rocket fire on Israel's northern border -- at least for the time being. The problem was not solved permanently, and that was indeed a tremendous and unfortunate failure. But as Jeffrey Goldberg writes, the goal here is not the destruction of Hamas -- that doesn't seem possible at this point -- but for the Israeli government to fulfill its fundamental obligation to its citizens: "to use all of the tools of national power to stop attacks on its citizens." That can be achieved by restoring Israel's deterrent through a massive show of force. As Marty Peretz writes:

So at 11:30 on Saturday morning, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, as well as the New York Times, 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters demolished some 40 to 50 sites in just about three minutes, maybe five. Message: do not fuck with the Jews.

The problem with this, however, is that if Israel doesn't finish the job, Hamas may accrue some benefit from the additional suffering of the Palestinian people. Hamas doesn't care whether the residents of Gaza live or die, whether they prosper or starve, it cares only that the Arab world and Iran support the organization with money and weapons, that the Palestinian people are united in their hatred of Israel, and that a moderate Palestinian faction is unable to pursue peace. If Hamas is left as the dominant force in Gaza, then their tactical defeat may also be a strategic victory -- as was the case for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Barak is promising a war with Hamas "to the bitter end." I'll believe that when I see it.

Still, the Israelis' fight in Gaza is a good fight. It is supported by the Israel's left-wing parties and more than 80 percent of its citizenry. While the American left kvetches about the disproportionate use of force, their silence when Hamas announced an end to the cease fire was far more revealing. And this time the American left cannot claim to be in solidarity with their ideological allies in Israel. They are on their own, and they speak only for themselves.

As far as Obama, does anyone doubt he would have supported this attack vigorously? Which raises the question: did the Israelis do Obama a big favor by launching this operation now, rather than forcing Obama to support it publicly three weeks from now? Ben Smith has some good reporting on how this is playing in Obamaland, see the last two paragraphs in particular.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0CzM_Frvc[/youtube]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/12/the_good_fight_in_gaza.asp

Title: Uh oh.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2008, 09:24:30 PM

December 31, 2008
Five days after Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, its war strategy is showing signs of unraveling.

On Tuesday, militants in Gaza launched some 40 rockets into the western Negev and even fired a couple of rockets that reached as far east as Beer Sheva, 25 miles away from Gaza -— twice the distance Hamas rockets previously were believed able to reach — and 25 miles from Dimona, where Israel’s nuclear facilities are located. In launching the military offensive, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had a mission to destroy Hamas’ command and control and military capabilities. The rocket barrages, however, not only are continuing, but are increasing in threat value.

So far, the Israelis have been fighting the war from the air, using tactical intelligence to target Hamas facilities, smuggling routes, tunnels and militant strongholds. Given the difficulties in destroying an entity like Hamas in a densely populated region like Gaza, any air campaign must rely on actionable intelligence concerning the location of weapons, personnel, tunnel networks and safe houses. This means Israel has only a very small window of time to get the job done and prepare ground forces to mop up any remaining targets.

But time favors Hamas. If the initial air assault fails to take out the bulk of Hamas’ military capabilities, the air campaign will get drawn out. The longer the air campaign, the more time Hamas has to shift its weapons and personnel and devolve command and control to the unit level, thereby gradually eroding the quality of Israel’s pre-war intelligence. All Hamas needs to do for now is focus on the survival of its core leadership and militant assets. If Israel can be convinced that the air campaign is not working, it will be pressured to resort to a ground war. And that is where things get really messy.

In a ground war, Hamas would not be simply fighting on its home terrain; it would be fighting in a city. The Gaza Strip is not a country. It is a densely packed refugee community that has existed in a legal no-man’s-land for more than a generation. This is not a refugee camp of tents, but a city with a population density comparable to that of New York City —- just without many multistory buildings. A war in such circumstances would play to every strength that irregular and numerous Hamas forces boast and every weakness of the technophile but manpower-limited Israeli forces. Hamas certainly wants to win this round, so it needs to drag out the air campaign and prepare its forces for a war of attrition against Israeli ground forces when they present themselves as targets. Hamas already is preparing militants for suicide attacks against the IDF when they enter Gaza, with the knowledge that the IDF has become increasingly casualty-averse in its military campaigns over the years.

So far, it looks like Hamas will get its wish for a ground campaign. Israel’s Channel 10 television issued a report Tuesday, citing Israeli military intelligence assessments that the air offensive in the Gaza Strip had destroyed one-third of Hamas’ rocket arsenal (or 1,000 out of 3,000 rockets), including several hundred long-range rockets capable of reaching deep inside Israel. Considering how difficult it is to gauge exactly how many rockets have actually been taken out when they are now lying in heaps of rubble, the accuracy of the report is highly dubious. But the image presented is sobering. While Hamas forces were caught somewhat by surprise, they lost only one-third of their highly mobile forces. The rest remain in play and are likely beyond the reach of anything but a sustained ground assault. While the veracity of the report is impossible to confirm in a time of war, Tuesday’s rocket barrage is a big sign that Israel’s air campaign failed to achieve decisive results in its first days.

Israel now has to shift to a less desirable strategy. On Tuesday evening, the defense minister asked the Cabinet to add 2,520 more reservists to the 7,000 called up in recent days. Israel appears to be preparing for a protracted ground assault on Gaza —- hostile territory it has no desire to occupy, and where Hamas is preparing to conduct a war of attrition against a casualty-averse army. The Israelis have attempted this strategy a number of times before, to little avail. The decisive results the Israelis had hoped to achieve with an air campaign will be that much harder to achieve in a ground war, but that is precisely where the situation seems to be heading.

Title: Palestinian Schism
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 01, 2009, 07:19:43 AM

Israel's Attacks On Gaza Deepen Palestinian Rift
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, January 1, 2009; A01

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Dec. 31 -- Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip has exacerbated the deep divisions between Palestinians who want to make peace with Israel and those who support Hamas's militant struggle against the Jewish state.

The fractures are stark in the West Bank, where sympathy for Hamas appears to be rising in the streets even as the territory's leaders suppress pro-Hamas demonstrations and blame the Islamist movement for the breakdown of a six-month truce with Israel.

Hamas shot back Wednesday, accusing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, from the rival Fatah party, of being an Israeli collaborator -- one of the worst slurs imaginable for a Palestinian.

Fatah and Hamas have a basic disagreement over how to engage with Israel: Fatah supports negotiations leading to two states that exist side by side, while Hamas has never recognized Israel and advocates armed resistance.

The continued infighting has been nearly as dispiriting for Palestinians as the Israeli offensive itself. The goal of a Palestinian state -- an elusive dream for decades -- feels even more distant as Israeli bombs fall on Gaza, Palestinians say.

"The fragmentation has really frustrated the population," said Qais Abdul Karim, a Palestinian Legislative Council member who belongs to neither Fatah nor Hamas. "There is no unity in the national movement and no unity in the street. These attacks have increased the divisions. They should have done the opposite."

That dynamic may explain, at least in part, why public reaction to the Gaza strikes in the Israeli-occupied West Bank has been milder than many analysts predicted.

On Sunday, hundreds of people rallied in Ramallah's central square, denouncing Israel and chanting slogans calling for Palestinian unity. But when a group of young Hamas supporters attempted to unfurl the movement's green-and-white banners, security forces loyal to Abbas quickly seized the men and hustled them away.

Since then, there have been few significant protests in the territory, despite widespread hostility toward Israel over the death toll. Gaza medical officials say the assault has left at least 390 Palestinians dead, including dozens of civilians, and wounded 1,600. By keeping public discontent bottled up, analysts say, Abbas risks getting caught in the backlash.

"The Palestinian Authority doesn't want to see demonstrations because it doesn't want to see the situation spin out of control," said Khalil Shikaki, director of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. "There is a great deal of anger, and there is a great deal of frustration. That anger will eventually be turned against the Palestinian Authority, and that will be the start of the process of destabilization in the West Bank."

Hamas stoked that anger Wednesday when spokesman Fawzi Barhoum released a statement accusing Abbas of having formed a secret cell of Fatah supporters in Gaza to collect information on the whereabouts of Hamas leaders, who have gone into hiding for fear of assassination. Barhoum said Abbas planned to turn the information over to the Israeli military.

Fatah officials rejected the charge. But the accusation played on Palestinian fears that Abbas is too close to the Israelis and secretly supports the bombing campaign, even though he has condemned it.

"This whole ordeal is being coordinated between the Israelis and the Palestinians so that Abu Mazen can get back to Gaza," Rasem Hasoon, a 21-year-old shoe salesman, said, using Abbas's nickname.

Hasoon said that he is a member of Fatah but that Hamas has impressed him lately. "They are defending our land and our freedom," he said.

The rift between the two factions hit a critical point in June 2007, when Hamas ousted Fatah security forces from Gaza after bloody street battles. Since then, Hamas, which won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, has had sole control of Gaza. Fatah has continued to exercise power in the West Bank, where it has banned Hamas from political activity.

The fortunes of the two territories -- which together with East Jerusalem would make up a future Palestinian state -- have diverged sharply since the Hamas takeover of Gaza. While economic conditions for the 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank have improved as international development money poured in, Gaza's 1.5 million people have suffered under a strict Israeli embargo.

In Ramallah, seat of power for the Fatah-run administration and one of the wealthiest cities in the West Bank, businessmen sip lattes in European-style cafes and car dealerships showcase gleaming new Mercedes-Benzes. In Gaza City, the home base of Hamas, donkeys sometimes outnumber cars because of fuel shortages and residents fight over their daily allocation of bread.

Israeli restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in both territories -- which are separated by about 30 miles of Israeli land -- have deepened the sense of disconnection between Gaza and the West Bank.

Palestinians say that driving a wedge between the two territories is exactly what the Israelis have in mind.

Shikaki, the Palestinian political analyst, said he thinks Israel is trying to use the pressure of a military campaign to reorient Gaza toward Egypt and away from the rest of historic Palestine. "Ultimately, Gaza would become Egypt's problem, not Israel's," he said. "The goal of a single Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank would be fully undermined."

Israeli officials deny the charge but acknowledge that they are interested in highlighting the divisions between the two territories as a way of undermining Hamas's rule. Israel says the ongoing assault is intended to eliminate the ability of Hamas and other militant groups to fire rockets into southern Israel from Gaza.

"The people in Gaza know exactly what kind of life the people in the West Bank have. And it makes them unhappy," said Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel's Defense Ministry. "They know that after Hamas took over, things got a lot worse."

Although there is no organized political opposition in Gaza, undercurrents of resentment toward Hamas were one reason the group signed a six-month cease-fire with Israel over the summer. With missiles now falling and Israel barring foreign journalists from visiting the narrow coastal strip, it is nearly impossible to ascertain whether the air assault has helped or hurt Hamas's reputation in Gaza.

Although taking care not to justify the Israeli campaign, Fatah officials say they hope the latter is the case.

"Hamas right now is making a big mistake," said Ziad Abu Ein, a deputy minister in the Palestinian Authority and a Fatah member. "The people are turning against them and want to get rid of them. Just not by the hand of the Israelis."

Special correspondent Sufian Taha in Ramallah contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/31/AR2008123103112.html?hpid=topnews

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 01, 2009, 10:54:46 AM

ROSA BROOKS:
Israel can't bomb its way to peace
The assault on Gaza has more to do with internal politics than its national security. The U.S. needs to reengage forcefully in a Mideast peace process.
Rosa Brooks
January 1, 2009 L.A. Times
It's a new year in an old and bloody world.

In Israel, politicians jockeying for power have launched the most lethal military assault on Palestinian territory in decades. Israel has justified its bombardment of Gaza on the grounds that Hamas broke a fragile, temporary cease-fire. The Israeli government is right to consider Hamas' rocket attacks on Israeli civilians inexcusable, but the timing of the Israeli military offensive has more to do with politics than anything else.

Ehud Barak, Israel's Labor Party defense minister, and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister from the centrist Kadima party, are both contenders for prime minister in Israel's Feb. 6 national elections. A show of "toughness" against Hamas could help Labor and/or Kadima beat back the right-wing Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been leading in the polls. Meanwhile, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who faces corruption charges, has just a few weeks to restore his own tattered reputation.

Adding to the time pressure is U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's upcoming inauguration. As long as President Bush was in the White House, Israel could count on a U.S. administration that wasn't merely "supportive" of Israel but blindly, mindlessly so. Obama may be less willing to offer Israel blank checks. Thus this New Year's military offensive, timed for the crucial window before Israeli elections and Obama's swearing-in.

In a strictly military sense, Israel will "win" this battle against Hamas. For all its threats and bravado, Hamas is weak, and its weapons -- terrorism, homemade rockets -- are the weapons of the weak. Since 2001, Hamas has fired thousands of unguided Kassam rockets at Israel, but the rockets have killed only a handful of Israelis.

Israel's military, in contrast, is one of the most modern and effective in the world (thanks in part to an annual $3 billion in U.S. aid). Israel can easily bottle up the tiny Gaza Strip and its 1.5 million people. On Saturday, the first day of the offensive, Israeli bombs killed at least 180 Palestinians. By Wednesday, the Palestinian death toll exceeded 390.

But if there is no reason to doubt Israel's ability to pulverize Gaza, there's also no reason to think this offensive will improve Israeli security. Destruction of Hamas' infrastructure may temporarily slow Hamas rocket attacks, but sooner or later they'll resume.

The Israeli assault may even strengthen Hamas in the longer run and weaken its more moderate secular rival, Fatah. As Israel should know by now (as we all should know), dropping bombs in densely populated areas is a surefire way to radicalize civilians and get them to rally around the home team, however flawed.

Ironically, it's precisely this psychological phenomenon that Olmert, Barak and Livni are counting on among Israelis, but they seem to assume it doesn't exist among Palestinians. (Or, worse, they're too cynical to care, as long as they profit politically.)

Israel has no viable political endgame here: There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace. But the damage caused by this new conflagration won't be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's military offensive already has sparked outrage and protests throughout the Arab world. The current crisis also may destabilize some of the more moderate Arab governments in the region -- in Egypt, for instance -- where leaders now face popular backlash if they don't repudiate Israel.

And if you think that none of this really matters for us here in the U.S., you're kidding yourself. Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.

It's time for the United States to wake up from its long slumber and reengage -- forcefully -- with the Middle East peace process. Only the U.S. -- Israel's primary supporter and main financial sponsor -- can push it to make the hard choices necessary for its own long-term security, as well as the region's. In January 2001, the Taba talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority came achingly close to a final settlement, but talks broke down after Likud's Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister on Feb. 6, 2001. Sharon refused to meet with Yasser Arafat, and newly inaugurated President George W. Bush had no interest in pushing Israel toward peace.

Eight years later, Israel faces another election, and we're about to swear in a new president. When he takes office, Obama needs to push both Israelis and Palestinians to sit back down, with the abandoned Taba agreements as the starting point. Here's to a less bloody 2009.

Title: Hamas can't rocket its way to victory
Post by: captainccs on January 01, 2009, 11:09:11 AM

Quote

ROSA BROOKS:
Israel can't bomb its way to peace

Hamas can't rocket its way to victory.

Title: Patent Hypocrisy
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 01, 2009, 11:51:12 AM

Funny how Ms. Brooks can find base political motives in Israel's response, but doesn't deign to note the political motives of Hamas, as she uses political arguments to ask BHO to forcefully intercede. You all on the left have some sort of formula for determining when something is a no no and when it is necessary? Or perhaps the hypocrisies and expediencies are as patent as they seem and the rest of us aren't 'sposed to notice?

Title: Finding causes and explanations
Post by: captainccs on January 01, 2009, 01:51:12 PM

Finding causes and explanations

The other day I read an opinion piece that stated that Hamas had broken the truce because Abbas was getting too popular. Others attribute the Israeli actions to the upcoming elections. A third group opines that Israel wants to make Obama's entry easier by bombing now while Bush is still in the White House. I think it has to do with Saturn being in the House of Virgo. I also think that my suggestion has about the same chance of being on the money as the other three. ;)

People love explanations. People crave explanations. People need explanations and there is a cadre of expert explainers that can explain everything -- after the fact. They never have been able to forecast these things that are so crystal clear after the fact. 20-20 hindsight is wonder to behold!

I've been dedicated to the stock market for the past 18 years and it never ceases to amaze me how well the pundits are able to explain all the market movements. Yet most of these same pundits live off a salary instead of using their superior acumen to play the market.

Let's put on our thinking caps to see what we can come up with by way of explanation. I think the first point to consider is how long it takes to plan and prepare for an operation such as this one. Can it be done in one week? The Rescue in Entebbe was prepared in about 5 days. The Air France plane took off on June 27 and the Israelis hit Entebbe on July 3.

The truce expired on December 19 and the Israeli bombing started on December 24, five days later. Yes it's possible that Operation Cast Lead was created when the truce expired. Israel claims the operation has been six months in planning, that the planning started just about the time the truce went into effect. This sounds cynical as all hell but Hamas broke the truce on June 25, 2008 by firing three Qassam rockets.

Quote

Published: June 25, 2008

JERUSALEM — Three Qassam rockets fired from Gaza on Tuesday struck the Israeli border town of Sderot and its environs, causing no serious injuries but constituting the first serious breach of a five-day-old truce between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

I find this breach by Hamas a good enough reason to plan Operation Cast Lead. Against this possibility we have to weight the idea that Ehud Barak was thinking about elections back in June and he set the whole thing up to become Prime Minister. We can discard the idea that the operation has to be approved by the cabinet, because the Israeli cabinet does whatever the Defense Minister wants.

Call me naive but I'm taking the story as asserted by the Israeli government. Six months in preparation because enough is enough.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 01, 2009, 05:45:02 PM

**Israel CAN bomb it's way into removing garbage like this from the planet.**

No tears for Hamas leader in Ramallah
Jan. 1, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander who was killed in Thursday's air raid on his home in the Jabalya refugee camp, was a sworn enemy not only of Israel, but also of the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Rayyan, who had four wives and a dozen children, led the Hamas militiamen who defeated Abbas's security forces in the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007. He is the third most senior Hamas leader to be killed by Israel, after the targeted killings of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in March 2004 and his successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a few weeks later.

Hamas leaders stressed that Rayyan's death, while a "painful loss" to their movement, would not affect its determination to continue the fight against Israel.

A Hamas spokesman said he did not rule out the possibility that the PA had asked Israel to kill Rayyan because of his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes in 2007.

"Sheikh Rayyan was one of the main reasons why many of Abbas's men did not sleep well at night," he said. "They knew that as long as the sheikh was around, they would never be able to return to the Gaza Strip."

A few days before Hamas took full control of the Gaza Strip, Rayyan, dressed in military fatigues and carrying a Kalashnikov assault rifle, declared that he and his supporters were planning to hold Friday prayers inside Abbas's presidential compound in Gaza City.

Rayyan personally led the Hamas militiamen who seized the compound and PA security installations throughout Gaza. He later boasted that the Strip had been "cleansed" of "traitors" and "CIA agents" - a reference to Abbas and his former security chiefs.

A few months later, Rayyan again issued a threat against Abbas. This time he declared that he would soon lead Friday prayers inside Abbas's Mukata compound in Ramallah, an indication of Hamas's intention to extend its control to the West Bank.

That was why PA officials in Ramallah Thursday did not shed tears over his departure from the scene. In fact, some of them privately expressed relief, claiming that he was responsible for the killing of scores of Abbas loyalists in the Gaza Strip during the 2007 "coup."

Many Palestinians saw the killing of Rayyan, 60, as a severe blow to Hamas and its armed wing, Izzadin Kassam. Some Hamas supporters said on Thursday that Rayyan was more significant than Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh or senior Hamas leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Said Siam.

"He was one of the most popular figures in Hamas," said a Palestinian journalist who knew the slain Hamas leader for nearly two decades. "He was the type of leader who would go out with the fighters to confront Israeli tanks and fire rockets at Israel. He loved wearing the military uniform."

Apart from serving as a "spiritual" leader for Hamas's armed wing, Rayyan was also a teacher at the Islamic University in Gaza City. His students referred to him as "The Professor" and described him as a prominent Muslim scholar. One student said Rayyan was Yassin's real successor.

Rayyan was a leading authority on the sayings of the prophet Muhammad (Hadith), and the basement of his four-story house had been turned into a library of more than 5,000 books and documents on Islam.

After Islamic studies at universities in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Sudan, he returned to the Gaza Strip and worked as a preacher in several mosques. His fiery sermons and involvement in incitement and terrorism resulted in four years in an Israeli prison.

When the PA assumed control over the Gaza Strip in 1994, Rayyan was one of the first Hamas members to find himself in a Palestinian prison, together with Zahar and Rantisi.

At the beginning of the second intifada, Rayyan sent one of his sons to carry out a suicide attack in Gush Katif's Elei Sinai in 2001. Two Israelis were killed. Rayyan was also responsible for a series of suicide bombings and attacks inside the Green Line, including the suicide bombing in Ashdod Port in 2004 in which 10 Israelis died.

In recent years, Rayyan served as a liaison between the political leadership of Hamas and Izzadin Kassam. He is even said to have been one of the very few Hamas operatives who knew where IDF soldier St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was being held in the Gaza Strip.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733134624&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Dimona in play
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2009, 06:49:19 PM

Gaza rockets put Israel’s nuclear plant in battle zone
Growing concern over Hamas’s new arsenalJames Hider in Beersheba
There were growing fears in Israel last night that Hamas missiles could threaten its top-secret nuclear facility at Dimona.

Rocket attacks from Gaza have forced Israelis to flee in ever greater numbers and military chiefs have been shaken by the size and sophistication of the militant group’s arsenal.

In Beersheba, until a few days ago a sleepy desert town in southern Israel, there is little sign of the 186,000 inhabitants. Schools are closed and the streets of shuttered shops echo with the howl of sirens warning of incoming rockets.

Israeli planes, meanwhile, began a new stage yesterday in their offensive on Gaza, killing Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas official. The one-tonne bomb in Jabaliya is also understood to have killed two of his four wives and four of his twelve children. More than 400 Palestinians have been killed in the six days of Israeli attacks.


Despite a diplomatic mission by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Foreign Minister, to Paris, the Israeli army continued to muster thousands of troops and scores of tanks along Gaza’s border for a possible ground offensive. Israel’s airstrikes are designed to blunt Hamas’s capacity to fire its new Grad missiles deep into its territory. The weapons are smuggled in through tunnels and by sea, replacing homemade Qassam rockets.

Israeli officials say that Hamas has also acquired dozens of Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles with an even longer range. Many fear that as the group acquires ever more sophisticated weaponry it is only a matter of time before the nuclear installation at Dimona, 20 miles east of Beersheba, falls within its sights. Dimona houses Israel’s only nuclear reactor and is believed to be where nuclear warheads are stored.

Israel’s worst nightmare is that soon all its cities will be within range either of the Hezbollah Katyushas arrayed on the Lebanese border to the north or the increasingly sophisticated missiles stockpiled by Hamas to the south. Both groups have links to Israel’s archenemy Iran.

Israel has said that its aim is to smash Hamas’s rocket-firing capability but also to topple the hardline Islamist regime that seized power in the Gaza Strip in 2007 after bloody street battles with its secular rivals Fatah. Until that goal is achieved, many in Beersheba are packing their bags and heading for Tel Aviv or Eilat.

“Maybe 30 or 40 per cent of people have left the city,” said Ron Shukron, 26, running one of the few grocery shops still open. As he spoke a siren echoed through the empty streets. With only 15 seconds to take cover, he stepped under a reinforced support beam in the ceiling. Seconds later came the dull thud of a rocket exploding on the edge of town.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5430133.ece

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 01, 2009, 08:37:30 PM

Targeting Dimona suggests a very deliberate escalation with potentially world shaking consequences.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2009, 10:36:09 PM

If Iran unleashes Hezbollah in the north if/when Israel goes into Gaza, we could see a real excrement storm.
======================

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Israel's actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.

Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot -- which have borne the brunt of the attacks -- have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons.

When Barack Obama visited Sderot this summer and saw the remnants of these rockets, he reacted by saying that if his two daughters were exposed to rocket attacks in their home, he would do everything in his power to stop such attacks. He understands how the terrorists exploit the morality of democracies.

In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family's house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.

These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.

The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.

In Today's Opinion Journal
 

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Euro Decade and Its LessonsTreasury to Ford: Drop Dead

TODAY'S COLUMNISTS

Declarations: In With the New
– Peggy NoonanPotomac Watch: The Senate Goes Wobbly on Card Check
– Kimberley A. Strassel

COMMENTARY:

Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution
– Peter BerkowitzLet's Be Worthy of Their Sacrific
– Karl RoveLet's Write the Rating Agencies Out of Our Law
– Robert RosenkranzObama Promises Bush III on Iran
– John R. BoltonIsrael's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'
– Alan M. DershowitzSecond, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed. This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday, when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its children's lives.

While Israel installs warning systems and builds shelters, Hamas refuses to do so, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel's military actions. Hamas knows from experience that even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed inadvertently will result in bitter condemnation of Israel by many in the international community.

Israel understands this as well. It goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties -- even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians.

Until the world recognizes that Hamas is committing three war crimes -- targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations -- and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" (Wiley, 2008).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 02, 2009, 07:13:07 AM

Moral Clarity in Gaza
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 2, 2009; A15

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

-- Associated Press, Dec. 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamas's rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire. If this fighting ends with anything less than that, Israel will have lost yet another war. The question is whether Israel still retains the nerve -- and the moral self-assurance -- to win.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 02, 2009, 07:53:50 AM

From the ultra liberal Economist mag (rag) with no authors ever attributed by name to their articles.
The part that irritates me is this:

"In general, a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit"

Oh really?  And what God of ethics decided this?  The new political correctness?   What horse shit!  Therefore the Jews have a right to kill 6 million Germans.  The Ukraines 5 or 6 million Russians, The Russians 20 million Germans.  The Jews have a right to kill Iranians (former Persians), Iraqis (former Babylon), Egyptians, Syrains (fromer Assyria), Italians (formerly the Romans), Mongolians (formerly Genghis Khan), and the descendents of past civilizations such as Philistines, Hittites and at least a dozen others.

With regards to the objective so far Israel's attack is diproportionately soft.  The objective is to stop Hamas from killing Jews.  That will only be accomplished when they are all killed.  So there you G'D'M leftist politiocally A'h'l's!

Israel's war in Gaza

Gaza: the rights and wrongs
Dec 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Israel was provoked, but as in Lebanon in 2006 it may find this war a hard one to end, or to justify

APTHE scale and ferocity of the onslaught on Gaza have been shocking, and the television images of civilian suffering wrench the heart. But however deplorable, Israel’s resort to military means to silence the rockets of Hamas should have been no surprise. This war has been a long time in the making.

Since Israel evacuated its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip three years ago, Palestinian groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rudimentary rockets and mortar bombs across the border, killing very few people but disrupting normal life in a swathe of southern Israel. They fired almost 300 between December 19th, when Hamas ignored Egypt’s entreaties and decided not to renew a six-month truce, and December 27th, when Israel started its bombing campaign (see article). To that extent, Israel is right to say it was provoked.

Of provocation and proportion
It is easy to point out from afar that barely a dozen Israelis had been killed by Palestinian rockets since the Gaza withdrawal. But few governments facing an election, as Israel’s is, would let their towns be peppered every day with rockets, no matter how ineffective. As Barack Obama said on a visit to one Israeli town in July, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” In recent months, moreover, Hamas has smuggled far more lethal rockets into its Gaza enclave, some of which are now landing in Israeli cities that were previously out of range. On its border with Lebanon, Israel already faces one radical non-state actor, Hizbullah, that is formally dedicated to Israel’s destruction and has a powerful arsenal of Iranian-supplied missiles at its disposal. The Israelis are understandably reluctant to let a similar danger grow in Gaza.

And yet Israel should not be surprised by the torrent of indignation it has aroused from around the world. This is not just because people seldom back the side with the F-16s. In general, a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit.

It is true that Israel has put up with the rockets from Gaza for a long time. But it may have been able to stop the rockets another way. For it is not quite true that Israel’s only demand in respect of Gaza has been for quiet along the border. Israel has also been trying to undermine Hamas by clamping an economic blockade on Gaza, while boosting the economy of the West Bank, where the Palestinians’ more pliant secular movement, Fatah, holds sway. Even during the now-lapsed truce, Israel prevented all but a trickle of humanitarian aid from entering the strip. So although Israel was provoked, Hamas can claim that it was provoked too. If Israel had ended the blockade, Hamas may have renewed the truce. Indeed, on one reading of its motives, Hamas resumed fire to force Israel into a new truce on terms that would include opening the border.

On proportionality, the numbers speak for themselves—up to a point. After the first three days, some 350 Palestinians had been killed and only four Israelis. Neither common sense nor the laws of war require Israel to deviate from the usual rule, which is to kill as many enemies as you can and avoid casualties on your own side. Hamas was foolish to pick this uneven fight. But of the Palestinian dead, several score were civilians, and many others were policemen rather than combatants. Although both Western armies and their foes have killed far more civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel’s interest should be to minimise the killing. The Palestinians it is bombing today will be its neighbours for ever.

This last point speaks to the test of effectiveness. Israel said at first that, much as it would like to topple Hamas, its present operation has the more limited aim of “changing reality” so that Hamas stops firing across the border. But as Israel learnt in Lebanon in 2006, this is far from easy. As with Hizbullah, Hamas’s “resistance” to Israel has made it popular and delivered it to power. It is most unlikely to bend the knee. Like Hizbullah, it will probably prefer to keep on firing no matter how hard it is hit, daring Israel to send its ground forces into a messy street fight in Gaza’s congested cities and refugee camps.

Now cease fire
Can Israel have forgotten the lesson of Lebanon so soon? Hardly. If anything, its campaign against Hamas now is intended to compensate for its relative failure against Hizbullah then. With Iran’s nuclear threat on the horizon, and Iranian influence growing in both Lebanon and Gaza, Israel is keen to remind its enemies that the Jewish state can still fight and still win. Precisely for that reason, despite its talk of a long campaign, it may be more receptive than it is letting on to an immediate ceasefire. Its aircraft have already pummelled almost every target in Gaza. Further military gains will be harder. A truce now, if Hamas really did stop its fire, could be presented to voters as the successful rehabilitation of Israeli deterrence.

But a ceasefire needs a mediator. Mr Obama is not yet president, and George Bush has so far hung back, just as he did in 2006 while waiting for an Israeli knockout blow that did not come. This time, he and everyone else with influence should pile in at once. To bring Hamas on board, a ceasefire would need to include an end to Israel’s blockade, but that would be a good thing in itself, relieving the suffering in Gaza and removing one of the reasons Hamas gives for fighting.

After that, Mr Obama will have to gather up what is left of diplomacy in the Middle East. It is not all hopeless. Until this week, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was talking to Israel about how to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But Mr Abbas presides over the West Bank only, and little progress is possible so long as half of Palestine’s people support an organisation that can still not bring itself to renounce armed struggle or recognise Israel’s right to exist. Since Hamas is not going to disappear, some way must be found to change its mind. Bombs alone will never do that.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 02, 2009, 08:39:01 AM

Actually, "The Economist" is an outstanding magazine; a "must read" for most international businessmen.  I am not saying it is always right (it usually is however), but it is very well written in a tight,
precise, refreshing style offering an analysis of a variety of subjects in depth.  It truly is a pleasure to read.

Also, I think you will find it is respected and read in nearly every significant quarter, on the left and the right; it gives an excellent pragmatic overview of the world,
perhaps "biased towards free trade and free markets", but is that so bad?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 02, 2009, 08:50:48 AM

Quote from: JDN on January 02, 2009, 08:39:01 AM

Actually, "The Economist" is an outstanding magazine; a "must read" for most international businessmen. 

Finally something we can agree on.  :-D

I don't know their political bias because I don't usually read the magazine but their predictions about oil prices after the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s proved to be spot on.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2009, 08:55:50 AM

Back in the 70s I subscribed to the Economist and still occasionally buy it when flying.  Its still a good magazine, but IMHO has drifted considerably towards fashionably wooly-headed thinking.  This piece IMHO displays that tendency.
======================

By MARGARET COKER
JERUSALEM -- As Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip entered its seventh day Friday, fighter jets targeted homes of Hamas political leaders across the territory and some of the mosques they have been known to pray in, while Palestinians and Israelis on both sides of the border feared that they would join the growing list of casualties suffered in the conflict.

With Hamas vowing "a day of rage" in retaliation for the bombardment that has killed more than 400 Palestinians and wounded approximately 2,000 others, Israel sealed the West Bank, prohibiting the movement of the more than 3 million Palestinians living there to prevent what the army feared would be massive protests at the bloodshed. Four Israelis have been killed by Hamas rockets, and dozens more injured in the week of fighting.

 
Reuters
Palestinians survey destroyed houses following an Israeli air strike in Jabalya in the northern Gaza Strip.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused the militant Hamas organization of holding the people of Gaza hostage Friday and said the U.S. continues to seek a "durable and sustainable" cease-fire.

Speaking to reporters in the White House driveway after a meeting with President George W. Bush, Ms. Rice also said that the U.S. remains "very concerned about the situation there and is working very hard with our partners around the world."

But she reiterated the Bush administration argument that any cease-fire must hinge on the willingness of Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. "We are working toward a cease-fire that would not allow a re-establishment of the status quo…where Hamas could launch rockets," she said.

Elsewhere across the Middle East, anger that has been building against the Israeli onslaught was expected to be channeled in fiery Friday sermons, leading to demonstrations and heightened tensions across the region.

In airstrike after airstrike early Friday, Israeli warplanes hit some 20 houses believed to belong to Hamas militants and members of other armed groups, Palestinians said.

In what appeared to be a new Israeli tactic, the military called at least some of the houses ahead of time to warn inhabitants of an impending attack. In some cases, it also fired a sound bomb to warn away civilians before flattening the homes with powerful missiles, Palestinians and Israeli defense officials said.

Israel launched the aerial campaign last Saturday in a bid to halt weeks of intensifying Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza. The offensive has dealt a heavy blow to Hamas, but failed to halt the rocket fire. New attacks Friday struck apartment buildings in a southern Israeli city. No serious injuries were reported.

After destroying Hamas's security compounds, Israel has turned its attention to the group's leadership.

They said the Israelis either warned nearby residents by phone or fired a warning missile to reduce civilian casualties. Israeli planes also dropped leaflets east of Gaza giving a confidential phone number and e-mail address for people to report locations of rocket squads. Residents stepped over the leaflets.

Israel used similar tactics during its 2006 war in Lebanon.

Most of the targeted homes Friday belonged to activist leaders and appeared to be empty at the time, but one man was killed in a strike that flattened a building in the Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza.

Three Israeli civilians and one soldier have also died in the rocket attacks, which have reached deeper into Israel than ever before, bringing one-eighth of Israel's population of seven million within rocket range.

One of the mosques destroyed Friday was known as a Hamas stronghold, and the army said it was used to store weapons. It also was identified with Nizar Rayan, the Hamas militant leader killed Thursday when Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on his home.

The hit on Mr. Rayan's home obliterated the four-story apartment building and peeled off the walls of others around it, carving out a vast field of rubble.

Mr. Rayan, 49, ranked among Hamas' top five decision-makers. A professor of Islamic law, he was known for his close ties to the group's military wing and was respected in Gaza for donning combat fatigues and personally participating in clashes against Israeli forces. He sent one of his sons on an October 2001 suicide mission that killed two Israeli settlers in Gaza.

Israel's military says the homes of Hamas leaders are being used to store missiles and other weapons, and it said the hit on Mr. Rayan's house triggered secondary explosions from the stockpile there.

Israeli defense officials said the military had called Mr. Rayan's home and fired a warning missile before destroying the building. That was impossible to confirm. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss military tactics.

Israel has targeted Hamas leaders many times in the past, but halted the practice during a six-month truce that expired last month.

Most of Hamas's leaders went into hiding at the start of Israel's offensive. Mr. Rayan, however, was known for openly defying Israel and in the past had led crowds to the homes of wanted Hamas figures -- as if daring Israel to strike and risk the lives of civilians.

The offensive hasn't halted rocket fire at Israel, and a barrage landed in the city of Ashkelon early Friday. Two rockets hit apartment buildings, lightly wounding one man, police said. Sirens warning Israelis to take cover when military radar picks up an incoming rocket have helped reduce casualties in recent days. The military said aircraft destroyed the three rocket launchers used to fire at Ashkelon.

Israel has been building up artillery, armor and infantry on Gaza's border in an indication the punishing air assault could continue with a ground incursion. At the same time, international pressure is building for a cease-fire that would block more fighting.

Israel appears to be maintaining an opening for the intense diplomatic efforts by leaders in the Middle East and, saying it would consider a halt to the fighting if international monitors were brought in to track compliance with any truce with Hamas.

But political jockeying in Israel appears to be complicating efforts to end the conflict. Rival camps in the ruling government -- both contesting a February general election to lead the country -- have signaled their backing for different negotiating tracks over a possible cease-fire.

The staff of Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and longshot contender to lead the country, earlier in the week raised the possibility of a French-brokered, 48-hour lull in fighting with Hamas. That proposal was shot down Wednesday by Mr. Olmert and his second-in-command, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is also running to lead the next government.

On Thursday, Ms. Livni was in Paris for talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy as part of a push for international support for what she characterizes as Israel's fight against terror. Ms. Livni said Thursday that a temporary halt to hostilities in Gaza to allow in humanitarian supplies would be harmful to Israel.

"There is no humanitarian crisis in the Strip, and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce," Ms. Livni said, according to the Foreign Ministry.

Concerned about protests, Israeli police said they would step up security and restrict access to Friday prayers at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque. Devout Muslims attend large, communal prayers on Fridays.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said thousands of police would be deployed throughout the city, and that only Palestinian men over the age of 50, along with women of all ages, would be permitted to enter. He also said that police were in contact with Muslim leaders to ensure things remain quiet.

The army also imposed a closure on the West Bank, barring nearly all of the area's more than two million Palestinians from entering Israel.

—Jay Solomon, Joshua Mitnick and the Associated Press contributed to this article.

Title: To CaptainCCS
Post by: ccp on January 02, 2009, 10:08:48 AM

*In my part of the world it would not seem strange at all. While we don't usually have hyphenated citizens (Afro-Venezuelan), we don't have a problem recognizing people's ancestry and origin. Until Chavez none of it was cause for comment or discrimination. My business partner was a black man and everyone refers to him as "The Black Gamboa" to which he proudly announces that he is the descendant of African kings and Amerind princesses. My dad used to call him "My black son." This is true integration, where you are no longer afraid of the differences. Instead, you celebrate them. As the French like to say: "Vive la difference."*

Interesting note.  Why do you think assimilation smoother there among different groups?

America has always been a country of immigrants.  Yet those that are hear don't ever like the newer ones.
OF course remnants of slavery plays a role.  But why are Muslims better accepted in Venezuela as you have witnessed?

Just wondering.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2009, 10:24:05 AM

A good question.  Please answer it at http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=978.150

Title: Re: To CaptainCCS
Post by: captainccs on January 02, 2009, 11:24:57 AM

Quote from: ccp on January 02, 2009, 10:08:48 AM

But why are Muslims better accepted in Venezuela as you have witnessed?

As per Crafty Dog's request, I'll answer your question at the other board. Here I just want to comment that while we have a lot of Arabs, they are by no means all Muslims. A large number are Lebanese Christians and that might have something to do with it. When I go to an Arab owned store I have no way of knowing what religion they profess, if any.

Title: Interesting IDF Source
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 02, 2009, 04:56:26 PM

Israeli Defense Force web site that tracks current military operations:

http://idfspokesperson.com/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JAK on January 03, 2009, 12:11:24 AM

 


Hamas warns of 'black destiny'

January 3, 2009 - 2:18PM


Israeli warplanes have continued to pound Gaza as the assault on Hamas entered its second week, with the Islamist group's leader warning of a "black destiny'' if ground troops are sent in.

Hamas's Syrian-based chief Khaled Meshaal told Israel that "if you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you.

"You will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of God,'' Meshaal said in pre-taped remarks as the death toll rose from bombing and concerns grew about the humanitarian situation in the Hamas-ruled Palestinian territory.

The United States gave Israel free rein on whether to invade the overcrowded enclave, insisting that the key to a ceasefire is Israel's demand for Hamas to permanently halt rocket fire.

"So I think any steps they are taking, whether it's from the air or on the ground or anything of that nature, are part and parcel of the same operation,'' said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

"Those will be decisions made by the Israelis.''

President George Bush, meanwhile, urged all able parties to press Hamas to stop firing on Israel to facilitate a lasting ceasefire.

"The United States is leading diplomatic efforts to achieve a meaningful ceasefire that is fully respected,'' Bush said in his weekly Saturday radio address, the text of which was released late on Friday.

"I urge all parties to pressure Hamas to turn away from terror, and to support legitimate Palestinian leaders working for peace.''

Bush said Hamas was responsible for the latest violence and rejected a unilateral ceasefire that would allow Hamas to continue to fire on Israel.

"This recent outburst of violence was instigated by Hamas - a Palestinian terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria that calls for Israel's destruction,'' Bush said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with senior ministers as tanks and troops stood at the ready on the Gaza border.

A missile fired by an Israeli jet slammed into a house in southern Gaza, killing three boys, aged from seven to 10. It was one of more than 58 fresh raids carried out on Friday.

A 12-year-old girl died of her wounds after the bombing of a house near Gaza City belonging to a member of Islamic Jihad, and two gunmen from the armed wing of Hamas were killed in Jabaliya after firing rockets, medics said.

On Saturday, an army spokesman said air attacks on "Hamas infrastructure'' were continuing into the predawn hours.

At the same time, the armed wing of Hamas said it had repelled a patrol of Israeli special forces attempting to cross the border into Gaza.

A spokesman said the army was "not familiar with the incident,'' adding that no soldiers had crossed into Gaza since the beginning of the air campaign on December 27.

Since then, at least 435 people have been killed, including 66 children, and 2150 wounded, according to Gaza medics.

The bombardment has demolished dozens of houses and heightened concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, where most of the  1.5 million residents depend on foreign aid.

"The protection of civilians, the fabric of life, the future of the peace talks and of the regional peace process has been trapped between the irresponsibility of the Hamas attacks and the excessiveness of the Israeli response,'' Robert Serry, the UN envoy for the Middle East, told reporters in Jerusalem.

Max Gaylard, the UN humanitarian coordinator for the Palestinian territories, said ``there is a critical emergency in the Gaza Strip right now ... By any definition this is a humanitarian crisis and more.''

Thousands of Hamas faithful attended the funeral of Nizar Rayan - a firebrand hardliner who was killed with his four wives and 11 children on Thursday.

Hamas vowed to avenge the death of the most senior Hamas leader killed by Israel since Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi in 2004 and warned that it could resume suicide attacks against Israel for the first time since January 2005.
Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Gaza and the occupied West Bank after Hamas called for a "day of wrath.'' Police fired tear gas at rock-throwing youths in annexed east Jerusalem.

With a ground offensive widely expected and no ceasefire in sight, the Israeli army opened a border crossing to allow an estimated 400 people with foreign passports to leave Gaza.

Hamas fired more than 30 rockets into Israel, but no casualties were reported.

Militants have fired more than 360 rockets into Israel over seven days, killing four people and wounding dozens more.

The offensive has sparked angry protests in the Muslim world and elsewhere across the globe and defied diplomatic efforts to broker a truce.

AFP

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JAK on January 03, 2009, 12:26:06 AM

Hamas, Al-Qaeda Threaten Jewish Targets Abroad
Tevet 6, 5769, 02 January 09 12:51by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz(IsraelNN.com) The Palestinian Authority jihadist organization Hamas and its global twin, Al-Qaeda, have threatened Jewish interests around the world. Hamas and Fatah both called for a "day of rage" on Friday, as security analysts warn of "lone-wolf" attacks by Muslims incited by the international calls for jihad.

In reaction to the elimination of a leading Islamist in Gaza on Thursday afternoon, a top PA terrorist, Ismail Redwan, threatened "revenge" in the name of Hamas. On PA television, he declared that "all options are open to Hamas, including suicide bombings and attacks on Zionist interests everywhere." Redwan added that the PA militias "will end the occupation."

In a separate statement, the Hamas regime urged "the mujahideen (jihad fighters) and the rest of the Palestinian people to confront the Israeli occupation army and the Israeli settlers in every Palestinian city, village and refugee camp." Hamas, it should be noted, considers all Jewish cities, towns and villages anywhere in Israel to be "settlements".

The Hamas threat to strike targets abroad, like the rest of the organization's current tactics, is reminiscent of Hizbullah. That Lebanese terrorist organization also threatened to strike Israeli and Jewish assets worldwide in the wake of the assassination of Hizbullah's strategist and Iran-directed handler Imad Mughniyeh. He was killed when his car exploded in Damascus in February 2008. Hamas terrorists have been receiving support and training from Iran, for which Hizbullah acts as a proxy army in Lebanon.

Al-Qaeda Joins the Call
Earlier this week, security analysts from the Israel- and US-based Institute for Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR) warned that Hamas, Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda may collaborate or carry out "sympathetic attacks" on Israeli or Jewish targets worldwide.

On Friday, the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) terrorist organization called on Muslims worldwide "to strike Israeli interests... everywhere and immediately." , Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, head of the ISI, also called for "mujahideen... to strike the US enemy, which fully backs [Israeli] aggression against Gaza."

In addition, ITRR warned that acts of terrorism may target Egyptian assets, due to Egypt's failure to open Sinai to Gazan refugees.

"Lone-Wolf" Terrorist Threat
ITRR analysts said there is a clear likelihood that "lone-wolf" terrorists - individuals acting on their own or in ad-hoc cells - will strike Israeli or Jewish targets around the world in response to current events in the Middle East.

One such incident already took place in Odense, Denmark, on Wednesday, when at least one attacker opened fire on a group of Israelis at a mall. Two Israelis were injured lightly and police eventually apprehended a Lebanese Arab on suspicion of involvement in the shooting. %ad%

Hamas, Fatah Call for 'Day of Rage'
In a statement issued in the PA press, Hamas called for Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to take part in a "Day of Rage" on Friday. The Islamist organization called for demonstrations and "massive marches following Friday prayers."

Friday prayers generally draw the largest numbers of Muslims to the mosque for communal prayers. PA imams (Muslim clerics) often take advantage of the presence of large crowds and the television broadcast of sermons in certain mosques to incite hatred and violence directed against Israel and the West.

Spokesmen for the Fatah-controlled half of the Palestinian Authority echoed the Hamas call for a "Day of Rage".
www.IsraelNationalNews.com© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com

JAK

Title: Editor's Notes: Defeating the enemy
Post by: rachelg on January 03, 2009, 05:57:49 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733137860&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Editor's Notes: Defeating the enemy
Jan. 1, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

A simple question: Can Israel defeat its enemies? One need not go back decades, to the clinical successes of the Six Day War and Entebbe, to answer emphatically in the affirmative.

Operation Defensive Shield, carried out in the spring of 2002, was a carefully planned and effectively executed attack on the Palestinians' suicide-bomb infrastructure in the West Bank that remade our reality in the years ever since - precisely the kind of goal enunciated for this week's Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza.

Defensive Shield was launched after the heaviest losses to terrorism in a single month in Israeli history - some 130 fatalities in more than a dozen attacks, including the Seder night bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya. Its stated aim, as set out by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon, was to capture the terrorists and their dispatchers, and destroy their weapons, their explosives and their arms factories - their capacity to kill us.

The operation was bitter and bloody. It was internationally controversial: Duplicitous Palestinian claims that Israel was massacring civilians were given widespread credence. There was heavy loss of life and massive destruction on the Palestinian side. Twenty-nine Israeli soldiers were killed - most of them in the suicide-bomber "capital," Jenin refugee camp, where the terror gangs had booby-trapped buildings for the incoming IDF troops.

But it was decisive, marking the beginning of the drastic decline in suicide-bombings that enabled ordinary life to flourish here anew. The physical destruction of the bombers' infrastructure; the knowledge that the IDF might return at any time; the deaths of key terror chiefs; the effective intelligence gathering that greatly reduced potential bombers' motivation; the construction of the West Bank security barrier - all of these factors combined if not to terminate, then to profoundly set back what had been an unprecedented strategic suicide-bomb onslaught against the men, women and children of Israel.

The deterrent effect of what had been a reluctant resort to such force, however, was gravely undermined by the subsequent abject handling of the Second Lebanon War - fought, like the current operation, across a border to which Israel had unilaterally withdrawn in the false hope of being rewarded with quiet.

The Winograd Committee's scathing dissection of that conflict portrayed an IDF unprepared to battle Hizbullah, and a political leadership - headed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz - too arrogant and inexperienced to realize this.

The consequence was a bumbling and hesitant confrontation, in which Hizbullah's tenacity was underestimated, as was the capacity for its thousands of Katyusha rockets to wreak havoc throughout the north of Israel. The initial air assault failed to achieve the decimation of Hizbullah that the Israeli leadership had unfoundedly predicted. And the ground forces were short of training and supplies, and poorly marshalled. (IDF soldiers fought highly effectively against Hizbullah's forces; the problem was not with their courage and skill, but with the incoherence of the command hierarchy.)

The stop-start battle with Hizbullah was code-named, with unintended accuracy, Operation Change of Direction. It became the Second Lebanon War only after it went unwon.

In the two and a half years since then, however, the IDF has benefited from the command of a no-nonsense ex-infantry man, Gabi Ashkenazi, who has quietly retrained and re-entrenched basic logistics and skills.

The unqualified Peretz has long since gone from the Defense Ministry, to be replaced by the rather politically unloved, but undeniably experienced Ehud Barak - a former chief of the General Staff and former head of the IDF's elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit.

Olmert remains in power - albeit only for a few more weeks - having insisted that he was uniquely placed to learn the lessons of 2006's failures, and thus to prevent a recurrence.

And yet, this week, six days into Operation Cast Lead, the question must be asked anew: Can Israel defeat its enemies?

ISRAEL EMBARKED on its confrontation with Hamas with a clear goal: To restore security to the South.

Some senior Israelis exaggerated the scope. The ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, for instance, said the aim of this conflict was to destroy Hamas. She was privately rapped for speaking out of line. Barak said in the Knesset on Monday that Israel was engaged in "a war to the bitter end" against Hamas, but those who used this assertion to claim that Operation Cast Lead was itself this "war to the bitter end" were removing the comment from the context in which he employed it in his speech. It was uttered as Barak sought to illustrate the fundamental clash between our sovereign state and an Islamist movement that avowedly seeks our elimination, not as part of the operation's goals.

Publicly and privately, however, Israeli officials from Olmert on down did elaborate on what would constitute "restored security." By this, they said, Israel meant the creation of a new reality in which Hamas would not fire rockets into Israel; would not seek to fire rockets into Israel; would not manufacture rockets; would not produce or smuggle in the materials for manufacturing rockets; and would not engage or prepare for other acts of terrorism. If Hamas's ability to rule Gaza was destroyed in the process, so be it.

This, they said, would enable southern Israel to breathe easily again, enjoying long-term confidence that murderous metal shrapnel was not about to burst upon it from the Kassam crews of the Gaza Strip.

Quite apart from the presence at the helm of a chastened prime minister, a more experienced defense minister and a quietly effective chief of General Staff, many other central factors combined to give the operation a realistic chance of success.

The IDF had spent months preparing for the conflict, gathering intelligence on Hamas targets, training for specific missions.

Gaza was relatively familiar territory for the IDF, which had been deployed there until the disengagement of 2005.

Quiet diplomatic efforts had been under way to explain the nature of the challenge Israel was facing - the untenability of having a widening swathe of a tiny country held hostage to Hamas's improving rocketeers.

Public diplomacy had been geared up, too, with a unified hierarchy organized by Yarden Vatikai in the Prime Minister's Office, and practiced diplomats trained for action on the foreign language media battlefields.

Southern Israel had proven demonstrably resilient, having endured eight years of Kassam attacks, and was thus relieved, though understandably anxious, as the IDF set about seeking a long-term respite. The coordination of the Home Front Command was far more efficient than in 2006, with local authorities well briefed for the challenges.

The enemy, though viciously motivated and supremely indifferent to loss of life - it ruthlessly killed its own people when wresting power in Gaza in June 2007 - was far less equipped for the fight than that other Iranian proxy army to the north, Hizbullah. Its rocket capacity was limited, and its ability to melt away much constrained, especially given Egypt's refusal to let its border with Gaza serve as Hamas's supply import route and terrorist escape route.

In fact, Egypt's unprecedented criticism of Hamas, for bringing disaster to bear on Gaza by maintaining rocket attacks on Israel and cancelling the misnamed "truce," was another major asset for Israel, in turn helping to mollify some of the inevitable international criticism of the resort to force.

NEVERTHELESS, AS early as Tuesday evening, sources in the defense establishment were indicating that Barak was ready to agree to a 48-hour "humanitarian" time-out in the operation - as requested by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner - which might turn into a permanent cease-fire if Hamas halted the rocket attacks.

Adherents of the notion claimed the air force had exhausted its "bank" of Hamas targets in Gaza and that there was little more that could be done from the air for now, while bad weather meant a ground assault was not practicable for the next couple of days anyway. They said Israel would gain greater international support for displaying a willingness to sanction a suspension of the operation, and that if Hamas nevertheless continued to fire rockets, Israel could renew the assault with greater legitimacy. And they noted that Israel had spurned the chance of a cease-fire early in the Second Lebanon War, and come to rue the missed opportunity.

None of these arguments withstands serious scrutiny. The "bank" of targets continually refreshes so long as Hamas attempts to govern Gaza. Bad weather might necessitate delayed actions, but not a formal commitment to inaction. Yes, Israel might score points if Hamas continued firing through a time-out, but what if it didn't? The operation would be over without its goal attained. And while the unready IDF might indeed have benefited from an early cease-fire in 2006, to take the time to properly prepare for the confrontation with Hizbullah, this time Ashkenazi had made clear that it was ready to execute its battle plan.

After discussion by Barak, Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni that night, the time-out was rejected. On Wednesday, officials attempted to suggest it had never been seriously contemplated. But Ashkenazi, for one, plainly believed that it was a plausible possibility; he went so far as to approve the release of a statement on Tuesday afternoon dissociating the IDF from any role in hatching or advancing the idea.

On Wednesday, Olmert declared that "we didn't initiate the Gaza operation in order to end it while Israeli towns are still under fire." So why was Barak weighing the time-out, and thus seemingly signalling a desired Israeli countdown toward a cease-fire?

Hamas has been firing rockets more deeply than ever into Israel - as far as Beersheba since Tuesday, bringing an estimated 800,000 Israelis into range. Though it has sustained considerable losses, it is anything but broken, as the head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), Yuval Diskin, told the cabinet on Wednesday. Almost all of its leadership has gone safely to ground. Its armed forces are essentially intact. It may be temporarily unable to effectively govern Gaza at present, but it retains its capacity to regain its hold if the operation ceases.

Barak's readiness to contemplate the time-out at so early a juncture suggested that the defense minister was himself uncertain that Israel could indeed effectively quash the Hamas threat. By extension, it conveyed a similar sense of uncertainty to the IDF and to those international players who have explicitly or tacitly backed Israel in this endeavor. And what a boost it must have been to Hamas and its Islamist supporters.

THIS IS not to say that the stewards of this operation should be sending great convoys of tanks plunging through the mud into Gaza - to be gleefully confronted by a Hamas force that has been preparing - booby-trapping roads and buildings, setting ambushes - for precisely such an eventuality.

The IAF assaults have smashed the symbols of Hamas power, bombed many of the tunnels that are its lifeline, blown up many of its rocket silos, hit some of its weapons stores and laboratories, and killed several of its key commanders.

If much of what can be achieved from the air was indeed achieved early in this operation, other targets will nevertheless appear as Hamas leaders seek to emerge from the bunkers - as was the case on Thursday afternoon when Nizar Rayyan was killed. And if they do not show their faces, Hamas will gradually lose more credibility, and ultimately lose the capacity to govern.

Meanwhile, astute use of forces on the ground where and when necessitated - whether to tackle concentrations of terrorist power as in Operation Defensive Shield, or to target weapons stores and rocket silos callously placed by Hamas in dense residential areas unreachable from the air - would gradually reduce Hamas's capacity to threaten Israel.

As the original goal made plain, this confrontation must be concluded with Israel in a position of strength, able to dictate conditions that will prevent a resurgence of the Hamas threat in the long-term. Israel must retain ongoing freedom for military action, enabling the IDF to prevent the homefront - the schools, the kindergartens - from again becoming the front line.

A cease-fire, by contrast, that leaves Hamas able - as it was during the months of the last lull - to move around freely and organize for battle, to import arms and to improve its weaponry, would mean Operation Cast Lead had achieved nothing.

It would suggest a further deterioration since 2006, when Israel's leadership was plainly inexperienced and underqualified. Here and now, Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran and Syria would proclaim, Israel - having once more chosen to seek a decisive outcome after its people came under unprovoked attack, facing a force less formidable than Hizbullah, and led by a veteran defense minister and a highly regarded IDF chief - was again ultimately deterred.

AFTER THE shock of the initial air strikes, Operation Cast Lead was predicated on the basis of weeks, not days - a strategic, systematic effort to change the reality in the South.

It worked for Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank. If Israeli civilians are to live free from the terror threat, it needs to work in Gaza.

Title: School closure saves lives of pupils
Post by: rachelg on January 03, 2009, 06:07:11 AM

One of the reasons that Israeli causalities  are Thank G-d so low is all Israelis homes/apartment  buildings etc.  have bomb shelters and Israelis in some towns in the South are  pretty much living in them..     My families in Israel shelter was their kids play room.   They also have a room that can be sealed  in case of  a biological attack.. Just because  Hamas   terrorists are ineffective mass murders does not mean they should be given a pass for wanting to be mass murders



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456538695&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



School closure saves lives of pupils
Dec. 31, 2008
Abe Selig , THE JERUSALEM POST

Beersheba experienced its second day on the front lines Wednesday as Hamas stepped up Grad-type rocket attacks, striking an open area and a high school - the second educational institution in the city to be hit since rockets began falling there Tuesday night.

A day earlier, a kindergarten was hit.

Fortunately, both schools were closed due to the security situation, and no one was hurt.

It had been unclear late Tuesday if children were to return to their classrooms on Wednesday in the south's largest city. But a final decision came at 4 a.m.,when Mayor Rubik Danilovitz met with officials from the Home Front Command and other security services.

They decided to keep the schools closed as the situation in Gaza was likely to continue for days.

If proved to be a prescient decision: hours later, the first Grad of the morning slammed into the Comprehensive Alef high school near the city center.

The rocket pierced through the ceiling of a classroom around 9:30 a.m. - where ninth graders would have been sitting had school been open.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine what would have happened here if school had not been canceled today," National Parents Organization head Yitzhak Maimon said as he toured the classroom. "The mayor and the Home Front Command made the right decision, and it's going to stay this way for the foreseeable future."

There were no injuries in the city, but a number of people were treated for shock. The damage could be seen from outside the building, as concrete on the second floor crumpled from the hit, and rocks and other debris were scattered on the ground.

Inside, rubble covered the hallway, and a pupil's painting - two sharks swimming carefree in the ocean - lay on the floor, covered by concrete and dust. The classroom itself had a hole through the roof, and a desk, directly beneath the rocket's entry point, had been hit dead-on.

The explosion created another hole in the wall, and ceiling tiles were thrown in every direction. Ball bearings and bolts, which terrorists often pack into the rockets to increase their deadliness, had sprayed throughout the classroom, leaving holes in the walls.

Parents and security personnel gawked at the damage, saying quiet thank you's that no one had been in the room at the time of the strike.

Across town at the kindergarten hit on Tuesday evening - the first strike in the city - the damage was just as haunting. While that rocket struck long after the children had gone home, it landed in the playground, spraying the same type of ball bearings as far as a block away.

The marks and holes from the shrapnel could be seen from the playground back into the building, as workers struggled to piece back together the ceiling tiles, some of which had been blasted 20 meters away from the building.

At a nearby home, Raisa Zaberoff, a 70-year-old immigrant from the former Soviet Union, struggled to put the blinds back up in her bedroom. Her backyard, which faces the kindergarten, was also sprayed with shrapnel, leaving scars on the fence posts and windowsills of her home, and shattering the windows.

"Look here," she said in broken Hebrew, pointing at the ceiling in her kitchen. "Somehow the shrapnel got all the way into here."

She gestured toward holes in her ceiling.

"But my neighbors across the street said even their windows were broken," Zaberoff continued. "I just keep thanking God that I was at my daughter's house when it happened, and that the kids had already gone home from school."

Zaberoff said she heard a few of the sirens that sounded on Wednesday - five were reported in all. She knew that parts of the city had no siren system, and in others that did, it simply wasn't working.

Other residents complained of similar problems.

"I didn't hear the siren, but I sure heard that boom," said a young woman who had ventured out to walk her dog. "What's going on? Why can't they fix the siren?"

By early afternoon, the Home Front Command had begun tackling the problem, telling reporters in front of City Hall that all of the sirens had been fixed.

"There was a brief hiccup with the siren system this morning, but we've fixed it and residents will be able to hear their sirens if they go off," Deputy OC Home Front Command Brig. Gen. Avraham Ben-David told The Jerusalem Post.

"However, some parts of the city are not equipped with sirens at all, but they will be within the next 48 hours," he said.

"However, for residents in those areas, and they know who they are, I cannot stress how important it is that they keep a radio on and keep an eye on their TV, because, for example, Radio Darom is working with the Home Front Command to broadcast the siren every time it sounds," he said.

Still, the possible lack of a working siren scared many people into staying home for the day.

"I'm staying in until this blows over," Miri Shalom said as she stood in front of her apartment building in the Alef neighborhood. "Siren or no siren, I'll only go out for a few minutes here and there."

Pausing to catch her breath, Shalom expressed a sentiment felt by many residents.

"I can't believe rockets are hitting Beersheba," she said. "No one believed that they could, but here they are, they're really coming down."

Title: 3 Videos about Rocket Attacks
Post by: rachelg on January 03, 2009, 06:12:15 AM

15 Seconds
http://sderot.aish.com/SderotPetitions/15Seconds.php

15 Seconds ( This is different from the above video and older so some of the statistics are unfortunately out of date)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51PONLdS5s&eurl=http://rabbiphyllis.blogspot.com/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51PONLdS5s&eurl=http://rabbiphyllis.blogspot.com/[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5eKXOBf5_w&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my



Lets Play Pretend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5eKXOBf5_w&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5eKXOBf5_w&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my
[/youtube]

Title: Re: School closure saves lives of pupils
Post by: captainccs on January 03, 2009, 07:41:22 AM

Quote from: Rachel G on January 03, 2009, 06:07:11 AM

One of the reasons that Israeli causalities  are Thank G-d so low is all Israelis homes/apartment  buildings etc.  have bomb shelters and Israelis in some towns in the South are  pretty much living in them..     My families in Israel shelter was their kids play room.   They also have a room that can be sealed  in case of  a biological attack.. Just because  Hamas   terrorists are ineffective mass murders does not mean they should be given a pass for wanting to be mass murders 

[emphasis added]

Rachel:

Thank you for a wonderful summation!

Title: Gaza Ground Offensive Begins
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 03, 2009, 11:01:14 AM

20:50   IDF ground troops trading fire with Hamas gunmen in Gaza (Channel 10)

20:49   Israeli cabinet okays call up of tens of thousands of reservist soldiers (Channel 10)

20:49   Cabinet decides to call up tens of thousands of IDF reservists (Ch. 10)

20:48   IDF troops exchange fire with Hamas militants in Gaza (Ch. 10)

20:44   IDF: Gaza ground incursion will seize some areas used to launch rockets (Reuters)

20:26   Israel launches ground offensive in Gaza (Channel 2)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/ShowTickers.jhtml

Title: Fatah Members Under House Arrest in Gaza
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 03, 2009, 08:14:20 PM

I suspect the impact of this schism has broad implications

Hamas moves on Fatah "collaborators"
Jerusalem Post ^ | Jan 4, 2009 0:32 | KHALED ABU TOAMEH

The Hamas government has placed dozens of Fatah members under house arrest out of fear that they might exploit the current IDF operation to regain control of the Gaza Strip.

The move came amid reports that the Fatah leadership in the West Bank has instructed its followers to be ready to assume power over the Gaza Strip when and if Israel's military operation results in the removal of Hamas rule.

Fatah officials in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post that Hamas militiamen had been assaulting many Fatah activists since the beginning of the operation last Saturday. They said at least 75 activists were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken.

Wisam Abu Jalhoum, a Fatah activist from the Jabalya refugee camp, was shot in the legs by Hamas militiamen for allegedly expressing joy over the IDF air strikes on Hamas targets.

"Hamas is very nervous, because they feel that their end is nearing," a senior Fatah official said. "They have been waging a brutal campaign against Fatah members in the Gaza Strip."

Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.

The sources quoted Hamas officials as saying that the decision to kill the suspected collaborators was taken out of fear that Israel might try to rescue them during a ground offensive. The officials claimed that at least half of the victims were killed by relatives of Palestinian militiamen who were killed as a result of information passed on to Israel by the "collaborators."

Justifying the latest crackdown on Fatah, a Hamas official in Gaza City said that his government had received information according to which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had instructed his loyalists in the Strip to start moving toward undermining Hamas.

"We will kill them all if they try to help Israel bring down our government," the official said. "We will hang Mahmoud Abbas and [former Fatah security chief] Muhammad Dahlan in the public square if they try to enter the Gaza Strip aboard Israeli tanks."

The Hamas official said that his security forces had launched a massive "preemptive" campaign aimed at thwarting Fatah's attempts to "spread anarchy and chaos." He confirmed that many Fatah operatives had been shot in the legs over the past few days by Hamas "to make sure that they don't help Israel."

Fahmi Za'arir, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank, accused Hamas of "executing" a number of Fatah detainees. He said the Fatah leadership knew of at least two Fatah men who were shot dead by Hamas after being released from prison. He named them as Nasser Muhana and Saher al-Silawi.

Za'arir said that several Fatah members who attended funerals of victims of the IAF strikes were severely beaten by Hamas militiamen who accused them of collaboration with Israel.

It was "shameful" that Hamas was directing its weapons and energies against its own people instead of fighting against Israel, the spokesman said.

The decision to place Fatah operatives under house arrest was issued by the much-feared "Internal Security Apparatus," which reports to the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry in Gaza.

The order, which was delivered to the Fatah activists on Thursday, reads: "You are forbidden from leaving your home for 48 hours unless you want to attend Friday prayers. Anyone who violates the order will be punished."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Fatah–Hamas conflict
Post by: rachelg on January 03, 2009, 08:26:52 PM

Quote from: Body-by-Guinness on January 03, 2009, 08:14:20 PM

I suspect the impact of this schism has broad implications

35 killed and 75 wounded  is certainly a large number and could  have a big impact  but Hamas and Fatah have been killing each other for years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Rimal_neighborhood_shootings#March_to_December

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/26/news/mideast.php

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/16/hamas-fatah.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 03, 2009, 08:42:44 PM

Quote

35 killed and 75 wounded  is certainly a large number and could  have a big impact  but Hamas and Fatah have been killing each other for years

Granted, but usually it's been in a internecine context. Think it's worth noting that a Palestinian party is hoping Israel cleans house. In conjunction with the "collaboration" Egypt and Jordan are accused of, it suggests some pretty profound fractures in the Muslim monolith.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JAK on January 04, 2009, 05:28:19 AM

Special Dispatch - No. 2168
December 31, 2008 No. 2168
 
Alerts and Threats: Material from the Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor Project (JTTM)

The following are reports from MEMRI's new JTTM (http://www.memrijttm.org ). For future access to material on this website, you must register and pay a membership fee. Instructions can be found below.




Islamist Websites Call to Attack American, Israeli Interests

In response to the Gaza offensive, Islamist websites have posted many messages calling to attack Israeli and American interests worldwide. A member of the Shumukh Al-Islam forum, for example, called to attack American and Israeli embassies around the world, and asked for information about these embassies - especially in Europe, Asia and Arab countries - and for pictures of them. Fellow members explained how to find the embassies using Google Earth, and posted links to websites of U.S. embassies, among them the one in Maskat, Oman. A member of the Islamist forum Al-Fallujah urged Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to attack the Israeli embassy in Mauritania and the Israeli representations in Morocco and Tunisia.

Website of the U.S. embassy in Oman (one of the links supplied on Shumukh Al-Islam)
Posted at: December 29, 2008

 




IRGC Commander Threatens Takeover Of U.S. Diplomatic Representation

The Iranian news agency Fars reported on December 26 that during a conference of senior officials of the student Basij, held the previous day at the former U.S. Embassy facility in Tehran, Mohammad Ali 'Aziz Jafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who is also in charge of the Basij militia, announced: "We want to prepare the ground so that if there is a need, the student Basij will take a step identical to that of 13 Aban [i.e. the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy by Iranian students]."

An attack on a U.S. diplomatic representation is an important subject of statements by senior Iranian officials. Although this statement at the conference can be viewed in the context of the possibility of the opening of a U.S. interest office in Tehran, which has been postponed for the present, it can also be seen as intimating at possible activity by Iranian forces against U.S. diplomatic representations worldwide.

Posted at: December 30, 2008

 


Islamist Websites Post Addresses of US and Israeli Embassies Worldwide; Call to Target Jewish Advisor of Moroccan King

In the wake of calls to attack U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide [1], the addresses of many of the US and Israeli embassies were posted in a threaded discussion on the Islamist forum Shumukh Al-Islam (hosted by TMIDC-MY, Malaysia). Among the potential targets mentioned by the forum members were the U.S. embassies in Egypt and Oman, and the Israeli embassies in Angola, Belgium, Cameroon, Egypt, Eritrea, France, India, Jordan, Mauritania, Nigeria and Turkey. In addition, a forum member posted a picture of André Azoulay, the Jewish advisor of the King of Morocco.

Furthermore, an article on the official Hamas website (hosted by Emirnet, UAE) called on Muslims to target "Zionists" all over the world, since "a Jewish adolescent boy in an Australian synagogue, a Jewish minister in the Georgian government, a Jewish businessman at the New York Stock Exchange, and an illiterate Jew from the Ethiopian desert… they all belong to the same gang and the same nation, apart from the rest of humanity."

Posted: December 31, 2008



Report: AQIM Plans New Year Kidnappings Of Foreigners Vacationing in Algeria

The Algerian daily newspaper Ennahar El-Djadid reports from "high-level sources in the security forces" that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is planning to kidnap foreigners vacationing in the south of Algeria over the New Year holiday.

The suspicions center on Illizi province in the Sahara desert, and specifically the city of Djanet, which draws thousands of vacationers from France and elsewhere every New Year's.

The brigade of the organization thought to behind the plans is commanded by Abdelhamid Abou Zaid, who was involved in the 2008 kidnapping of Austrian tourists and in the 2003 kidnapping of a group of European tourists.

Algerian security forces are taking measures to thwart any new kidnapping attempt.

Posted: December 23, 2008

 



Somali Jihad Fighter: 'We Will Establish Islamic Rule From Alaska and Chile to South Africa, Japan, Russia... To Iceland... Be Warned, We Are Coming'

 

An armed group battling Ethiopian forces in Somalia has told Al-Jazeera it will take its fight beyond the country once it defeats its rivals.

"We are fighting to lift the burden of oppression and colonialism from our country... We are defending ourselves against enemies who attacked us," Abu Mansoor, the leader of al-Shabab, said.

"Once we are successful with that we will fight on and finish oppression elsewhere on earth," he said.
Al-Shabab, meaning youth, split last year from the Islamic Courts Union which controlled much of Somalia, including the capital Mogadishu, until it was pushed out by government and Ethiopian troops in 2006.

It has since retaken large areas of central and southern Somalia and is putting increased pressure on the transitional government, which exercises little control from its base in the town of Baidoa.
In Marka, just 90km from the capital Mogadishu, Ibrahim Almaqdis, one of the fighters, told Al Jazeera: "We wish to tell Bush and our opponents our real intentions.

"We will establish Islamic rule from Alaska and Chile to South Africa, Japan, Russia, the Solomon Islands and all the way to Iceland, be warned, we are coming."

Abu Mansoor said that Al-Shabab's ranks had been bolstered by foreign fighters and urged others to join, saying that a core principle of the group was that all Muslims be citizens of Somalia.
"Many have already died fighting our cause and many others are here with us," he said.

"We shall welcome any Muslim from any part of the world who wants to join us. We will allow him to wed our daughters and share our farms."

The group was created in 2001 by four Somali men who had trained in Afghanistan and is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

Source: Aljazeera.net, December 19, 2008

Posted: December 19, 2008


Registering For MEMRI's JTTM Project:

To register for MEMRI's JTTM Project, click here and fill out the form completely.


Please allow five to 10 business days for us to process your application; at that time you will be sent a secure link to use to make your membership payment.


During our initial launch phase, there may be a slight delay due to the volume of applications and also due to the holiday season. We apologize in advance for any delays.


Once payment is received, your account will be activated and you will have full access to the site.


Contact Information:

For more information about MEMRI's JTTM Project, write to JTTM@MEMRI.ORG ; for information about subscribing, write to JTTMSUBS@MEMRI.ORG.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See "Islamist Websites Call to Attack American, Israeli Interests", December 29, 2008, http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=615&param=APT&auth=a775ab44e63ac7eb4eafd2cd4d38da80

JAK
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JAK on January 04, 2009, 05:40:31 AM

A little breifing on Hamas and Hizbollah.  Remember that the church that Obama was a member of openly supported Hizbollah.

  Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)
    From: Country Reports on Terrorism, 2007. United States Department of State, April 2008. Print Page | Email Me
    Comments on the content of the material should be sent to the U.S. Department of State
 
 Other Names
Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya; Izz al-Din al Qassam Battalions; Izz al-Din al Qassam Brigades; Students of Ayyash; Student of the Engineer; Yahya Ayyash Units ; Izz al-Din al-Qassim Brigades; Izz al-Din al-Qassim Forces; Izz al-Din al-Qassim Battalions; Izz al-Din al Qassam Forces

Description
HAMAS, which includes military and political wings, was formed at the onset of the first Palestinian uprising or Intifada in late 1987, as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The armed element, called the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, conducts anti-Israeli attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets inside Israel. HAMAS also manages a broad, mostly Gaza-based network of "Dawa" or ministry activities that include charities, schools, clinics, youth camps, fund-raising, and political activities. A Shura council based in Damascus, Syria, sets overall policy. After winning Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006, HAMAS took control of significant Palestinian Authority (PA) ministries, including the Ministry of Interior. HAMAS subsequently formed an expanded, overt militia called the Executive Force, subordinate to the Ministry. This force and other HAMAS cadres took control of Gaza in a military-style coup in June 2007, forcing Fatah forces to either leave Gaza or go underground there.

Activities
Prior to 2005, HAMAS conducted numerous anti-Israeli attacks, including suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, and shootings. HAMAS, however, has not directly targeted U.S. interests, although the group makes little or no effort to avoid soft targets frequented by foreigners. The group curtailed terrorist attacks in February 2005, after agreeing to a temporary period of calm brokered by the PA, and ceased most violence after winning control of the PA legislature and cabinet in January 2006. After HAMAS staged a June 2006 attack on IDF soldiers near Kerem Shalom that resulted in two deaths and the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit, Israel took steps that severely limited the operation of the Rafah crossing. HAMAS maintained and expanded its military capabilities in 2007. In June 2007, HAMAS took control of Gaza from the PA and Fatah in a military-style coup, leading to an international boycott and closure of Gaza borders. HAMAS has since dedicated the majority of its activity in Gaza to solidifying its control, hardening its defenses, tightening security, and conducting limited operations against Israeli military forces. HAMAS fired rockets from Gaza into Israel in 2007 but focused more mortar on attacks targeting Israeli incursions. Additionally, other terrorist groups in Gaza fired rockets into Israel, most, presumably, with HAMAS support or acquiescence. HAMAS internal security efforts have centered on confronting threats to the group’s hold on power, including arrest operations against Fatah. In June 2007, HAMAS took control of Gaza, leading to a drawn-out struggle between HAMAS and supporters of Fatah. The majority of HAMAS activity in Gaza is directed at solidifying their control over Gaza and weakening Fatah through kidnappings, torture, and the use of the “Executive Force” as a de-facto security apparatus. The continued international boycott and perceived efforts to destroy HAMAS have increased anti-U.S. sentiment on the Palestinian street, a development that could lead cells affiliated with HAMAS to launch attacks, including suicide bombings, without the sanction of HAMAS’ senior leadership.

Strength
HAMAS probably has several hundred operatives in its armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, along with its reported 9,000-man Executive Force and tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers.

Location/Area of Operation
HAMAS has an operational presence in every major city in the Palestinian territories and currently focuses its anti-Israeli attacks on targets in the West Bank and within Israel. HAMAS could potentially activate operations in Lebanon or resume terrorist operations in Israel. The group retains a cadre of leaders and facilitators that conducts diplomatic, fundraising, and arms smuggling activities in Lebanon, Syria, and other states. HAMAS is also increasing its presence in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, probably with the goal of eclipsing Fatah’s long-time dominance of the camps.

External Aid
HAMAS receives some funding, weapons, and training from Iran. In addition, fundraising takes place in the Gulf countries, but the group also receives donations from Palestinian expatriates around the world and private benefactors in Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activity takes place in Western Europe and North America.
 
 Hizballah
    From: Country Reports on Terrorism, 2007. United States Department of State, April 2008. Print Page | Email Me
    Comments on the content of the material should be sent to the U.S. Department of Stat
 
 Other Names
Party of God; Islamic Jihad; Islamic Jihad Organization; Revolutionary Justice Organization; Organization of the Oppressed on Earth; Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine; Organization of Right Against Wrong; Ansar alla; Followers of the Prophet Muhammed

Description
Formed in 1982, in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, this Lebanese-based radical Shia group takes its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The group generally follows the religious guidance of Khomeini's successor, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Hizballah is closely allied with Iran and often acts at its behest, though it also acts independently. Although Hizballah does not share the Syrian regime's secular orientation, the group has helped Syria advance its political objectives in the region. The Majlis al-Shura, or Consultative Council, is the group's highest governing body and has been led by Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah since 1992. Hizballah remains the most technically capable terrorist group in the world. It has strong influence in Lebanon's Shia community, which comprises about one-third of Lebanon's population. The Lebanese government and the majority of the Arab world, still recognize Hizballah as a legitimate "resistance group" and political party. Hizballah claimed 14 elected officials in the 128-seat Lebanese National Assembly and was represented in the Cabinet for the first time, by the Minister of Water and Electricity Mohammed Fneish, until his resignation, along with other Shia ministers and Hizballah members of Parliament on November 11, 2006. Hizballah has reduced its overt military presence in southern Lebanon in accordance with UNSCR 1701, although it likely maintains weapons caches in southern Lebanon. It justifies its continued armed status by claiming to act in defense of Lebanon against acts of Israeli aggression. Hizballah alleges that Israel has not withdrawn completely from Lebanese territory because, in its view, the Shebaa Farms and other areas belong to Lebanon. Hizballah provides support to several Palestinian terrorist organizations that reject peace between Israel and its neighbors. This support includes the covert provision of weapons, explosives, training, funding, and guidance, as well as overt political support.

Activities
Hizballah is known to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks and prior to September 11, 2001, was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group. In July 2006, Hizballah attacked an Israeli Army patrol, kidnapping two soldiers and killing three, starting the conflict with Israel that lasted into August. Since at least 2004, Hizballah has provided training to select Iraqi Shia militants, including the construction and use of shaped charge improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that can penetrate heavily armored vehicles, which it developed in southern Lebanon in the late 1990s. A senior Hizballah operative, Ali Mussa Daqduq, was captured in Iraq in 2007 while facilitating Hizballah training of Iraqi Shia militants. Hizballah’s terrorist attacks have included the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984, and the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping, detention, and murder of Americans and other Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s. Hizballah also was implicated in the attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires in 1994. In 2000, Hizballah operatives captured three Israeli soldiers in the Sheba'a Farms area and kidnapped an Israeli non-combatant.

Strength
Thousands of supporters, several thousand members, and a few hundred terrorist operatives.

Location/Area of Operation
Operates in the southern suburbs of Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and southern Lebanon. Has established support cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia.

External Aid
Receives training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran, and diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria. Hizballah also receives funding from private donations, and profits from legal and illegal businesses.
 
 
JAK

Title: Disconnect between journalists and their governments
Post by: captainccs on January 04, 2009, 05:53:13 AM

Disconnect between journalists and their governments

When one reads a headline such as UK PM calls for immediate Gaza ceasefire  it gives the impression that this is calling for Israel to stop fighting. When the headline is part of a journalistic piece, the reporter sure makes it sound like it. But if you go to the actual interview, you see the disconnect between journalists and the government spokesmen.

Listen to this interview by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I find it to be an eminently reasonable proposition but you notice that the BBC journalist asks why they don't put pressure on Israel to stop. "There has been no effective pressure on the Israeli side because they have gone ahead and done it in the first place." The journalist never bothers to ask the opposite question: "There has been no effective pressure on the Palestinian side because they continue to rocket innocent Israeli civilians."

Notice too the text right below the video:

Quote

Reports from inside the Gaza Strip say Israeli forces have intensified their military operation in the north of the territory, after crossing the border late on Saturday.

Why no mention of longer range Hamas rockets?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7810374.stm

Title: Operation Cast Lead: Background Briefing
Post by: rachelg on January 04, 2009, 06:38:21 AM

Operation Cast Lead: Background Briefing


This has a good introduction to the current conflict.  Many of you are probably familiar with the information but it might be useful to share with others. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UmVhvhFqic&feature=channel_page
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UmVhvhFqic&feature=channel_page[/youtube]

Title: How do you feel about this whole thing
Post by: captainccs on January 04, 2009, 06:49:07 AM

This comes from a very human Israeli blog. Asked How do you feel about this whole thing, here are part of her thoughts:

(Interestingly enough, there is no fear.)

But most of all, there is frustration. And that is what I offer up to the woman on the other side of the phone. There is the frustration involved in seeing the world’s reaction. What, because Hamas has either bad luck or lousy aim, the missiles they have been lobbing over for the last ten years do not count? There is the frustration in hearing that old, worn-out canard “disproportional response”. This is war, not a high-school judo match. Besides which, a proportional response would be to respond to each missile fired at us with an identical missile, sent with an equal level of concern for civilian populations. A proportional response would be to respond to each suicide bomber on a bus with an identical bomb (sans the bomber) on one of their buses. I could be wrong, but I suspect that such a policy would go over like a lead zeppelin at the UN.

There is the frustration in seeing the reactions of the left-wing and Arabs here in Israel. Where was your rage and where were your demonstrations when we were not attacking, and yet Hamas was sending missile after missile? You think that Hamas is so harmless? That their missiles are just homemade playthings? Put your money where your mouth is—go demonstrate in Sderot for a day or two.

There is the frustration in listening to a news report. Hamas has been broadcasting messages in Hebrew. “We are not afraid. We have lots of missiles”. Which they will continue to send from civilian areas. Because they prefer for more civilians to die. It makes for better propaganda. There is the frustration in reading the reports of bombs hidden in school grounds and mosques and of Hamas leaders sending their wives and children up to the roofs as human shields...and having that sick feeling that the far right may be on to something in its assertion that the language Arabs understand is force .

(Oh, please G-d, do not let it be so. If it is so, there will never be peace. )

There is the frustration in reading and hearing the world’s reaction…and knowing that the world is right. What is happening in Gaza is terrible. And there is the frustration of knowing that the world is right, but we are more right. The rockets have to stop. And really, the world does not give a rats’ ass about rockets falling on Sderot and the Negev.

There is the frustration involved in wishing, desperately, that there was another way…and not seeing one. Not when the other side is only interested in conflict.

The other day, I was witness to a conversation. Two men—both of whom did army service and still do miluim– were debating the merits of a ground operation. One held that it was the right thing to do. Go in, and get the job done. Even if the losses are high—it would be worth it. The other disagreed. Such high casualties…not worth it. The first man’s response: but is that not what an army is for? To fight?

He is right. And if we do not fight now, when will we fight? When the bombs start to hit Tel Aviv? This fight cannot be avoided, merely delayed. And why assume that a delay is in our interests?

(But then, I did not serve, and I have no one who did serve, so who am I to have an opinion either way? What is my opinion based on? This is also frustrating).

I am frustrated. I am angry. I am hopeful. I am worried. I am proud.

Most of all—and I do not say this to the woman on the other side of the phone— I am very, very sad.


http://myshrapnel.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza_03.html

Title: Ambulance Troop Carriers
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 04, 2009, 08:54:00 AM

Video is undated and unsourced, but appears to show Palestinian fighters using UN ambulances as troop transports:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=116_1231063776

Title: Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 04, 2009, 12:41:38 PM

Israel, Gaza: Gaza City Cut Off
January 4, 2009 | 1800 GMT

Abid Katib/Getty Images
Smoke rising from Gaza CityIsrael’s Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip expanded dramatically overnight and into Jan. 4. Thousands of Israeli troops and scores of tanks and armored vehicles reportedly have poured into the territory.

From the Qarni Crossing, a second major Israel Defense Forces (IDF) thrust reportedly has pushed all the way to the Mediterranean coast, cutting off Gaza City from the rest of the territory. Airstrikes on two bridges have further cut off northern Gaza from the south. Sky News reported some 150 tanks and armored vehicles massing in the former Israeli settlement of Netzarim, southwest of Gaza City — a force potentially large enough for a limited raid into the city itself.





(Click to enlarge map)
Whether the initial thrust from the northeastern corner of the territory was meant as a feint or remains an important axis of advance is unclear. The IDF does appear to have breached the border with Gaza in multiple locations, however, and is moving to surround Gaza City. Artillery fire there continued Jan. 4.

With some 30 soldiers reported wounded, reported IDF casualties have thus far been light, though fighting has been characterized as heavy at times. And Israeli troops have yet to attempt to enter places like Gaza City, where fighting will be more intense. Hamas claims to have captured two Israeli soldiers, but Israel has denied the claims. There have not yet been any reports of Hamas using its rumored anti-armor capabilities.

On the Palestinian side, airstrikes and artillery fire continued to take a higher toll, with nearly 20 deaths reported Jan. 4 at of the time of this writing. The Gaza Strip remains without power, and communications infrastructure has reportedly taken a big hit as well.


A Jan. 3 airstrike reportedly killed Zakaria al-Jamal, a battalion-level commander of Hamas’ military wing, the Izz al-Deen al-Qassam Brigades. Al-Jamal reportedly was in charge of artillery rocket-launching squads in Gaza City. Other airstrikes attempted to kill Hamas commanders Husam Hamdan and Muhammad Maaruf, though Hamdan was wounded, not killed, and Maaruf’s fate has not been confirmed. Hamdan was targeted in Khan Younis along with Mohammed Hilo, who reportedly supervised the fabrication and employment of domestically made Qassam rockets there.

Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel continued Jan. 4, including strikes by 122 mm BM-21 Grad artillery rockets. There reportedly have been roughly 30 strikes thus far on Jan. 4. This is more than the number of rockets fired Jan. 3, but still lighter than the reported 40 or more strikes of Dec. 31, the day Iranian-made Fajr-3 artillery rockets reportedly were first used. The Hezbollah connection and the potential for a possible northern front remain developments to watch.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2009, 01:09:26 PM

Quote from: Body-by-Guinness on January 04, 2009, 08:54:00 AM

Video is undated and unsourced, but appears to show Palestinian fighters using UN ambulances as troop transports:

Israel softens UN ambulance claim
 
The Israeli army picture alleged to show a Palestinian militant loading a rocket onto a UN ambulance
Israel's army is reviewing its claim that the United Nations allowed Palestinian militants in Gaza to use a UN ambulance to transport rockets.
An Israeli military official said an object seen in video footage might be a stretcher rather than a rocket.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has sent a team of investigators to look into the Israeli claims.

The UN relief agency chief in Gaza described them as "malicious propaganda" that endangered UN lives.

Peter Hansen demanded an immediate public retraction and apology from the Israeli government.

   
 The very idea that individuals with clear links to the Hamas terrorist network maybe on the Unwra payroll is totally unacceptable and should be properly investigated 
Dan Gillerman
Israeli UN ambassador
In a statement, the Danish diplomat said it was not the first time the Israeli government had "propagated falsehoods" against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa).

Mr Hansen said Israeli ministers had in the past declared that Unrwa ambulances were carrying body parts of fallen Israeli soldiers.

"When challenged to produce the evidence backing up this claim, or to retract the statement and offer an apology, the ministers in question were not able to provide any response and have remained silent," Mr Hansen said.

So far there has been no public explanation about Israel's re-evaluation of the video, but the army has removed references to it from its website.

An Israeli military official, speaking to journalists on condition of anonymity, said no definite conclusion had been reached about the matter.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2009, 01:23:10 PM

GAZA CITY (CNN) -- Gaza's main hospital, already full of Palestinians wounded in the week-long Israeli air assault, reached critical mass on Sunday, according to a Norwegian doctor volunteering at Shifa Hospital.


A Palestinian father carries his wounded baby daughter into a hospital in Gaza City Sunday.

"We've had a steady stream [of patients] every day, but the last 24 hours has [brought] about triple the number of cases," Dr. Erik Fosse told CNN. "So this day has been extremely busy."

Fosse said he estimated that about 30 percent of the casualties at Shifa Hospital on Sunday were children, both among the dead and the wounded.

The increase in casualties at Shifa followed Israel's's ground incursion into Gaza, which it launched on Saturday night. Fosse said 50 patients were "severely wounded" when an Israeli airstrike hit a food market in Gaza City. 

"We were operating in the corridors, patients were lying everywhere, and people were dying before they got treatment," he said.

Palestinian medical officials said Israeli forces have killed 37 Palestinians -- both civilians and militants -- since moving into the territory Saturday night. With those deaths, at least 485 Palestinians, including about 100 women and children, have been killed since the military operation began more than a week ago, officials said.

In addition, 2,600 Palestinians have been injured, most of them civilians, officials said.

Most of the casualties are a result of the airstrikes that preceded Saturday night's ground incursion. Shifa is the main hospital in Gaza City. Other hospitals were unable to treat the wounded because of a shortage of supplies and staff.

Israel has said the military operation is a necessary self-defense measure after repeated rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israel by Hamas militants. Israeli leaders say they are trying to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.

Last week, Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj, a psychiatrist who runs Gaza's mental health program, said Gaza is headed for "a major humanitarian disaster" unless the fighting ends soon.

Meanwhile, at the Gaza-Egypt border, nearly 25 trucks carrying relief and medical supplies were unable to get into Gaza because they could not get through the Rafa border gate, CNN's Karl Penhaul reported.

Egyptian authorities said the guards who were manning the Palestinian side of the border had abandoned their posts. Aid workers and drivers banged on the gate to protest the closure, but the gate remained shut. 

Title: Gilad Shalid & High Moral Standards
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 04, 2009, 03:33:41 PM

Ah, JDN, it appears you feel folks who fire missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas and then hide amid their civilians during the response have moral standards so well developed they wouldn't stoop to use ambulances as a military transport vehicles. Some online are now stating that the video is from 2004 and shows Fatah using UN ambulances. As that may be, there is certainly a long history of Palestinian misuse of ambulances, as outlined here:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Palestinian+Misuse+of+Medical+Services+and+Ambulances+for+Terrorist+Activities+13-Oct-2004.htm

As for your other post, perhaps Gaza hospitals would not be filling up so fast if Hamas wasn't launching missiles and managed to abide by the terms it accepted when Gaza was turned over. Perhaps you could ask Gilad Shalid what he thinks about the topic.

Title: A Caterpillar and An Anthem
Post by: rachelg on January 04, 2009, 03:41:35 PM

Daniel Gordis was not everyone's favorite  author when I posted him before but I thoght this was rinstersting view of American born Israeli with two kids in the army. 
http://www.danielgordis.org/Site/Site_ViewDispatches.asp?id=22
 A Caterpillar and An Anthem
04 January 2009
We didn’t mean to, but we lied to our kids.

Almost ten years ago, shortly after we made aliyah, we were sitting with our three young children having dinner. One of the boys, still getting used to the idea that his life was going to be very different in Israel, looked up from his food, and asked out of nowhere, “Is Israel still going to have an army when I’m eighteen?”

He was scared. But we knew that he had no reason to be. “Yes, there’ll be an army,” we told him. “But there’s going to be peace by then. By the time you’re eighteen, everything’s going to be different. You’ll see.” I still remember how certain we were, and how relieved he looked.

A couple of weeks ago, on the Wednesday of Hanukkah, Hamas fired more than 60 mortars and rockets at Sederot and the western part of the Negev. The number was high, but the situation wasn’t new. The kids of Sederot have been getting shelled for eight years, with a dramatic increase since Israel got out of Gaza in 2005. The next day, Thursday, I was supposed to go to Sederot to visit my friend, Laura, to see some of the work she was doing on a new movie (about the music scene in Sederot, in which her husband is a leading figure). Despite the horrible weather, it was still a (Hanukkah) vacation day of sorts, and I asked the kids if any of them wanted to come with me. Talia, now in law school, had class and a massive amount of work. Micha, the only one still in high school, also had too much studying to do. But Avi, home from the army for a few days, said he’d happily come – he and I don’t get lots of hang-out time together anymore.

My tour-guide wife was out of town, guiding a family in the north. I figured that I should check with her before taking one of her kids and her only car to Sederot on a week like that. But she didn’t hesitate for a second. “Of course you should go,” she said. “Remember how we resented those people who wouldn’t come to Jerusalem when we were the ones under attack. Just drive safely, and be careful out there. I’ll be home for dinner.” I wasn’t quite sure how one was supposed to “be careful” in the car if rockets started falling out of the sky again, but I didn’t press the point.

A couple of hours later, Avi and I were in Sederot, at Laura’s house. The city seemed deserted, but it was hard to tell whether that was because of the previous day’s barrage of rockets, or the drenching rain that fell all day. The skies were quiet. But even on a day when rockets didn’t fall, it didn’t take long to see how utterly surreal life there has become.

Laura had a great, gigantic publicity poster for a classic movie on her living room wall. “Great poster,” I said to her. She told me a bit about the store in Jaffa where she’d bought it. “Is it an original?” I asked her. “They had originals,” she said, “and I was actually tempted to get one. But then I realized that it’s kind of absurd to buy anything of value to put in your house when you live in Sederot.” I tried to imagine what it would be like to live not wanting to have anything of value, knowing that your house could be obliterated almost without warning, because you happen to live within rocket range of a terrorist state that has no territorial dispute with you, but simply doesn’t recognize your right to exist, and never will.

After chatting for a while and seeing some of the movie-in-progress, we decided to go out to grab a bite for lunch. On the way to the café, Laura pointed out the neighbor’s house that’s now deserted because the owner moved away after a rocket hit it. She pointed to the traffic circle where a young boy had his leg blown off a few months ago in a different attack. And so on.

But what struck me more than anything on the way to lunch was the playground. Even in the pouring rain, it looked just like a regular playground, with jungle-gyms, swing sets and the like. There was even a colorful cement caterpillar – for the kids to climb on, I assumed. “See the caterpillar?” Laura asked me. “It’s hollow,” she said. “And see over there? Those are the openings. It’s really a bomb shelter. When the Color Red siren goes off [indicating an incoming kassam], the kids can run from the other parts of the playground into the caterpillar and wait there until the rocket hits.” (I asked Avi, sitting in the back, to take a quick picture, despite the rain.)

On the drive back, Avi and I got a chance to chat. It was absurd, we both knew. What Israel was (not) doing was beyond immoral. States have an obligation to protect their citizens, and we weren’t doing it. That, undoubtedly, was the sentiment behind the graffiti that we saw, claiming that Sederot should “secede” [the actual word, tellingly, was “disengage”] from the “pathetic state.”

Why should children living in uncontested Israeli territory grow up being taught that in the playground, when the siren goes off, you run into the caterpillar, and hope that the rocket doesn’t kill any of your friends who don’t make it in time? For how many years does a State have a right to ignore the citizens whose children, at the ages of eight and nine, are wetting their beds all over again, the sheer terror of the siren reducing their entire childhood to a years-long nightmare? For how many years dare Israel do nothing, as hundreds of families, terrified that the rockets will hit in the middle of the night, all sleep in the same room? What does it do to a family, and to marriages, when elementary and high school age children have been sleeping in their parents’ room on the floor for years?

How do you educate kids, my friend Ahrele (the principle of the high school in that region) once asked me, when the siren goes off (sometimes several times a day), and hundreds upon hundreds of kids cram the high school hallways desperate to get to a protected room but can’t move because all the passageways are jammed with students? And then, minutes later, when it’s over, how are they supposed to sit quietly and start thinking about their history class, or focus on geometry? “We didn’t finish the job,” Ahrele once said to me and Elisheva during a dinner at his home a couple of years ago, the sounds of exploding shells in the distance punctuating our conversation. “We didn’t show them that we intend to live here, no matter what. Really, when you think about it, this is just the latest battle in the War of Independence. It’s the battle for our right to have a place to live.”

He was right, of course. It was absurd for us to tell our kids that they wouldn’t go to war. Because if the War of Independence was about making it clear that we intend to stay and getting our enemies to acknowledge that we, too, have a right to a country and a normal life, then we’ve yet to win it.

So now, we have to try again. Some progress has been made. For thirty five years, Syria, Jordan and Egypt have all refrained from launching military attacks on Israel. Because they love us? Hardly. It’s just because they know that we will obliterate them if they do. Even when Israel bombed a nuclear-reactor deep inside Syria, Syria whined but did nothing. They’ve learned their lesson. Maybe Hezbollah did, too, the disasters of the 2006 Second Lebanon War notwithstanding. At this writing, at least, in the first hours of the ground war, they’re staying out of the present conflict. One hopes that they’re smart enough to keep that up.

But Hamas hasn’t yet learned, and because of that, our citizens have been suffering for years. So there is no choice but to fight this war, and to win it decisively.

On the Shabbat afternoon after our visit to Sederot, Avi’s girlfriend, who was at our house for lunch, suddenly got called back to her base. That was our first inkling that the war was starting. The next morning, Avi went back to the army, but to a different base. And by Sunday evening (the last night of Hanukkah), Talia, in the first semester of law school, struggling with a massive amount of school work and finally just getting the hang of it all, had been called back to her unit.

Quite frankly, I expected some tears when she told me that she’d been called up. How would she keep up with school? The vast majority of her classmates hadn’t been called up, so it wasn’t as if school would be cancelled. How would she ever catch up? What, I figured she’d want to know, was going to happen to her grades?

But when we called her downstairs to light Hanukkah candles for the final night, there weren’t any tears. What I saw on her face was steely-eyed stoicism. There was work to be done, she knew how to do it, and they needed her. So she was heading back to the army.

Suddenly, I remembered the night, long ago, when we’d told her and her brothers that the wars were all over, that peace was on its way. For a moment, I thought that I should apologize to her, tell her how much we didn’t know back then, that I was really, really sorry that this is how it is. That Elisheva and I didn’t have to go to college like this, and that I hoped that she wasn’t angry with us for having made the decisions that now mean she does.

But by the time I thought of saying something to her, the candles were already lit, and we were up to Maoz Tzur. We got to the last stanza, and I had my arms around her and together, we were all singing:

Chasof zero’a kodshekhah
Bare Your Holy arm and hasten the arrival of some salvation
Avenge the vengeance of your servant’s blood from the wicked nation
Ki archah lanu ha-yeshu’a
For real victory is taking far too long
And there is no end to the days of evil

There’s nothing new in this whole story, I was reminded. It’s what Jews have had to do for generations to stay alive, and it’s what the younger generation now is being asked to do, again.

So I didn’t apologize. When we were done, she went up to her room to look for the uniforms that she’d packed away someplace last year, assuming that after three years in the army, she wouldn’t be needing them anymore. As she climbed the stairs, I thought again of the caterpillar. And of the poster that had to be a replica because the house might come down. And of the kids still wetting their beds. And of towns that have known only terror for years after years.

Our kids don’t want an apology. They’d be appalled if one were forthcoming. Because they understand, perhaps better than we do, that this simply has to be done. What’s at stake is not Sederot. What’s at stake is the question of whether Jewish sovereignty means anything. One can – and should be saddened by the loss of life in Gaza these weeks, on both sides. But we dare not let caring about innocent human life among Palestinians, or even more understandably, our dread of what the casualties among the IDF may be, blur the urgency of what we need to do.

These weeks, with the question of whether or not Jewish sovereignty means anything at all, there is really only one question. As Joshua said to the angel (Joshua 5:13), “are you for us, or for our adversaries?” Do you believe that Jews in Sederot have a right to live without bomb-shelter caterpillars in their playgrounds? Do you think that parents in that whole part of the country have a right to sleep in their own room by themselves, and that nine year olds should no longer wet their beds, night after night, caught in nightmares that will probably hound them for life? Do you understand that the only point of having a Jewish state is that Jews should no longer live – and die – at the whim of those who hate us just because we exist? Do you get that Ahrele was right? That we’re still fighting for the simple right to have the world acknowledge that we have a right to be?

There’s only one question, and it is Joshua’s. Are you for us, or for our adversaries? There is no place for mealy-mouthed equivocation calling for an end to the “violence,” for that is nothing more than a euphemism for more years of Jewish kids living in dread and Jewish sovereignty meaning nothing.

Israel could well become a horribly tear-soaked country this week. But thankfully, we finally have leadership that seems to understand that what is at stake is the question of whether having a state changes anything at all about the existential condition of the Jews. At long last, they get it – if Jews still have to live in dread, for the mere sin of existing, then there’s really no point to any of this.

So pray for them. Whatever you believe, or don’t, pray for the thousands of kids out there doing what the Maccabees did – risking everything so the Jews can survive. And remember, no matter how devastating the pictures that will inevitably emerge from the theater of war, that it’s all about something really simple. We say it, all the time, in our national anthem:

Od lo avedah tikvateinu … liyot am chofshi be-artzeinu
We haven’t yet abandoned our hope … to be a free people in our land.

That’s really all we want.

More than that, we don’t need.
But for less than that, we’ll never, ever settle.

Title: Allowing Evil to Prevail
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 04, 2009, 04:00:56 PM

A Moral War (Time For Good Men To Support Israel's Right Of Self Defense Alert)
Jerusalem Post ^ | 1/04/2009 | Jerusalem Post Masthead Editorial

For pacifists who believe that all wars are immoral, Israel's self-defense operation against Hamas in Gaza is necessarily wrong. To such people we invoke the 18th-century philosopher Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Confronted by a movement that amalgamates fascism with religious extremism and a genocidal platform, our moral imperative demands Jewish self-defense.

Few of the voices slamming Israel for conducting an "immoral" war in Gaza are those of pacifists.

Take Riyad Mansour, Mahmoud Abbas's man at the UN. He claimed on CNN that "3,000 Palestinians had been killed or injured" in Gaza, then denounced Israel's "targeting 1.5 million Palestinians" as "immoral" and a "crime against humanity."

Even as Mansour was pontificating, Hamas gunmen in Gaza were shooting Fatah activists in the knees as a preventive security measure lest they take advantage of the unstable situation.

In the West Bank, meanwhile, Mansour's Fatah has been ruthlessly hunting down Hamas members to keep the Islamists from seizing power there when Abbas's presidential term expires next week.

Far from there being "3,000 killed and wounded," more like 500 have been killed - 400 of them Hamas "militants," according to Palestinian Arab and UN sources inside Gaza cited by the Associated Press. Israeli sources put the Palestinian civilian death toll at some 50.

Pointing this out does not diminish the dreadful loss of dozens of innocent Palestinian lives in a week's worth of fighting. It does show, however, that the IDF continues to do everything possible to avoid "collateral damage." But its prime mandate is to protect the lives of Israeli civilians and minimize risks to our citizen-soldiers.

Over the weekend, glitterati including Annie Lennox and Bianca Jagger joined tens of thousands of mostly Muslim protesters in rallies held worldwide against the Israeli "genocide."

In fact, we'd be surprised if any another army currently on the battlefield is more conscientious about avoiding civilian casualties. Before it attacks and whenever possible, the IDF leaflets, telephones or sends text messages to residents of buildings used to launch rockets at our territory, warning them of the impending air-strike.

Conversely, what sort of "resistance" movement deliberately uses mosques, schools and homes as weapons depots and rocket launching pads? Answer: one that also uses its children and women as human shields.

AMONG those troubled by Israel's actions are Jews whose connections to things Jewish are limited to the occasional bagel or lox sandwich. They too march to make clear they're nothing like those pitiless Israelis. "As a Jew, it is very moving to see so many people… outraged at Israel's actions," said comedian Alexei Sayle, who was raised in a strictly orthodox Communist Liverpool household.

Not all uncomfortable Jews are cut off from the community. Take Isaac Luria - not the ancient kabbalist, but the young Internet director of J Street, which is devoted to redefining what it means to be pro-Israel. Luria thinks that the IDF is "pushing the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict further down a path of never-ending violence." He's strictly against "raining rockets on Israeli families" (this is bad, he knows, because he spent a year in Israel), but "there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them."

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to admit that Palestinian suffering is mostly self-inflicted? And that Hamas's anti-Israel agenda is wildly popular among Gaza's masses? And doesn't Luria owe it to himself to look a little closer at the nature of the Israeli military response.

The folks at J Street believe "there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict...." Hamas would beg to differ. Indeed, Hamas has been trying to prove the contrary, forcing Israel's hand.

What Israel's critics need to understand is that there can be no political solution while we are under Palestinian bombardment. Those who are sincere about fostering coexistence should stop bashing the IDF and start telling the Palestinians: Stop the violence.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733173659&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2009, 05:14:52 PM

Quote from: Body-by-Guinness on January 04, 2009, 03:33:41 PM

Ah, JDN, it appears you feel folks who fire missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas and then hide amid their civilians during the response have moral standards so well developed they wouldn't stoop to use ambulances as a military transport vehicles. Some online are now stating that the video is from 2004 and shows Fatah using UN ambulances. As that may be, there is certainly a long history of Palestinian misuse of ambulances, as outlined here:

Ah no, that is not correct; I was merely pointing out that your original posted video where you even stated was "undated, unsourced, and appeared..." was erroneous, misleading,
and without any basis of fact.  Imagine if everyone here posted such blatantly false and misleading information?

Title: There is no such thing as a measured response to terrorism
Post by: captainccs on January 05, 2009, 07:41:22 AM

There is no such thing as a measured response to terrorism

says Mayor Bloomberg of NYC (video)

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=11374786&src=news

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 05, 2009, 08:12:24 AM

Is not Hamas committed to the total destruction of Israel?
That said I argue that the appropriate response is the total destruction of them first.
Anything less is disproportionately *low*.

I don't recall the whole argument about proportionality in warfare being discussed until we discusss the methods of the Israelis anyway.  Isn't this new politically correct stuff we are hearing or did this concept get brought up in the MSM media before?

Title: Care to Wager?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 05, 2009, 09:27:40 AM

Quote

Imagine if everyone here posted such blatantly false and misleading information?

Oh, like the false and misleading casualty figures you constantly bandy as the reason Israel should bend to Hamas' will, or the false and misleading characterizations of asymmetric warfare that lead to the "proportional" banality you incessantly spout?

Do you really doubt that a political party that hides among civilians as it pops off rockets, parades children through the streets dressed like suicide bombers, and calls for driving all Jews into the sea by any means necessary would hesitate an instant in retasking an ambulance or any other civilian resource? Care to lay a wager as to whether any such incident will be documented in Israeli after action reports?

Title: What Hamas Wants
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 05, 2009, 09:29:01 AM

What Hamas Wants
It’s not peace, reconciliation, or even an end to the carnage.

By Clifford D. May

A thought experiment: Imagine that Hamas announces it will immediately cease and desist from firing missiles into Israel, that there will be no more such attacks in the future, and that it will release Gilad Shalit, the Israel soldier kidnapped two and a half years ago and held incommunicado ever since — with not even the Red Cross allowed to see him. What would happen then?

Moderate Israelis would pressure their government to make a reciprocal gesture: to stop the air attacks on Hamas’s command and control centers, release Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails and get serious peace talks underway.

But anyone who knows anything about Hamas also knows that such a scenario is implausible. Hamas was created to fight and win holy wars — not to seek peace and sing kumbaya with infidels. Hamas wants a Palestinian state in place of Israel — not next door to Israel. And for Hamas, preventing Palestinian carnage is not a priority. That’s not a slander, it’s a fact. As Hamas parliamentarian Fathi Hamad eloquently phrased it: “We desire death as you desire life.”

In 2005, Israelis undertook a real-life experiment: They said: “The Palestinians have a grievance: our occupation of Gaza and the West Bank — even though we administer those territories as the consequence of a war launched to annihilate us. But if our presence provokes violence, let’s see what results from our absence.” That summer, Israel pulled every soldier and settler out of Gaza. Every house of worship and cemetery was removed. But greenhouses were left behind.

Palestinians might have responded by using those greenhouses to grow flowers for export. They might have built factories, schools, hospitals, and hotels along their Mediterranean beaches. Had that been their choice, moderate Israelis surely would have made further concessions — for example, uprooting Israelis from the West Bank as well, and offering to negotiate a division of Jerusalem.

Instead, of course, Palestinians smashed the greenhouses and put Hamas in charge. Since then, Hamas has done nothing to spark economic development. Nevertheless, it has bemoaned the increasing destitution of unoccupied Gaza — now blaming it on Israel’s “siege” — and demanding aid, not least from Israel, which has given it (as has the U.S.), even as the rockets have fallen 

We should understand by now that when Hamas officials vow to fight “occupation,” they are referring to any and all territory on which Israelis now exercise self-determination. Osama Hamdan, Hamas’s representative in Lebanon, said: “Our goal is to liberate all of Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea…” Similarly Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar has said:  ”We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay, nor his ownership of any inch of land.”

This is not merely a negotiating posture, on which there can be compromise once diplomats arrange meetings. It is, rather, a religious conviction. Article 11 of the Hamas Charters states unambiguously that “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [endowment] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

In Hamas’s view, a Muslim may do his duty and wage war for Israel’s destruction. Or a Muslim may shirk his duty. There is no third option.

One final thought experiment: Imagine that Hamas someday achieves its goal and wipes Israel off the map. Would that be the end of the global conflict now being waged by militant Islamists? Or would the Khomeinists of Iran — Hamas’s chief benefactor — al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and similar groups be energized and encouraged?  Having vanquished the “Little Satan,” what is the chance they could be sweet-talked out of continuing to battle the “Great Satan” in pursuit of the power and glory they believe is their due?

By contrast, if Israel can deliver a crippling blow to Hamas, the mission of the militant jihadists will appear to have lost Divine sanction. As my colleague, the historian Michael Ledeen, has noted: “Nothing is more devastating to a messianic movement than defeat.”


— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVhYjVlNGMxNWQ2MjYzNGZiNzg2MGYxNGE5NjU4NjI=

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 05, 2009, 07:45:47 PM

SDEROT, Israel -- Mohammed Abu Hassanin may be a young boy, but he's old enough to know he's scared of the attacks being launched by Israel in Gaza.

A wounded boy is carried into the Al-Shifa hospital on Monday in Gaza.

"When the Jews bomb us when we are asleep, [Hassanin] says 'We get scared,' " a translator says.

Hassanin is one boy from Gaza speaking frankly to an anchor on Hamas TV about the attacks, which have gone on for 10 days.

Children like him have accounted for one-third of the casualties at Gaza's main hospital, foreign doctors say. And now Hamas and their media are making them the face of the attacks.

The children have seen terrible images of tragedy: their friends injured or killed and bloodied bodies in the streets.

They are images Hassanin says he will never forget. He'll keep them stored away until he's old enough to do something about it.

"When we will grow up, we will bomb them back," a CNN translator quoted the boy saying on Hamas TV.

It's a sentiment psychiatrists in Gaza say could be responsible a frightening future --  that the violence children are witnessing will sow the seeds for future violence.  Watch how Arab media is covering the crisis »

In Gaza, a little girl wails as she talks about her friend who was killed in an attack on a Hamas house.

"She could be my sister," the girl tearfully says. "She is my friend but maybe my sister could die some day, I don't know. I am afraid."

Gaza psychiatrist Eyad el Sarraj said similar trauma to children following past Palestinian intifadas has led to violent results.

"Today children are experiencing a serious kind of trauma, and I fear for the future," el Sarraj said. "The children of the first intifada were throwing stones at the Israeli troops. And because of the trauma they were subjected to, 10 years later, the same children became suicide bombers."

Nowhere is safe for the children, and many are without food.

On Sunday, Save the Children staff members delivered food parcels to 641 families -- or nearly 6,000 people, including more than 3,000 children -- in Gaza City, east Jabalyah, Beit Lahia, Beit Hanoun and Um Al Nasser. But the group said the continuous air assaults and ground fighting are making movement dangerous for needy families.

Don't Miss
Israeli military surrounds Gaza City, officals say
In Gaza, living with anger and fear
In Depth: Gaza Crisis
"The situation has reached a critical level for children who are exposed to and experiencing violence, fear and uncertainty," said Annie Foster, Save the Children's team leader for the emergency response in the region.

"Parents are facing enormous challenges to protecting and caring for their children. Either they cannot leave their house to attend to basic needs for fear of being caught in the crossfire -- or they are being forced from their homes, into harm's way, to find shelter."

In the streets of Gaza, where Israeli ground forces are operating, and on the Israeli side, where Hamas rockets are being launched, the streets are empty. Even playgrounds for children are equipped with bunkers.  Watch the latest on Hamas' continued rocket threats »

Sirens wail on the Israeli side warning of Hamas rocket attacks. When asked what they think when they hear the sound, the children respond with only one word: "Fear."

The threat of Hamas rockets in the south of Israel is taken so seriously that almost all the schools within rocket range of Gaza have locked their gates and told children not to come to school. According to the Israeli government, 300,000 students are affected.

The threat to children is something, perhaps the only thing, that people on both sides of the border agree on.

Gaby Schrieber, an Israeli psychiatrist at Barzilai Hospital, says Israeli children get excellent help and structured support  -- something he fears children in Gaza won't be receiving.

And if they don't get the support they need or hope for a better future, Schrieber worries what will happen to them.

"Where is hope for them, and how can they structure their future in their minds?" Schrieber said. "They can become extremists." E-mail to a friend  | Mixx it | Share

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2009, 08:21:50 PM

JDN,

The "Palestinian" children are conditioned from birth to wage jihad. Your sob-sister propaganda seems to avoid this truth.

Look up some of the children's programs from http://www.memritv.org/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2009, 09:05:48 PM

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/01/shock-and-horror-hamas-says-assoud-the-jihad-bunny-mortally-wounded-in-israeli-airstrike.html

More tragic news from Gaza! Try not to tear up too much......

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 05, 2009, 09:23:09 PM

Quote from: G M on January 05, 2009, 09:05:48 PM

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/01/shock-and-horror-hamas-says-assoud-the-jihad-bunny-mortally-wounded-in-israeli-airstrike.html

More tragic news from Gaza! Try not to tear up too much......

Does the bunny get 72 virgin bunnettes?  :evil:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 06, 2009, 12:30:33 AM

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/pallywood-a-history/

Too long to cut and paste. Read this and open your eyes, JDN.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 06, 2009, 07:12:43 AM

Quote from: captainccs on January 05, 2009, 09:23:09 PM

Does the bunny get 72 virgin bunnettes?  :evil:

I don't know captain, but if the 72 virgins looked like the one next to the bunny I personally would ask for
a refund/raincheck myself.   :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 06, 2009, 07:55:50 AM

"When we will grow up, we will bomb them back," a CNN translator quoted the boy saying on Hamas TV"
That is exactly why the Israeli response is disproportionately too low.
This is a fight for survival, for existence.
It is weakness not strength that leaves Israel at higher risk.
Right now the PC police leave them weak.
And of course the age old its "the jews" fault for wanting to have a tiny spot on the Earth.  How dare them!

Title: Priceless logic
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2009, 08:06:25 AM

This guy gets the Big Chutzpah award. :x :x :x
=============================


srael has legitimised the killing of its children
The Times

January 6, 2009

Hamas: Israel has legitimised the killing of its children


Fighting intensified on the northern outskirts of Gaza City yesterday as a Hamas leader warned that the Islamists would kill Jewish children anywhere in the world in revenge for Israel’s devastating assault.

“They have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine,” Mahmoud Zahar said in a televised broadcast recorded at a secret location. “They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.”


Mr Zahar made his first appearance since Israel launched its offensive. Dressed in a dark suit, he declared: “Victory is coming, God willing.”

As night fell on the territory, most of which is without electricity, the sky above Gaza was illuminated by explosions and flares from the pitched battle on Gaza City’s northern fringes, where Israeli tanks, helicopters and artillery fought to dislodge Hamas guerrillas. Witnesses said that the battle had, for the first time, spilled into Gaza City itself, where the head of Hamas’s armed wing warned that thousands of his fighters were waiting.


The Israeli military said last night that three of its soldiers were killed and 24 wounded by a shell from one of its own tanks in a battle near Gaza City.

Abu Obeida, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, made his first appearance on Gaza television, his face masked in a red and white scarf, to goad Israeli forces massed outside the teeming city of 400,000 people. “We have prepared thousands of brave fighters who are waiting for you in each corner of the street and will welcome you with fire and iron,” he said.

Despite growing international calls for a ceasefire, neither side has shown the slightest intention of backing down. Israel, supported by the outgoing Bush Administration in the United States, rejected European calls for an immediate ceasefire reiterated during a peace mission by President Sarkozy of France. Israel argues that it needs to break Hamas’s military capacity if a durable ceasefire is to be negotiated. “We cannot accept a compromise that will allow Hamas to fire \ against Israeli towns in two months’ time,” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Mr Sarkozy last night.

Hamas, meanwhile, kept firing rockets into southern Israel, launching about 40 of its home-made Qassam rockets and more sophisticated Grad missiles. They again hit Beersheba, about 25 miles from Gaza. While Israeli forces have stormed into the northeastern area of the Strip, from where Hamas usually launches its projectiles, the Islamists have maintained their fire from within Gaza City.

Many analysts believe that Hamas wants to goad Israel into its stronghold, a hellish landscape for urban combat, which the Islamists have had 18 months to prime with booby traps, ambushes and tunnels.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israeli soldiers raided the house of a Hamas militant only to find three tunnels underneath through which their quarry escaped. It added that Hamas’s reports of kidnapping an Israeli soldier stemmed from an incident in which the soldier became separated from his unit and the militants tried to drag him down a tunnel. He escaped after a scuffle, it said.

Mr Sarkozy, part of a high-level EU effort in the region to negotiate a truce, told Israel that “the violence must halt”. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President and Fatah leader, whom he met in Ramallah yesterday, also called for an unconditional truce.

Mr Sarkozy ran foul of Hamas when he said that it must bear most of the blame for the increasingly miserable plight of the 1.5 million Gazans it rules over. “Hamas acted in an irresponsible and unforgiveable manner . . . Hamas is to blame for the suffering of the Palestinians,” he said. A Hamas spokesman accused Mr Sarkozy of “total bias” towards Israel.

Casualty figures

550 Palestinians have been killed in Operation Cast Lead

100 of the dead are children

2,500 Palestinians have been wounded

4 Israeli civilians have been killed since the operation began, and four Israeli soldiers. Seventy-seven soldiers have been injured

Source: Gaza medical services, Israel Defence Forces

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5454204.ece

Title: About that Israeli strike on the UN “school”
Post by: captainccs on January 06, 2009, 03:10:57 PM

It is important to stress that the people of Palestine elected HAMAS, they back HAMAS, and therefore they are as responsible as HAMAS for the suffering they are inflicting on themselves. I can't be bothered to shed a tear for these murderers and terrorists. Let's not forget that they dress their little ones as suicide bombers. No rational and compassionate parent would do anything as idiotic. The Palestinians are dedicated to breeding cannon fodder and then they want the world to weep for them. What is sad is that there are so many idiots in the West who buy this criminal story.


About that Israeli strike on the UN “school” Updated
By Michelle Malkin  •  January 6, 2009 12:14 PM

Scroll for updates…

For context, watch this video from the UNRWA boys’ school in Gaza in 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI&eurl=http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/about-that-israeli-strike-on-the-un-school/&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI&eurl=http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/about-that-israeli-strike-on-the-un-school/&feature=player_embedded)

Terrorists from the Gaza Strip fire mortars from an UNRWA boys’ school in Gaza on 29 Oct. 2007. Hamas and other terror organizations in Gaza make deliberate use of civilians living in populated areas as human shields.

Here’s another clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elyXQ6g-TJs)

Israeli official: militants fired from UN school (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95HORS00&show_article=1&catnum=0)

Fast forward to 2009:

An Israeli official says Palestinian militants fired on Israeli soldiers from the courtyard of a U.N. school where dozens of people died in fiery explosions.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he said the army is still drafting the country’s official response to the incident.

Palestinian medics said 34 people were killed in an Israeli strike outside a U.N. school in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya. The United Nations confirmed 30 were killed and 55 injured.

The Israeli official said “hostile fire” was directed at the soldiers from within the school. He said soldiers returned fire and multiple explosions went off, presumably emanating from munitions stored there.

Related: “Hamas operatives are in the hospital and have disguised themselves as nurses and doctors,” one official said.

Flashback - more human shield ploys: Ambulances for terror (http://michellemalkin.com/2006/08/29/ambulances-for-terror-2/)


http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/about-that-israeli-strike-on-the-un-school/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: SB_Mig on January 06, 2009, 04:12:45 PM

Bad Timing
Gaza could have been a model of the future Palestinian state. Instead, it is a place of repression and aggression.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Jan. 5, 2009, at 12:07 PM ET

The deaths of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, and of Israelis (Muslim and Christian Arab, and Druse and Bedouin, as well as Jewish, don't forget, in Ashdod and Sderot), are hardly ennobled by the sordid realization that the timing of the carnage has been determined by three sets of electoral calculation.

The first and the most obvious is the interregnum between U.S. presidencies, in which only the faintest of squeaks will be heard from our political class as our weapons are used to establish later bridgeheads and to realign our uneasy simultaneous patronage of the Israeli and the Egyptian and the Palestinian establishments. Benny Morris, one of the most tough-minded Israeli intellectual commentators, used to speculate that Israel would employ the Bush-Obama transition to strike at Iranian nuclear sites. He may have been wrong in the short term, but, in fact, the current attack on Gaza and Hamas is the same war in a micro or proxy form.

Second comes the impending February election in Israel. Until last week, Benjamin Netanyahu was strongly favored to come back as the man whose hard line against territorial concessions had been vindicated by the use of long-evacuated Gaza as a launching pad for random missile attacks. It now seems unlikely that he can easily outbid the current ruling coalition, at least from the hawkish right. (Remember that all the nonsense of the so-called "Al-Aqsa intifada," which wasted so much time and life in the last decades, was first instigated by an electoral rivalry between Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, in which the latter showed himself more hard-line than the former by waddling militantly across the Temple Mount in the company of an armed band. For such vanities do children end up screaming in the streets over the mangled bodies of their parents—and vice, if I may so phrase it, versa.)

The third consideration, and the least noticed, is the fact that this month is the one where new elections for the Palestinian Authority have to be called by President Mahmoud Abbas, if not actually held. Before the new year, I talked to one or two knowledgeable Palestinians who argued that, under then-present conditions, Hamas had to hope that such elections would not soon take place. Life in Islamic Gaza was not such as to induce ecstatic happiness and prosperity among the populace: In common with many fundamentalist movements, the Muslim Brotherhood in its local Palestinian incarnation had badly overplayed its hand. It seems improbable that we'll ever know what would have happened in a free vote, but I think it's safe to say that recent events have further postponed the emergence of a democratic and secular alternative among the Palestinians. I even think it's possible that some people in Israel and some other people in Gaza do not want to see the emergence of such a force, but let me not be cynical.

So, that is why this nasty confrontation is taking place this time instead of at another time. But each miniature of the picture also implies its own enlargement, which in turn suggests that if the latest Gaza war hadn't come at this time, it would certainly have come at another. Again and as usual, Morris' work is instructive. As one of the most stern of the "revisionist" historians of Israel's founding who went deep into his own country's archives to show that Palestinians had been the victims of a deliberate ethnic cleansing in 1947-48, Morris is accustomed to looking disagreeable facts in the face. I strongly recommend a reading of his Dec. 29 op-ed in the New York Times. In it, he described not so much what he saw when he himself looked facts in the face as what Israelis see when they look outward and inward. To the north, Hezbollah local missiles backed by Syria and Iran, two dictatorships, one of which may soon possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. To the south and west, Hamas in Gaza. In the occupied territories of the West Bank, the same old colonial rule over the unwilling and the same mad confrontation with the Messianic Jewish settlers. Within Israel itself, an increasing tendency for Israeli Arabs to identify as Arabs or Palestinians rather than Israelis. Overarching everything, the sheer demographic fact that Israeli law, and Israeli power, governs or dominates more and more non-Jews, fewer and fewer of whom are interested in compromise. (It was this demographic imperative, if you remember, that made even Sharon give up the idea of "greater Israel," a scheme for which many state-subsidized Israeli settlers are still very much willing to die—and to kill.)

Compared with the threat to its very existence that had been posed in 1967, wrote Morris, the only changes that now favored Israel were the arrival of another 2 million or 3 million Israelis and the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. But how reassuring, really, are those developments? Where are the new immigrants to go, unless onto disputed land? And on whom can the nukes be employed? On Gaza? In Hebron? These places would still be there, right next to the Jewish community, even if Damascus and Tehran were ashes. Only the messianic could even contemplate such an outcome. (What a pity there are so many of them locally.)

Confronted with this amazing concatenation of circumstances, and with some of the frightening blunders—such as the last invasion of Lebanon—that have resulted from it, some Israeli politicians appear to think that taking a tough line in Gaza might at least be good for short-term morale. This was the clear implication of the usually admirable Ethan Bronner's New York Times front-page reports on Dec. 28, 2008, and Jan. 4, 2009. So why not just come right out with it and say that one is bombing for votes?

It is only when one begins to grasp all the foregoing that one understands exactly how disgusting and squalid is the behavior of the Hamas gang. It knows very well that sanctions are injuring every Palestinian citizen, but—just like Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq—it declines to cease the indiscriminate violence and the racist and religious demagogy that led to the sanctions in the first place. Palestine is a common home for several religious and national groups, but Hamas dogmatically insists that the whole territory is instead an exclusively Muslim part of a future Islamic empire. At a time when democratic and reformist trends are observable in the region, from Lebanon to the Gulf, Hamas' leadership is physically and economically a part of the clientele of two of the area's worst dictatorships. (Should you ever be in need of a free laugh, look up those Western "intellectuals" who believe that a vote for an Islamist party and an Islamic state is a way to vote against corruption! They have not lately studied Iran and Saudi Arabia.) Gaza could have been a prefiguration of a future self-determined Palestinian state. Instead, it has been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood and made into a place of repression for its inhabitants and aggression for its neighbors. Once again, the Party of God has the whip hand. To read Benny Morris is to be quite able—and quite free—to doubt that there should ever have been an Israeli state to begin with. But to see Hamas at work is to resolve that whatever replaces or follows Zionism, it must not be the wasteland of Islamic theocracy.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2009, 04:58:22 PM

Although it gets several of the big points right, on several levels what a nasty little piece that is.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 07, 2009, 12:43:49 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/975wlwfj.asp

Gaza Is Not Lebanon
Why Israel's campaign against Hamas may succeed.
by Thomas Donnelly & Danielle Pletka
01/05/2009 5:00:00 PM


The conventional wisdom about the incursion by Israeli ground units into Gaza, mirrored in Sunday's Washington Post, is that "Israeli leaders run the risk of repeating their disastrous experience in the 2006 Lebanon war, when they suffered high casualties in ground combat with Hezbollah." Apparently, reporters and pundits are even more prone to refighting the last war than generals: Gaza is not Lebanon; Hamas is not Hezbollah and, most critically, Israel now is not Israel in 2006.

To begin with, the physical and geographical differences between southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip could hardly be greater. And while Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah leadership were under air attack in the outskirts of Beirut in 2006, the Hamas leadership has far fewer places to hide in Gaza city and elsewhere in Gaza. The initial successes of the Israeli airstrikes were not just a product of much better intelligence about Hamas (though it's probable that Israeli intelligence had done a superior job of exploiting differences amongst Hamas and West Bank leaders to improve its targeting), but also reflect simple facts of proximity and smaller scale. The terrain makes perhaps an even greater difference in ground warfare. The hills of southern Lebanon are not only naturally defensible terrain--each village providing an excellent fortified fighting position--but helped to channel Israeli armored columns. A good percentage of Israeli combat deaths came from a handful of successful ambushes.

Gaza is also an inherently isolated battlefield. Whereas Hezbollah could be resupplied not from northern Lebanon, Syria, and even from the sea, Gaza is surrounded by Israeli walls and a closed border with Egypt. And the Israeli Navy dominates the coastline. As long as Egypt restricts movement into and out of Gaza, the Hamas leadership and forces are trapped in a very small pocket. Israel's moves on the ground have capitalized on this essential fact. Within the first hours of their thrust into Gaza, the IDF appears to have been able to cordon off Gaza city and the other larger villages to the south. Hamas is now further isolated into smaller pockets, and press reports indicate that their larger command and control structure is falling apart.

Hamas and Hezbollah are also profoundly different beasts. While neither is really the "non-state actor" as popularly understood, Hezbollah is a much more robust and state-like organization, while Hamas is only a notch above its roots as a terrorist group, and has failed to capitalize on its control of quasi-independent Gaza to organize or modernize. And further, while both are Iranian proxies, the duration, depth and strength of Tehran's investments in Hezbollah far exceeds its investments in Hamas. (It's also worth noting that Hamas is a Sunni group, and though sectarianism is an imperfect guide to alliances in the Middle East--as our experience in Iraq should make clear--it does contribute to the fact that Iranian ties with Hezbollah are more organic than with Hamas.) In addition, the Lebanese state's weaknesses make it a free zone in which the Iranian Quds Force has been able to conduct rigorous paramilitary training and rearm its proxies freely. Hamas has operated under a much more watchful Israeli eye. Iranian military assistance and training to Hamas has been effective only in limited areas, and has itself lacked the scope of effort Hezbollah has enjoyed; whereas Hezbollah armed and trained and (with North Korean aid) built infrastructure for many years to fight as it did in 2006.

The result was a Hezbollah built to be a very tough opponent for the IDF. In 2006, as Stephen Biddle and Jeffrey Friedman found in a recent study for the U.S. Army War College, some of the firefights in Lebanon lasted for more than six hours, and involved Lebanese village militia as well as Hezbollah "regulars." We shall see how much the Israelis do to collapse the several pockets of Hamas they have created in Gaza, although it is worth noting that, as Hamas forces are isolated, the opportunity to bring air and artillery fires to bear in a relatively precise way will return. To be sure, there may be some close urban combat, but if the IDF maintains a methodical approach, they can slowly eviscerate Hamas militarily. Thus far, the casualty exchange ratios thus far are nothing like Lebanon; according to the War College study, the Lebanon war resulted in 53 Israeli civilian deaths from Hezbollah rockets and 119 soldiers killed in action. Thus far, Hamas is showed no ability to affect Israeli maneuvers along the main roadways used to cut through Gaza--although these ought to have been generally predictable avenues of attack--nor do there seem to have been many defense-in-depth positions, at least any that have halted or slowed Israeli progress. It's one thing to retreat into the warrens of Gaza city or other towns as Hamas appears to be doing, but Hezbollah conducted a much more active defense; also its leadership around Beirut was at less immediate risk. The Hamas defenses, thus far, have been systematically ineffective. Biddle and Friedman rightly concluded that Hezbollah has become a more traditional and conventional force, and that this development accounted for much of its improved tactical performance in 2006.

Hezbollah also acted like "regulars" in the sense of wearing uniforms. This is not simply a legal nicety or fashion statement (though their black garb is designed to intimidate their opponents), but a measure both of internal cohesion and the relationship of the military to the state--again, it is better to think of Hezbollah as a "proto-state" rather than a "non-state." Indeed, Hezbollah's recent agreement with the Lebanese state enshrines this status. Also, since one of the primary requisites of a legitimate state is defense of territory and people, it would seem that Hamas is losing its "domestic" propaganda war in a way that Hezbollah did not. Likewise, on the mythic "Arab street," Hamas's performance can only be found wanting in comparison to Hezbollah; the echoes of past Arab failures against Israel may return to haunt the Palestinians. It is worth remembering that Hezbollah's "victory" was not simply that it survived, as popular understanding has it, but that it put up a respectable military performance in defense of its territory. Indeed, it would be fair to say that first among the Arabs, Hezbollah severely dented the historic Israeli deterrent in 2006.

Further, one of the likely reasons that Hezbollah's cohesion and its popular support in southern Lebanon was more deeply rooted is that it performs a number of its state-like functions well, at least by local standards; the strength of the Hezbollah civil "state" contributes to military effectiveness.

Finally, the Israelis seem far better prepared this time around than in Lebanon 2006. Domestic political expectations are low--for Israelis, this is another incidence of "frontier warfare," not dissimilar from American Indian-fighting, where the expectation is to "treat a condition" rather than "cure" it by producing a conclusive outcome. Strategically, they've also clearly worked things out with the Egyptians (and indeed other Arab governments) who seem happy to see Hamas crushed, though it's hard to say how long that will hold. Notably, Fatah and Hezbollah also appear to be sitting this one out. Hezbollah's inactivity is especially interesting, despite Nasrallah's fulminations: Nasrallah, and even the Iranians, likely realize that victory is not in the cards for this round. More importantly, Hezbollah's decision to steer clear underscores its own independence. Better to join a winning war. Even the Iranian regime, while engaging in its typical verbal posturing, has done little of material value for Hamas. Tehran is also likely considering the value of joining a losing fight that might also remove what they may regard opportunities to be explored with the Obama administration. Stand by for pundits to start explaining how we need Tehran to resolve the Gaza mess.

Militarily, the Israelis seem much better organized, conducting combing and coordinated air and land operations, and committing adequate forces from the start rather than feeding forces into the fight in a piecemeal fashion. They've also been more patient, a very necessary virtue. And while the "end state" is uncertain--which most Western analysts argue is a big problem--it's not at all clear that the IDF can't just retreat behind the border barriers when they perceive they've reached the culminating point of diminishing returns. Is a lawless Gaza worse than a Hamas-ruled Gaza? Sure, Hamas will probably reestablish a level of control in Gaza, but who's to say there won't be a short if nasty and brutish struggle for power in the aftermath.

A decimated Hamas will also ask a strategic question of Tehran: They may try to rearm a reconstituted Hamas, but inevitably will do so with little confidence in the value of their Hamas proxy. Israel would reap a huge deterrence windfall if the outcome demonstrates a limit to the value of Iranian sponsorship. It seems that two possibilities await: that Iran calculates that Hamas is a disposable asset, worth jettisoning in hopes of a rapprochement--a short-term deal if not a Grand Bargain--with America. That would be the smart game. But past habits are hard to break, and no doubt the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its training cadres will be salivating to try to remake Hamas more in the Hezbollah style, to fight for keeps in the next go round.

Indeed, it is worth wondering how this might have played out if Iran had demonstrated a nuclear capability by now. The Arabs would likely be less supportive of Israel. Maybe even the Europeans would have weighed in sooner against Israel. Possibly even the Israelis would have been deterred from striking at Hamas, and certainly they would have thought twice before acting. But none of this is clear; war is, sometimes, the least bad choice. Iranian nuclear weapons may deter direct attacks on Tehran, but will they protect its proxies? Let's hope not, because that is a question that will likely be asked again.

Thomas Donnelly is resident fellow in defense and national security studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 07, 2009, 05:25:45 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/07/prager-to-dershowitz-how-can-you-still-be-a-liberal/

Prager to Dershowitz: How can you still be a liberal?
posted at 7:55 am on January 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey   


Dennis Prager sent a challenge to Alan Dershowitz yesterday about his politics, not because Dershowitz wrote something with which Prager disagrees, but because he understands the issue of Israel so well.  After excoriating Israel’s critics for “moral idiocy” for ignoring the genocidal intent of Hamas, and their insipid arguments of proportionality, Prager thinks Dershowitz should reconsider his entire political bent — or at least the company he chooses:

In his Monitor column, Dershowitz describes “three types of international response to the Israeli military actions against the Hamas rockets” — “Iran, Hamas, and other knee-jerk Israeli-bashers,” “the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and others who, at least when it comes to Israel, see a moral and legal equivalence between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that responds by targeting the terrorists,” and “the United States and a few other nations that place the blame squarely on Hamas.”

It is relevant to the question I will pose that he omits any mention of the world’s left, even when mentioning the European Union. Who exactly in the European Union is condemning Israel? Its conservatives? Who in America is condemning Israel? Conservatives? Who in Australia or Canada? Conservatives? Of course not. As regards Israel (and America and much else), the Western world’s moral idiots, to use the term in the title of the Dershowitz column, are virtually all on the left, including and especially many of his colleagues in academia.

So, I have a question for my friend Dershowitz. (I say ‘friend’ because we’ve known each other for years and debated and dialogued together.)

Given that Israel’s security is so important to you, given that you believe that the ability to morally distinguish between Israel and its enemies is tantamount to the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and given that those who condemn Israel for its “disproportionate” response to Hamas terror-rockets are almost all on the left in America and Europe, why do you continue to identify yourself as a man of the left?

Everyone who thinks sometimes differs with one’s ideological compatriots. But when one’s ideological compatriots are morally wrong on the greatest moral issue of the moment and perhaps the very clearest as well, don’t you at least suffer from cognitive dissonance?

Prager notes that Dershowitz seems to go far out of his way to avoid blaming the Left specifically.  Dershowitz doesn’t even mention that most of these critics come from the Left, and tries to put at least half of the blame on “the extreme Right”, helped no doubt by people like Ron Paul.  However, the Ron Paul isolationist absolutists (and Stormfront allies) only comprise a tiny percentage of the people holding rallies on campuses and in metropolitan areas.  Those arguments mainly come from groups like International ANSWER, World Can’t Wait, and other radical Left groups that combine animus for Israel with animus for the US.

However, Prager seems to fall into the same trap that Republicans did with Joe Lieberman, who took a similarly courageous stand against his political allies to support victory in Iraq.  I’d call Lieberman a hero for that effort, sacrificing his political standing and almost losing his seat rather than surrendering to his party’s insistence on exploiting potential defeat for political gain.  But I wouldn’t call Lieberman a conservative, or even a center-right politician, even when he got the one critical issue correct.  Lieberman is a solid and unapologetic liberal, unlike Zell Miller, for instance, whose basic center-right instincts got short shrift from Democrats.

Dershowitz has remained strong in his support for a war on Islamist terrorists and for Israel.  He hasn’t quite remained strong enough to name names properly when excoriating critics for their moral idiocy, which Prager rightly criticizes.  However, overall Dershowitz is a doctrinaire liberal, and unless his allies abandon him like Lieberman’s party did when Lieberman stuck to his principles, Dershowitz will unfortunately remain more comfortable with the Left than the Right … and vice versa.

I’d be reasonably happy if Dershowitz skipped embracing conservatives while continuing to dismantle the Left’s attacks on Israel and their support for genocidal tyranny with Hamas.

Title: Gruesome Museum
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 07, 2009, 10:41:11 AM

No doubt misfiled, but another reminder that bad things occur when Islamofascists win:

Gruesome Artifacts on Display at New Iraqi Museum
by Jeff Emanuel (more by this author)
Posted 01/05/2009 ET
Updated 01/05/2009 ET

Nearly six years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and two years after Saddam Hussein’s conviction and execution for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, the Islamic nation’s High Tribunal is trying to ensure Saddam’s memory is both clouded and preserved with a museum featuring artifacts of, and documents recounting, the myriad atrocities the former Iraqi dictator committed during his 24 years in power.

Gruesome Evidence and Artifacts on Display

The museum, set to open to the Iraqi public at the beginning of March in Baghdad’s International Zone, will serve as a permanent home for a collection of physical and documentary evidence of Saddam’s atrocities which has been criss-crossing Iraq for the public’s view since March 2008.

Hanging apparati -- hooks and bloody nooses -- used to asphyxiate countless Iraqi men, women, and children will be displayed, as well as torture devices like “a man-shaped metal cage where,” according to reports, “Saddam’s son Uday used to lock underperforming athletes for weeks at a time -- and set them naked under the burning sun, the metal searing their flesh,” as well as a table, formerly housed in the basement of the Mukhabarat -- Saddam’s intelligence agency -- to which victims were strapped before being burned with irons or having electric currents transmitted through syringes into their urethras.

The museum will display pictures of hangings and of victims’ bodies, as well as the personal effects of some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered and dumped in one of dozens of mass graves by Saddam’s regime. These artifacts, according to a report, “include combs, identity cards, a rosary…and bloodstained clothes.”

Also on display, according to a museum worker who spoke with reporters on the condition of anonymity, will be documents from the trial, including “the final decision and the execution order,” so that “people will be able to see his guilt for themselves.”

The facility will also include a research center with a virtual library housing nearly 26 million documents detailing Saddam’s atrocities while dictator, from his orders to exterminate the Kurds in northern Iraq with chemical weapons, to his command that nearly 150 Iraqis – including children – be tortured (some by being put through flesh-ripping meat grinders) and slaughtered in response to a failed 1982 attempt on his life.

History Outweighs Reconciliation

“We thought that people might forget the works committed by dictators who committed horrible acts against them,” said Judge Arif Abdel-Razaq al-Shaheen, chief justice of the High Tribunal, which sentenced Saddam to death two years ago and which is currently trying Ali Hassan al-Majeed (known as “Chemical Ali” for his role in gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurd civilians, and already twice sentenced to death by the same tribunal) and former Iraqi vice president Tariq Aziz for their roles in slaughtering tens of thousands of opponents of Saddam’s ruling Ba’ath Party.

Though the peace in Iraq remains frail, and another hurdle is rapidly approaching with provincial elections scheduled for January 31, al-Shaheen maintains that keeping Saddam’s memory alive is more important than even temporarily sweeping the contentious figure under the rug for the purpose of “national reconciliation.”

“This museum is about history,” al-Shaheen said. “History must not be forgotten.”

The man who purged hundreds of military leaders and fellow Ba’athists shortly after taking power, brutally tortured and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen, sent a million more to their deaths in war, raped hundreds of young women, had his critics’ tongues cut out of their heads, and sent tens of thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a reward for the killing of Jews must be remembered for being every bit the terrible tyrant he was -- and, thanks to the dedication of the new Iraqi government, Saddam’s real legacy will live on.

Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a columnist, a pulitzer-nominated combat journalist, and a director emeritus of conservative weblog RedState.com.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=30138

Title: "Unbiased" Casualty Figure Sources
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 07, 2009, 10:44:14 AM

January 6, 2009   by Ricki Hollander

Norwegian Doctors in Gaza: Objective Observers or Partisan Propagandists?

Mads Gilbert

The source of most of the information coming from Gaza thus far has been from Palestinian representatives. One of the only non-Palestinian voices heard has been that of Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who entered Gaza on December 31 along with his colleague Erik Fosse ostensibly to provide medical assistance to Palestinians at Shifa Hospital. They have become media stars as the BBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, Independent, Sky News, and New York Times, among others, have turned to them as independent foreign observers to provide a presumably non-partisan perspective. They have been extensively interviewed in the Norwegian as well as the world press. In fact, Gilbert appears in so many interviews that one wonders how he has the time to provide medical help, never mind "doing surgery around the clock" as he claims.

In his interviews, Gilbert decries what he claims is Israel's "all out war against civilians." Condemning Israel for "deliberately targeting the [Palestinian] population" and causing "a man-made disaster," Gilbert and Fosse claim that Israel and the UN are lying about the civilian casualty count and feed the media their own alternate statistics ( "50% of the casualties are women and children"–CBS; "children made up 25% of the deaths and 45% of the wounded"–BBC). Gilbert is even quoted by the Iranian Press TV alleging the Israelis have used unconventional weapons against the Palestinians.

So are these Norwegians indeed non-partisan foreigners providing independent confirmation of Palestinian reports or do they have an agenda? Is Gilbert simply someone "who was allowed into Gaza last week to give emergency medical aid, and who has worked in many conflict zones," as the New York Times introduces him or someone with a partisan perspective?

Gilbert is a radical Marxist and a member of the political Red (Rodt) party, a revolutionary socialist party in Norway. He has been a pro-Palestinian activist since the 1970's and travelled to Lebanon in support of the Palestinians during the first Lebanon war in 1982. He has long been a vocal opponent of Israel and the U.S. Gilbert has acknowledged that he cannot separate politics from medicine, stating, "there is little in medicine that is not politics." He even criticizes the group Doctors Without Borders for providing medical assistance to both sides in a conflict instead of taking a strong stance and supporting only one party. In a 2006 article in Nordlys, journalist Ivan Kristoffersen lamented the fact that Gilbert allows his humanitarian efforts to be politicized by his radical agenda.   
 
The extent of Gilbert's political agenda and animus toward Israel and the U.S. is best evidenced by his radical support for the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S. 
 
In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated:
The attack on New York was not surprising, after the policy that has led the West in recent decades. I am upset over the terrorist attack, but am equally upset over the suffering which the United States has created. It is in this context that the 5000 dead people must be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.


Erik Fosse

When asked by Dagbladet if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied:

Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned. (Sept. 30, 2001)

Fosse worked as a doctor for the Palestine Committee in Lebanon in the 1970's. He now leads NORWAC, the Norwegian Aid Committee. According to Aftenposten, Fosse's passion to work on behalf of Palestinians was sparked by his time in Lebanon.

According to Verdens Gang, the largest Norwegian daily, Gilbert and Fosse's current trip to Gaza is funded by the Norwegian foreign ministry.
Given the partisan — and in Gilbert's case, radical — perspective they represent, Fosse's and Gilbert's testimony must be weighed with extreme caution.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1580

Title: Blogosphere Blunts Bias
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 07, 2009, 01:31:02 PM

Islamofascist apologists beware, the blogosphere is countering biased reporting.

January 07, 2009, 2:00 p.m.

Israel in the Balance
Finally, some good news on the portrayal of Israel in the media.

By Stephanie Gutmann

Much is infuriating about the last week’s coverage of Israel’s long-overdue incursion into the Gaza strip. Israel is seeking to destroy the rocket-launch sites that Hamas has used to terrorize the civilian population in the southern half of Israel, but a recent Yahoo news round-up contained an Associated Press story with the headline “Gaza civilians left exposed in Israeli invasion.”

The AP story begins with the now-familiar formula of a harrowing anecdote — this one about “10 members of Lubna Karam’s family [who] spent the night huddled in the hallway of their Gaza City home” — bracketed with an array of photos of wailing and bleeding Palestinian civilians. As usual, all civilian deaths are depicted purely as a result of Israeli militarism, disproportionate force, and brutality. There is no mention that while waging war on Israel, Hamas has never treated its own citizenry to anything approaching a respectable civil-defense network of shelters and warning sirens. Or that Hamas actually encourages civilian causalities; such casualties are its prime weapon in its public-relations war against Israel.

But that is the AP. Surveying other important media like CNN and the New York Times, there are many rays of light. Coverage has improved. Balance is being sought. It is an insipid, morally relativistic form of balance — but it is balance, unmistakably.

This is not the fall of 2000, when Yasser Arafat began a war with Israel, and when the mainstream media became a conduit for almost unadulterated PLO propaganda. These were the days when Tom Brokaw, on the NBC Nightly News, introduced a report with the words “Israeli riot police stormed the shrine, opening fire with rubber bullets and live ammunition on Palestinians who were throwing stones.” In fact, the confrontation in question began when worshippers poured out of the Al-Aqsa Mosque after an inflammatory sermon and tossed bottles, stones, and other deadly objects on worshippers at the Western Wall.

This is not even the summer of 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon to stop a rocket barrage similar to the one the country is now getting from Hamas. Through the mainstream media, Hezbollah shut down the Israeli offensive with a carefully calculated stream of images of civilian casualties.

Of course, this is a war, and things can change on a dime — particularly as the conflict drags on and Hamas throws more of its civilians into the incinerator to provide fodder for “outreach” to the world community. But for the time being, one sees a rather dogged insistence on balance. This week on CNN, after the typical near-hysterical piece on mounting civilian casualties in the strip (again, no mention of the absence of a civil-defense system or of Hamas’s calculated use of civilians as human shields), a piece showing Israelis running for bomb shelters in Ashkelon and Beersheba aired. The segment included an interview with a Palestinian scholar who alleged that Israel had brought rockets, grads, kassems, et al., on herself with her continued “occupation” — but also clips of a powerful Israeli spokesman, who reminded viewers that Israel had tried to allow the Palestinians to develop their state for some time, but Hamas didn’t seem to want the party to end.

So what’s has happened between 2000 and the present? A number of factors have allowed Major Avital Leibovich, head of the foreign-press department in the IDF Spokesman’s Unit, to say, “I’m surprised for the better. The coverage has been balanced on most channels, even on some outlets not known for being pro-Israel.”

One big one is the creation and growth of web-based communities such as CAMERA, littlegreenfootballs.com, and honestreporting.com, which monitor coverage, share information with each other, and launch e-mail and phone-call campaigns in response to distortions. CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting of America), the oldest and best-funded of the bunch, tirelessly scans headlines and transcripts and demands retractions and corrections. It often gets them. It is probably the New York Times public editor’s worst nightmare.

Honestreporting.com started life in London, truly the Belly of the Beast when it comes to bad reporting on Israel. One of its early triumphs came during the spring of 2002 and what was widely being called “Israel’s incursion into the Jenin refugee camp.” As has often been the case, CNN was one of the worst offenders, so the website’s devotees sent up to 6,000 e-mails a day to the network’s executives, effectively paralyzing their internal e-mail system. Meetings with CNN execs followed, with representatives of honestreporing.com briefing the execs about the real facts on the ground.


In the summer of 2006, a small army of websites, led by littlegreenfootballs.com, brought massive embarrassment to the Reuters wire service. The sites drew attention to a Reuters photo of the Beirut skyline after a single Israeli explosive had landed; the skyline had been amateurishly altered to make the “Israeli bombardment” look far more extensive. Knowing that “if it bleeds; it leads,” and apparently desperate to sell his shot, the klutzy photographer had used Adobe Photoshop to take a portion of smoke and replicate it all over the Beirut sky. Reuters photo editors — who may have been harried, but who don’t tend to question charges of Israeli disproportionate force anyway — had released the doctored image to its billions of media-outlet subscribers.

Once that gaffe received public attention, the game was on. Dozens more doctored or staged Reuters photos came to light. In one, an elderly woman wore a headscarf, her arms raised to heaven as she stood in front of a crumbled building somewhere in Lebanon. The caption read, “A Lebanese woman wails after looking at the wreckage of her apartment, in a building, [sic] that was demolished by the Israeli attacks in southern Beirut.” The problem was that the same woman struck the same pose in front of other bombed buildings for Reuters photos. All received captions about a woman mourning the loss of her home. “Either this woman is the unluckiest multiple home owner in Beirut, or something isn’t quite right,” commented one blogger.

It’s not just the blogosphere. Israel has changed too. There’s a new generation of leaders. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert’s critics say they’re too yuppie-ish, too clever by half, out of touch with military realities, and over-dependent on diplomacy. On the other hand, they are doing something that supporters of Israel have suggested for some time: They are rolling up their sleeves and make making an attempt to fight the “Other War,” the media war.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF), for example, has just launched a YouTube channel, and is using it to broadcast footage they say shows rockets launched from residential areas in Gaza. According the Jerusalem Post, it has become “the second-most popular channel on the popular global video-sharing site, drawing over 386,000 page views in the first half of Thursday alone. Meanwhile, the IDF has been in regular contact with over 50 major American blogs covering the fighting.” (Hamas supporters — not to be outdone — are trying to get YouTube to take the IDF footage down and put up their own footage of purported civilian casualties.)

And in the next a few days, Tzipi Livni will participate a sort of a mass, open conference call in which, according to the organizers, she will “brief participants on the latest developments in Israel’s efforts to stop Hamas terrorism, international reaction and diplomatic initiatives.” It’s unlikely this will actually work (an ordinary conference call is hard enough to set up), but the effort is significant.

Another factor affecting coverage is the Israelis’ controversial decision to keep reporters out of Gaza. (This is similar to Israel’s 2002 decision to bar the media from the Jenin refugee camp, a choice that’s debated to this day.) The media could make the shut-out a story in itself — setting up feet from the Gaza/Israel border and talking about “what Israel won’t let you see” — but given the reporters who have been kidnapped and held hostage reporting in Gaza, journalists seem almost relieved to have an excuse to stay out.

Further, keeping reporters out of the strip virtually forces them into besieged towns like Sderot, Ashkelon, and Beersheba in pursuit of the high drama news crews need. This is the kind of context — Israelis running for cover, Israeli towns under bombardment — that has been conspicuously missing until now.

Other facts on the ground have changed as well. Israel is now fighting Hamas, which makes no attempt to hide its aggressiveness. It proudly invites reporters to photograph their soldiers launching rockets into Israel. This is a huge contrast from Fatah, which strove to present a placid, diplomatic face to the world.

We are witnessing a new, chastened mainstream media. The blogosphere bludgeoning has worked. A superego has been created where there was none. Denizens of the blogosphere, the ones who over the last nine years have used the web to fight for truth in this conflict, should take a small victory lap — but then get back to their PCs.

— Stephanie Gutmann is the author of The Other War: Israeli, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWJmOWFlYjhhN2FlODM0Y2Q4YjQyZmE4MGRjNjkzYTI=

Title: Netanyahu
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2009, 05:43:49 PM

Militant Islam Threatens Us All
Hamas rockets have the same terror goal as Hitler's blitz.Article
 more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share:
 Yahoo Buzz  facebook MySpace LinkedIn Digg del.icio.us NewsVine StumbleUpon Mixx  Text Size   
By BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
Imagine a siren that gives you 30 seconds to find shelter before a Kassam rocket falls from the sky and explodes, spraying its lethal shrapnel in all directions. Now imagine this happens day after day, month after month, year after year.

If you can imagine that, you can begin to understand the terror to which hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been subjected. Three years ago Israel withdrew from every square inch of Gaza. And since that withdrawal, our civilians have been targeted by more than 6,000 rockets and mortars fired from Gaza. In the face of this relentless bombardment, Israel has acted with a restraint that other countries, faced with a similar threat, would find hard to fathom. Israel's government has finally decided to respond.

For this action to succeed, we must first have moral clarity. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy which seeks peace and targets the terrorists, and Hamas, an Iranian-backed terror organization that seeks Israel's destruction and targets the innocent.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
In launching precision strikes against Hamas rocket launchers, headquarters, weapons depots, smuggling tunnels and training camps, Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties. But Hamas deliberately attacks Israeli civilians and deliberately hides behind Palestinian civilians -- a double war crime. Responsible governments do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties, but they do not grant immunity to terrorists who use civilians as human shields.

The international community may occasionally condemn Hamas for putting Palestinian civilians in harm's way, but if it ultimately holds Israel responsible for the casualties that ensue, then Hamas and other terror organizations will employ this abominable tactic again and again.

The charge that Israel is using disproportionate force is equally baseless. Does proportionality demand that Israel fire 6,000 rockets indiscriminately back at Gaza? Does it demand an equal number of casualties on both sides? Using that logic, one would conclude that the United States employed disproportionate force against the Germans because 20 times as many Germans as Americans died in World War II.

In Today's Opinion Journal
 

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Winter Gas WarWaiting for DoddA Charter Setback in Florida

TODAY'S COLUMNISTS

Business World: Mad Men
– Holman W. Jenkins Jr.The Tilting Yard: An Unrepentant New Dealer Runs for Congress
– Thomas Frank

COMMENTARY

Iran's Hamas Strategy
– Reuel Marc GerechtBoost Private Investment to Boost the Economy
– Hal VarianThe GOP Should Fight Health-Care Rationing
– Tom PriceIn that same war, Britain responded to the firing of thousands of rockets on its population with the wholesale bombing of German cities. Israel's measured response to rocket fire on its cities has come in the form of surgical strikes. To further root out Hamas terrorists in a way that minimizes Palestinian civilian casualties, Israel's army is now engaged in a ground operation that places its soldiers in great peril. Carpet-bombing of Palestinian cities is not an option that any Israeli leader will entertain.

The goal of this mission should be clear: To end the current round of missile attacks and to remove the threat of such attacks in the future. The only cease-fire or diplomatic initiative that should be accepted is one that achieves this dual objective.

If our enemies assumed that the Israeli public would be divided on the eve of an election, they were wrong. When it comes to exercising our most basic right of self-defense, there is no opposition and no coalition. We stand united against Hamas because we know that only by defeating Hamas can we provide security for our people and hope for a future peace.

We fight to defend ourselves, but in so doing we are also fighting a fanatical ideology that seeks to reverse the course of history and throw the civilized world back into a new dark age. The struggle between militant Islam and modernity -- whether fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, India or Gaza -- will decide our common future. It is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Mr. Netanyahu, Israel's ninth prime minister, is the chairman of the Likud Party and its candidate for prime minister.

Title: Two great videos
Post by: captainccs on January 07, 2009, 08:25:01 PM

Two great videos

Rocketing Berlin, Paris and London (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uep5UCVC2io&eurl=http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/must/entry/israel_s_hasbara_efforts_posted&feature=player_embedded)

 New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGgBjZTsPaw&eurl=http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/must/entry/israel_s_hasbara_efforts_posted&feature=player_embedded)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 08, 2009, 06:43:02 AM

I always find it interesting, how people given the same facts interpret issues differently.  And I too like this author wonder if the American Revolutionaries we honor would
have been called terrorists today?  Or the Zionists who built modern day Israel; were they too "terrorists" given today's definition?


Hopes for change are placed in the new U.S. administration. But already the Obama appointments make it clear that the militarization and Israelization of U.S. policies is beyond reversal.

Do not expect much enlightenment from our superficial Western media. As with the economic crisis, they can only look at what is thrust before their eyes, with little concern for cause and effect. The standard line says the Israeli attack on Gaza was brought on by Hamas launching rockets into Israel. Few want to ask what made Hamas engage in that suicidal rocketing in the first place, namely the the Israeli determination to hobble the Gaza economy, destroy the popularly elected Hamas regime and, as in the West Bank, humiliate its people.

A lot of brave people have been forced to choose death rather than continue to live as Nazi-style unter-menschen. If Gaza revives memories of the brave anti-Nazi Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto of 1945 I will be surprised. The anti-Islamist bias has sunk too deep.

Every so-called militant or "terrorist" our militaries manage to kill with such gusto leaves wives, families, friends and lovers determined to get revenge. Recently a woman whose Iraqi fiance had been killed by U.S. troops offered herself in grief as a suicide bomber. In the media her action was denounced as a new "terrorist" tactic. Her death was labeled as yet another "statistic" in the so-called war against "terror." ("Terror" is when you resist the invasion or occupation of your country. I wonder what the original U.S. revolutionaries would have said about this definition.)

In March 2008 a quiet, pacifist Palestinian student from a good family in East Jerusalem was so enraged after watching for hours on TV the bodies of women and children being pulled out from yet another brutal Israeli bombing in Gaza that in anger he went out and shot some Jewish religionists nearby before being himself killed. For the BBC he was no more than a "Palestinian gunman." For others he was just another "terrorist." Those in the West have to do better than this.

Gregory Clark is a former Australian diplomat.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 08, 2009, 07:02:59 AM

Quote from: JDN on January 08, 2009, 06:43:02 AM

I always find it interesting, how people given the same facts interpret issues differently.  And I too like this author wonder if the American Revolutionaries we honor would have been called terrorists today?  Or the Zionists who built modern day Israel; were they too "terrorists" given today's definition?

The victors write the history books, all the more reason to make sure "we" win. I don't think the Israelis want to settle in Atlantis and I can't blame them.

Politics is the art of the possible. It would be possible for the two sides to sit down and come to an agreement. It is not possible for either side to throw the other into the sea.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 08, 2009, 07:50:27 AM

JDN:

Just when I think there's hope for you, you go and post something stupid and vapid like that. :roll:

Our Founding Fathers taught their children to be suicide killers of women and children? 

"Few want to ask what made Hamas engage in that suicidal rocketing in the first place, namely the the Israeli determination to hobble the Gaza economy, destroy the popularly elected Hamas regime and, as in the West Bank, humiliate its people."

What drivel!  Israel's policies are a response to Hamas actively trying to destroy it!  What is so hard to understand here!?!?


Marc
===============================

By MARVIN HIER
The world-wide protests against Israel's ground incursion into Gaza are so full of hatred that they leave me with the terrible feeling that these protests have little to do with the so-called disproportionality of the Israeli response to Hamas rockets, or the resulting civilian casualties.

My fear is that the rage we see in the protesters marching in the streets is far more profound and dangerous than we would like to believe. There are a great many people in the world who, even after Auschwitz, just can't bear the Jewish state having the same rights they so readily grant to other nations. These voices insist Israel must take risks they would never dare ask of any other nation-state -- risks that threaten its very survival -- because they don't believe Israel should exist in the first place.

Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!"

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
How else can we explain the double-standard that is applied to the Gaza conflict, if not for a more insidious bias against the Jewish state?

At the U.N., no surprise, this double-standard is in full force. In response to Israel's attack on Hamas, the Security Council immediately pulled an all-night emergency meeting to consider yet another resolution condemning Israel. Have there been any all-night Security Council sessions held during the seven months when Hamas fired 3,000 rockets at half a million innocent civilians in southern Israel? You can be certain that during those seven months, no midnight oil was burning at the U.N. headquarters over resolutions condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas. But put condemnation of Israel on the agenda and, rain or shine, it's sure to be a full house.

Red Cross officials are all over the Gaza crisis, describing it as a full-blown humanitarian nightmare. Where were they during the seven months when tens of thousands of Israeli families could not sleep for fear of a rocket attack? Where were their trauma experts to decry that humanitarian crisis?

There have been hundreds of articles and reports written from the Erez border crossing falsely accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza. (In fact, over 520 truck loads of humanitarian aid have been delivered through Israeli crossings since the beginning of the Israeli counterattack.) But how many news articles, NGO reports and special U.N. commissions have investigated Hamas's policy of deliberately placing rocket launchers near schools, mosques and homes in order to use innocent Palestinians as human shields?

Many people ask why there are so few Israeli casualties in comparison with the Palestinian death toll. It's because Israel's first priority is the safety of its citizens, which is why there are shelters and warning systems in Israeli towns. If Hamas can dig tunnels, it can certainly build shelters. Instead, it prefers to use women and children as human shields while its leaders rush into hiding.

And then there are the clarion calls for a cease-fire. These words, which come so easily, have proven to be a recipe for disaster. Hamas uses the cease-fire as a time-out to rearm and smuggle even more deadly weapons so the next time, instead of hitting Sderot and Ashkelon, they can target Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

The pattern is always the same. Following a cease-fire brought on by international pressure, there will be a call for a massive infusion of funds to help Palestinians recover from the devastation of the Israeli attack. The world will respond eagerly, handing over hundreds of millions of dollars. To whom does this money go? To Hamas, the same terrorist group that brought disaster to the Palestinians in the first place.

The world seems to have forgotten that at the end of World War II, President Harry Truman initiated the Marshall Plan, investing vast sums to rebuild Germany. But he did so only with the clear understanding that the money would build a new kind of Germany -- not a Fourth Reich that would continue the policies of Adolf Hitler. Yet that is precisely what the world will be doing if we once again entrust funds to Hamas terrorists and their Iranian puppet masters.

In less than two weeks, Barack Obama will be sworn in as president of the United States. But there is no "change we can believe in" in the Middle East -- not where Israel is concerned. The double-standard continuously applied to the Jewish state proves that, for much of the world, the real lessons of World War II have yet to be learned.

Mr. Hier, a rabbi, is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 08, 2009, 08:19:29 AM

No no matter how hard one thinks about it, I don't get the idea of women and children being used as suicide bombers.  I find it
beyond comprehension and very sad.

In Today's LA Times
The Gaza blame game
Some common mistakes by Israelis, Hamas and the Bush administration.
Rosa Brooks

How to be stupid . . .
. . . Hamas style

Refuse to recognize Israel. Remind the world that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was accompanied by the often violent displacement of 700,000 Palestinians, but ignore the fact that more than 60 years have gone by, making it a bit late for a do-over. Ignore the fact that most Israelis weren't even born in 1948, and that Israel is recognized as legitimate by an overwhelming majority of the world's states. Keep insisting on its destruction.

Use suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilian targets as a method of warfare. Don't stick to military targets. Instead, blow up civilians on buses and in cafes. Adopting a deliberate policy of war crimes and crimes against humanity helps ensure that few of the world's governments will want to go anywhere near you.

Get into vicious factional battles with fellow Palestinians. Why present a united front when you can fight with each other? Constant infighting gives the Israelis yet another reason to consider you a worthless interlocutor. And by driving rival party Fatah out of town, you can drive a wedge between Palestinians and give many Arab governments another reason to hope you fail.

Keep that cycle of violence going! The Israelis killed a Palestinian? Quick, fire a barrage of rockets toward Israel. You know they'll respond with even greater force. Be stubborn and keep up those rocket attacks! Israeli bombs can't tell the difference between your fighters and Gaza's schoolchildren. Let the civilians pay the price for your "brave" resistance.


. . . Israel style

Never pass up a chance to rub salt in open wounds. Keep on building settlements in occupied territory. Stuff like that. Ya know?

Undermine and isolate potential interlocutors who might be able to represent the Palestinians. First, destroy Palestinian Authority infrastructure and withhold funds and supplies needed for critical social services, thus helping to push ordinary Palestinians into the arms of Hamas, with its ample social services programs funded by Iran and private Arab donors. Then, when Hamas wins Palestinian elections, isolate Gaza and undermine Hamas.

Be trigger happy. A recent statistical analysis by three academics (one at MIT, one at Harvard and one from Tel Aviv University) found that an overwhelming majority of lulls in violence since 2000 (when the second intifada began) ended when Israelis killed Palestinians, sparking renewed tit-for-tat violence. According to Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki, "79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks." The pattern was "more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. ... Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%." Always give war a chance!

Carry out intense aerial attacks on densely populated civilian areas. Civilians in the Gaza Strip are fenced in -- the sea on the west and heavily guarded borders on the land perimeter. As Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian surgeon working at a Gaza hospital, put it, the aerial bombardment of Gaza is like "bombing 1 1/2 million people in a cage."

Heavy civilian casualties are inevitable -- like those from the Israeli strikes on Tuesday that damaged three United Nations schools, killing at least 48.

Complain about unfair media coverage, but don't let any Israeli or foreign journalists into Gaza (in defiance of the Israeli Supreme Court, which has ordered that a limited number of journalists must be allowed in). That way, nearly all news coming out of Gaza will come from Palestinian journalists.

Don't have a plan. Start bombing Gaza to eliminate the Hamas capacity to fire rockets and mortars at Israel. Realize, as the Palestinian death toll approaches 700, that Hamas rocket attacks on Israel are still ongoing, there's no obvious military solution short of leveling Gaza, international dismay is rising, and you don't really have a game plan. Continue to play it by ear -- it's just a war.


. . . Bush style

Avoid opportunities to push for a rapid end to the conflict. Wring your hands every now and then, but don't engage seriously with European, Turkish or Arab actors anxious to propose compromises that could end the conflict. Block a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a temporary cease-fire on the grounds that it doesn't offer a durable solution.

In general, sit back and relax. It's just the Middle East exploding again. It's just a harbinger of ongoing suffering, regional instability and global terrorism. No big deal. Let the new guy handle it.


. . . Palestinian civilian style

Be born in Gaza. Well, that was dumb of you, wasn't it? Next time, try to be born in London or San Francisco.

Title: A Little Background Information. . . .
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 08, 2009, 08:31:02 AM

Israelis and Palestinians: Who's David, Who's Goliath?
TownHall ^ | January 8, 2009 | Larry Elder


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

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

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

We turn our attention to the "stolen" allegation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/01/08/israelis_and_palestinians_whos_david,_whos_goliath

Title: Dying to be with Dad
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 08, 2009, 08:38:34 AM

Rayyan Trained His Kids to Die
 
by Maayana Miskin

(IsraelNN.com) When Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan was assassinated in an IAF strike last week, his four wives and 11 of his children died with him. According to his surviving children, the death of the Rayyan family children was not an accident: Rayyan had trained his wives and children to die with him as "martyrs."

Surviving family members spoke to local Arab media and said that in the days before his death, Rayyan had repeatedly asked his children, "Who wants to die with me as a martyr?" The children would respond, "Yes, daddy, we all want to be with you alive or dead."

Rayyan's adult daughter, Wala, said even the younger children wished to die with their father. "If you had asked my four-year-old sister Aisha, who died in the attack, she would have told you that she preferred to die as a martyr," Wala told Ma'an news.

One of Rayyan's daughter-in-laws said she was offered the chance to die with the family. She stopped by the family's large home in Jabaliya and was asked by Rayyan if she wished to die with him, his wives and their children. She agreed to die, but later left the building, shortly before the IAF strike.

As it turned out, when Rayyan offered his daughter-in-law the "opportunity" to die he had already received a phone call from the IDF warning him to evacuate his house due to an impending airstrike.

The 11 children who died with Nizar Rayyan ranged in age from one year old to 16. Another son died years earlier when Rayyan sent him to carry out a suicide bombing in Gaza. Two Israelis were murdered in that attack.

Rayyan was one of Hamas' extremist preachers, and believed that those who die fighting Israel die as "martyrs" and go directly to paradise. He encouraged his followers to have several wives and as many children as possible, in order to provide future soldiers in the fight against Israel. He also encouraged Hamas to take over Judea and Samaria and carry out suicide attacks targeting Jews.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129290

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors, Hamas' Congressman
Post by: DougMacG on January 09, 2009, 07:33:04 AM

Denny had a recent post titled 'Two Great Videos'.  I agree with Michael Bloomberg.

At the other end of the spectrum, here is the congressman from CAIR, Minneapolis Representative Kieth Ellison on al Jazeera, trying to be persuasive the other way.  For Americans who believe there is moral equivalence between one side who wants to protect its own citizens and the other who intentionally endangers their own while they bomb and terrorize the innocent people that they hate, you can have our congressman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWb2rnOJBOA&

Title: Talking about children getting killed
Post by: captainccs on January 09, 2009, 09:33:08 AM

YouTube - Children of Hamas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8

Title: Defining Israeli Victory
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 09, 2009, 09:46:51 AM

Yes, Israel Can Win in Gaza
Israel is significantly weakening Hamas – with Palestinian help.
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK

It seems that most of the West's news reporters and pundits agree with Islamists everywhere that an Israeli victory in Gaza is impossible. They decry Israel's defensive attack on Hamas, prophesying an inevitable strengthening of Islamism among Palestinians and a dark future for the Jewish state.

How do our commentators come to this conclusion? They point, most frequently, to Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and echo Hezbollah's claim that it won a great victory. Indeed, this narrative goes, in launching their rockets at Israel, Hamas leaders were imitating Hezbollah's winning strategy.

In fact, Hezbollah was thoroughly shocked by the Israeli bombing campaign, and its supporters, who mostly live in southern Lebanon, are not likely to tolerate another wave of destruction caused by another Hezbollah attack. Even the inconclusive Israeli ground actions in Lebanon, which never involved more than six companies (roughly 600 men), resulted in the loss of some 400 Hezbollah fighters in direct face-to-face combat while Israel suffered only 30 casualties.

Of course, none of this prevented the Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah from claiming that he had won a great victory for God. Had his victorious claims actually been true, Israel should have been deterred from attacking Hamas. And by his logic, Israel would have cowered in fear of thousands of more rockets from Hamas, and the even more powerful rockets that Hezbollah would launch in tandem. Nasrallah certainly encouraged Hamas to attack Israel in language that implied he would intervene if a war ensued -- a credible promise had he really won a victory in 2006.

But as soon as the fighting started in Gaza, Nasrallah reversed the terms of his declarations -- threatening Israel if it attacked Lebanon (which of course nobody in Israel would want to do). When three rockets were fired from inside Lebanon on Thursday, Hezbollah wasted no time assuring the Israelis that it had nothing to do with it, and that it did not even have that type of rocket in their inventory. This is a familiar trope of the Palestinian experience. There is always some extremist leader ready to instigate the Palestinians to fight, implicitly promising his valiant participation -- until the fighting begins and the promises are forgotten in fear of Israeli retaliation.

Another familiar Palestinian experience is that the extremists can always prevail politically over the moderates, but in so doing they split Palestinian society. A key metric of this disunity is, in fact, the success of Israel's current war against Hamas.

Consider: According to Gaza sources, until the ground fighting started some 25% of the 500 dead were innocent civilians. The Israelis claimed that 20% of the casualties from the aerial attack were civilians. Either way, this was an extremely accurate bombing campaign. (Even in the 1991 and 2003 U.S. air campaigns against Iraq, when most of the bombs were already precision-guided, gross targeting errors killed many civilians.)

A targeting accuracy of 75% -- by the lowest estimate -- cannot have been merely obtained by overhead photography from satellites or reconnaissance aircraft, because few Hamas objectives were classic "high-contrast" targets such as bunkers or headquarters. Most targets were small groups of people in nondescript civilian vehicles that blend in with traffic, or inside unremarkable buildings. Nor could telephone intercepts have yielded much intelligence, because all Palestinians know that the Israelis have long combined voice recognition with cellular-grid location in order to aim missiles very accurately at single vehicles in traffic, or even at individuals standing about with their cellphones switched off.

So how did Israel do it? The only possible explanation is that people in Gaza have been informing the Israelis exactly where Hamas fighters and leaders are hiding, and where weapons are stored. No doubt some informers are merely corrupt, paid agents earning a living. But others must choose to provide intelligence because they oppose Hamas, whose extremism inflicts poverty, suffering and now death on the civilian population for the sake of launching mostly ineffectual rockets into Israel. Hamas completely disregards the day-to-day welfare of all Gazans in order to pursue its millenarian vision of an Islamic Palestine.

Some in Gaza must also resent Iran's role in instigating the barrage of rockets fired on Israel. And all must know that the longer-range rockets are supplied by Iran along with money for Hamas leaders, while ordinary Palestinians languish in poverty. Senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan, killed on Jan. 1, was a poorly paid academic, yet he died with his four wives and 10 of his children in spacious quarters. He obviously had enough money to heed the Quranic injunction against marrying more wives than one can afford. That too must arouse bitter opposition among poor Palestinian civilians, inducing some to help Israel target Hamas. Perhaps these informers include Fatah members, further antagonized by persecution. Last week alone, some 50 were reportedly tortured by Hamas.

Hamas won the 2006 election because it was the only available alternative when a majority of voters were disgusted by Fatah's blatant corruption. Since then, many nonfundamentalist Palestinians have been oppressed by the puritanical prohibitions imposed by Hamas, while all Gazans have been greatly impoverished.

There is no evidence that support for Fatah has therefore increased, or that its surviving leaders could still rally their followers. This reality sets an upper limit on what Israel can achieve by ground combat -- it cannot change the regime.

What Israel can do is weaken Hamas further in its current ground operations by raiding targets that cannot be attacked from the air -- typically because they are in the basements of crowded apartment buildings -- and by engaging Hamas gunmen in direct combat. Simply reducing the combat strength of Hamas is crucial, as it was in 2006 against Hezbollah, because while many like to parade dressed in the robes of martyrs, when there is actual fighting enthusiasm rapidly wanes.

With few exceptions, Israeli ground forces are not advancing frontally but are instead mounting a multiplicity of raids. If their target intelligence remains as good as it was during the air attack, they will run out of targets in a matter of days. That is when a cease-fire with credible monitoring would be possible and desirable for both sides as the only alternative to renewed occupation.

Hamas will claim a win no matter what happens, but then so did Hezbollah in 2006. And yet, for the most part, Hezbollah remains immobile and the Israeli northern border with Lebanon remains quiet. If Israel can achieve the same with Hamas in Gaza, it would be a significant victory.

Mr. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace" (Belknap, 2002).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 09, 2009, 09:54:57 AM

"It seems that most of the West's news reporters and pundits agree with Islamists everywhere that an Israeli victory in Gaza is impossible"

My response is let Hamas and Islamics everywhere know that they cannot succeed in driving Jews out of Israel.  Until the media gets that message out we will see them playing the media game.

Title: CNN Palestinian Agiprop
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 09, 2009, 10:18:05 AM

CNN caught shamelessly peddling an inaccurate story that has since been pulled. Looks like the Norwegian doctor I posted about earlier is one of the actors in this little drama, a drama anyone who has had CPR training should be able to see through.

When the MSM hyperventilates over a firearm issue, it never ceases to amaze me that the can't find a jr. high school science teacher able to explain that the scary bullet that's 'sposed to blow holes the size of grapefruits through people defies the laws of physics. Guess CNN has no doctors on the payroll, either.

January 09, 2009
CNN busted running phony Gaza propaganda, doesn't fess up

Thomas Lifson
Down the memory hole goes fake video run by CNN to tug on viewers' heartstrings, following its debunking by clear-headed observers. The "most trusted name in news" lacks the integrity to fess up for channeling Palestinian propaganda, though.

The network was caught running an obviously faked video of a Gaza Palestinian supposedly being treated in the wake of an Israeli attack, supposedly recorded by a camera man who was his brother. The problem was that the "doctor" who playing the role of an emergency room physician administering CPR had not a clue what the real thing looks like. Little Green Footballs exposed the fraud, so CNN pulled the video from its website without explanation.

However, the propaganda lives on in the form of a text-only story. Hoystory writes:

So, the video was questionable enough that it had to be removed, but the story supporting the fradulent video stays?

That's not bad journalism, that's out and out propaganda.

You can view the video, and keep in mind the comments of a real doctor posted on LGF:

I'm no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child's sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can't make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there's no point in doing chest compressions if you're not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can't tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the "resuscitation scene" at the beginning is fake, and it's a pretty lame fake at that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9pRu-sRPb0&eurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/cnn_busted_running_phony_gaza.[/youtube]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/cnn_busted_running_phony_gaza.html

Title: A Little Raw Intelligence
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 09, 2009, 10:35:41 AM

JANUARY 9, 2009
Captured Hamas Intelligence, 9 Jan 2009, 16:26 IST

Confiscated Intelligence Map from Hamas

Hamas turn a Gaza neighborhood into a warzone.


(http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gazahamasmap.jpg?w=500&h=343)


This map, confiscated Wednesday (Jan. 7) by IDF paratroopers operating in the north of Gaza, shows how Hamas uses an entire neighborhood, rigging it with explosive devices and putting the entire civilian population at great risk. The map shows the al-Tatraa neighborhood in Gaza City divided into three areas of operation (red, blue and green). The dots on the map indicate where Hamas operatives had planted a variety of IEDs (improvised explosive devices), with the colors indicating the type of IED. Additional marks show sniper positions next to mosques. Next to the entrance of the el-Tawid mosque near to Shauuda Plaza at the top left of the map there is a sniper posting with marking indicating the direction of fire marked on the map. At the bottom center of the map there is a gas station where Hamas planted an IED which, if activated, could cause a very large explosion throughout the neighborhood.

An overall study of the map demonstrates how Hamas deliberately uses civilians, using them as live targets and hiding behind them; they plant IEDs at the enterances of homes, they booby trap homes and they use places of worship, all with no regard to collateral damage or civilian lives.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2009, 11:09:40 AM

I'd love to spread that around.  Is there a URL that goes with it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 09, 2009, 11:27:45 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2009, 11:09:40 AM

I'd love to spread that around.  Is there a URL that goes with it?

http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/09/captured-hamas-intelligence-9-jan-2009-1626-ist/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 09, 2009, 11:38:22 AM

Quote

I'd love to spread that around.  Is there a URL that goes with it?

Whups:

ETA: Ah crap, dealing with a major meltdown where some bonehead ordered 250 Gateway computers several months ago, didn't check 'em, now we're pulling 'em out of boxes and finding a 50 percent failure rate and Gateway has since gone into Chapter 7. Anyway, meant to paste this:

http://idfspokesperson.com/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 09, 2009, 11:44:41 AM

See, proof that Israel is unfair. HAMAS will kills it's own citizens, and Israel won't. I hope the UN formally condemns Israel for this "disproportionate" refusal to engage in fratricide.

Title: Hamas Mortars Gaza Relief Supplies
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 09, 2009, 05:20:43 PM

Mortar shells fired at Kerem Shalom
Jan. 9, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Palestinian gunmen in Gaza on Friday afternoon broke the three-hour humanitarian truce, during which Israel let in vital aid to the Strip via the Kerem Shalom border crossing.

While the supplies were being transferred, Gaza gunmen fired several mortar shells at the terminal. No one was wounded.

Earlier, just after 1 p.m., when the temporary truce was supposed to have already begun, Palestinians fired three Grad rockets at Ashdod.

In the early evening, gunmen fired two rockets at the Eshkol region, lightly wounding one person and damaging a building. During the day, rockets also hit the Sdot Negev region, Ofakim, Sderot, Beersheba, Ashkelon, and Merhavim regions. There were no other reports of wounded or damage.

Later Friday, Hamas claimed that a rocket fired by their military wing struck an IAF Air Force base 45 kilometers from the Gaza Strip.

In a statement posted on their website and carried on the Al-Aksa television station, the group said that they "succeeded for the first time in hitting the Tel-Nof base, the biggest base in Israel, 45 kilometers from the Strip."

The claim could not be verified by the Jerusalem Post.

According to the statement, the rocket was launched at 8:05 a.m., and reached the farthest point to date.

"The shooting was carried out in response to the massacres that Israel is committing in the Gaza Strip," the group said, "and which, up until now, has taken the lives of hundreds of Palestinians.

The IDF said it knew nothing about the report.

Over 30 rockets and mortar shells were fired at southern Israeli civilian areas on Friday.

Meanwhile, Osama Hamdan, a Hamas envoy to Lebanon, rejected Thursday's UNSC call for a cease-fire, telling the al-Arabiya satellite channel that the group "is not interested in it because it does not meet the demands of the movement."

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the UN failed to consider the interests of the Palestinian people. "This resolution doesn't mean that the war is over," he told the al-Jazeera satellite television network. "We call on the Palestinian fighters to mobilize and be ready to face the offensive, and we urge the Arab masses to carry on with their angry protests."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424898375&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Gotta Control the Flow of Info, Ya Know
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 10, 2009, 09:25:49 AM

January 10, 2009, 11:15 AM
Hamas Rejects Int'l Observers In Gaza
Posted by George Baghdadi| 3


Hamas on Saturday rejected the deployment of international observers in the Gaza Strip, describing the latest U.N. Security Council resolution as falling short of meeting the "national interests."

Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the Palestinian militant group, is scheduled to deliver a TV speech Saturday night on the latest developments.

A statement by the Alliance of Palestinian Forces, which groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad among others, said in a statement that leaders of the Syrian-based factions "rejected the presence of any international forces or observers in Gaza Strip," and called for immediate stop of the Zionist aggression, the withdrawal of the all Israeli troops, lifting the siege and opening of crossing points, including the Rafah crossing.

The statement added that the Palestinian factions, who met in Damascus, also rebuffed "any security arrangements that harm the resistance, its role and the right of legitimate struggle against the occupation."

On the latest U.N. Security Council resolution 1890 on Gaza, the factions said the move "doesn't meet the demands and interests of our people, as it also inflicts harm on the resistance, its continuity and the essence of the Palestinian issue."

They also called on the Arab leaders to quickly hold an emergency summit and "assume their historic responsibility over the war of extermination against our people and efforts underway to liquidate the Palestinian issue."

The factions, however, "expressed readiness and to discuss any sincere efforts that seek to stop the war of extermination and the massacres being perpetrated against our people."

Meanwhile, in a separate statement, Hamas invited press to cover a speech by its leader Khaled Meshaal tonight at 19:15 GMT "on the latest developments of the heinous Zionist aggression on Gaza Strip."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/10/world/worldwatch/entry4711989.shtml

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 10, 2009, 09:38:11 AM

Quote

Hamas on Saturday rejected the deployment of international observers in the Gaza Strip, describing the latest U.N. Security Council resolution as falling short of meeting the "national interests."

Let Israel demand international observers and keep up the pounding until they arrive. Hamas is suicidal. Rayyan effectively "suicided" his whole family. Why do you want to have a family if all you want for them is death? Reminds me of Reverend Jim Jones in Guyana.  :x

Title: NYT Balance?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 10, 2009, 05:15:14 PM

Surprised to see this treatment appear in the NYT:

January 11, 2009
A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery

By STEVEN ERLANGER
JERUSALEM — The grinding urban battle unfolding in the densely populated Gaza Strip is a war of new tactics, quick adaptation and lethal tricks.

Hamas, with training from Iran and Hezbollah, has used the last two years to turn Gaza into a deadly maze of tunnels, booby traps and sophisticated roadside bombs. Weapons are hidden in mosques, schoolyards and civilian houses, and the leadership’s war room is a bunker beneath Gaza’s largest hospital, Israeli intelligence officials say.

Unwilling to take Israel’s bait and come into the open, Hamas militants are fighting in civilian clothes; even the police have been ordered to take off their uniforms. The militants emerge from tunnels to shoot automatic weapons or antitank missiles, then disappear back inside, hoping to lure the Israeli soldiers with their fire.

In one apartment building in Zeitoun, in northern Gaza, Hamas set an inventive, deadly trap. According to an Israeli journalist embedded with Israeli troops, the militants placed a mannequin in a hallway off the building’s main entrance. They hoped to draw fire from Israeli soldiers who might, through the blur of night vision goggles and split-second decisions, mistake the figure for a fighter. The mannequin was rigged to explode and bring down the building.

In an interview, the reporter, Ron Ben-Yishai, a senior military correspondent for the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, said soldiers also found a pile of weapons with a grenade launcher on top. When they moved the launcher, “they saw a detonator light up, but somehow it didn’t go off.”

The Israeli Army has also come prepared for a battle both sides knew was inevitable. Every soldier, Israeli officials say, is outfitted with a ceramic vest and a helmet. Every unit has dogs trained to sniff out explosives and people hidden in tunnels, as well as combat engineers trained to defuse hidden bombs.

To avoid booby traps, the Israelis say, they enter buildings by breaking through side walls, rather than going in the front. Once inside, they move from room to room, battering holes in interior walls to avoid exposure to snipers and suicide bombers dressed as civilians, with explosive belts hidden beneath winter coats.

The Israelis say they are also using new weapons, like a small-diameter smart bomb, the GBU-39, which Israel bought last fall from Washington. The bomb, which is very accurate, has a small explosive, as little as 60 to 80 pounds, to minimize collateral damage in an urban area. But it can also penetrate the earth to hit bunkers or tunnels.

And the Israelis, too, are resorting to tricks.

Israeli intelligence officers are telephoning Gazans and, in good Arabic, pretending to be sympathetic Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians or Libyans, Gazans say and Israel has confirmed. After expressing horror at the Israeli war and asking about the family, the callers ask about local conditions, whether the family supports Hamas and if there are fighters in the building or the neighborhood.

Karim Abu Shaban, 21, of Gaza City said he and his neighbors all had gotten such calls. His first caller had an Egyptian accent. “Oh, God help you, God be with you,” the caller began.

“It started very supportive,” Mr. Shaban said, then the questions started. The next call came in five minutes later. That caller had an Algerian accent and asked if he had reached Gaza. Mr. Shaban said he answered, “No, Tel Aviv,” and hung up.

Interviews last week with senior Israeli intelligence and military officers, both active and retired, as well as with military experts and residents of Gaza itself, made it clear that the battle, waged among civilians and between enemies who had long prepared for this fight, is now a slow, nasty business of asymmetrical urban warfare. Gaza’s civilians, who cannot flee because the borders are closed, are “the meat in the sandwich,” as one United Nations worker said, requesting anonymity.

It is also clear that both sides are evolving tactics to the new battlefield, then adjusting them quickly.

To that end, Israeli intelligence is detaining large numbers of young Gazan men to interrogate them for local knowledge and Hamas tactics. Last week, Israel captured a hand-drawn Hamas map in a house in Al Atatra, near Beit Lahiya, which showed planned defensive positions for the neighborhood, mine and booby trap placements, including a rigged gasoline station, and directions for snipers to shoot next to a mosque. Numerous tunnels were marked.

A new Israeli weapon, meanwhile, is tailored to the Hamas tactic of asking civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings so Israeli pilots will not bomb. The Israelis are countering with a missile designed, paradoxically, not to explode. They aim the missiles at empty areas of the roofs to frighten residents into leaving the buildings, a tactic called “a knock on the roof.”

But the most important strategic decision the Israelis have made so far, according to senior military officers and analysts, is to approach their incursion as a war, not a police operation.

Civilians are warned by leaflets, loudspeakers and telephone calls to evacuate battle areas. But troops are instructed to protect themselves first and civilians second.

Officers say that means Israeli infantry units are going in “heavy.” If they draw fire, they return it with heavy firepower. If they are told to reach an objective, they first call in artillery or airpower and use tank fire. Then they move, but only behind tanks and armored bulldozers, riding in armored personnel carriers, spending as little time in the open as possible.

As the commander of the army’s elite combat engineering unit, Yahalom, told the Israeli press on Wednesday: “We are very violent. We do not balk at any means to protect the lives of our soldiers.” His name cannot be published under censorship rules.

“Urban warfare is the most difficult battlefield, where Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a relative advantage, with local knowledge and prepared positions,” said Jonathan Fighel of Israel’s International Institute for Counterterrorism. “Hamas has a doctrine; this is not a gang of Rambos,” he said. “The Israeli military has to find the stitches to unpick, how to counterbalance and surprise.”

Israeli troops are moving slowly and, they hope, unpredictably, trying not to stay in one place for long to entice Hamas fighters “to come out and confront them,” Mr. Fighel said.

Today, he said, “the mind-set from top to bottom is fight and fight cruel; this is a war, not another pinpoint operation.”

Israeli officials say that they are obeying the rules of war and trying hard not to hurt noncombatants but that Hamas is using civilians as human shields in the expectation that Israel will try to avoid killing them.

Israeli press officers call the tactics of Hamas cynical, illegal and inhumane; even Israel’s critics agree that Hamas’s regular use of rockets to fire at civilians in Israel, and its use of civilians as shields in Gaza, are also violations of the rules of war. Israeli military men and analysts say that its urban guerrilla tactics, including the widespread use of civilian structures and tunnels, are deliberate and come from the Iranian Army’s tactical training and the lessons of the 2006 war between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hamas rocket and weapons caches, including rocket launchers, have been discovered in and under mosques, schools and civilian homes, the army says. The Israeli intelligence chief, Yuval Diskin, in a report to the Israeli cabinet, said that the Gaza-based leadership of Hamas was in underground housing beneath the No. 2 building of Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza. That allegation cannot be confirmed.

While The New York Times and some other news organizations have local or Gaza-based Palestinian correspondents, any Israeli citizen or Israeli with dual citizenship has been banned for more than two years from entering Gaza, and any foreign correspondent who did not enter the territory before a six-month cease-fire with Hamas ended last month has not been allowed in.

Israel has also managed to block cellphone bandwidth, so very few amateur cellphone photographs are getting out of Gaza.

But Israeli tactics have caused civilian casualties that have created an international uproar, both in the Arab world and the West. In one widely reported episode, 43 people died when the Israelis shelled a street next to a United Nations school in northern Jabaliya where refugees were taking shelter. The United Nations says no militants were in the school.

The Israelis said they returned fire in response to mortar shells fired at Israeli troops. Such an action is legal, but there are questions about whether the force used was proportional under the laws of war, given the danger to noncombatants.

The backlash from the school attack is another potent example of the risks in an urban-war strategy: Israel may in fact be able to dismantle Hamas’s military structure even while losing the battle for world opinion and leaving Hamas politically still in charge of Gaza.

Taghreed El-Khodary contributed reporting from Gaza.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?_r=1&ref=world

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 11, 2009, 09:25:02 AM

Bridges to peace in Gaza
Former Israeli parliament speaker Avraham Burg argues that wars cannot be the one and only solution in a modern world such as ours.
By Avraham Burg
January 11, 2009
Writing From Nataf, Israel -- Last week, the war in Gaza was served at my family's dinner table, as the main course.

"You don't understand, Dad" -- this is the opening sentence of most conversations in my home -- "when you were our age, there was a war every decade or so, alongside perpetual hope. I'm only 26 years old, and I already have personal memories of five wars. Every couple of years there is a war here, and more are on the way. Can you grasp the meaning of this?"

My daughter was crying as she asked this. Her husband, to whom she was married only three months ago, was just called up by the army -- to hurt others or, God forbid, to be hurt.

Yes, my beloved child, I do understand. I understand that the Six-Day War in 1967 was a singular event, and that ever since it has been impossible to win a victory of such scale. I understand that national traumas are cultivating fear and hatred on both sides, and this labyrinth is saturated with too much blood. I understand that my generation and I have failed to bring you peace. I understand that it is of absolutely no significance who started it, who was the first to draw the sword or who is responsible. A much more pressing question is the identity of the person who will bring a solution, who will bring a future that encompasses elements other than steel and death.

For Israelis, Gaza is more than a set of geographical coordinates; it is a mental state, a national psychological reality. In many ways, our children in Israel are also the children of Gaza. They are the children of despair. In order to bring them hope, it is necessary for us to comprehend the deeper roots of war.

In past centuries, nations could set forth and wage war with the sole purpose of annihilating the enemy. Since the end of World War II, however, it seems that something very deep and essential in the world's consciousness has changed, something about its willingness to exterminate human beings.

The West, as far as I can gather from examining the wars led by Western regimes in the past decades, is no longer able to bring wars to a close. In the past, war had a single aim: to decapitate Goliath, to burn Joan of Arc, to wipe Hitler off the map or to nuke Japan into submission. Nowadays, the West cannot simply declare a comprehensive war that includes among its missions the extermination of the enemy. This impossibility reveals itself both at the level of principle and the extent to which Western soldiers will be willing to commit acts incompatible with their civil morality.

Both world wars, along with the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, have led to an evolution in the old doctrines of war. Instead of crushing the enemy and humiliating him, the new style of war seeks to preserve the ability of the opponent to reconstruct, maintain his dignity and transform from a foe into a friend. The same coalition that had wrongly humiliated Germany after World War I built post-World War II Germany as a central pillar of the new Western construct. Japan's honor -- embodied in the chair of the divine emperor -- was not desecrated, and that country too is now a faithful ally to the West.

A new form of victory emerged -- a non-absolute, non-humiliating victory and, most important, one that does not destroy the possibility of future dialogue with yesterday's foe.

Keeping in mind the strong commitment of Western soldiers to human dignity and liberties, we can understand why present wars take such a different shape. But if that's the case, how is a just society to combat societies that do not share its values and vocabulary? The purpose of a modern war ought to be this: to lead to the negotiating table. If a war ends and no dialogue emerges between the two sides, that war should be regarded as a failure.

Just like the bridges that were erected between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima, between Dresden and London, and between Catholic and Protestant Dublin, there must be a bridge between Sderot and Gaza, between Israel and Palestine.

A few days ago, I drove to a factory I own in Sderot, which was closed, and stood in front of it listening to the falling Kassam missiles. I took shelter with a frightened stray dog and thought to myself that even being a dog these days in the Middle East has become an impossible task.

And I also thought about the conversation with my children. Their argument is valid, but their despair is an error. Wars cannot be the one and only solution in a modern world such as ours. In Israel, as in Palestine, all the horizons have shut down; the anger and disbelief are so great that the eyes see only blood. I am confident that many Palestinians, religious as well as secular, yearn for a peaceful life. They too watch Barack Obama on TV and are inspired that anyone, even a person whose father was born in a small village in Kenya (or in Gaza) can end up at the top of the world.

I know many Israelis feel this way too. We are not all bloodthirsty; not all of us are willing to give in to despair and accept as a given the sorrow of our children. We too want happiness. This happiness is, despite the death, blood and horror that is so close to us today, within reach -- right around the corner, actually. For us and for them.

We must let go of the fundamentalists who have hijacked both nations and buried our hopes. We must speak to yesterday's terrifying enemy, about everything, and we must say to our children: "I understand. Do you?"

Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli parliament, is a businessman and the author, most recently, of " The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 11, 2009, 09:36:27 AM

What Avraham Burg glosses over is that indeed Israel could utterly wipe out the Gazans and chooses not to, HAMAS and the other jihadists will utterly wipe out Israel once they have the ability to do so. Those in Gaza that wish to live in peace with Israel dare not express that opinion, lest HAMAS target them and their families.

Title: Avraham Burg is Wrong
Post by: captainccs on January 11, 2009, 09:37:34 AM

Avraham Burg is Wrong

You have to defeat the enemy until he loses any desire to attack you.

Then you give him a helping hand, not sooner.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 11, 2009, 09:42:52 AM

**HAMAS 101**

Announcement - No. 89
January 8, 2009   No. 89

Exclusive MEMRI Viral Video Release For Free Download "Hamas: In Their Own Voices"
MEMRI is today releasing a new and exclusive viral video, titled "Hamas: In Their Own Voices." TO VIEW THIS VIDEO VISIT, http://www.memritv.org/video.html.

The video, a compilation of MEMRI TV clips that aired prior to the current Gaza crisis, includes statements by Hamas leaders calling for the annihilation of Israel and of all Jews, for death to America, and for the Islamic conquest of the world.

Featured are Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, Hamas MPs Mushir Al-Masri and Fathi Hamad, Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, Palestinian Legislative Council acting speaker Sheikh Ahmad Bahr, and Hamas clerics Wael Al-Zarad and Muhsen Abu 'Ita.

Viewers will also witness Hamas military training for adults and children, anti-American speeches at rallies including burning of the American flag and calls of support for "The Afghan Mujahidin", Hamas Al-Aqsa TV children's shows, and more.


Add the Video to Your Social Networking Pages

You can view and download the video here . Email it, put it on your social networking pages, and share it with others.


Instructions on How to Download and Share the Video

Share this video by uploading this clip to your Youtube, Facebook, and social network platforms.


Click here to get the link to embed the video on your blog and website


Visit MEMRI TV.ORG for Other Clips of Hamas and Al-Aqsa TV

To see other clips on Hamas, visit the MEMRI TV pages for Al-Aqsa TV (http://www.memritv.org/content/en/tv_channel_indiv.htm?id=175 ) and Hamas (http://www.memritv.org/subject/en/95.htm ) - and the new MEMRI Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM) website (http://www.memrijttm.org/ ).


Visit the THEMEMRIBLOG.ORG for the Most Up-To-Date Mid East News

For the most up-to-date information on the Middle East, visit www.MEMRI.org .

For the latest MEMRI TV clips, visit www.memritv.org .

For breaking news you will get nowhere else, visit www.thememriblog.org .

Title: German police aids Jew-hating Muslim mob, removes Israeli flag from window
Post by: captainccs on January 11, 2009, 02:15:18 PM

German police aids Jew-hating Muslim mob, removes Israeli flag from window

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiQxfRaXPVE&eurl=http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024345.php&feature=player_embedded


Jihad Watch reader Oao just sent me this:

:16 AM Received from Muqata Blog Reader in Germany, Sebastian M.
Today, 10.000 people demonstrated against Israel here in my hometown Duisburg (Germany) and to express their solidarity with Hamas. So, my girlfriend and me put two Israel flags out of the windows of our flat in the 3rd floor. During the demonstration which went through our street the police broke into our flat and removed the flag of Israel. The statement of the police was to de-escalate the situation, because many youth demonstrators were on the brink of breaking into our apartment house. Before this they threw snowballs, knifes and stones against our windows and the complete building. We both were standing on the other side of the street and were shocked by seeing a police officer standing in our bedroom and opening the window to get the flag. The picture illustrate this situation. The police acquiesced in the demands of the mob.

And as you can see from the video, the mob applauded, cheered, and shouted "Allahu akbar" when the flag disappeared.

Video above from Jewish Odysseus (thanks to Phil).


http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024345.php

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 11, 2009, 05:04:53 PM

 :cry: :cry: :cry:

Title: Iran Tells Hamas to Keep Fighting
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 11, 2009, 05:56:56 PM

Iran warns Hamas not to accept Egyptian truce proposal
Jan. 12, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Iran is exerting heavy pressure on Hamas not to accept the Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire with Israel, an Egyptian government official said on Sunday.

The official told The Jerusalem Post by phone that two senior Iranian officials who visited Damascus recently warned Hamas leaders against accepting the proposal.

His remarks came as Hamas representatives met in Cairo with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman and his aides to discuss ways of ending the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

The Hamas representatives reiterated their opposition to a cease-fire that did not include the reopening of all the border crossings into the Gaza Strip, Hamas spokesmen said on Sunday.

The spokesmen said Hamas voiced its strong opposition to the idea of deploying an international force inside the Gaza Strip.

The Egyptian official said that the two Iranian emissaries, Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and Said Jalili of the Iranian Intelligence Service, met in the Syrian capital with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ramadan Shallah.

"As soon as the Iranians heard about the Egyptian cease-fire initiative, they dispatched the two officials to Damascus on an urgent mission to warn the Palestinians against accepting it," the Egyptian government official told the Post.

"The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel. The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon."

The official pointed out that the Iranians were applying "double standards" regarding the current conflict - on the one hand, they encouraged Iranian men to volunteer to fight alongside Hamas; on the other hand, Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, told the volunteers that they would not be permitted to join the fight against Israel.

"The Iranians never fired one bullet at Israel," he said. "But now they are trying to appear as if they are participating in the war against Israel. The leaders of Teheran don't care about the innocent civilians who are being killed in the Gaza Strip."

The Egyptian official accused Iran of "encouraging" Hamas to continue firing rockets at Israel with the hope that this would trigger a war that would divert attention from Iran's nuclear plans.

"This conflict serves the interests of the Iranians," he said. "They are satisfied because the violence in the Gaza Strip has diverted attention from their nuclear ambitions. The Iranians are also hoping to use the Palestinian issue as a 'powerful card' in future talks with the Americans.

"They want to show that they have control over Hamas and many Palestinians."

Karam Jaber, editor of the semi-official Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Youssef magazine, said that Hamas was caught between the Syrian anvil and the Iranian hammer. The Iranians, he said, prevented Hamas from negotiating a cease-fire with Israel, while the Syrians were blackmailing and intimidating the Hamas leaders in Damascus.

"History won't forget to mention that Hamas had inflicted death and destruction on the Palestinians," he said. "We hope that Hamas has learned the lesson and realizes that it has been fighting a war on behalf of others. We hope the Hamas leaders will realize that they are fighting a destructive war on behalf of the Iranians and Syrians."

Egyptian political analyst Magdi Khalil said he shared the view of the Palestinian Authority and Egypt that Hamas was responsible for the war in the Gaza Strip. "Ever since Hamas seized control over the Gaza Strip in 2007, they turned the area into hell," he said. "They imposed restrictions on the people there and even prevented them from performing the pilgrimage to Mecca."

The analyst said that the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service was right when he recently described Hamas as a group of gangsters. "Hamas and its masters in Damascus and Teheran want to spread chaos in Egypt," he said. "They want to solve the problem of the Gaza Strip by handing the area over to Egypt. They want to create a homeland for the Palestinians in Sinai."

He said that Hamas was not only jeopardizing Egypt's national security, but had also destroyed the Palestinians' dream of statehood. "By endorsing the Iranian agenda, Hamas has brought the Iranians to Egypt's eastern border," he said. "Hamas has also copied Hizbullah's policy of entering into pointless adventures."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424929369&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 11, 2009, 09:18:47 PM

I just signed up.


  http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 12, 2009, 05:31:23 AM

Hamas’s Brutal Legacy   
By Ralph Peters
The New York Post | Monday, January 12, 2009

Israel hasn't killed a single civilian in the Gaza Strip. Over a hundred civilians have died, and Israeli bombs or shells may have ended their lives. But Israel didn't kill them.

Hamas did.

It's time to smash the lies. The lies of Hamas. The UN lies. And the save-the-terrorists lies of the global media.

There is no moral equivalence between Hamas terrorists and Israeli soldiers. There is no gray area. There is no point in negotiations.

Hamas is a Jew-killing machine. It exists to destroy Israel. What is there to negotiate?

When Hamas can't kill Jews, it's perfectly willing to drive Palestinian civilians into the line of fire - old men, women and children. Hamas herds the innocent into "shelters," then draws Israeli fire on them. And the headline-greedy media cheer them on.

Hamas isn't fighting for political goals. "Brokered agreements" are purely means to an end. And the envisioned end is the complete destruction of Israel in the name of a terrorist god. Safe in hidden bunkers or in Damascus, the Hamas leadership is willing to watch an unlimited number of civilians and even street-level terrorists die.

Lives, too, are nothing but means to an end. And dead kids are the coins that keep the propaganda meter ticking.

All Hamas had to do to prevent Israel's act of self-defense was to leave Israel unmolested by terror rockets. All Hamas needs to do now to stop this conflict and spare the Palestinian people it pretends to champion is to stop trying to kill Israelis and agree to let Israel exist in peace.

Hamas didn't, and Hamas won't.

Now Israel has to continue its attack, to wreak all the havoc it can on Hamas before a new American president starts meddling. If Israel stops now, Hamas can declare victory just for surviving - despite its crippling losses. While it's impossible to fully eliminate extremism, killing every terrorist leader hiding in a Gaza bunker is the only hope of achieving even a temporary, imperfect peace. The chance may not come again.

And don't worry about "creating a power vacuum." Let the Palestinians pick up their own pieces. Even anarchy in Gaza is better for Israel than Hamas.

Israelis, Americans and Westerners overall share a tragic intellectual blind spot: We're caught in yesterday's model of terrorism, that of Arafat's PLO, of the IRA, the Red Brigades or the Weather Underground. But, as brutal as those organizations could be, they never believed they were on a mission from God.

Yesteryear's terrorists wanted to change the world. They were willing to shed blood and, in extreme cases, to give their own blood to their causes. But they didn't seek death. They preferred to live to see their "better world."

Now our civilization faces terrorists who regard death as a promotion. They believe that any action can be excused because they're serving their god. And their core belief is that you and I, as stubborn unbelievers, deserve death.

Their grisly god knows no compromise. To give an inch is to betray their god's trust entirely. Yet we - and even some Israelis - believe it's possible to cut deals with them.

In search of peace, Israel handed Gaza to the Palestinians, a people who had never had a state of their own. As thanks, Israel received terror rockets. And the Palestinian people got a gang war.

Peace is the last thing Hamas terrorists and gangsters want. Peace means the game is up. Peace means they've disappointed their god. Peace means no more excuses. They couldn't bear peace for six months.

This is a war to the bitter end. And we're afraid to admit what it's about.

It's not about American sins or Israeli intransigence. It's about a sickness in the soul of a civilization - of Middle-Eastern Islam - that can only be cured from within. Until Arabs or Iranians decide to cure themselves, we'll have to fight.

Instead, we want to talk. We convince ourselves, against all evidence, that our enemies really want to talk, too, that they just need "incentives" (the diplomat's term for bribes). The apparent belief of our president-elect that it's possible to negotiate with faith-fueled fanatics is so naive it's terrifying.

Yet, it's understandable. Barack Obama's entire career has been built on words, not deeds, on his power to persuade, not his power to deliver. But all the caucuses, debates, neighborhood meetings and backroom deal-making sessions in his past haven't prepared him to "negotiate" with men whose single-minded goal is Israel's destruction - and ours.

If Obama repeats the same "peace-process" folly as his predecessors, from Jimmy have-you-hugged-your-terrorist-today? Carter through Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, he'll be devoured before he knows he's been bitten.

How many administrations have to repeat the identical error of believing that, deep down inside, terrorists, gunmen and warlords really want peace every bit as much as we do? Israel's enemies aren't just looking to cut a sharp deal. They want to destroy Israel.

Which part of what they shout in our faces is so hard to understand? Israel's foes have been preaching Jew-hatred for so long that even the "moderates" can't turn back now.

And why does the global left hate Israel so? Why would they pull out the stops to rescue Hamas?

Because Israel exposed the lie that a suffering people can't lift itself up through hard work, education and discipline. Israel didn't need the help of a hundred condescending NGOs and their misery junkies.

Because the Holocaust is a permanent embarrassment to Europeans. They need to believe that Israelis are kosher Nazis.

Because, from the safety of cafes and campuses, it's cool to call terrorists "freedom fighters." It makes you feel less guilty when you hit up daddy (or the state) for money. I mean, dude, it's not like you have to, like, live with them or anything, you know?

(The preceding sentence is not a direct quote from Caroline Kennedy.)

Because, above all, the most-destructive racists in the world today are mainstream leftists. Want the truth? The Left codes Israel as white and, therefore, inherently an oppressor. Israel is held to the highest standard of our civilization and our legal codes - and denied the right to self-defense.

But the Left tacitly believes that people with darker skins are inferior and can't be expected to behave at a civilized level. Leftists expect terrorist movements or African dictators to behave horribly. It's the post-modern, latte-sucking version of the "little brown brother" mentality.

The worst enemies of developing societies have been leftists who refuse to hold them to fundamental standards of governance and decency. But, then, the Left needs developing societies to fail to prove that the system's hopelessly stacked against them.

A battered, impoverished, butchered people built a thriving Western democracy in an Eastern wasteland. Israel can never be forgiven for its success.

In this six-decade-old conflict that Israel's intractable neighbors continue to force upon it, there not only are no good solutions, but, thanks to the zero-sum mentality of Islamist terrorists, there aren't even any bad solutions - short of nuclear genocide - that would bring an enduring peace to the Middle East.

And even the elimination of Israel wouldn't be enough. The terrorists would fight among themselves, while warring upon less-devout fellow Muslims.

All Israel can do is to fight for time and buy intervals of relative calm with the blood of its sons and daughters. By demanding premature cease-fires and insisting that we can find a diplomatic solution, we strengthen monsters and undercut our defenders.

And don't believe the propaganda about this conflict rallying Gaza's Palestinians behind Hamas. That's more little-brown-brother condescension, assuming all Arabs are so stupid they don't know who started this and who's dragging it out at their expense.

Gaza's people may not care much for Israelis, but they rue the day they cast their votes for Hamas. Hamas is killing them.

Title: Hamas' children
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2009, 02:51:36 PM

Hamas' children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8

Title: Sadr City as a Gaza Model?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 13, 2009, 05:29:42 AM

Sadr City's Lesson for Gaza
American Thinker ^ | 1-13-09 | Glen Tschirgi

Israel faces a Faustian bargain in Gaza: destroy Hamas utterly -- which appears impossible for all practical purposes -- or reach a cease fire that inevitably allows Hamas to re-arm and fight another day. Either way, Israel seems to be fighting a lost cause. There may, however, be another approach that succeeded under similarly unfavorable circumstances: the "Gold Wall" of Sadr City, Iraq.

As Nathan Hodge observed in a recent article for Danger Room, there are striking similarities between the current dilemma facing Israel and the one confronting the United States in Baghdad in March, 2008.

For months, Moqtada al Sadr's Shiite militia, the Jaish al Mahdi ("JAM"), had increased the tempo and accuracy of rocket and mortar attacks against the Green Zone from bases in Sadr City. With a population of over two million, mostly poor Shiites, the prospects for stopping the attacks were bleak. At the time, the unchallenged assumption was that JAM enjoyed widespread support throughout Sadr City. Defeating JAM would likely entail heavy casualties. Nonetheless, the attacks could no longer be ignored by the U.S. or Prime Minister Maliki.

Surprisingly, U.S. forces eschewed a Fallujah-style, urban assault and, instead, embarked upon a bold strategy of bisecting the southern portion of Sadr City in order to push JAM rocket and mortar teams out of range of the Green Zone. Amidst fierce fighting with JAM, U.S. forces erected what came to be known as, "the Gold Wall," a two mile, concrete barrier which allowed Coalition forces to carve out a tightly-controlled enclave in Sadr City and end the attacks.

Construction of the Gold Wall, however, did not only result in an end to attacks against the Green Zone. Just as importantly, the Gold Wall effected a dramatic political change. Once the citizens behind the Gold Wall were confident of continuing protection from JAM reprisals, businesses re-opened, security improved dramatically and actionable intelligence from the population soared. The assumption that the Sadr City population unquestionably supported JAM proved false.

Perhaps this should have been more obvious in hindsight. It was immediately apparent to al Sadr's militia that the construction of the wall directly threatened their control over the local population. As a result, JAM threw everything they had against the wall in order to stop its construction. This played straight into U.S. technological strengths: UAV real-time surveillance coupled with smart munitions delivered crippling blows to JAM. The losses proved fatal to JAM, resulting in a May 2008 cease-fire which effectively disbanded the militia and turned control of Sadr City, JAM's former bastion, over to the Iraqi Army. Incredibly enough, all this was accomplished at a cost of only six dead compared to an estimated 700 JAM members.

Could a so-called "Gold Wall Strategy" work in Gaza?

In Gaza, Israel faces a ruthless militia in Hamas in a treacherous urban environment. Like JAM, Hamas is willing to use the civilian population as shields and propaganda tools. Hamas and JAM are both Iranian-trained and equipped. An all-out assault into well-prepared defensive positions would be long and costly.

Compared to Sadr City, Gaza has a significantly lower population. According to a January 6, 2009 BBC News profile on Gaza Strip, there are approximately 1.5 million inhabitants in Gaza generally, of which approximately 400,000 reside in Gaza City. In terms of effective control, Gaza is far more isolated than Sadr City which had extensive connections to the rest of Iraq and access to re-supply from Iran. Gaza is contained on three sides by Israel and the fourth side, to the south, is controlled by Egypt, no friend of Hamas. Unlike the U.S. in Sadr City, Israel has no supply line problems and does not need to transport reinforcements from thousands of miles away. The U.S. constructed the Gold Wall with 2,000 combat troops. Israel has at least 5,000 soldiers in Gaza with thousands more available at short notice.

From an engineering standpoint, the distances involved pose no great obstacle. The Gaza Strip is approximately 10 miles at its widest, but in order to bisect Gaza, either north of or south of Gaza City, Israel would only need to construct a barrier of approximately 3 to 4 miles. And Israel, unlike the U.S., has had significant, prior experience in constructing effective, defensive barriers.

Hamas can, of course, be expected to attack any construction with no less ferocity than JAM, but therein lies the beauty: by constructing the wall, Israel completely reverses the momentum and direction of the struggle in Gaza and adopts a clear, finite and defensible goal for its operations. Hamas will be forced to come out of hiding and expose itself, including its remaining leadership, to the full force and fury of Israeli technology, just as JAM did in Sadr City. Israeli capabilities in this regard are no less robust than the U.S. Suddenly it is Hamas that must choose its poison: allow the IDF to reclaim a portion of Gaza which will be a continual humiliation, or take desperate measures to breach the wall or otherwise attack Gazans. Either way it is a propaganda nightmare for Hamas.

The exact location of the wall in Gaza is subject to many considerations and beyond the scope of this article, but it would obviously be in Israel's interest to select a point, initially, which would push the Hamas rocket teams out of the range of Israel's vital facilities such as the Dimona nuclear facility or Ben Gurion International Airport.

A Gold Wall for Gaza, then, is certainly feasible, but simply constructing the wall is only the beginning. What then? Following the Sadr City model, the IDF would need to thoroughly and methodically clear the enclave of any Hamas or Fatah militants. As the clearing operations progressed, Israel could gradually open up the enclave to greater humanitarian and economic assistance, relieving some of the international pressure brought on by hardships to the civilian population.

The great unknown, indeed the true risk to this approach, is the reaction of the Gazans within the protected enclave. How would they respond to the presence of the IDF in the absence of Hamas militants? It is entirely possible that the Gazans could refuse to accept IDF protection and insist, however irrational it may seem, that the thugs from Hamas resume their reign of terror. Perhaps not.

In January 2007, Hamas took complete control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah in a brutal compaign of murder and intimidation. Hamas has held Gazans as virtual hostages ever since by use of torture and mayhem. There are signs that Gazans have had enough, if the recent conversion of the son of Hamas co-founder Sheik Hassan Yousef is any indication. Reports of ongoing atrocities against Gazans by Hamas is more evidence that Hamas can maintain its hold only by fear, even in the face of attack by Israel.

If the Gold Wall of Sadr City can tell us anything, it may be that loyalty of a captive population evaporates as soon as the threat is removed. In light of Israel's alternatives, giving the Gazans the same opportunity as the people of Sadr City may be a Golden opportunity too good to pass up.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/does_sadr_city_have_a_lesson_f.html

Title: Hamas Raid Relief Trucks & Resell Stolen Good
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 13, 2009, 05:44:26 AM

Second post.

Those Hamas rascals have this commerce stuff down: launch indiscriminate missile attacks at population centers, hide behind their citizens when the response comes, whine incessantly about the humanitarian tragedy they create, then hijack the relief supplies that are sent and sell them to the camera fodder they claim to represent. Create the demand, pirate the supply, and sell to the highest bidder. To paraphrase Amborse Bierce: commerce without its follyswaddles, just as Allah intended it.

Hamas raids aid trucks, sells supplies
Jan. 12, 2009
YAAKOV KATZ and JPost.com staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas on Monday raided some 100 aid trucks that Israel had allowed into Gaza, stole their contents and sold them to the highest bidders.

The IDF said that since terminal activity is coordinated with UNRWA and the Red Cross, Israel could do nothing to prevent such raids, Israel Radio reported.

Between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., the army had ceased all military activity in Gaza and once again established a "humanitarian corridor" to help facilitate the transfer of the supplies.

The Kerem Shalom and Karni crossings had been opened to allow in the aid trucks.

Security officials at Kerem Shalom thwarted an attempt to smuggle electrical goods, disguised as humanitarian supplies, into Gaza. The electrical goods included computers, infra-red cameras, ovens, microwaves and other electronic equipment.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has forbidden the entry of electronics to Gaza since the goods do not fall under the category of humanitarian aid. Some electronic equipment has been let in as per an official Palestinian request, such as equipment used to repair the damaged electrical grid in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel is considering establishing a field hospital in the Gaza Strip to treat Palestinian civilians wounded in fighting between the IDF and Hamas.

The plan would be to establish the field hospital outside the Gaza Strip, but the IDF is also considering the possibility of erecting the hospital inside the Palestinian territory so it will be more accessible to the Palestinian population. It would be run by the IDF Medical Corps.

Also Monday, in an effort to promote Israeli humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip, the Defense Ministry launched a new Web site that provides a live video feed of the Kerem Shalom cargo crossing, through which international organizations have been transferring basic foods and medical supplies to Gaza.

The footage can be viewed at: http://www.mod.gov.il/pages/general/Maavar-Kerem-Shalom.asp. Since the beginning of Operation Cast Lead, the IDF has facilitated the transfer of close to 900 trucks into the Gaza Strip with over 20,000 tons of basic foods and medical supplies.

According to an army estimate on Monday, slightly over 900 Palestinians have been killed since Operation Cast Lead began in December 2008. Based on intelligence and information obtained by the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, the IDF has determined that at least 400 of those killed are known Hamas operatives. The IDF further believes that among the remaining 500, a significant number are also Hamas operatives.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424932109&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: WSJ: The Tunnels
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2009, 10:19:31 PM

By DORE GOLD
When Israelis look back on what caused the current conflict in Gaza, they point to their government's decision in September 2005 to leave the narrow "Philadelphi Route" that runs along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. More than Israel's disengagement from the Strip as a whole, the abandonment of this strategic area made full-scale war inevitable.

The 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization placed this 100-meter wide corridor, which separated the Egyptian side of the town of Rafah from the Palestinian side in Gaza, under Israeli military control. (The Israeli army gave it the code name "Philadelphi.") By 2000, local Palestinians, many of whom worked with Hamas, dug underground tunnels between the two halves of Rafah. The tunnels allowed for a lucrative smuggling trade that included weapons.

Admittedly, there were rocket attacks on Israel before the Gaza pullout (the first Qassam rocket was fired in 2001). However, the scale of the attacks totally changed after the withdrawal. Rocket attacks increased by 500% (from 179 in 2005 to 946 in 2006).

The range of Hamas's rockets also increased following the withdrawal. Locally manufactured Qassams, which could reach targets seven kilometers away, gave way to Grad/Katyusha rockets supplied by Iran that can hit as far as 20 kilometers. These were first used in 2006. During 2008, rockets with a 40-kilometer range came through the Gaza tunnels and into Hamas's weapons cache.

At the same time that the tunnels facilitated weapons smuggling, they also allowed hundreds of Hamas operatives to leave Gaza for Egypt, where they caught planes to Iran and underwent military training with the Revolutionary Guards at a base outside of Tehran. When Israel controlled the Philadelphi Route, its special forces waged a constant battle and kept the number of tunnels low. But by 2008, with Israeli access to the Philadelphi route cut off and measures against the tunnels halted, the number of tunnels proliferated into the hundreds.

Today, Israelis are concerned that even if Hamas is defeated militarily, its stocks of rockets will be fully replenished by Iran in a matter of months unless the tunnels under the Philadelphi Route are addressed. That is precisely what happened with Hezbollah after the 2006 Lebanon War. The United Nations Security Council cease-fire, Resolution 1701, failed to deal adequately with the rearming of the Lebanese Shiite group. Today, Hezbollah has more rockets threatening Israel than it had prior to the 2006 war.

In the case of Hamas, there is an added concern that Iran will supply rockets that reach well beyond the 40-kilometer range. In the next war, Hamas could strike Tel Aviv from inside the Gaza Strip.

How can Israel cut off the smuggling routes? In 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proposed border controls for the Rafah area. This completely failed because the European Union monitors deployed in Rafah ran away the moment there was an escalation of violence.

Today the idea of a new EU monitoring force -- a proposal Western diplomats are discussing -- does not engender much confidence on the Israeli side. Others are hoping that Egypt will take seriously its obligations to close off the smuggling routes from its side. Egypt has failed to do so since 2005. Why should we expect a change now?

If these options fail, Israel may be left with no choice but to enter the Philadelphi Route and continue to destroy these tunnels in the future.

Anticipating the end of the Gaza war, there is already talk about the next stage of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Some hope that the peace process can simply be picked up where it was left off and pursued with new determination.

But the crisis over the Philadelphi Route has taught Israel a bitter lesson about relinquishing critical territory: It was a cardinal error to leave this strategic zone at the perimeter of Gaza, even if Israel wanted to get out of the Strip in its entirety. Israeli leaders including Yitzhak Rabin have warned that Israel must never leave the Jordan Valley, the equivalent perimeter zone in the West Bank.

Ariel Sharon saw the Jordan Valley as an integral part of Israel's claim to "defensible borders," a term used by President Bush in an April 2004 letter to Israel, that was overwhelmingly backed in special legislation by bipartisan majorities in both houses of U.S. Congress during June 2004. President-elect Barack Obama publicly recognized Israel's right to "defensible borders" at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference last year.

The strategic stakes involved in this issue are enormous. Were Israel to be stripped of the Jordan Valley, it would undoubtedly face a massive escalation of weapons smuggling into the West Bank. Should the scale of the smuggling reach the same proportions as in Gaza, it is doubtful that even the Jordanians, motivated by the best of intentions, could bring it to a halt. Moreover, a steady stream of weapons smugglers and Islamist volunteers crossing the kingdom would undermine Jordanian security.

Diplomats are working feverishly to seal off the Philadelphi Route and bring an end to the current Gaza conflict. Let's hope they remember the critical importance of securing Israel's other borders -- for the sake of Israel's security, and for the stability of its neighbors.

Mr. Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, served as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in 1997-1999.

Title: I am optimistic now because I think there is no other choice for us
Post by: captainccs on January 14, 2009, 09:08:13 AM

Egypt is brokering a truce between Israel and Hamas.

Israel has said it will continue the offensive until a satisfactory truce can be cobbled together while a representative of Hamas now said "I am optimistic now because I think there is no other choice for us." That sounds like capitulation to me. High time too. Islam is a conquering religion. Bash them long enough, hard enough and they come to their senses. This is a truth Israel should never forget.

Quote

A Hamas spokesman said he was also hopeful.
"I am optimistic now because I think there is no other choice for us," Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas adviser, told the BBC. "I think this kind of agreement can be done now, and I think now there is good progress in Egypt. We hope that now Egypt will contact Israel and talk about all issues."

The complete news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians)

Title: Remembering Jenin's Casualty Numbers
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 14, 2009, 10:26:37 AM

January 14, 2009, 0:00 a.m.

Can We Trust the Casualty Numbers?
Probably not, if they come from Hamas.

By Stephanie Gutmann

‘Palestinian Death Toll Tops 900: Gaza Official,” blared an AP headline on Monday morning. Over at CNN, the headline was “Gaza death toll since airstrikes began is above 500, Palestinian sources say.”

Once again, a high and asymmetric death toll will be invoked to justify a premature end to Israel’s campaign to wipe out arms-smuggling tunnels and otherwise weaken Hamas’s infrastructure. But can we believe the numbers? Who are the sources of these figures? The AP, for instance, continually quotes unspecified “medical officials.” Sometimes reporters offer up hospital administrators in Gazan hospitals, sometimes people like “Bassem Naeem . . . health minister . . . in Gaza,” who “told reporters that 42 percent of those killed were women and children.”

But Israeli officials point out that virtually every public official in the Gaza strip, including hospital administrators, is, in effect, a Hamas appointee. It is, after all, a totalitarian regime that has crushed any remnant of a free press and thrown dissenters off the roofs of buildings. Israel thus “seriously questions Hamas’s figures,” but at this point — obviously — it has no way of doing the kind of intense forensic investigation needed to issue its own more precise estimate.

It’s time to recall another Israeli incursion in which Palestinians used casualty numbers seemingly plucked out of the air to justify its claim that Israel was employing “disproportionate force.” In the spring of 2002, after months of near-daily suicide bombings inside Israel, the IDF decided to make a major incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, which even Al-Fatah documents identified as “the capital of suicide bombing.” The civilian population was warned that an incursion was imminent and given several days to move to adjacent towns in the West Bank. Then Israel moved in with infantry soldiers who picked their way among mined buildings looking for weapons stores and hidden enemy fighters.

Palestinians, this time from the Fatah side of the street, immediately started to play to the international media. Several outlets, including Al-Jazeera for instance, quoted one Dr. Abu-Rali, director of a Jenin hospital, who said that “the western wing of [his] hospital was shelled and destroyed,” making for “casualties in the thousands.”

Nasser al-Kidwa, a Palestinian representative to the United Nations, told CNN: “There’s almost a massacre now taking place in Jenin. Helicopter gunships are throwing missiles at one square kilometer packed with almost 15,000 people in a refugee camp. . . . Just look at the TV and watch, watch what the Israel forces are doing. . . . This is a war crime, clear war crime, witnessed by the whole world, preventing ambulances, preventing people from being buried. I mean this is an all-out assault against the whole population.”

“All my nine children are buried under the ruins,” a resident of Jenin named Abu Ali told the Le Nouvel Observateur, a French weekly magazine. The weekly apparently did not do any checking; it dutifully reported Ali’s story of losing his children in a piece titled “The Survivors Tell Their Stories.” Newspapers in the U.K. went into a positive frenzy, running pieces like the Independent’s “The Camp that Became a Slaughterhouse.”

Finally, in August 2002, the U.N. sent a team to investigate charges of a massacre. The U.N. — no friend of Israel — found no evidence of a massacre, and it supported IDF claims that about 45 Palestinians had died, mostly men aged 18 to 45. It confirmed only three children and four women. Abu Ali’s nine children were not among them. “Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. . . . A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged,” the U.N. report said.

Amnesty International, also no friend of Israel, did its own investigation and came to a similar conclusion. In fact, the PLO itself had already revised its figures. In May 2002, a PLO spokesman named Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, who apparently had decided to “rebrand” the Jenin incursion, produced a list of 56 dead as part of his brief to Paul Martin of the Washington Times that the battle had been “a victory” in which “the Israelis, who tried to break the Palestinian willpower, have been taught a lesson.”


As for the Jenin hospital whose “western wing” was pulverized, an Israeli reservist doctor named David Zangen — who served in units during the Jenin battle and has done much writing contesting the myths propagated about the incursion — reports that “there never was such a wing and, in any case, no part of the hospital was shelled or bombed.”

Another tactic, along with inflated figures, is to exploit the shock value of dead bodies. Even if they have to be pulled out of morgues, bodies will be found and displayed to produce the horrible photographs that bring demonstrators into the streets and diplomats into urgent sessions. There may have been relatively few civilian casualties in the battle for Jenin, but that did not stop Hamas and Fatah-affiliated terror militiamen in the camp from “dressing the set,” so to speak, for the international press.

According to Ilan Sztulman, an officer in the IDF reserves who served in Jenin, “The Palestinians wouldn’t let anybody take the bodies out. They manipulate imagery. That’s how they fight. There were bodies decaying on the street. They stank. But if anybody approached the bodies they would get shot. They booby-trapped a lot of bodies. Some IDF soldiers got killed before they figured this out. So to get them out, the IDF soldiers began using a sort of anchor. It’s called a sapper’s anchor: You throw it; it gets stuck on flesh and if it doesn’t explode, you can come close.”

This tactic may be in use once again to defeat Israel’s Gaza offensive. A week ago, Jeffrey Goldberg, who has done more up-close reporting in the disputed territories than any other living journalist, asked, “Why are these pictures [of the dead] so omnipresent?”

“Hamas (and the Aksa Brigades, and Islamic Jihad, the whole bunch) prevents the burial, or even preparation of the bodies for burial, until the bodies are used as props in the Palestinian Passion Play,” he wrote in his blog on atlantic.com. “Once, in Khan Younis, I actually saw gunmen unwrap a shrouded body, carry it a hundred yards and position it atop a pile of rubble — and then wait a half-hour until photographers showed. It was one of the more horrible things I’ve seen in my life. And it’s typical of Hamas.”

— Stephanie Gutmann is the author of The Other War: Israeli, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODY1NjNiMmQyMThlN2ZhZDhjYmYwYWM4M2ZlOTk4MDE=

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 16, 2009, 12:36:15 PM

**Feel-good story of the week!**

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=129461

"Iranian Unit" Destroyed, Hamas was Suprised
Tevet 20, 5769, 16 January 09 11:27
by Ernie Singer

(IsraelNN.com) The so-called "Iranian Unit" of Hamas has been destroyed, according to Gaza sources cited Thursday by the Haaretz daily. The sources said most of the unit's 100 members were killed in fighting in the Zeytun neighborhood of Gaza City.

The terrorists had been trained in infantry tactics, the use of anti-tank missiles and the detonation of explosives, among other skills, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard at Hizbullah camps in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley, as well as sites in Iran.

The IDF Southern Command has reportedly stepped up ground operations in Gaza, in anticipation of a ceasefire declaration in the near future. Senior officers said Thursday that there are probably no more than a few days until the end of the fighting.

According to the Arab sources, when that happens Iran will send money to assist Hamas in restoring its military capabilities, in addition to the more widely-publicized program of rebuilding destroyed homes.

Hamas: We Didn't Expect it
Two captured terrorists interviewed by Maariv/NRG say that Hamas was not expecting Israel's response to the escalation in missile attacks on Israeli targets that preceded Operation Cast Lead. One of them, a 52-year-old victim of a premature detonation who had already done time in an Israeli jail, said, "Hamas took a gamble. We thought, at worst Israel will come and do something from the air - something superficial. They'll come in and go out. We never thought that we would reach the point where fear will swallow the heart and the feet will want to flee. You [Israel] are fighting like you fought in '48. What got into you all of a sudden?"

The second terrorist, a 21-year-old, said Hamas brought order to Gaza, but also brought fear. He noted that it was dangerous in Gaza for non-Hamas members, citing an instance of his being beaten and another in which he saw a friend killed when he went to get gas. "Now they're all gone," he said. "There have been no Hamasniks in the streets since the start of the campaign."

www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com

Title: Demography
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2009, 07:55:08 AM

From an email letter/site which I recently have started receiving:
========================================

January 17, 2009

Hi there,

One overlooked feature the current conflict in Gaza is demography. Of the 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip, about half are under 15. In most Western countries, the birth rate is between 1.3 and 1.9, while there it is about 5.2. Israel is losing the battle of the birth rates, for its overall birth rate is about 2.9, although this includes a 4.0 birth rate for its Muslim citizens. The Israeli group with the highest birth rates, however, is the ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi, with about 9.0.

What does this mean for the future? It's hard to tell. History is not made by numbers alone. However, it suggests that militants in Gaza will have an unending supply of recruits and that more and more Israelis will be Muslim. There will also be more ultra-Orthodox in years to come. At the moment, most ultra-Orthodox men are excused from military service, but they tend to take a hard line in politics, so Israel may become even less inclined to favour compromise. Who knows?

But whatever the future holds, population will be an important element. And not only in the Middle East, but everywhere else as well. That's why MercatorNet will be launching a blog, "Demography is Destiny", later in the year. At the moment we are designing it and contacting writers (volunteers welcome). Stay tuned.

Cheers,
Michael Cook
Editor

Title: Re: Demography
Post by: captainccs on January 17, 2009, 09:03:36 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2009, 07:55:08 AM

One overlooked feature the current conflict in Gaza is demography. Of the 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip, about half are under 15.

If 1/2 the population is under age 15 and only 1/3 of the dead are minors in a war waged in an urban enclave, with the brave Hamas Fighters sheltered behind the skirts their womenfolk and behind their own children for whom the desire martyrdom,  the Israelis are being quite careful about not to targeting minors.

Every civilian death is a tragedy and more so the death of children who will never experience a full life, but blame has to be placed where it belongs. The proximate agents causing these deaths are the Israeli forces, but the ultimate cause is the rocket attack on Israel and the ultimate agent Hamas. Ban Ki-moon and the UN should address their complaints to Hamas and their Iranian backers, not to Israel.

I can only see two reasons why the UN asks Israel for a unilateral ceasefire: 1) either they understand that talking to Hamas, something they supposedly don't do, Hamas being branded Terrorists, is a waste of time or 2) the UN is the enemy of Israel and wants Israel to go on suffering the punishment meted out by Hamas and Iran.

Israel, please continue saying "NO" to the UN. Israel, please continue to fight in Gaza until your war aims are properly met.

Title: Huge Gas Reserves discovered?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2009, 11:58:32 AM

Huge gas reserves discovered off Haifa

Jan. 18, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Three massive gas reservoirs have been discovered 80 kilometers off the Haifa coast, at the Tamar prospect, Noble Energy Inc. announced on Sunday.

The Tamar-1 well, located in approximately 5,500 feet of water, was drilled to a total depth of 16,076 feet. The thickness and quality of the reservoirs found were greater than anticipated at the location.

Charles D. Davidson, Noble Energy's chairman, president and CEO, said in an announcement that his company was "extremely excited by the results. This is one of the most significant prospects that we have ever tested and appears to be the largest discovery in the company's history."

Speaking on Army Radio Sunday morning, an exhilarated Yitzhak Tshuva, owner of the Delek Group Ltd, one of the owners of the well, called the discovery "one of the biggest in the world," promising that the find would present a historic land mark in the economic independence of Israel.

"I have no doubt that this is a holiday for the State of Israel. We will no longer be dependent [on foreign sources] for our gas, and will even export. We are dealing with inconceivably huge quantities; Israel now has a solution for the future generations," Tshuva added.

An ecstatic Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said before the weekly cabinet meeting that the discovery was a "historic" one and could "change the face of Israeli industry."

In a statement released following the discovery, the Meimad-Green Movement party also praised the "historic discovery," and called to put plans to erect the coal-fired power plant in Ashkelon on hold.

"Until now, the central argument in favor of building the coal plant was that strategically, we cannot depend on clean natural gas, since its reservoirs are located in hostile countries," said Meimad chairman Rabbi Michael Melchior in the statement.

"Now, with the discovery of the huge reservoirs, the plans to construct the coal plant should be shelved, as it will cause severe health damage to the region's residents," said Melchior.

"Instead, we should build a plant powered by natural gas instead, Israeli and [environmentally friendly], which will have minimal health repercussions and aid Israel's economy," he added.

Production testing at Tamar will be performed after the well is completed. Noble Energy and its partners may keep the rig to drill up to two additional wells in the basin. Pending positive test results, one well could be an appraisal at Tamar.

Noble Energy operates the well with a 36 percent working interest. Other interest owners in the well are Israeli companies Isramco Negev 2, Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Dor Gas Exploration.

Following the announcement of the discover, shares of Delek Drilling jumped up 80%, while shares of Isramco Negev 2 skyrocketed by an unprecedented 120 percent. The rest of the Tel Aviv stock market also saw huge gains, with the TA-Index 100 climbing nearly 4 percent.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1232265973374&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 18, 2009, 12:03:26 PM

Inshallah!  :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 18, 2009, 12:15:18 PM

Quote from: G M on January 18, 2009, 12:03:26 PM

Inshallah!  :-D

 

:lol:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 18, 2009, 02:04:10 PM

- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com -

Gaza Children Sacrificed to a Malevolent God
Posted By Rand Simberg On January 18, 2009 @ 12:00 am In . Feature 01, . Positioning, Israel, Media, Politics, TV, World News | 47 Comments

Thousands of years ago, in the Middle East, cradle not just of civilization but of many gods, was a deity named Moloch. Today, he would be considered a pagan god by those of the one God of Abraham, with whom he long coexisted. But in that time, he prevailed for centuries. Like the God of Abraham, he was an angry god (though not clearly a jealous one). But the God of Abraham was more complex, and — at least later — merciful, and also loving.*

Moloch was a lot simpler. He was purely malevolent, and basically an extortionist — one that any modern gangster would recognize and admire.

His deal was basically this: “I am the bringer of the sun. Nice little city you have here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, like the crops dying because the sun didn’t show up. I can make sure that doesn’t happen. I don’t ask much — a temple with priests and ritual prostitutes, and an occasional sacrifice.”

His representative in the temple was an upright bull with horns and crown, gaping mouth, and outstretched arms. On sacrifice days, within him raged a fire.

The crowds would gather around and chant, and the drums would beat, and the ungodly din would drown out the screams of unknowing infant terror and keening mothers. Babies were brought up to the arms of Moloch, and through an ancient ingenious mechanism, raised up to his mouth to cruelly plummet them to the inferno below.

And to reinforce the tradition, the sun continued to shine.

But eventually, the God of Abraham became dominant in the Middle East, with three major religions worshiping him. Moloch was abandoned.

Fast forward to the early twenty-first century in the Middle East. There is a new child-sacrifice cult in the ancient land, albeit one that claims to be of the God of Abraham.

This time, the purpose of the sacrifice is not to keep the sun shining and the crops growing. This sacrifice is to placate the gods, or devils, in [1] the news media and to help the people achieve a much different and less laudable goal — the extinction of another people.

In 2009, in the “Gaza strip,” one of the ancient Philistine cities, an Islamic group called Hamas has the goal to, as part of its charter, [2] destroy all Jews in creation.

It lacks the military resources or competence to do so for now, but it satisfies itself with merely attempting, however ineffectually, to kill whatever Jews lie within the range of its unguided rockets. While few of them hit their marks (which, were they to satisfy their wont, would apparently be kindergartens and ice-cream parlors, or wherever young Jews would most likely be present in the highest density), they are of sufficient danger to continually disrupt the lives of those at whom they are aimed, if such a word can be applied to so crude a weapon.

But the crudity of the munitions is beside the point, isn’t it? What is important is the intent.

Hamas wants Jewish children to die. The Jews want their children to live. Beyond that, the Jews even want the children of Hamas to live. This is evidenced not just by the pains and risk to their own troops they take to carefully target those trying to kill them, and to minimize (though they cannot be eliminated, for reasons explained shortly) the number of Hamas children hurt, to the point of issuing warnings when they will be attacking their parents thus decreasing the probability of killing the actual enemy. It is also demonstrated by their willingness to take the wounded into their own hospitals for treatment when permissible.

But herein lies the real asymmetry between the two sides. Hamas doesn’t merely want to kill the Jewish children (though of course they do want to kill them, for no other reason than that they are Jews, in accordance with their diabolical charter). They are also willing and eager to sacrifice their own.

How?

In any way imaginable. They set up rocket-launching bases in schools, which will become targets for retaliation. They establish military quarters in family homes, where children can be counted on to be present. They even go so far as to [3] establish military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s largest hospital, which will ensure that if they are attacked, not just children, but sick and injured children, as well as sick and injured adults and their caregivers, will be maimed or killed.

And they do not do this simply to protect themselves by using the young, sick, and otherwise helpless as human shields, though that would be bad enough and is a major war crime in and of itself. But apparently, it is a war crime that the media dare not say its name.

No, they do it in the hope that those young — down to the babies, sick and, helpless — will in fact be killed so that they can be paraded before their allies, witting or otherwise, in the western media, to aid them in their goal of at least temporarily ending the Jewish defensive onslaught upon them. This is all done in the hope that that their enemy will, once again, be politically defanged, and that once again, it will buy them time to rearm, with better weaponry, and take up again their ultimate genocidal cause.

That they are not merely cowards, hiding behind infants’ diapers, but rather actually desirous of the death of their own offspring is revealed by their own words of indoctrination, in which they [4] encourage their own children to become martyrs to their evil cause. As further evidence that death is the intent, news stories are offered by them to show the deaths, [5] even when they didn’t necessarily happen.

Moloch has returned to the Mideast, after millennia. Except this time, the maw of the bull is the eye of the camera lens, into which the slaughter of the innocents is fed to a complicit press to be passed on to a gullible world.

And this time, those sacrificing the children don’t want to drown out the noise of the terrified screams of those tossed to the fire. The screams, and (as always) the terror, are the whole point.

But at the rate things are going, perhaps the media’s sun, unlike Moloch’s, may start to dim. If so, and if this behavior continues, those of us less morally challenged will not fear the eclipse, but rather, will welcome it.

* Yes, no need to comment. I know about the sacrifice of Abraham. Please…

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gaza-children-sacrificed-to-a-malevolent-god/

URLs in this post:
[1] the news media: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/why-israel-is-smart-keeping-the-media-out-of-gaza/
[2] destroy all Jews in creation: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../ronrosenbaum/2009/01/04/some-differences-between-hamas-and-the
-nazi-party-2/

[3] establish military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s largest hospital: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?_r=1&hp
[4] encourage their own children: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=15873
[5] even when they didn’t necessarily happen: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022514.php

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2009, 05:21:10 PM

I like the literary quality of the allusion/analogy there.  Nice piece.

Returning to the gas find, a clever friend writes:
================

Google search yields interesting results.  Very early days yet. 

 

“Early indications are that the resources identified are very substantial, at least equal to our pre-drill estimated gross mean resources of over three trillion cubic feet. Subject to the collection of additional data, the resource estimate for Tamar could further increase.”

 

Three TCF is significant, but far from “huge.”

 

Here is the data on Russian gas production:

 

  “According to the Oil and Gas Journal’s 2008 survey, Russia holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), which is nearly twice the reserves in the next largest country, Iran. In 2006 Russia was the world’s largest natural gas producer (23.2 Tcf), as well as the world’s largest exporter (6.6 Tcf). According to official Russian statistics, production during 2007 totaled around 23.1 Tcf, of which 85 percent (19.4 Tcf) was produced by Gazprom. Russian government forecasts expects gas production to total 31.1 Tcf by 2030.”

 

So to put it in perspective, the Tamar find is currently estimated to be equal to about 6 months of exports from Russia, highly significant for Israel, but not for Europe.

Alas.
Fred

Title: Gas in perspective
Post by: captainccs on January 18, 2009, 07:53:28 PM

One cubic meter is 35 cubic feet. Rounding, three trillion cubic feet is about 100 billion cubic meters. I found two sources  of gas consumption by country on the Internet. One puts Israel's 2006 consumption at 1 billion cubic meters and the other at 200 million. That would make this find last Israel 100 or 500 years depending on which is more accurate.

I would suppose that the find will make Israel consume more gas in place of other fuels so cut that to 20 to 100 years. Still not too shabby.   :-D

UK, Germany and Canada consume around 100 billion cubic meters per year each, a one year supply for them.   :wink:

One billion link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nat_gas_con-energy-natural-gas-consumption)

200 million link (http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/natural_gas_consumption_2006_0.html)

Title: Hamas Rounding Up Fatah Members
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 20, 2009, 11:19:52 AM

'Hamas torturing Fatah members in Gaza'
Jan. 19, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas militiamen have rounded up hundreds of Fatah activists on suspicion of "collaboration" with Israel during Operation Cast Lead, Fatah members in the Gaza Strip told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

They said the Hamas crackdown on Fatah intensified after the cease-fire went into effect early Sunday morning.

The Fatah members and eyewitnesses said the detainees were being held in school buildings and hospitals that Hamas had turned into make-shift interrogation centers.

Hamas has also renewed house arrest orders that were issued against thousands of Fatah officials and activists in the Gaza Strip shortly after the military operation started.

A Fatah official in Ramallah told the Post that at least 100 of his men had been killed or wounded as a result of the massive Hamas crackdown. Some had been brutally tortured, he added.

The official said that the perpetrators belonged to Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin Kassam, and to the movement's Internal Security Force.

According to the official, at least three of the detainees had their eyes put out by their interrogators, who accused them of providing Israel with wartime information about the location of Hamas militiamen and officials.

A number of Hamas leaders and spokesmen have claimed in the past few days that Fatah members in the Gaza Strip had been spying on their movement and passing the information to Israel.

Two Hamas officials, Salah Bardaweel and Fawzi Barhoum, accused Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his "spies" in the Gaza Strip of tipping off the Israelis about the movements of slain Hamas interior minister Said Siam, who was killed in an IAF strike on his brother's home in Gaza City last week.

The Fatah official in Ramallah said that, apart from being baseless, the allegations were aimed at paving the way for a ruthless Hamas attack on Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip.

"They were afraid to confront the Israeli army and many Hamas militiamen even ran away during the fighting," he said. "Hamas is now venting its anger and frustration against our Fatah members there."

Eyewitnesses said that Hamas militiamen had turned a number of hospitals and schools into temporary detention centers where dozens of Fatah members and supporters were being held on suspicion of helping Israel during the war.

The eyewitnesses said that a children's hospital and a mental health center in Gaza City, as well as a number of school buildings in Khan Yunis and Rafah, were among the places that Hamas had turned into "torture centers."

A Fatah activist in Gaza City claimed that as many as 80 members of his faction were either shot in the legs or had their hands broken for allegedly defying Hamas's house-arrest orders.

"What's happening in the Gaza Strip is a new massacre that is being carried out by Hamas against Fatah," he said. "Where were these [Hamas] cowards when the Israeli army was here?"

The activist said that Hamas's security forces had also confiscated cellular phones and computers belonging to thousands of local Fatah members and supporters.

Relatives of Abed al-Gharabli, a former Fatah security officer who spent 12 years in Israeli prisons, said he was kidnapped by a group of Hamas militiamen who shot him in both legs after severely torturing him.

Ziad Abu Hayeh, one of the commanders of Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, is reported to have lost his sight after Hamas gunmen put out his eyes. According to Fatah activists, Abu Hayeh was kidnapped from his home in Khan Yunis by Hamas militiamen.

The Fatah men said that in a number of incidents, Hamas militiamen had kidnapped Fatah activists while they were attending the funerals of people killed during the war. In other cases, activists were detained and shot in the legs after they were spotted smiling in public - an act interpreted by Hamas as an expression of joy over Israel's military offensive.

On Saturday night, three brothers from the Subuh family were abducted by Hamas militiamen and taken to the Abdel Aziz Rantisi Mosque in Khan Yunis, where they were shot in the legs, a local journalist told the Post.

In a more recent incident, Hamas gunmen shot and killed 80-year-old Hisham Tawfik Najjar after storming his home and beating his four sons - all Fatah activists.

Fahmi Za'areer, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank, revealed that at least 16 Fatah activists had been executed by Hamas in the past few days. He strongly condemned the Hamas clampdown on Fatah and warned against a bloodbath in the Gaza Strip.

A leaflet distributed by the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in various parts of the Gaza Strip called on Hamas to "respect the blood of the Palestinian martyrs" and stop pursuing Fatah members. The leaflet said that Hamas had placed hundreds of Fatah men under house arrest in the past 48 hours and was warning that anyone who failed to comply with these orders would be shot.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292907998&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Gaza Battle Endgame
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 22, 2009, 06:57:09 AM

The Battle of Gaza
And the winner is . . .

By Clifford D. May

What took place in Gaza and Israel over the past three weeks was not a war—it was one battle in a war. Or, to be more precise, it was one battle in what the soldier/scholar John Nagl has described as a “global insurgency” aimed at overthrowing the existing order, what we used to call—in a more confident era—the Free World.

“Yes, Allah is greater than America.” Hamas supreme leader Khaled Mashaal said on al-Jazeera television a few years ago. “Allah is greater than the superpowers. We say to this West: By Allah you will be defeated.”

Too many people refuse to understand: Hamas is not fighting for a Palestinian state. Hamas is fighting for the annihilation of Israel which it would replace with an Islamic emirate. Not the same thing at all.

Hamas takes inspiration, funding, and instructions from the ruling mullahs of Iran, heirs to the Iranian Revolution that erupted 30 years ago next month when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in France and established his theocratic regime. In the years since, Syria has become Iran’s client; Hezbollah, based in Lebanon but with terrorist branches as far flung as South America, its proxy.

Israel’s latest battle against Hamas began just after Christmas and ended just before the inauguration of Barack Obama. Israel’s leaders apparently felt it prudent to announce a cease-fire before Obama sat down in the Oval Office and wrote “Stop the fighting!” at the top of his presidential to-do list.

In Arab and Muslim capitals, it did not go unnoticed that, as Hamas was being pounded by Israel, Iran did nothing to help. Nor was Hezbollah willing to open a second front on Israel’s northern border. But as soon as a cease-fire was declared, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spun into action—by spinning: According to official Iranian press reports, he called Mashaal—who resides in Damascus rather than Gaza—and told him: “Today is the beginning of victory!” 

There are those who will believe him. But if Israel has succeeded in destroying most Hamas weapons caches and factories, as well as most of the tunnels through which Hamas imported thousands of missiles—even as it claimed Israel was blocking supplies of food, fuel, and medicines through its “siege”—Israel achieved important, if short-term military goals.

Hamas spokesmen are saying they lost fewer soldiers than did the Israelis, and that they destroyed 47 Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. The carcasses of those machines have yet to be displayed for the cameras. And, by most accounts, Hamas fighters were short on both skills and fervor, despite Iranian and Hezbollah training. Many Hamas military commanders removed their uniforms and hid among women and children. “They turned houses and mosques into battlegrounds so that the people would protect them and those who trusted them now regret it,” wrote Abd al-Fattah Shehadeh in the online Arabic newspaper ELAPH.

The European Union has warned that while humanitarian aid will be forthcoming, Gazans should not expect reconstruction assistance if Hamas continues to provoke new battles. “We don’t want to go on to reconstruct Gaza every I-don’t-know-how-many-years,” said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. “We have been at the side of the Palestinian population always and we will be at their side, but at the same time it’s also for the Palestinian population on both sides to say, ‘We want this peace.’ ”

That’s a taller order than she probably understands. Prior to this battle, it was not clear that most Palestinians wanted peace more than they wanted Israel’s extinction. It’s too soon to say whether their minds have been changed by the suffering they have endured. Even if that is the case, it would be unsafe for Gazans to say out loud that they’d prefer compromise in pursuit of coexistence to martyrdom in pursuit of victory.

There are those who will argue that Hamas wins merely by having survived. But Israel would have lost had it not fought—had it continued to passively accept an endless rain of Hamas missiles on its citizens. Israelis knew that President Bush, during his final weeks in office, would not object if they tried to stop that rain. They don’t yet know what President Obama will do in a similar circumstance.

Over the days ahead, Hamas may resume its attacks on Israel, or dig new tunnels to smuggle in new missiles to prepare for future attacks. If so, Israel may feel the need to respond strongly—to re-establish deterrence and demonstrate that it can withstand pressure from those in the “international community” all too eager to try to appease radical Islam.

Iran will continue its drive to acquire nuclear weapons, a potential game-changer. But this is no game. It’s a series of battles in a war that is likely to be as consequential as any in history.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjEyMWM4MTA1YzcxMWFiZTIxZWE0M2M3YWYyMmI3YTM=

Title: Egypt Little Motivated to Stop Smuggling
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 22, 2009, 08:49:36 AM

Second post:

Don't count on Egypt to stop weapons smuggling
Jerusalem Post | 1-22-09 | EFRAIM INBAR AND MORDECHAI KEDAR

Egypt gains domestically by aiding Hamas, gains internationally by playing a mediating role and is mostly incapable of stopping Sinai Beduin.

Conventional wisdom posits that Egypt must and will play a central role in halting the smuggling of weapons from Sinai to Gaza. Yet this is extraordinarily unlikely - for strategic, political and Egyptian domestic reasons.

Egypt does not mind if Hamas bleeds Israel a little; it gains domestically by indirectly aiding Hamas, gains internationally by playing a mediating role (in a conflict which it helps maintain on a "low flame") and is anyway mostly incapable of stopping the Sinai Beduin from continuing as the main weapons smugglers. Thus, this country would be foolish to expect that the Egyptians will act decisively and significantly to end weapons smuggling.

At the strategic level, Egypt sees us as a competitor in the quest for hegemony in the Middle East, and has for years turned a blind eye to the arming of Hamas via the tunnels. Simply put, it had, and still has, an interest in bleeding us. In contrast to its rhetoric, Egypt is not interested in a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict that will free us from an immense security burden and will allow the Jewish state to become even stronger than it is.

Power politics and balance-of-power is the prism through which the Egyptian leadership views the region. The continuation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on a "low flame" serves best the Egyptian interest of keeping us not-too-strong.

RELATED Analysis: Events in Gaza spell the end of the beginning Living next door to a serial killer Moreover, the "low flames" in Gaza and elsewhere in the Palestinian arena maintain an important role for Egypt as a "moderate leader" in the eyes of the international community, particularly in Washington.

The game Egypt is playing also serves a useful purpose in domestic Egyptian politics. In contrast to Europeans, Egyptians easily understand the double game being played by Cairo. Turning a blind eye to the tunnels weakens the arguments of the Islamic opposition that the government is cooperating with the Zionists. Everybody in Cairo understands that the government is facilitating the arming of Hamas.

FINALLY, EGYPT'S double game is also the result of a complex reality in the Sinai Peninsula. As with other Third World states, the Egyptian government is not fully in control of its territory. Thus, an international agreement on ending arms smuggling from Sinai into Gaza will face considerable problems of implementation, even if the Egyptian regime wants it to happen.

Notably, most of the smuggling is led by Egyptian Beduin who live in the northern Sinai. These tribes do not speak Egyptian Arabic, they are not really an integral part of Egyptian culture, and they do not subscribe to Egyptian political ethos. They make a living by smuggling women and drugs to Israel, as well as arms, ammunition and missiles to the Gaza Strip.

Egyptian attempts to extend law and order to Beduin areas has met armed resistance. Every time the Egyptian regime attempts to curtail the Beduin smuggling activities, they carry out a terrorist attack on a Sinai beach, as has happened in Taba, Sharm e-Sheikh, Nueiba and Ras al-Satan. Such attacks negatively influence tourism to Egypt, an important source of income, and seem to be an effective way of "convincing" the Cairo authorities to live and let live.

BRIBERY, AN important element in the Egyptian ways of doing business, also facilitates the smuggling of weapons. The low-paid Egyptian officials in Sinai can hardly resist hefty bribes. A $100 bill does wonders in the case of an Egyptian police officer at a Sinai roadblock who intercepts a truck packed with "pipes." The likelihood that a policeman at Egyptian checkpoints would stop taking bribes from trucks transferring arms to Gaza is even lower - unless the Egyptian government was to decide to heavily punish such behavior. Such an Egyptian government decision is also unlikely.

Another hindering factor in any attempt to stop smuggling is the bureaucratic culture of Egypt. The cumbersome Egyptian bureaucracy is hardly effective. Even presidential decisions are watered down as they pass through the ranks of the administration. The chance that a presidential decision on a total curb in smuggling would be fully implemented at Sinai checkpoints is slim. This is Egypt.

To illustrate the point: Several weeks ago, the Palestinians published a report that the Egyptians had started to seriously combat the smuggling tunnels between the Egyptian and Palestinian sides of Rafah. The Egyptians initiated an inquiry to discover "who" suddenly became so motivated, and discovered that it was an Egyptian official who did not receive a big enough reward from of the tunnel operators and decided to teach them a lesson. The Egyptians immediately found a different posting for this hyperactive official.

In sum, Israel would be foolish to expect that the Egyptians will act decisively and significantly to end weapons smuggling. An important implication of this reality is that we must maintain freedom of action to bomb tunnels along the Philadelphi Corridor, or to recapture it, as needed.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292929609&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 22, 2009, 10:20:57 AM

I've seen two of the documentaries this courageous man has made.  Many things worth your time on this site:

http://www.pierrerehov.com/sk_trailer.htm

Title: I'm shocked! Absolutely schocked!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 22, 2009, 01:32:23 PM

Israel seizes on claims Gaza death toll has been exaggerated

Israel has seized on claims the number of people killed during its Gaza offensive was less than half the official Palestinian figure.

By Damien McElroy in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 7:24PM GMT 22 Jan 2009

Israel has seized on claims the number of people killed in Gaza has been exaggerated

The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera quoted Gazans claiming that less than 600 people had died in the 22-day attack, far fewer than the 1,300 reported by Palestinian health officials.

"It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas – who sent them to their deaths," the newspaper quoted a doctor at the main Shifa hospital as stating.

Other residents told the newspaper Hamas gunmen had used medical facilities to organise and co-ordinate attacks.

Israeli officials emailed the report around the world and a military officer condemned Hamas as "monstrous" in its use of civilians to cover its armed activities. "Entire families in Gaza lived on top of a barrel of explosives for months without knowing," said Brigadier Eyal Eisenberg.

Israel has not, however, formally disputed the widely published total but it points to the vast over-reporting of deaths during an incursion in the West Bank town of Jenin in 2002, when an estimate of more than 1,500 dead was revised to lower than 100.

International agencies do not dispute the Palestinian death toll, though no outside assessment has been completed. "The figures are good enough for us to quote at the moment but we clearly state where they come from," said Anne-Sophie Bonefield of the International Committee of the Red Cross. "We will for sure have to carry out independent verification."

The controversy arose as Israel debates the outcome of the 22-day Operation Cast Lead. At the resumption of campaigning for the country's general election next month, parties squabbled over credit for the Gaza campaign yesterday.

Polls show the chief beneficiary of the war was opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, a hawkish ex-prime minister who promises to take a tough line against Hamas.

Political dividends from Operation Cast Lead for parties within the ruling coalition were mixed. The smaller Labour party of Ehud Barak, the defence minister, has recorded a bounce that has not offset a slump in the standing of Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister.

The latest opinion poll released gave Mr Netanyahu's Likud 35 seats, up two and Miss Livni's Kadima 25, down two and Mr Barak's Labour 15, unchanged. It was the first double-digit lead for Mr Netanyahu over Kadima in the race for seats in the 120-member Knesset for weeks.

Pundits generally applaud Mr Barak's performance as defence minister in overseeing an operation that avoided the mistakes of Israel's disastrous offensive against Hizbollah in Lebanon in 2006.

But outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who stepped down from the Kadima leadership after corruption charges were pressed, yesterday issued a harsh critique of Mr Barak, who is also a former Israeli leader.

"He had a resounding failure as a prime minister, more than anyone else who has ever served in that capacity in the State of Israel's history," he told Maariv newspaper. "Because of lack of skill, lack of stability and lack of understanding in the management of state affairs, and I don't see that he has changed."

Stalwarts of Israel's peace camp have shifted into a vortex of despair at the hardening of the public mood. Veteran columnist Gideon Levy said Hamas was not weaker but had been boosted as the culture of resistance was strengthened in Gaza.

"So what was achieved after all," he wrote in Haaretz. "Likud chair Benjamin Netanyahu is getting stronger in the polls. And why? Because we could not get enough of the war."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...aggerated.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 24, 2009, 10:09:45 AM

Is Israel Doomed?   
By Kenneth Levin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, January 23, 2009

Israel's enemies assert that its destruction is inevitable, and those who would destroy her are cheered on by many in the West. At the same time, Western mainstream media, particularly in Europe but also major media outlets in America, do puff pieces on Israel's genocidal adversaries, slant the news to conform to her enemies' propaganda, and support the delegimitization of the Jewish state.

The Gaza War, and the response to it across the world, have underscored the threats to the state's survival, Israel's often maladaptive and self-defeating reactions, and what is required of the state to counter those who challenge her existence.

The Threats

There are obviously those eager for Israel's demise. Since the Jewish state's creation, the Arab world has wanted it to disappear and this has not changed. Promotion of Arab supremacism, which accords little if any rights to non-Muslim or non-Arab groups in what the Arabs deem their proper domain, extends beyond Israel to abuse of Christians throughout that world as well as of Muslim but non-Arab peoples such as the Kurds of Iraq and Syria, the Muslim blacks of Darfur, the Berbers of Algeria. That abuse has repeatedly reached the level of genocidal campaigns, as reflected not only in the slaughter in Darfur, but also in the murder of some two hundred thousand Kurds in Iraq and some two million Christian and animist blacks in southern Sudan.

In terms of genocidal incitement against minority populations, none is as graphic and incessant as that purveyed in Arab media, mosques and schools - even in countries with which Israel is formally at peace - against the Jews and Israel. The existence of Israel is seen as an intolerable distortion of the proper order of things, according to which Jews should either be dead or, at best, subjugated members of society existing at the sufferance of their Arab betters.

In recent decades, enlistment in this genocidal hatred has widened to encompass many in the broader Muslim world. Obviously, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the installation of a clerical regime that has sought to expand its influence by taking the lead in promoting Israel's destruction, has presented the Jewish state with a grave new threat. In terms of broader enmity in the Muslim world, however, the greatest factor has been aggressive Saudi export of Wahhabi fundamentalism, its preaching of virulent Jew-hatred (and hatred of other non-Muslims), and its ever increasing influence not only in once tolerant Islamic nations but also in Muslim communities in Europe, the Americas and elsewhere.

To the degree that some in the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, feel threatened by Iran, its alliance with Syria, and their protege organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, those states have interests which converge with Israel's. But this offers only very limited relief from the surrounding hostility Israel faces. Noteworthy in this regard is that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as Jordan, continue to promote Jew-hatred in their media and schools, the Saudis continue to finance many Islamist groups even as they fear and sanction others, and any constraint on Saudi hostility towards Israel inspired by fear of Iran would certainly be reversed were the Iranian threat to "moderate" Arab regimes to disappear.

In terms of Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbors, the PLO, and its dominant party Fatah, under Arafat and since his death, have been and continue to be committed to Israel's ultimate destruction. So, too, of course, are Hamas and the other Islamist parties. Whatever true moderates exist among the Palestinians have no political voice or influence.

In addition to the animosity of the Arab world, Israel is faced with much hostile sentiment in Europe, fed by traditional anti-Semitism, by leftist anti-Americanism and association of Israel with America, by perverse, ahistorical leftist twisting of the Israeli-Arab conflict into Israeli colonialists brutalizing the supposedly indigenous population, and by the European media being house organs for anti-Israel bigotry of all these pedigrees. The growing threat of radical Islam to European states, particularly as manifested within those states' immigrant Muslim populations, has in some quarters led to greater sympathy with Israel's predicament. But elsewhere, especially among the cadres of the Left, which include most of the media, this threat has had the opposite impact and inspired a wishful thinking that all would be well, Islamist hostility would be appeased, if only Israel would make sufficient amends or simply disappear.

Nor is America immune to these distortions of reality. As the Muslim population in the United States has grown, and as it has become more radicalized, largely by Saudi promotion of Wahhabi extremism, an alliance has emerged between the far Left in this country and the forces of genocidal Islamism. Their recent joint demonstrations against Israel have included explicitly anti-Semitic "cheers," such as calls for "Jews to the ovens." Regrettably, even less extreme elements of the Left, such as some within the so-called "liberal" churches, have signed on as fellow travelers with this alliance for Israel's defamation, delegitimization and ultimate demise.

Israel is also attacked, and its very existence challenged, in the United Nations, an institution that has largely become the monster it was created to fight. The UN Human Rights Council, whose present members include such paragons of domestic civil rights as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China, Malaysia and Bangladesh, routinely excoriates Israel in terms that single out the Jewish national liberation movement as uniquely illegitimate. The UNWRA, which for six decades has been responsible for Palestinian refugees and their families, promotes genocide under the flag of the UN. UNWRA schools teach the glories of suicide bombing and martyrdom in the effort to destroy Israel, employ members of terrorist organizations on its staff, including as teachers, and serve as a conduit for recruiting children into terrorist cadres.

In addition to all these challenges to her existence, Israel faces a domestic enemy. This extends beyond those within the Israeli Arab community who identify with Israel's external enemies. In the face of living under constant siege, some among Israel's Jewish citizens, particularly within the nation's elites, choose to distance themselves from the national predicament. They choose to find fault with the state and side with her defamers and would-be destroyers, embracing her adversaries' indictments. They urge, at a minimum, territorial and other concessions to placate Israel's enemies, even at the cost of rendering the state more vulnerable, and some even argue for the dissolution of the state to mollify her enemies. Predictably, they cast their doing so not as a desire to separate themselves from their embattled fellow citizens or to appease those who would annihilate them but as embracing a higher morality.

The same hypocrisy is seen among many Diaspora Jews, who likewise endorse the indictments of those who would destroy Israel, join in defamation and delegitimization of the state, and do so while averring only the highest ethical motives. A list of American and European Jews of this ilk would fill many pages.

The widespread and implacable hatred faced by Israel is seen by some, and often characterized in the media, as virtually insurmountable. So too, according to various voices in the media, is the translation of this hatred into physical attack. If Israel has been able to prevail in the past in conventional wars, the present and growing challenge of unconventional assault - at one extreme, with weapons of mass destruction, most threateningly an Iranian nuclear arsenal; at the other extreme, incessant terror entailing rocket and mortar attacks from terrorist forces imbedded within dense civilian populations - may be, it is suggested, beyond solution.

In addition, Israel also confronts the challenge not only of the enmity of its neighbors but of their fertility as well. Palestinian population growth ranks among the highest in the world, fertility among Arab citizens of Israel is also high, and together, it is often argued, Israel faces a demographic challenge that it has no means of countering while preserving itself as both the Jewish state and a democracy.

Managing and Mismanaging the Threats

But despite all these various, serious challenges, Israel's fate remains largely in its own hands. Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan because it convinced both states that, however much its leaders or its citizens might like to see Israel gone, the price of pursuing that goal is prohibitive. There is no peace with Syria, but Syria has long refrained from direct hostile action against Israel for the same reason of not wanting to pay the likely price.

Some argue that Islamist states and parties cannot be dissuaded by such calculations because they are driven by religious zeal and are prepared to pay any price, and imply that such adversaries therefore cannot be defeated. But this thesis has not been tested.

Such regimes are immune neither to annihilation- that is, a weakening to the point where others in their societies are able to seize control from them - nor to a battering to the extent that, even if they retain control, they are rendered unable to act, at least for an extended time, on their genocidal agenda. The biggest challenge to Israel is an Iran close to achieving nuclear arms, and - while ending Iran's nuclear program by other means would be preferable - even this challenge is not without military answers.

In terms of smaller players such as Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, military dissuasion had hardly been tried prior to the current war in Gaza.

Israel, under Ehud Barak, left southern Lebanon in 2000 without assuring that Hezbollah would not fill the void there. Barak and many other Israelis were convinced that, in any case, Hezbollah would not pursue the war across the border. Despite many subsequent episodes of Hezbollah cross-border terror, including the murder of Israeli soldiers and civilians, Israel downplayed the threat and offered no serious response. When it did respond, in 2006, it was unprepared to do so. It then ended its campaign and acquiesced to creation of a UN force in southern Lebanon that has done nothing, despite its mandate, to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting and greatly expanding its rocket and missile arsenal and from reestablishing itself in areas which are supposed to be prohibited to it.

Some in Israel now argue that the nation nevertheless inflicted enough damage in 2006 that Hezbollah is hesitant to restart hostilities. But it is far from clear whether Hezbollah is cowed or simply biding its time or awaiting marching orders from Tehran.

Vis-a-vis Gaza, many Israeli leaders, most notably its present prime minister, deluded themselves into believing that Israel's full evacuation of its communities and military from the territory in 2005 would be followed by quiet and would be a step towards a more general peace. The evacuation was followed instead by more rocket and mortar fire targeting Israeli towns and villages, and this assault dramatically increased when Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. Israel's abandonment of the Philadelphi corridor in the context of its general withdrawal opened the way to large-scale smuggling of ever more powerful rockets and missiles and other armaments into Gaza, yet Israel barely responded to either the rocket and mortar attacks or the smuggling.

Now it has responded and has done so in an impressive manner. It has not destroyed Hamas, but it is far from clear that the organization's destruction at this point is desirable. Of course, the impact of weakening the organization has yet to be seen. If Hamas continues to fire its rockets, mortars and missiles, Israel can resume its attack and weaken it further. Israel's most significant mistake may be not retaking the Philadelphi corridor, as it is highly unlikely that Egypt is prepared to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza or that any role given to third parties such as European observers would do the job.

But if Israel will respond to further smuggling by seizing the corridor, then this issue too can be addressed. Israel should adopt a zero tolerance policy with regard both to smuggling of weaponry into Gaza and attacks from Gaza. If it has the will to do so, it certainly has the means to enforce such a policy.

Similarly, while Hezbollah offers greater challenges, renewed hostilities on the Lebanese front too are manageable, if Israel has the will to address them effectively.

In fact, what has exacerbated actual problems, and created an impression of some of those problems being intractable, has largely been Israel's failure over the last fifteen years to address the challenges it faces. Too many Israelis became psychologically exhausted by the siege and deluded themselves into thinking they could end it if they only made sufficient concessions. In the Oslo debacle, they brought people dedicated to their destruction into the territories as "peace partners," armed them, closed their eyes to their "peace partners'" engagement in genocidal incitement and vicious, wholesale terror, and convinced themselves that their dead were "sacrifices for peace."

Only when they pushed for an "end of conflict" final agreement, and Arafat, despite Israel's offering to return virtually to the pre-1967 ceasefire lines, launched a full-scale terror war, did Israel begin to wake from its delusions. Yet, while it largely pacified the West Bank, it still repeated self-destructive policies in its tolerance of terror from Lebanon and from Gaza.

In addition, Israeli policies and rhetoric concerning the West Bank likewise continue to reflect dangerous delusions. A national goal of reaching an arrangement in the West Bank that entails Israel's retaining defensible borders, including the areas where almost all the so-called "settlers" live, while separating itself from the vast majority of Palestinians, would be understandable and reasonable. What is neither understandable nor reasonable is the belief that Israel can forego defensible borders and can hand ceded areas to Mahmoud Abbas's PA and have peace.

Nor is there merit to alarmist arguments that Israel must play the supplicant and hand the territories to whomever will take them, however hostile the recipient, because of the demographic challenges to the state; that it moreover must forego retaining defensible borders because doing so would also mean adding Arab citizens in numbers that would undermine the state demographically. The latter is factually untrue; Israel could pursue defensible lines while still separating itself from the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs. Most of the areas it needs to retain are, in fact, sparsely populated. And it need not be the supplicant to find a recipient, however hostile, to take what it would cede. Various models have been presented by sensible, strategically astute, Israeli thinkers of ways to move forward to ultimate separation from areas of dense Palestinian Arab population without compromising the security of the state.

Self-defeating Israeli actions over the last two decades have entailed more than the grave errors in policy decisions. They have gone beyond Israel's embrace of "peace partners" who had no interest in peace and the adoption of delusions that, despite what the other side says and does, sufficient concessions and self-reform and demonstrations of good will would inevitably win relief from ongoing besiegement. Likewise of profound negative consequence has been Israel's failure to make its case forcefully to the world. This too has been largely motivated by the desire to propitiate its enemies, to see salvation in concessions and self-reform and to ignore the nature and the dimensions of the threat.

And so the nation's leaders, and its foreign service bureaucrats, have failed to point out and protest strongly Palestinian and wider Arab indoctrination, in media, mosques, and schools, to Jew-hatred and genocide. They have failed to emphasize, as they should indefatigably, in every forum in which the nature of the conflict is distorted and Israel is pressed for concessions, that there can be no peace as long as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and virtually every other Palestinian group and the Arab world more broadly aspire to Israel's ultimate destruction and promote this goal among their people and educate their young to it.

The government, including the foreign service, are too often mute when confronted with the most bigoted and unconscionable anti-Israel libels, distortions of reality, by Arab spokespeople or media factotums or others, even though their silence in the face of defamatory lies, or their weak and almost apologetic rebuttals, serve only to lend credence to the defamations and legitimacy to their purveyors.

The repeated emphasis by Israeli spokespeople during the Gaza War of the provocations that triggered Israel's actions, of the months and years of rocket and mortar assault from Gaza on Israeli towns and villages, the repeated assertion of the obvious point that no other sovereign state would tolerate such assault or refrain from responding forcefully, has been a step forward from past performance. Likewise, the response to misinformation and disinformation during the war - the shift, for example, from knee-jerk apologies in the face of claims of indiscriminate force to investigation of the claims and a fact-based answer supported by video and other evidence - is certainly an improvement on what has been the typical handling of such situations during previous hostilities. But there is still far to go in Israel's responsibly making its case. It has yet to publicly challenge, with a force appropriate to the animus of Israel's accusers, the routine slanderous assaults by Palestinian and other Arab leaders, by NGO's, by UN officials, by various political figures on the world stage, and by so many in the media.

To argue that Israel's fate is essentially in her own hands, in the hands of her people, is hardly to make light of the problems Israel faces. But as long as the great majority of Israelis do not succumb to the bigotry of their enemies and their enemies' fellow travelers, domestic and worldwide, as long as they remain steadfast in the conviction of the rightness of their cause - a rightness evident to any informed and fairminded observer - then, just as they have overcome dire threats in the past and indeed built a society whose achievements have been far beyond the wildest dreams of the nation's founders, the odds are well in their favor of continuing to meet whatever challenges confront them.

Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege (Smith and Kraus, 2005; paperback 2006).

Title: Conventional vs. Guerrilla
Post by: captainccs on January 24, 2009, 10:45:22 AM

Quote

The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if it does not lose.

Henry Kissinger

The Gaza war was conventional vs. guerrilla but Israel can wage guerrilla war too in the form of targeted assassinations and pin point bombings like the destruction of the Syrian nuclear installation last year, among other things. Arabs understand force and israel must speak their language to make them understand that the price of destroying Israel is simply too high.

Much more worrisome is the breeding rate. The way to cut the birth rate in Gaza is to make Gazans rich. While the smuggling of weapons is a big problem, embargoes and blockades don't really work, Cuba is still there and still communist after 50 years of blockade by the USA. A way must be found to make Gaza an inviting tourist attraction that brings affluence to the country. Rich people have much less desire for 72 virgins in heaven when they can have the same on earth.

Israel has the stick but it is missing the carrot.

Title: Re: Conventional vs. Guerrilla
Post by: G M on January 24, 2009, 12:16:08 PM

Quote from: captainccs on January 24, 2009, 10:45:22 AM

Israel has the stick but it is missing the carrot.

When the muslims love their children more than they hate the jews, then peace will happen. I'm not holding my breath.

Title: Surprise, surprise
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2009, 08:22:17 PM

AP article pulled from JEMS.com

Hamas tried to hijack ambulances during Gaza war
Jason Koutsoukis
2009 Jan 26
GAZA STRIP, Palestine -- PALESTINIAN civilians living in Gaza during the three-week war with Israel have spoken of the challenge of being caught between Hamas and Israeli soldiers as the radical Islamic movement that controls the Gaza strip attempted to hijack ambulances.

Mohammed Shriteh, 30, is an ambulance driver registered with and trained by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.

His first day of work in the al-Quds neighbourhood was January 1, the sixth day of the war. "Mostly the war was not as fast or as chaotic as I expected," Mr Shriteh told the Herald. "We would co-ordinate with the Israelis before we pick up patients, because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us."

Mr Shriteh said the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety.

"After the first week, at night time, there was a call for a house in Jabaliya. I got to the house and there was lots of shooting and explosions all around," he said.

Because of the urgency of the call, Mr Shriteh said there was no time to arrange his movements with the IDF.

"I knew the Israelis were watching me because I could see the red laser beam in the ambulance and on me, on my body," he said.

Getting out of the ambulance and entering the house, he saw there were three Hamas fighters taking cover inside. One half of the building had already been destroyed.

"They were very scared, and very nervous … They dropped their weapons and ordered me to get them out, to put them in the ambulance and take them away. I refused, because if the IDF sees me doing this I am finished, I cannot pick up any more wounded people.

"And then one of the fighters picked up a gun and held it to my head, to force me. I still refused, and then they allowed me to leave."

Mr Shriteh says Hamas made several attempts to hijack the al-Quds Hospital's fleet of ambulances during the war.

"You hear when they are coming. People ring to tell you. So we had to get in all the ambulances and make the illusion of an emergency and only come back when they had gone."

Eyad al-Bayary, 32, lost his job as a senior nurse at the Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza City, about six months ago because he is closely identified with Fatah, the rival political movement of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Twice last year Mr Bayary was arrested by Hamas, and once he was jailed for six days for flying the Fatah flag above his house in Jabaliya. He now works part-time as an English teacher at al-Azhar University.

"After the first day of the war, I go to the hospital to work, to help, but I was told to go away. They tell me 'you are not needed here' and they push me away," Mr Bayary said.

Since the ceasefire was declared on January 17, Hamas has begun to systematically take revenge on anyone believed to have collaborated with Israel before the war.

Israel makes no secret of the fact that it has a network of informants inside Gaza who regularly provide information on where Hamas leaders live, where weapons are being stored and other details that formed an important part of Israel's battle plan.

According to rumour, a number of alleged collaborators have already been executed. Taher al-Nono, the Hamas government's spokesman in Gaza, told the Herald that 175 people had been arrested so far on suspicion of collaborating.

"They will be dealt with by the court and the judge and we will respect the judge's decision," Mr Nono said.

And if the sentence is death?

"We will respect the decision."

But the breakdown between Hamas and Fatah over the last 18 months did not prevent some co-operation between the two sides during the war.

The commander of one al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade unit - the brigades are a coalition of secular militia groups which operate under the loose umbrella of Fatah - said the real enemy remains Israel.

The unit commander, who used the name Abu Ibrahim, invited the Herald into his home.

On the wall of his lounge room hung the portraits of George Habash, who founded the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a communist paramilitary organisation, and Abu Ali Mustafa, the man who succeeded Habash as leader of the PFLP and who was killed by Israeli forces in 2001.

"Of course we fought together with Hamas because we all have the same aim: to liberate our homeland," he said.

With his two-year old daughter on his knee, Mr Ibrahim, 30, said he would never accept peace or negotiation, even if it might lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.

"I believe in the existence of Israel because it exists on my land - but the war with Israel will only end when I liberate all of my land. This last war with Israel was not the first war, and it will not be the last."

Rebuilding the Strip
GAZA CITY: Hamas will begin a big reconstruction effort in the Gaza Strip today as the territory's 1.5 million people start to recover from the devastating three-week war with Israel that claimed more than 1300 lives and destroyed thousands of buildings, factories and farms.

Life was beginning to return to a relative state of normality yesterday, with schools, universities and businesses back open.

But with most government buildings destroyed during the war, and piles of concrete rubble on street corners, Gazans face a huge effort to return the Strip to the impoverished state that existed before the war began.

Thousands of Gazans who lost their homes are still living in temporary accommodation provided in United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools, and electricity is being rationed, with homes receiving power for just a few hours a day.

A Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Ayman Taha, said his organisation would observe a truce with Israel for 18 months on the condition all the crossing points with Israel were opened.

With Hamas's popularity apparently plummeting in as a result of the war, the movement's leadership is using financial handouts to boost morale.

Hamas leaders from Gaza and Damascus, Syria, travelled to Cairo yesterday to meet Egyptian intelligence leaders and leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation for talks aimed at resolving Hamas's dispute with the Fatah movement of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

In Israel the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy of the US President, Barack Obama, to the Middle East has met with caution and suspicion.

Israeli Foreign Ministry officials were scrambling to put together a brief for Mr Mitchell, who is due to visit Jerusalem and the West Bank city of Ramallah this week, as well as Egypt and Jordan.

Israeli officials believe Mr Mitchell's first step will be to recommend the "road map for peace" plan announced by the former president George Bush in 2002 be extended.

Israelis have also begun to turn their attention to the general elections on February 10. With polls indicating the right-wing Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu is on track to return to the Prime Minister's office he occupied in 1996, the centrist Kadima Party leader, Tzipi Livni, warned yesterday that if the far-right won government it would lead to an inevitable rift with the US. Get EMS news & articles delivered to your inbox!

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Honesta Mors Turpi Vita Potior


lod.med@gmail.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on January 28, 2009, 06:25:44 AM

Thought i would take a minute to post some pictures of the border shared with Egypt and Gaza.  I find it funny that the MSM ignores the Egyptian wall, use of force and closures but insists on highlighting every act of self defense by Israel.  I also find it odd that its left to Israel to supply Gaza with Electricity and water even though the palistinians share a border with their fellow arab brothers the egyptians.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/29mideast600.jpg


http://media.monstersandcritics.com/galleries/1035613/0123487850085.jpg

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ap_gaza1_080125_ssh.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abcnews.go.com/International/popup%3Fid%3D4190098&usg=__7oTah-ddesfxu64zxvFlJKEvClQ=&h=411&w=531&sz=42&hl=en&start=14&sig2=oG-L__gaHNQf30SJwfG9mw&um=1&tbnid=Gm9xhRfNzyOyBM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=132&ei=wmiAScRggdYx_vDh2QU&prev=/images%3Fq%3Degyptian%2Bborder%2Bwith%2BGaza%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.imemc.org/attachments/may2008/egyptian_troops_closing_the_rafah_borders__file_2008.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.imemc.org/article/54956&usg=__8j7YfkEMAu3L33XyG9PxLE9Kuew=&h=310&w=390&sz=45&hl=en&start=42&sig2=1q4wtqN1vG52tyNcpIlBXw&um=1&tbnid=yKFsYWsAh4NJQM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=123&ei=1GmASbe0E4_aNLXb4NkF&prev=/images%3Fq%3Degyptian%2Bborder%2Bwall%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: nonkosherdog on January 28, 2009, 11:56:25 AM

Before I go into the fact that, including such groups as Hizbolla, none of the neighbors offered any help to their brothers during this last conflict: Jordan Syria Lebanon Egypt Libya Saudi Arabia the Emirates Bahrain Iraq & Iran all just stood aside and watched

I finally found on-line what we here have been seeing nonstop on the news with barely a mention elsewhere on the web;
that as soon as the ceasefire was official they just couldn't help themselves
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzN75wYnDDw[/youtube]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5601165.ece


And yes - there are many Israelis that say that if we are "damned if you do damned if you don't" ... if the world opinion is against us anyway for anything we do then why don't we finish it once and for all. We obviously have (and have had for a long time) the weaponry & technology to do just that.
But there seems to be something "higher" in us that we would rather endure the hatred & hostilities and keep a with a clear conscience. So instead we end up retaliating just enough to remind our everybody in the neighborhood that when you mess with us we will f@$# you up.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 12:01:53 PM

How do you think/feel that approach is working for you?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: nonkosherdog on January 28, 2009, 12:57:41 PM

LOL we're still here!
and like I said before Hizbolla Jordan Syria Lebanon Egypt Libya Saudi Arabia the Emirates Bahrain Iraq & Iran all just stood aside and watched.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 01:12:01 PM

Fair enough :lol:

The point I am trying to raise though, and lets use the Lebanese invasion of a year or so ago as an example, is the possibility that this approach simply innoculates/immunizes the enemy.

When Israel went into Lebanon it had as green a light as I can remember from the US govt.  I was praying for Israel to go all the way through the Bekkaa Valley (sp?) and clean out that nest of vipers for once and for all.  Instead, having triggered the regretable civilian casualites, you guys quit before you finished.

Net result: Hez gets bragging rights AND doubles/triples the number of missiles it has.

Arguably a similar dynamic in play now with Gaza-- except that Iran now has fronts on both your north and south borders.  As soon as they can reach your nuclear reactor, what happens to your Osirak option for Iran's incipient nukes?

PS:  My apologies for President Bush vetoing your request to go after Iran.  I fear this was a historic error.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 28, 2009, 03:14:45 PM

The problem is that neither the US, Israel or the greater western world want to face that we are in a war for our very existence. There is no "nice" way out. We win or we die.

Title: Re: Conventional vs. Guerrilla
Post by: HUSS on January 28, 2009, 04:03:13 PM

Quote from: G M on January 24, 2009, 12:16:08 PM

Quote from: captainccs on January 24, 2009, 10:45:22 AM

Israel has the stick but it is missing the carrot.

When the muslims love their children more than they hate the jews, then peace will happen. I'm not holding my breath.

"We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." Golda Meir
Notice the difference between the two cultures? one values life and begrudingly takes it in self defense.  To the other its a commodity to be traded for media attention to further the cause of genocide.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on January 28, 2009, 04:35:53 PM

With all due respect for Golda Meir, it is time to think outside the box.

The way to stop people from reproducing like rabbits is to make them rich. Rich people can't afford more than two or three kids. Poor people, on the other hand, must bred like rabbits to overcome infant mortality. People on the farm can afford lots of children because they are productive as farmhands. City children are a terrible expense.

Foreign aid never made anyone rich but if Israel could somehow kick-start Gazans into becoming profitable business people, like Lebanon was at one time, for example, Gazans would be too busy making money to lob rockets into Israel.

I know it's a pipe dram but continuous war is not an enticing idea. For a long time Sabras have though of Arabs as camel drivers, as an inferior people. Just yesterday I got another email detailing how Jews have 100 thousand Nobel Prizes vs. maybe about 5 for Arabs. This is supposed to make me proud of being Jewish and it is supposed to be proof of Arab inferiority. Maybe. But it certainly is fuel for more war. The same email stated that there are a huge number of Muslims. But there are only 1.5 million Gazans and those are the people we need to make rich. I think it's doable. 100 thousand Nobel Prize winning minds should be able to come up with a solution. No?

Let's shift gears!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 05:10:15 PM

Looking forward to the conversation on this  8-)

Title: Improved Outlook in Israel
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 28, 2009, 05:24:25 PM

The Mood in Israel Now
MICHAEL J. TOTTEN - 01.26.2009 - 9:29 AM
The mood in Israel during the immediate aftermath of the Gaza war is markedly different from the mood in the wake of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. Things felt precarious and vulnerable then. Confidence in both the government and the military disintegrated. When Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah declared his “divine victory,” many, if not most, Israelis shuddered and thought he might be correct. This time, by contrast, I didn’t meet a single Israeli who thinks Hamas defeated the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is nowhere near finished, and the problems in Gaza will endure for a long time, but the Israeli military and government spent two and a half years intensely studying what went wrong in Lebanon in 2006 and corrected nearly all those mistakes. Most Israelis I spoke to in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem last week feel a tremendous sense of relief and seem more at ease than they have been in years.

The results speak for themselves. The IDF wasn’t able to halt or even disrupt Hezbollah’s Katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli cities in July and August of 2006, but Hamas’s ability to fire its own crude rockets was reduced by almost 75 percent. According to Major General Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, Hamas fired 75 rockets per day at the beginning of the war, 35 rockets per day in the middle of the war, and only 20 rockets per day at the end. At the same time, Hamas was only able to inflict a tenth as many casualties on Israeli civilians and soldiers as Hezbollah did in 2006. During the final ten days of the war, again according to Ben-Eliyahu, Hamas did not kill a single Israeli. Ismail Haniyeh’s predictable declaration of “victory” could hardly sound more empty if he delivered his boast from inside a prison cell.

I wouldn’t characterize the mood in Israel as optimistic. That would be a mistake. Few people I know in any Middle Eastern country feel optimistic about the future of their country or the region in general. But confidence in the Israeli government and military has been restored. While a final peace with the Arabs and Palestinians is as elusive as ever, most Israelis expect a period of relative quiet now that deterrence has been established on its eastern border with the West Bank, on its northern border with Lebanon, and on its southwestern border with Gaza.

The status quo balance of terror between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah is less bad now than it was, and that’s as much as anyone should hope for in the Middle East. That may sound like a gloomy prognosis to Americans and Europeans, but it’s a relief to those who understand that no one knows how to map a way out.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/52091

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on January 28, 2009, 05:31:57 PM

Quote from: captainccs on January 28, 2009, 04:35:53 PM

With all due respect for Golda Meir, it is time to think outside the box.

The way to stop people from reproducing like rabbits is to make them rich. Rich people can't afford more than two or three kids. Poor people, on the other hand, must bred like rabbits to overcome infant mortality. People on the farm can afford lots of children because they are productive as farmhands. City children are a terrible expense.

Foreign aid never made anyone rich but if Israel could somehow kick-start Gazans into becoming profitable business people, like Lebanon was at one time, for example, Gazans would be too busy making money to lob rockets into Israel.

I know it's a pipe dram but continuous war is not an enticing idea. For a long time Sabras have though of Arabs as camel drivers, as an inferior people. Just yesterday I got another email detailing how Jews have 100 thousand Nobel Prizes vs. maybe about 5 for Arabs. This is supposed to make me proud of being Jewish and it is supposed to be proof of Arab inferiority. Maybe. But it certainly is fuel for more war. The same email stated that there are a huge number of Muslims. But there are only 1.5 million Gazans and those are the people we need to make rich. I think it's doable. 100 thousand Nobel Prize winning minds should be able to come up with a solution. No?

Let's shift gears!

I respectfully disagree.  Rich or poor muslims will always be looking to expand their empire.  If this were not true the ridiculously wealthy saudis would not be sponsoring terror in between trips to europe for episodes of drunken debauchery.  they would also not make available hate literature through their embassies to foreign based islamic schools.  Like it or not Islam is an imperialistic political system and will be that way until it experiences a massive reformation............. one i fear can never happen as it would require mohammed to be removed from the koran and hadith.  

I would also like to point out the millions of dollars in cash, medical supplies and projects Israel and the U.S give to the palistinians.  They use them to support terror.  When Israel began giving up their settlements they left fully intact infastructure that the palistinians could have utilized for their own betterment.  Instead they destroyed the place. The only periods in history where the world lived in peace with islam were after harsh, decisive, humiliating defeats.  The crusdaes, the moro uprising, the battle of tours........ the only way we will ever have peace with islam is to drop the hammer on them.  Let them know that the next massive attack will result in the leveling of one of their holy sites.  Put the onus on the "moderates (not that any exist)" to police their own.

Does a nation exist that is predominantly muslim that does not use their wealth to wage jihad?  look at north american muslims, how many muslim groups exist to say that Cair is not a good representation of what muslims stand for???? half of cairs founding members and current executives have been or will be indicted on terror charges;

Omar Ahmad
(Click Photo)

Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
Former  Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) Officer.

Omar Ahmad was captured on FBI surveillance tapes at Hamas meetings in the U.S.A. during 1993 explaining that the IAP could not, for political reasons, admit its support for Hamas, and then
discussing how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced.  Omar Ahmad's airfare
and hotel bills for this meeting were paid for by the Holy Land Foundation


"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to
any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book
of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on Earth."

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," ...
"They kill themselves for Islam."
(Ahmad Praises Suicide Bombers)

"Registering an organization is easy. I can register 100 organizations
in 100 cities in one day ..."I mean, we don't really have available
people whom we could dedicate for the work we want to hide ..."

" Politics is a completion of War "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Nihad Awad
(Click Photo)

Executive Director

Former Public Relations Director for the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
A Palestinian born in Jordan and now a U.S. citizen.
Identified participating at a 1993 Hamas meeting in the United States

"I am in support of the Hamas movement."

"We Should Not Blame The United States Alone For The 11 September 2001 Attacks"

"Our administration has the burden of proving otherwise.”
(Awad's response to muslim accusations that federal raids
were a War against Islam and Muslims)

"Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American,
I speak with someone who doesn't know anything."


"If you love Israel, you're OK ... If that is the litmus test, no American Muslim
and no freedom-loving person is going to pass that test."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

Ibrahim Hooper
(Click Photo)
CAIR Spokesperson
Former  Employee Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)

"CAIR does not support these groups publicly."
(Hooper comments on CAIR's record of supporting Hamas,
Hezbullah and other official terrorist groups)



"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of
the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to
do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mousa Abu Marzook
 Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) Founder
Parent organization of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
Officially Designated Terrorist and Fugitive from Justice.
(IAP was found Liable for aiding and abetting Hamas in the murder of a 17-year-old American)

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it,
just as it obliterated others before it" -  Hamas Charter

Senior Hamas member Marzook conspired with Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad, and others to establish what the United States government has termed “front organizations” to support and advance the interests of Hamas and radical Islam in the United States. IAP provided the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with employees, funding, operational
expertise, and ideological guidance.

  " ... probable cause exists that Abu Marzook knew of Hamas's plan to carry out violent, murderous attacks, that he selected the leadership and supplied the money to enable the attacks to take place, and that such attacks were, therefore, a foreseeable consequence
of the conspiracy."  (Judge Kevin Duffy on Marzook)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ahmed Rehab
(Click Photo)
CAIR National
Strategic Communications Director
"CAIR is not a front for Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other foreign group,
nor has it ever been. CAIR is an independent American institution,
established by Americans ..."

"Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad have never been members of
or associated with or tied to Hamas"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Corey Saylor
(Click Photo)
CAIR Director Of Government Affairs
"Some people try to hold us responsible for the actions of people that
are associated with our organization. That’s absolutely ludicrous …
you don’t hold all of Enron responsible for what Ken Lay did."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ahmed Bedier
(Click Photo)
(Former) CAIR-Florida Communications Director
"We are to the American Muslim community what the NAACP is to blacks
in America. If you attack us, you are attacking the Muslim community
and the religion of Islam in this country." (Mpls Star-Trib -10/24/06)

"Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex with young
altar boys than those who flew planes into the World Trade Center."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   Ahmad Al-Akhras
(Click photo)
CAIR Vice-Chairman\
"Americans in general might be more supportive of targeted attacks on civilians,
as part of the war on terror, than U.S. Muslims"

"What has happened in Somalia, for the majority of Somalis inside
and those who are abroad, is a positive change."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Randall "Ismail" Royer
(Click Photo)
CAIR-National Civil Rights Coordinator
& Communications Specialist
*CONVICTED*
Committed Terrorist Crimes while working for CAIR
Pled guilty to using and discharging a firearm during, and in relation to,
a crime of violence; and with carrying an explosive during commission
of a felony ... admitted helping four people gain entry to a terrorist
training camp in Pakistan operated by Lashkar-e-Taiba.
[United States Of America V. Randall Todd Royer (pdf)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ghassan Elashi
(Click Photo)
Founder Of CAIR-Texas
Chairman of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
*CONVICTED*
Committed Terrorist Crimes while working for CAIR
Tried on 21 counts of conspiracy, money laundering and dealing
in property of a terrorist. Found guilty on all 21 counts.
[United States of America V. HLF (pdf)]


http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

Title: Quagmires & Quick Fixes
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 28, 2009, 05:38:06 PM

Second Post

The Mother of All Quagmires

MICHAEL J. TOTTEN
WEB ONLY
               
I've just returned from a week-long trip through Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Israel's border with Gaza, and I'm reminded all over again of what has been beaten into me during my many visits to the Middle East: there is no solution to the problems that vex that region right now. Most Americans are inherently optimistic and think just about any problem in the world can be solved. We put a man on the moon before I was born, but that was easy compared with securing peace between Israelis and Arabs.

The American Jewish Committee brought me and seven of my colleagues to Israel and set up interviews with Israeli military officers, politicians, academics, and journalists on the far-left, the far-right and at every point in between. One of my colleagues asked the eternal question during one of our meetings. “What is the solution to this problem?” He meant the Arab-Israeli conflict, of course, and the answer from our Israeli host was revealing in more ways than one. “You Americans are always asking us that,” he said and laughed darkly.

Americans aren't the only ones who have a hard time grasping the idea of an intractable problem. “Unfortunately we Westerners are impatient,” said an Israeli politician who preferred not to be named. “We want fast food and peace now. But it won't happen. We need a long strategy.” “Most of Israel's serious problems don't have a solution,” said Dr. Dan Schueftan, Director of National Security Studies at the University of Haifa. “Israelis have only recently understood this, and most foreign analysts still don't understand it.”

A clear majority of Israelis would instantly hand over the West Bank and its settlements along with Gaza for a real shot at peace with the Arabs, but that’s not an option. Most Arab governments at least implicitly say they will recognize Israel's right to exist inside its pre-1967 borders, but far too many Palestinians still won’t recognize Israel's right to exist even in its 1948 borders. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist inside any borders at all.

“We will never recognize Israel,” senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan said before he was killed by an air strike in Gaza during the recent fighting. “There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination.”

Hamas does not speak for all Palestinians. I’ve met Palestinians who sincerely despise Hamas and everything it stands for. But let’s not kid ourselves here. Hamas speaks for a genuinely enormous number of Palestinians, and peace is impossible as long as that’s true. An-Najah University conducted a poll of Palestinian public opinion a few months ago and found that 53.4 percent persist in their rejection of a two-state solution.

Far too many Westerners make the mistake of projecting their own views onto Palestinians without really understanding the Palestinian narrative. The “occupation” doesn’t refer to the West Bank and Gaza, and it never has. The “occupation” refers to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. A kibbutz in the center of Israel is “occupied Palestine” according to most. “It makes no sense to a Palestinian to think about a Palestinian state alongside Israel,” Martin Kramer from the Shalem Center in Jerusalem said to me a few days ago. “From the Palestinian perspective, Israel will always exist inside Palestine.”

“Making peace with the Palestinians is harder than making peace with other Arabs,” said Asher Susser, Senior Research Fellow at Tel Aviv University. “With the Palestinians we have a 1948 file as well as a 1967 file. With other Arabs we only have a 1967 file. The 1967 file relates to our size, but the 1948 file relates to our very being. It is nearly impossible to resolve because we cannot compromise on our being.”

The problem here isn't just with the worst of the violent rejectionists. Even the moderates on each side remain too far apart.

Fatah Party leader Mahmoud Abbas is clearly more moderate and reasonable than the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but even he can't compromise on the “right of return,” the so-far non-negotiable demand that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants from the 1948 war be allowed to return to settle in Israel. Israel would become an Arab-majority country if that were to happen, and most of the would-be arrivals have been radicalized in politically toxic refugee camps. The “right of return” would ignite a civil war worse than Lebanon’s.

Listen to Ran Cohen, Member of the Knesset for the left-wing Meretz Party and former leader of the Left Camp of Israel peace movement. “Even I refuse the right of return,” he said. “It's impossible. It's the opposite of a solution. Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] and the others know our position on the right of return. Who are they going [to] negotiate this with? Not me, not Meretz, not Peace Now. Who? The Communist Party? Not even the radical left supports this.”

Palestinian right-of-returners aren’t the only ones to contend with. “We cannot look at Israel-Syrian talks or Israeli-Palestinian talks without looking at how Iran influences these talks,” said an Israeli intelligence officer who asked not to be named. “Iran has its fingers all over these talks. The situation is much more difficult now than it was in 2000.”

All wars end, and this mother of all quagmires will eventually end like the others. But the Middle East will have to change before it is solvable. President Barack Obama no doubt will pull out all the stops to broker a peace agreement no matter how bleak the prospects may look. There is something to be said for struggling against long odds, and an excessively negative attitude can be self-defeating. Perhaps it's even worth sponsoring a doomed peace process just to keep up appearances so the United States won’t be blamed when it continues to fail. But President Obama should take care to proceed as though failure – through no fault of his own – is the most likely outcome right now.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a cautionary note to Israelis in the New York Times that applies just as well to the Obama Administration. “There is a fixed idea among some Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed into moderation,” he wrote. “This is a false and dangerous notion. It is true that Hamas can be deterred militarily for a time, but tanks cannot defeat deeply felt belief. The reverse is also true: Hamas cannot be cajoled into moderation. Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.”

Dan Schueftan made a similar point much more bluntly when I met him last week in Israel. “Ariel Sharon believed we could change the world by force,” he said. “Shimon Peres believed we could change it by being nice and stupid. They are both megalomaniacs.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-mother-of-all-quagmires-14423

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 28, 2009, 05:59:44 PM

Quote from: captainccs on January 28, 2009, 04:35:53 PM

With all due respect for Golda Meir, it is time to think outside the box.

**IMHO, HUSS already hit this out of the park.**

The way to stop people from reproducing like rabbits is to make them rich. Rich people can't afford more than two or three kids. Poor people, on the other hand, must bred like rabbits to overcome infant mortality. People on the farm can afford lots of children because they are productive as farmhands. City children are a terrible expense.

Foreign aid never made anyone rich but if Israel could somehow kick-start Gazans into becoming profitable business people, like Lebanon was at one time, for example, Gazans would be too busy making money to lob rockets into Israel.

I know it's a pipe dram but continuous war is not an enticing idea. For a long time Sabras have though of Arabs as camel drivers, as an inferior people. Just yesterday I got another email detailing how Jews have 100 thousand Nobel Prizes vs. maybe about 5 for Arabs. This is supposed to make me proud of being Jewish and it is supposed to be proof of Arab inferiority.

**Lots of shared DNA between the Nobel prize winning Jews and the terror-loving Arabs. It's not a matter of ethnicity or "race" but of culture shaped by religion. Thus Israel produces many good things while the "Palestinians" create new and exciting ways to convince their children to slaughter others.**

Maybe. But it certainly is fuel for more war. The same email stated that there are a huge number of Muslims. But there are only 1.5 million Gazans and those are the people we need to make rich. I think it's doable. 100 thousand Nobel Prize winning minds should be able to come up with a solution. No?

Let's shift gears!

**Until we shatter the global jihad, there will be no "Kumbaya" moments.**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 07:18:41 PM

This is a really important question, so lets make sure we aren't missing anything.

a) Concerning the seemingly pertinent example that Huss uses of the House of Saud, as Stratfor commented earlier today (or was it yesterday?) on the intel thread, SA has kicked AQ's ass in SA.  WHY IS THAT?  Once we removed our troops from SA (their presence no longer being necessary to defend it from SH in Iraq) their motivations changed.  WHAT IS THAT ABOUT?

b) As noted in many posts made by several of us, there has been a lot of one handed clapping in support of Hamas/Gaza.  WHY IS THAT?  Indeed, many felt that during Lebanon 2 a lot of the Arab world was silently wishing for Israeli success.  WHY?

c) As noted in the Iraq thread by my friend in Iraq, who originally opposed the decision to go to Iraq, he sees the Iraqis themselves as having rejected the AQ whackos.  WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? 

Capt raises an important question.  Certainly HUSS answered well, but let us be careful that we do not answer too quickly.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 28, 2009, 07:31:50 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 07:18:41 PM

This is a really important question, so lets make sure we aren't missing anything.

a) Concerning the seemingly pertinent example that Huss uses of the House of Saud, as Stratfor commented earlier today (or was it yesterday?) on the intel thread, SA has kicked AQ's ass in SA.  WHY IS THAT?  Once we removed our troops from SA (their presence no longer being necessary to defend it from SH in Iraq) their motivations changed.  WHAT IS THAT ABOUT?

**The Saudis support and fund the global jihad. The ojection they have with AQ is not the jihad, just AQ rejection of the house of Saud.**

b) As noted in many posts made by several of us, there has been a lot of one handed clapping in support of Hamas/Gaza.  WHY IS THAT?  Indeed, many felt that during Lebanon 2 a lot of the Arab world was silently wishing for Israeli success.  WHY?

**Because HAMAS is a pawn of Iran. The Sunni arab states fear the growing power of the Iranian sponsored shia revolution.**

c) As noted in the Iraq thread by my friend in Iraq, who originally opposed the decision to go to Iraq, he sees the Iraqis themselves as having rejected the AQ whackos.  WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? 

**That Iraq, being one of the most secular arab nations was more willing to accept our well intentioned mistakes rather than be tortured and butchered by AQ.**

Capt raises an important question.  Certainly HUSS answered well, but let us be careful that we do not answer too quickly.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: nonkosherdog on January 29, 2009, 04:29:37 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 01:12:01 PM

Fair enough :lol:

The point I am trying to raise though, and lets use the Lebanese invasion of a year or so ago as an example, is the possibility that this approach simply innoculates/immunizes the enemy.

When Israel went into Lebanon it had as green a light as I can remember from the US govt.  I was praying for Israel to go all the way through the Bekkaa Valley (sp?) and clean out that nest of vipers for once and for all.  Instead, having triggered the regretable civilian casualites, you guys quit before you finished.

Net result: Hez gets bragging rights AND doubles/triples the number of missiles it has.

Arguably a similar dynamic in play now with Gaza-- except that Iran now has fronts on both your north and south borders.  As soon as they can reach your nuclear reactor, what happens to your Osirak option for Iran's incipient nukes?

PS:  My apologies for President Bush vetoing your request to go after Iran.  I fear this was a historic error.

The last Lebanon battle was carried out in haste and with a defense minister that had no place being a minister of any kind (and isnt anymore)

Regarding the Iranians, many foreign governments, including the United States, condemned the Osirak operation, and the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed UN Resolution 487, which “strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct."  So I have a feeling that we may have to fend for ourselves yet again  :wink:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on January 29, 2009, 06:43:16 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2009, 07:18:41 PM

This is a really important question, so lets make sure we aren't missing anything.

a) Concerning the seemingly pertinent example that Huss uses of the House of Saud, as Stratfor commented earlier today (or was it yesterday?) on the intel thread, SA has kicked AQ's ass in SA.  WHY IS THAT?  Once we removed our troops from SA (their presence no longer being necessary to defend it from SH in Iraq) their motivations changed.  WHAT IS THAT ABOUT?

Its a battle between Shite and Sunni in some cases, also keep in mind that OBL offered his men to the Saudis prior to the first gulf war.  The house od Saud rejected his offer and let the infidels help instead.  Since that time OBL has been at war with the royals.  the royals still support terror, via other outlets.

b) As noted in many posts made by several of us, there has been a lot of one handed clapping in support of Hamas/Gaza.  WHY IS THAT?  Indeed, many felt that during Lebanon 2 a lot of the Arab world was silently wishing for Israeli success.  WHY?
Simply lookng at the Arabs treatment of the palistinians shows their hate for them.  the palistinians are a rabid dog who has gotten off its leash and is not running around biting everyone.  I think the Arabs see them as a tool for getting back at Israel and nothing more.  If they really sympathized with the palistinians the US and Israel would not be the two single largest aid donors to the palistinians and Israel would not be the sole source of power and water for Gaza and the West Bank.

c) As noted in the Iraq thread by my friend in Iraq, who originally opposed the decision to go to Iraq, he sees the Iraqis themselves as having rejected the AQ whackos.  WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? 
The Iraqis still chose to base thier constiution on Sharia law.  We all know how good shria has worked out for us infidels in the past.  When Muslims fight, its always over what method is best to subjegate the infidel.  In the hotory of islam, not one single nation has ever worked as a democracy.  Turkey is different because they have a secualr constitution that demands a coup every time the sitting govt gets all religious.  We should have helped them start up a monarchy, which appears to be the most stable form of govt in the region as seen in the UAE, Qatar.......etc

Capt raises an important question.  Certainly HUSS answered well, but let us be careful that we do not answer too quickly.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2009, 09:09:08 AM

@all:

Many good points being made.  I would add the example of the green houses that Israel left behind in Gaza being destroyed.

@ Huss:

I submit Turkey as an example of Islamic culture and democracy co-existing.  Indonesia too-- at least for now.

@ NKD:

I fear I have not succeeded in conveying my point-- I supported and support the Osirak operation.  My concern is that by placing missiles and rockets of ever greater efficacy on Israel's northern and southwestern borders that Iran is creating a situation wherein if Israel goes Osirak on Iran that Iran will be in a position to blow up Israel's reactor and contaminate Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: nonkosherdog on January 29, 2009, 09:57:04 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2009, 09:09:08 AM

@ NKD:

I fear I have not succeeded in conveying my point-- I supported and support the Osirak operation.  My concern is that by placing missiles and rockets of ever greater efficacy on Israel's northern and southwestern borders that Iran is creating a situation wherein if Israel goes Osirak on Iran that Iran will be in a position to blow up Israel's reactor and contaminate Israel.

OK I get it now  :oops:
As far as we've seen so far these rockets/missiles dont have very big payloads and arent accurate in any sense of the word - they are wonderful to lob into a highly populated areas for terrors effect but I (and this is just my otherwise uniformed opinion) doubt they would have any real damaging ability even if they somehow scored a direct hit on any reactor that Israel may or may not have  8-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2009, 10:21:44 AM

AT PRESENT that may be true, but over time the trend line is unfavorable.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on January 29, 2009, 01:33:50 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2009, 09:09:08 AM

@all:

Many good points being made.  I would add the example of the green houses that Israel left behind in Gaza being destroyed.

@ Huss:

I submit Turkey as an example of Islamic culture and democracy co-existing.  Indonesia too-- at least for now.

@ NKD:

I fear I have not succeeded in conveying my point-- I supported and support the Osirak operation.  My concern is that by placing missiles and rockets of ever greater efficacy on Israel's northern and southwestern borders that Iran is creating a situation wherein if Israel goes Osirak on Iran that Iran will be in a position to blow up Israel's reactor and contaminate Israel.

I agree, but turkey has a secular based consitution

Title: An Open Letter
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 29, 2009, 07:41:08 PM

I can't verify this letter, but it has the ring of truth and sentiments that seem heartfelt.

Open Letter to A citizen Of Gaza: I Am the Soldier Who Slept In Your Home

via email

An Open Letter to A citizen Of Gaza:
I Am the Soldier Who Slept In Your Home:
By: Yishai G (reserve soldier)

Hello,

While the world watches the ruins in Gaza, you return to your home which remains standing. However, I am sure that it is clear to you that someone was in your home while you were away.

I am that someone.

I spent long hours imagining how you would react when you walked into your home. How you would feel when you understood that IDF soldiers had slept on your mattresses and used your blankets to keep warm.

I knew that it would make you angry and sad and that you would feel this violation of the most intimate areas of your life by those defined as your enemies, with stinging humiliation. I am convinced that you hate me with unbridled hatred, and you do not have even the tiniest desire to hear what I have to say. At the same time, it is important for me to say the following in the hope that there is even the minutest chance that you will hear me.

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and lay them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth. I tried to put back the clothes that fell when we moved the closet although not the same as you would have done, but at least in such a way that nothing would get lost.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places. I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that Qassam rockets were launched from your neighborhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say "enough"?! Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying "it's not me, it's Hamas". My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make excuses about "occupation", you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple, even a seven year old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, removing military bases and its citizens from Gush Katif. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water, and goods (and this I know very well as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade- free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, for reasons that cannot be understood and with a lack of any rational logic, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza strip, into your neighborhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. A reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

As soon as you agree with me that Hamas is your enemy and because of them, your people are miserable, you will also understand that the change must come from within. I am acutely aware of the fact that what I say is easier to write than to do, but I do not see any other way. You, who are connected to the world and concerned about your children's education, must lead, together with your friends, a civil uprising against Hamas.

I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. If your leaders were not corrupt and motivated by hatred, your home would not have been harmed. If someone would have stood up and shouted that there is no point in launching missiles on innocent civilians, I would not have to stand in your kitchen as a soldier. You don't have money, you tell me? You have more than you can imagine. Even before Hamas took control of Gaza, during the time of Yasser Arafat, millions if not billions of dollars donated by the world community to the Palestinians was used for purchasing arms or taken directly to your leaders bank accounts. Gulf States, the emirates - your brothers, your flesh and blood, are some of the richest nations in the world. If there was even a small feeling of solidarity between Arab nations, if these nations had but the smallest interest in reconstructing the Palestinian people – your situation would be very different.

You must be familiar with Singapore. The land mass there is not much larger than the Gaza strip and it is considered to be the second most populated country in the world. Yet, Singapore is a successful, prospering, and well managed country. Why not the same for you? My friend, I would like to call you by name, but I will not do so publicly. I want you to know that I am 100% at peace with what my country did, what my army did, and what I did. However, I feel your pain. I am sorry for the destruction you are finding in your neighborhood at this moment. On a personal level, I did what I could to minimize the damage to your home as much as possible.

In my opinion, we have a lot more in common than you might imagine. I am a civilian, not a soldier, and in my private life I have nothing to do with the military. However, I have an obligation to leave my home, put on a uniform, and protect my family every time we are attacked. I have no desire to be in your home wearing a uniform again and I would be more than happy to sit with you as a guest on your beautiful balcony, drinking sweet tea seasoned with the sage growing in your garden.

The only person who could make that dream a reality is you. Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people, and start to take control of your destiny. How? I do not know. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Jewish people who rose up from the most destructive human tragedy of the 20th century, and instead of sinking into self-pity, built a flourishing and prospering country. It is possible, and it is in your hands. I am ready to be there to provide a shoulder of support and help to you.

But only you can move the wheels of history."

Regards,
Yishai, (Reserve Soldier)

Title: Existential Threats and the Looming Apocalypse
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 30, 2009, 01:21:17 PM

How Can the World Be Blind to Israel’s Existential Threats?
Posted By Michael Yon On January 30, 2009 @ 12:05 am In . Feature 01, . Positioning, Iran, Israel, Middle East, World News | 59 Comments

I heard Benjamin Netanyahu, the person who could soon become Israel’s new prime minister, speak this week at the Jerusalem Conference. The most pressing point that he talked about was that under no circumstances should Jerusalem be divided. Many believe that if Jerusalem were to divide, the terrorist group Hamas would set up a headquarters here, which would result in Iranian agents — who also wish to see genocide against the Israelis — setting up shop within the confines of Jerusalem.

It is amazing to me, as an American who travels the world on a near-constant basis, that there is so much confusion over who the terrorists are. Hamas is a terrorist organization that condones and facilitates suicide bombings and will kill every Jew on the planet if they have the chance. Meanwhile, Israel is an energetic democracy with a vibrant press. I could sit right here in Jerusalem and write bad things about Israel and Jews, and nothing would happen. Maybe I wouldn’t get invited somewhere or would be called an anti-Semite, but that would be it. Neither the Jews nor the Israelis would harm me, though they likely would write bad things about me. I came to Israel with no press accreditation and at the airport they knew that I was a writer. Yet they let me in and have allowed me to freely roam the country. Today I was in very close proximity to Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu talked about how, in this very hotel, Rehavam Ze’evi had been murdered just a few floors above our heads. The security seemed incredibly lax by American standards. Bernard Lewis and other extremely smart people were there.

Israel is a free country that abides by the rule of law. By contrast, if a writer were to go to Gaza or Iran, for instance, and start writing bad words, he might wind up on the news, dead. Israel allows Christians and Arab Muslims to worship freely, while Hamas wants to see us all at the bottom of the sea. Hamas, supported by Iran, is clear about their goals: they want to wipe out Israel completely, utterly, with finality. But it’s not just Israel that Hamas wants to kill; they want to kill all Jews everywhere. Complete genocide.

And when Iran has the capacity to launch rockets over to Europe or the United States, one can count on it happening. If they can manage to hatch nuclear weapons, we could see Israeli cities annihilated, leaving Israelis with little choice other than to respond with nuclear weapons, which could leave millions dead. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Iraq will want them, as will other nations who are threatened by Iran. I’ve lived in Europe for about six years, and it is easy to imagine Europe being engulfed in a massive religious and race war. America is relatively sedate on the racial front, but Europe could explode if a serious terrorism wave were to sweep through.

It is simply astounding that many foreign governments do not see this for what it is. Good Muslims are murdered by Muslim extremists in probably dozens of countries, yet certain European governments insist that there is some sort of moral equivalence between Hamas and the democracy called Israel. At this conference, I hear incredulous Jews who are concerned that their soldiers and political leaders might be charged with war crimes and arrested if they travel to Europe. This is just one example of the racism that vexes Europe and keeps it behind where it could be. Imagine for a moment that Cuba were launching missiles at Florida. We would sink their navy, shoot down their air force, wipe out their army, and kill Castro. Yet thousands of rockets have been raining down on Israel, while many members of the international community demand that Israel do nothing. These rockets are advertised to be small and not much of a nuisance, but each one carries about 15 times more explosives than a hand grenade. Hamas favors launching the rockets when kids are going to or coming from school. Clearly they are trying to murder the children who are growing up under attack. The Israelis have proven time and again that they will choose peace if given a chance. Hamas, when given a chance, chooses war.

I hear great concern that our new administration will turn its back on Israel, leaving Israelis to fend for themselves. But these feelings are not limited to the Israelis. Concern comes from numerous allies that the United States might go cold. I’m hearing these concerns from Iraqis, British, Lithuanians, and Israelis, to name a few.

I can safely be called anti-war. But being anti-war does not mean we can hide our heads in the sand in regard to the proximate and growing threat from Iran. If you want to see World War III unfold, just sit quietly about Iran. Iran could be the opening chapter of an apocalyptic era.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-can-the-world-be-blind-to-israels-existential-threats/

Title: Michael Yon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2009, 03:49:39 PM

Michael Yon is a truly great American who background, intelligence, courage, and integrity make him one of the great war correspondents.  IMHO America's weak link is our clarity about the nature of this war and our knowledge about how we are doing.

Dog Brothers Martial Arts makes a substantial monthly donation to Michael Yon.

Do you?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: nonkosherdog on January 31, 2009, 09:59:07 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2009, 10:21:44 AM

AT PRESENT that may be true, but over time the trend line is unfavorable.

Youd think they'd take the time to lick their wounds & reload....
but nooooo
Its been 6 rockets so far in the last few days, including this morning as people are taking kids to school

keep your eyes on CNN... round # 37243 seems inevitable

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 31, 2009, 10:20:43 PM

"Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

Title: First Person Gaza Account
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 02, 2009, 09:19:57 AM

A stirring piece.

January 28, 2009
How I Survived Gaza
By Joshua Eastman


Eleven days ago today, Israel terminated an operation after having reached a state of cease-fire with a cowardly and murderous foe. We pulled out of Gaza. I pulled out of Gaza.

We were first called up on a Shabbat, right at the end of ten months of regular training and an extra two months of specialized training with the whole brigade in the Golan Heights. We were told that Israel was preparing for a possible conflict with Gaza. We were allowed to stay in phone contact at the beginning, and we listened for news from our families, always better informed than the army. We heard the bombs falling near the Strip, and readied our gear. And we waited. And waited. Every day another rumor came in.

"We're going today"

"We're going today"

We waited a week.

We were sent the following Shabbat.

The first time we came back out, after twenty four hours, our unit was under the impression that all the other units would be coming out as well. A little R & R, and then back in. But only our soldiers arrived at the base. The others were in till the very end.

The next two weeks we were deployed over and over again into neighborhoods whose names are ingrained as if from childhood memory, and we were told to ready ourselves for the final operational steps the army was preparing.

Thank God, for us, those steps never came. After fighting through less densely packed urban neighborhoods and villages, as an army, we never had to enter the tightly packed urban nightmares of the inner cities.

"The world is already trying to fault Israel, telling everyone that civilians died, and Israelis murdered. But I was there. I saw the twelve year olds with missiles and RPGs strapped to their backs. We watched in anger as our bombs, so as not to fall on large civilian centers, fell on our own troops."A cease-fire was signed, and we pulled out with hatches open on our vehicles, waving flags and flashing the peace symbol even though no one was there to photograph it. After all, we were one of hundreds of squads returning. There was no way to record every tank and APC that came home. But it was cathartic, and made it official.

I saw many things. I heard things. While I was in Gaza.

I saw soldiers who were virulently anti-religious don tzitit under their bullet-proof armor. As one soldier said, "Why do I put it on now, if I never wore it before? When do you ask your father for help? When you need it."

I saw heroes. Boys just out of high-school, young men who should have been playing sports or starting families or going to college, loading weapons and placing armor on their fragile frames, securing helmets, and checking gear. They suppressed the fear that lurked at the edges of their minds, and as a unit swept across the fence and planted unwavering lines of boots in the soil of Gaza. I watched them fight like grown men against evil.

The first night we went in, we were unable to wear bullet-proof armor in my unit, and had to settle for flak vests (we couldn't wear armor when we first went in because, due to the weight we were carrying, it would have hampered our movements, creating a safety hazard). My young commander, who had an easy load to carry that wouldn't interfere with his vest, still left without bulletproof armor. "If my men don't, I don't". I told him the next day, I would have followed him through the entire Arab world if need be, my respect for him was so great. I saw my brave wife, Chana, who came down to volunteer, just to be close to me, braving rockets and missiles, and watched her help soldiers by handing out desperately needed winter gear and food. I watched Chabadniks who came to us every day and inspired the soldiers with song and mitzvot. I saw heroes praying for our safety, and feeding us, and caring for us.

I saw pain. Just today, I ran into yet another friend from another unit, who tells me, when asked how he is, "I am fine from the neck down." Sixteen of his friends were injured in a blast on the first night. He lost many more before the end. He is still sweet, still charming, but his laugh is more weary, and his eyes are sadder. Another friend in a different unit lost two-thirds of his whole platoon when a bomb destroyed their house. He says he walked in, and he saw limbs moving or laying still, and bodies unattached to them, hurting, dead. He still hasn't pulled back completely. A former commander of mine died, and a friend lost his arm and use of his legs, and is still in a coma.

I saw lies. The world is already trying to fault Israel, telling everyone that civilians died, and Israelis murdered. But I was there. My feet were on the ground and I saw the truth. I saw that warnings were given, I saw the enemy that fought us. I saw the twelve year olds with missiles and RPGs strapped to their backs. I saw that it was with sadness and great anger Israeli troops recognized the need to fire on people who crossed the red line, the danger zone which meant they saw us, and knew where we were. Old people mined with bombs, children armed with detonators, tunnels that opened in the ground to swallow our soldiers. I watched my commanders passing out all of our food to the children who were taken prisoner. I received the commands "closed to fire on the right" if our intelligence had reported civilians in the area. I watched us, more often then not, taking cover when supposed civilian positions fired on us from “the right”. Yet the world thinks it can bend the truth. We were not allowed to fire on schools. We were told not to loot. We watched in anger as our bombs, so as not to fall on large civilian centers, fell on our own troops, so that we could tell the world we were attempting to scare the enemy while limiting civilian losses. Yet they won't say that in the press.

You are the reason we returned. You are the reason I am alive.I saw cowardice. We listened with concern when Hamas threatened to use snipers and bombs on us, to fight us every step of the way with their fifteen thousand man army, and we watched videos of full brigades parading, waving their weapons and threatening Israel. But as we invaded, they fled. They would attack in small groups, hit us with missiles and sniper fire, and then flee. The 'warriors' of Hamas were brave when their rockets fell unanswered on the schools of children and the homes of elderly, but they did not stand when the enemy called them up to answer for their crimes.

I saw miracles. Rockets that blazed past our houses, bullets that scarred the outside of windows we were watching from. A unit near ours that was walking in to Gaza had RPGs pass straight between their ranks without hitting a single soldier. Mines that didn't explode, mortar rounds that landed next to friends that didn't explode. RPGs that blazed into the earthen barrier directly in front of our APC, detonating before penetration. The night walk through a neighborhood that wasn't on the map, that was full of snipers and mines according to reports, that we walked through unawares, by accident, without harm or incident. And that was just what we knew.

I felt fear. Every time I entered, every time I squeezed the trigger, every time a missile landed nearby, I was struck with fear. It is a deep fear, hard to explain. Your body shivers as if you are frozen to the core. You find yourself staring at the ground, trying to adjust to the ringing in your ears. You freeze, and unless someone slaps you, or you manage to shake yourself, your eyes stay downcast, and you lay numb on the earth, waiting without realizing. Eventually, your training pulls you out and forces you to stay alert, your gun snaps up, and adrenaline masks the fear and hurt. You roll on seemingly fearless, with adrenaline telling you that you are invincible.

I have felt weakness. I have felt my supposedly mighty muscles shudder, felt my devastatingly powerful weapon shake in my hands, felt my heart hammer against my armor, felt my soul and mind search for some way to avoid pain and the nightmares that were becoming real.

I felt strength. I would have been lost, but for the words of my Rebbe. "Ein od Milvado" There is no one but Him. The mere utterance strengthened limbs, and a surge of faith and hope carried me through the invasion, through the detonations and whistling of ricocheting rounds and falling bombs. For I knew, for once KNEW and understood absolutely that I was in the hands of the greatest general on earth. A veteran of every war and every conflict, the ultimate warrior and defender of His people. I remember the joy that swept through the lines when they said the head commander was entering the field, because of his experience and strategies, everyone felt safer. It reminded me that an even greater Commander had been there all along. I understood the words of Tehilim 147, "Not in the strength of the horse does He desire, and not in the legs of man does He favor. God favors those who fear Him, those who hope for His kindness." My strength had failed me, yet when I begged God to allow me to be a conduit for His strength, to be His shield and a sword for His people, I was able to stand and fight. Those nights, my body was there, but God fought on that field.

I am not free of sin, and was by no means worthy of the miracles that befell me. That God aided me; that my entire battalion walked out, against all odds, while every other unit suffered losses, without serious casualty or mental scarring, was a miracle beyond any. That I was able to feel His strength replace mine, a gift for which I was undeserving.

My strength lay in the thousands of people who prayed for me, who prayed for the wellbeing of the army, who cried for the return of the fragile and precious Jewish youth who fought like lions where men twice their age would have fled. You are the reason we returned. You are the reason I am alive. You, the people who pray and cry and feel you are not the front lines, are truly the army of Hashem. The IDF, as people should see, is merely the physical arm of what your prayers accomplish. You are the ones in the battle. We are the holding action, delaying the physical evil while you battle to clear the path for Moshiach. Never again will I feel a yeshiva student who learns all day is not brave for not being with us on this field. Because I watched the words and letters that he learned and prayed march ahead of us, thousands deep, and millions strong, absorbing the bullets and metal meant for me. I thank you, humbly, warriors of my heart and faith. You let me come home to my wife.

During this war, we received a tremendous outpouring of love and support; letters, donations, food, and clothing. In specific, because I know them, although without diminishing the greatness of all the people I don’t know, I want to thank my mother and her tireless blogging efforts, my family for their support and letters, my wife for being brave beyond any woman or man I have ever known.

I want to thank Congregation Tiferes Yisroel for remembering an old neighborhood kid, and multiplying that to help all my brothers in uniform. I want to thank all of the community in Baltimore for the davening and love that we felt even in the heart of darkness.

I want to thank the little six-year old who wrote, "Dear IDF, I am proud of you." I cried over that letter, my tears running through the pain and stress as we recovered from Gaza.

I want to thank the people who donated money for the vests that saved our lives, the people that gave us clothes to warm our bodies, candy to warm our hearts, and letters to warm our souls. You cannot know what one pair of socks, one chocolate bar, or one hastily written sentence can do to save the minds and hearts of your children from despair.

I am not as gifted with words as my mother, nor a hero as great as those who marched beside me or filled the air with prayer around me, but I hope from this letter, from my fumbling thoughts you can draw for yourself the love and hope I am trying to convey.

I have seen this people, my people, at its best and at its worst. I can see why Redemption will come soon. As a nation, we drew together. Disunity, differences in Kippot or sects fell away, and everyone reached out to help as best they could. No one said, "I have no part" or "This isn't my war". May Hashem see the greatness of His holy, beautiful people, and allow me to sing that old song to my child, with absolute truth and great joy: "I promise, my little one, that this is the last war."


Joshua Eastman made aliyah from Baltimore in 2005. He met his wife, Chana, on a trip back to Baltimore; and the two of them live in Givat Ze'ev. Joshua is currently a full-time soldier in the Golani Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces. When he can get near a computer, he blogs about his life in Israel at "Through Josh-Colored Glasses," http://hashkeofthedevonshire.blogspot.com/.

http://www.ou.org/index.php/shabbat_shalom/article/48967/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on February 02, 2009, 04:15:53 PM

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School
 
by Maayana Miskin


(IsraelNN.com) During the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, IDF tank fire near a United Nations school in Gaza was blamed for the deaths of dozens of civilians who had taken refuge in the building. The incident became one of the most highly publicized attacks in the war, and led to heavy international criticism.

Recent reports suggest that the incident was not accurately portrayed by senior U.N. officials. John Ging, the director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, spoke to the Toronto Globe and Mail last week and agreed that no shell had actually struck the school building. Ging said he had never claimed that the school itself was hit, and he blamed Israel for confusion over where the strike took place.

Shortly after the alleged attack, Ging harshly criticized Israel for firing near the school, saying he had given the exact coordinates of the compound to the IDF. He charged that the IDF had failed to avoid hitting the building.

While admitting that Israeli fire had not hit the school compound, Ging insisted it made little difference. “Forty-one innocent people were killed in the street... The State of Israel still has to answer for that,” he said.

While many Israel news outlets reported that the strike had taken place near the school, several international media networks reported that the UN school building itself was hit. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs may have added to the confusion by releasing a report stating that Israeli fire “directly hit two UNRWA schools.”

Almost all reports said that the victims were primarily civilians who had fled to the school for shelter – a version of events cast into suspicion by the Globe and Mail report.

A teacher who was in the school at the time of the shelling reported that several people within the compound were injured, but that none were killed. Those killed were all outside in the street as the shells were fired, he said. Only three of those killed were students at the school, he added.

The teacher did not give his name, explaining that U.N .officials had told staff not to talk to the media.

The IDF responded to criticism over the attack by explaining that soldiers were simply responding to terrorist fire and did not mean to hit a civilian area.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129696

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on February 02, 2009, 04:17:53 PM

Gazans tell Israeli investigators of Hamas abuses
By YAAKOV KATZ

Nuaf Atar spoke about the use of Gazan schools to shoot rockets at Israel. Zabhi Atar revealed that Hamas used food coupons to entice Palestinians to join its ranks and Hamad Zalah said Hamas took control of UNRWA food supplies transferred to Gaza and refused to distribute them to people affiliated with Fatah.


More than 100 Palestinians were captured during the three-week operation but most were released and only a few dozen - members of Hamas and other terrorist factions - are still being held by Israel, officials said. Some of them may be used as bargaining chips in negotiations for abducted soldier Gilad Schalit.

Nuaf Atar, 25, lives in Atatra, in the northwest Gaza Strip, and was captured by paratroopers on January 11. In his interrogation by the Shin Bet, Atar said Hamas government officials "took over" humanitarian aid Israel allowed in to the Strip and sold it, when it is supposed to be distributed for free.

Hamas set up rocket launchers and fired rockets into Israel from within school compounds since the operatives knew that the Israel Air Force would not bomb the schools, he said.

Palestinians who opposed Hamas's use of their land and homes as launch pads were shot in the legs, Atar added.

 

"Atar's testimony is evidence of Hamas's cynical use of public institutions, such as schools, to attack Israel," the Shin Bet said.

Another fascinating account was provided by Raji Abed Rabo, a 22-year-old member of Islamic Jihad and resident of the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza. Abed Rabo told interrogators he was recruited into the organization at the age of 17 and began by distributing anti-Israel propaganda.

In 2006, he joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and underwent military training. In 2007 he returned to Islamic Jihad and was recruited to the Jabalya cell. His job was to conduct reconnaissance and gather intelligence on IDF movements along the Gaza border.

He stored weaponry in his house, including roadside bombs, and was knew of a number of tunnels that were to be used to kidnap and surprise IDF soldiers. He also told the Shin Bet about a large bunker that was built under Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and was used as a hideout for a number of senior Hamas operatives during the recent Israeli offensive.

Hamad Zalah, 29, is also a resident of Jabalya and was captured by the IDF on January 12. During his interrogation, he revealed that together with his brother, he was tortured by Hamas at a headquarters in Jabalya for his affiliation with Fatah and his intention to light a memorial candle for Yasser Arafat.

He said that he was whipped and beaten with electrical cords. In 2007, Hamas operatives shot and killed his brother, who was a security guard at the home of a Palestinian Authority official in Gaza.

Since June 2007, when Hamas took over Gaza, the terror group, Zalah said, also took control of all humanitarian aid sent into the Strip and refused to distribute it to Palestinians affiliated with Fatah.

Amad Hamed, 35, resides in Beit Hanun, and was arrested by the IDF on January 5. In his interrogation he told the Shin Bet that in 2006 he started conducting surveillance for Hamas and training to perpetrate a suicide attack against Israel.

Two of Hamed's brothers were killed by the IDF in Gaza in 2006 and 2007. Hamed told his interrogators about a Hamas training camp in a sports club next to a mosque in Khan Yunis in southern Gaza, and another camp opposite the Beit Hanun municipal building.

Three months ago, Hamed gave his approval to place barrels of explosives, rockets and launchers in land that belongs to his family in Beit Hanun.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1233304655613

Title: Hamas seized food aid, blankets in Gaza
Post by: captainccs on February 04, 2009, 06:56:42 AM

I really like the excuse given by Hamas for the theft.

Quote

Ahmad Kurd, the Hamas Minister of Social Affairs, did not deny the aid had been seized, but countered that the U.N. had been handing out relief to groups tied to Hamas' opponents.

"UNRWA did not do what it said it would do, and began distributing its aid to groups that tie their activities to political activism," Kurd said Wednesday.

In other words, political "enemies" should be starved to death. Hamas is truly barbaric and should be swept from the face of the earth.



UN says Hamas seized food aid, blankets in Gaza
By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM – Hamas police seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for the needy in Gaza, the U.N. said Wednesday, a move that could threaten the provision of aid that is essential for more than half of Gaza's impoverished residents.

Hamas policemen broke into an aid warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and more than 4,000 food parcels, said Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Gunness said the incident was "absolutely unacceptable."

He said police confiscated aid meant for 500 families after U.N. officials refused to voluntarily hand it over to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. Similar U.N. aid packages had already been distributed to 70,000 residents over the past two weeks.

Ahmad Kurd, the Hamas Minister of Social Affairs, did not deny the aid had been seized, but countered that the U.N. had been handing out relief to groups tied to Hamas' opponents.

"UNRWA did not do what it said it would do, and began distributing its aid to groups that tie their activities to political activism," Kurd said Wednesday.

Israeli officials have accused the militant group of routinely confiscating aid meant for needy Gazans. Gunness said this was the first time Hamas had seized its goods since it took control of the territory in 2007.

The U.N. agency provides food, education and health care services to more than half of Gaza's 1.4 million residents.
Hamas is under pressure to provide aid to Gazans, who are facing more hardship than ever since Israel's devastating three-week military offensive that ended Jan. 18. The operation, aimed at halting rocket fire from the territory, killed hundreds of civilians and left thousands destitute after their homes were damaged or destroyed.

Tensions between Hamas and the U.N. could make it difficult for the international agency to continue providing desperately needed services.

Some international donors have expressed concern that funds intended to help rebuild Gaza could be misused if they fall into Hamas' hands, and the U.N. had been trying to assuage those concerns.
The United Nations is expected to take a leading role in rebuilding Gaza, because Israel and the international community will not deal with Hamas.

The rival Palestinian administration in the West Bank said it will donate $600 million to help Gaza residents rebuild their homes. In an effort to bypass Hamas, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said the money from Western donors would be channeled through commercial banks directly to recipients.

The moderate government of Fayyad and President Mahmoud Abbas lost control of Gaza to Hamas in 2007 but is eager to regain a role there.

___
With reporting by Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City and Aron Heller in Jerusalem.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Title: The History of Indiscriminate Missile Launches
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 09, 2009, 06:56:59 AM

Long piece with lots of photos documenting the history, logistics, and other issues associated with the Palestinian missile and mortar attacks against Israel:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/02/a-dispatch-from.php

Title: Election Confusion
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 11, 2009, 08:37:47 AM

Israeli Complications
By the Editors

The political scene in Israel is a riddle. In part, this derives from the complications of the Israeli system of proportional representation—34 parties stood in the recent election, guaranteeing fragmentation. And in part, this reflects uncertainty about how to proceed in what, contrary to all evidence, is still widely described as “the peace process.”

Tzipi Livni and her center-left Kadima party hold that concessions to the Palestinians will bring peace, while Benjamin Netanyahu and the center-right Likud believe that any such concessions only endanger security. In the elections, these two mainstream parties won a more or less equivalent number of seats, allowing both to claim victory. There’s not that much point in doing so, however, because neither holds anything like the number of seats necessary for a parliamentary majority and the formation of a government. So both have to assemble a coalition, and this involves turning to the minority parties, who thus find themselves kingmakers. Four such parties have a total of 44 seats in a house of 120, but of course they differ among themselves in their objectives, so no coherent bloc is imaginable.

What happens next seems a mixture of Lewis Carroll at his wildest and the practices of ancient Byzantium. Shimon Peres, the octogenarian president, has to decide whom to call upon to form a government, and this has to be done within time limits. Peres has the right to ask whoever he thinks has the best prospect. For Peres, peace with the Palestinians has always been just around the corner, and his heart is surely with Livni. For the minority parties, however, national security is a top consideration, and they are not eager to collaborate with Livni. Netanyahu may have his chance, after all.

The next few weeks, then, will reveal who is willing to compromise proclaimed beliefs and ideals, and what the price will be for doing so. Secret horse-trading in backrooms is inevitable in the circumstances. Informed commentators in Israel are predicting that Livni and Netanyahu may be willing to participate in a joint government, and in that case enough minority parties might be persuaded to throw their lots in, too. However, Livni has been trying to persuade Netanyahu into just such a coalition these past months and has failed to do so; hence these elections. Any attempt to make Kadima and Likud ideologically compatible is virtually certain to lead to yet another election.

Israel wants peace, but has no better idea than anyone else how to obtain it. That aspect of the riddle, at least, never changes.

 

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTZiZmU3Mzk5OWFmNDFmY2JkNjZlOTFkM2M0NDhjNGQ=

Title: An oldie but goodie
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 11, 2009, 10:46:06 AM

Israeli Sense of Humor at UN

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly which made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel began: 'Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses. When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!'

He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.

When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them.'

The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, 'What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then.'

The Israeli representative smiled and said, 'And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech

stolen from:
http://forum.pafoa.org/lounge-108/48...-humor-un.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: nonkosherdog on February 11, 2009, 01:11:55 PM

(http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0065.gif)

Title: WSJ: The Camp David Myth
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2009, 12:02:36 PM

By ARTHUR HERMAN
Will Jimmy Carter be President Barack Obama's role model on how to bring peace to the Middle East?

Some, especially in Israel, view that prospect with apprehension. Others, like Ralph Nader, have greeted the possibility with enthusiasm, urging Mr. Obama to rely on Mr. Carter's "wise and seasoned counsel" in dealings with the volatile region. After all, Mr. Carter is renowned as the master craftsman of the historic accord between Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin at Camp David in September 1978, which opened the way for a formal peace agreement three months later.


The myth of Camp David hangs heavy over American foreign policy, and it's easy to see why. Of all the attempts to forge a Middle East peace, the 1978 treaty between Egypt and Israel has proved the most durable. Mr. Carter's admirers extol Camp David as an example of how one man's vision and negotiating skill brought former enemies together at the peace table, and as proof that a president can guide America toward a kinder, humbler foreign policy. Camp David was indeed Mr. Carter's one major foreign policy accomplishment amid a string of disasters including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the rise of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Ayatollah Khomeini's ascent in Iran.

But the truth about Camp David belies this myth. The truth is that Mr. Carter never wanted an Egyptian-Israeli agreement, fought hard against it, and only agreed to go along with the process when it became clear that the rest of his foreign policy was in a shambles and he desperately needed to log a success.

As presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter was sharply critical of the kind of step-by-step personal diplomacy which had been practiced by his predecessors Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. President Carter's preferred Middle East policy was to insist on a comprehensive settlement among all concerned parties -- including the Arab states' leading patron, the Soviet Union -- and to disparage Nixonian incrementalism.

Mr. Carter and his advisers all assumed that the key to peace in the region was to make Israel pull back to its pre-1967 borders and accept the principle of Palestinian self-determination in exchange for a guarantee of Israel's security. Nothing less than a comprehensive settlement, it was argued, could ward off future wars -- and there could be no agreement without the Soviets at the bargaining table. This was a policy that, if implemented, would have thrust the Cold War directly into the heart of Middle East politics. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger had strained to achieve the opposite.

Interestingly, the man who ultimately prevented this Carter-led calamity from unfolding was Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

After the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Sadat decided that Egypt needed to start from scratch in its relationship with Israel. Sadat found natural allies in Nixon and Mr. Kissinger after throwing out his Soviet patrons in 1972. With American support, he came to a disengagement agreement with Israel in 1973, and again in 1975. The culmination of this process was Sadat's historic trip to Jerusalem in November 1977, where he discussed a separate peace between Egypt and Israel, and forestalled Mr. Carter's plan for a Geneva peace conference.

It was this trip -- not Camp David -- that marked the true seismic shift in Middle East relations since Israel's founding. It came as an unwelcome surprise to the Carter foreign policy team, who still wanted their grandiose Geneva conference. In fact, for the better part of 1977, as Israel and Egypt negotiated, the White House persisted in acting as if nothing had happened. Even after Sadat's trip to Jerusalem, Mr. Carter announced that "a separate peace agreement between Egypt and Israel is not desirable."

But by the autumn of 1978, the rest of Mr. Carter's foreign policy had crumbled. He had pushed through an unpopular giveaway of the Panama Canal, allowed the Sandinistas to take power in Nicaragua as proxies of Cuba, and stood by while chaos grew in the Shah's Iran. Desperate for some kind of foreign policy success in order to bolster his chances for re-election in 1980, Mr. Carter finally decided to elbow his way into the game by setting up a meeting between Sadat and Begin at Camp David.

The rest of the story is now the stuff of legend: For 13 days Mr. Carter acted as the go-between for the two leaders. Yet for all their bluster and intransigence in public, Begin and Sadat were more than ready for a deal once they understood that the U.S. would do whatever was necessary to stop the Soviet Union and its Arab allies, such as the PLO, from derailing a peace. An agreement was hammered out for an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, coupled with vague language about Palestinian "autonomy." The item Mr. Carter had really wanted on the agenda -- a Palestinian state -- was kept at arm's length.

Camp David worked because it avoided all of Mr. Carter's usual foreign policy mistakes, particularly his insistence on a comprehensive solution. Instead, Sadat and Begin pursued limited goals. The agreement stressed a step-by-step process instead of insisting on immediate dramatic results. It excluded noncooperative entities like Syria and the PLO, rather than trying to accommodate their demands. And for once, Mr. Carter chose to operate behind the scenes à la Mr. Kissinger, instead of waging a media war through public statements and gestures. (The press were barred from the Camp David proceedings).

Above all and most significantly, Camp David sought peace instead of "justice." Liberals say there can be no peace without justice. But to many justice means the end of Israel or the creation of a separate Palestinian state. Sadat and Begin, in the teeth of Mr.Carter's own instincts both then and now, established at Camp David a sounder principle for negotiating peace. The chaos and violence in today's Gaza proves just how fatal trying to advance other formulations can be.

The true story of Camp David is one of two ironies. The first is that, far from being a symbol of a more modest foreign policy, Camp David rested on an assertion of go-it-alone American power. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush would be bitterly criticized later for following this winning technique. The second irony is that if any one man deserves credit for Camp David, it is not Jimmy Carter but Anwar Sadat. It was Sadat who managed to save Mr. Carter from himself and revealed the true secret about forging peace in the Middle East: The Palestinian issue is the doom, not the starting point, for lasting stability in the region.

Mr. Herman is the author of "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age" (Bantam, 2008).

Title: Cast Lead & Civilian Casualty Figures
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 17, 2009, 06:21:32 AM

The first casualty of war: Truth
Jerusalem Post | 2-19-09


Which is the greater factor in getting consumers of news to believe that "1,300 Palestinians, most of them civilians" were killed during Operation Cast Lead? Intrinsic anti-Israel bias - or a high degree of gullibility to manipulative international media coverage?


Anas Naim, a nephew of Hamas Health Minister Bassem Naim, who was killed on Jan. 4 in Gaza City, was described in Palestinian reports as a 'medic.' Photo: Courtesy

Put another way, do you have to be anti-Israel to believe Palestinian lies, or is Palestinian mendacity so well-constructed, so plausible, and so well disseminated by collaborative media outlets like Al Jazeera that even well-meaning people can't help but believe the worst of Israel?

These questions are prompted by some significant reporting in Monday's Jerusalem Post ("Int'l community was duped by Hamas's false civilian death toll figures, IDF claims").

Even well-regarded Palestinian pressure groups have been claiming that Israel killed 895 civilians in the Gaza fighting. Operating on the basis of such "data," coupled with a poisoned wellspring of antipathy against the Jewish state, Mahmoud Abbas has been making the case for indicting Israeli cabinet ministers and military officers for international war crimes.

RELATED UN to compile Gaza war casualty figure amid dispute over civilian deaths Pro-Palestinian campaigners allege that two-thirds of the Arab fatalities were civilian. The IDF insists that no more than a third of the dead were civilians - and not a one was targeted intentionally. So instead of "1,300 killed, most of them civilians," we now have reason to believe, based on the IDF's methodical analysis of 1,200 of the Palestinian fatalities thus far identified by name, that 580 were combatants and 300 non-combatants.

Of these 300, two were female suicide bombers, and some others were related to terrorists such as Nizar Rayyan, a top Hamas gunman who insisted that his family join him in the hereafter.

"The first casualty when war comes is truth," said US senator Hiram Warren Johnson.

Take, for instance, Arab eyewitness accounts of the number killed at the Jabalya UN School on January 6 - some 40 dead, maybe 15 of them women and children. The IDF says the actual figure is 12 killed, nine of them Hamas operatives.

With time, perhaps, the names and true identities of each and every one of the Gaza dead - including the 320 as yet unclassified - will be determined.

One point is indisputable: Despite the best efforts of both sides, the IDF wound up killing more Palestinians unintentionally than the Palestinians killed Israeli civilians on purpose. This is known as "disproportionality."

Israeli officials, given bitter experiences such as Jenin in 2002, when a grossly false narrative of massacre and massed killing was disseminated by Palestinian officials, should have long since internalized the imperative to try to ascertain the number and nature of Palestinian dead in real time.

But while the figure "1,300 Palestinians killed, most/many of them civilians" is now embedded in the public consciousness, it is emphatically not too late to try to set the record straight.

Atrocity stories are nothing new. The British have been charged with using them to create popular outrage during the Boer War. The allies used them against Germany during World War I - which, incidentally, allowed the real Nazi atrocities during WWII to be dismissed long into the Holocaust.

Nowadays, it matters what masses of uninformed or ill-informed people far removed from the Arab-Israel conflict think. Dry statistics released so belatedly will win Israel no PR credit in a world of 24/7 satellite news channels and real-time blogging. Nevertheless, the fact that an Israeli narrative is finally out there is significant. Perhaps responsible news outlets will want to reexamine some of their original reporting, along with the assumption that "most" of the dead were non-combatants.

Palestinian propaganda is insidious because those being manipulated are oblivious to what is happening. Chaotic images of casualties being hurried to hospitals, gut-wrenching funerals and swaths of shattered buildings create an overarching "reality." Against this, Israel's pleadings that the Palestinians are culpable for the destruction, and that the above images lack context, scarcely resonate.

Despite six decades of intransigence and a virtual copyright on airline hijackings and suicide bombings, the Palestinians have created a popular "brand" for themselves by parlaying their self-inflicted victimization into a battering ram against Israel.

Disseminators of news should have learned better than to take Palestinian death-toll claims at face value, least of all when sourced directly or indirectly from the Hamas-run government of Gaza.

(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImage&blobwhere=1233304789727&cachecontrol=5%3A0%3A0+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true)
Anas Naim, a nephew of Hamas Health Minister Bassem Naim, who was killed on Jan. 4 in Gaza City, was described in Palestinian reports as a 'medic.'

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304799578&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: With nary a blip on the radar, the derangement continues , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 24, 2009, 02:24:13 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/24/official-provide-substantial-aid-gaza-reconstruction/

Looks like BO-Clinton are going to give $.9 Billion to Hamas/Gaza.   :-o :x :cry:

The madness continues , , ,  :cry:

Title: Divisions amongst the Palestinians
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 25, 2009, 11:48:41 AM

Geopolitical Diary: Public Divisions Among the Palestinians
February 24, 2009

Hamas said on Monday that a delegation led by the group’s No. 2 official, Moussa Abu Marzouk, would attend Egyptian-sponsored talks with rival group Fatah in Cairo on Tuesday. In addition to the Hamas-Fatah negotiations, Cairo will be hosting a conference of 13 Palestinian factions who will discuss the future of the Fatah-dominated Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Even as Hamas and Fatah prepared for the talks, relations between the two remained tense, with Hamas accusing the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority of collaborating with Israel during the recent Gaza offensive.

There has been, in effect, a civil war within the Palestinian community for years, pitting two radically different visions of Palestine against each other. The older tradition represented by Fatah was secular and socialist, and above all, pan-Arab. Islam was incidental to what it believed, and in some ways it was hostile to Islam, and to Islamic states like Saudi Arabia. Fatah derived its existence from Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nasser and was part of his historic alignment with the Soviet Union. Indeed, during the 1970s in particular, Fatah itself was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. It represented a very different Palestine from the one Hamas has in mind.

Hamas’ roots run to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest opposition movement in Egypt. Hamas is not in any way secular or socialist or pan-Arab. It sees itself as religious, supporting traditional society, and celebrating an Islamism that goes beyond the Arab world. It sees the traditional enemies of Fatah — the conservative monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula — as its friends.

Apart from sharing a Palestinian identity and hostility to Israel, Hamas and Fatah have little in common and much to divide them. For Fatah, the struggle for statehood is part of a secular ideological imperative. Therefore, there is an element of flexibility built into its attitude. In the end, its mission does not come from Allah. Hamas’ mission does come from Allah, and this limits what they can concede and bargain away.

But more than that, Hamas is a movement in Gaza; Fatah now dominates the West Bank. These are two utterly different environments. Gaza is a city, not a region. It is a vast slum which has a minimal economy and which, in the end, survives on charity and foreign aid. The Palestinians in Gaza have little room to maneuver, little room for compromise and less to lose. They are trapped in an untenable position, and surrounded by two enemies: Israel and Egypt. Gaza is a natural fit for Hamas.

The West Bank, for all of its shortcomings, is a very different place. It is a region with distinct towns and villages, many with diverse outlooks and interest. There is a vast chasm between Hebron’s militancy and Jericho’s relative quiet. Governing the West Bank is a complex balancing act with multiple players that need to be satisfied. It would be wrong to say that the region is inherently moderate; it isn’t. But it is a region whose politics are sufficiently complex that it can be governed only with flexibility. It is also a region that is not devoid of options with regard to Israel or its other enemy, Jordan.

Therefore, the difference between Hamas and Fatah is partly a difference in ideology but also a difference in geography. It is ironic to think of Fatah as moderate, given its role from Munich to Beirut. But at the same time, Fatah was never locked into a position the way Hamas is.

The current tensions between Fatah and Hamas are not new; the two sides have been at war for years. Though a stalemate of sorts exists between them, Hamas wants to supplant Fatah. It is unlikely that Hamas can do that. Hamas is at home in Gaza. It is far less at home in the West Bank. What Hamas has done, however, is give Israel precisely what it wanted. There is now a very public civil war between the two Palestinian regions and factions. Hamas clearly thinks it has an opening, given the aging leadership of Fatah and the movement’s lack of charisma. But Fatah is a mature and wily entity. It won’t go gently into that good night — and it has the support, ironically, of Israel and many Arab countries worried about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood-type Islamism.

Hamas will not defeat Fatah quickly — and the longer the struggle continues, the more Israel benefits.

Title: Rachel, has Obama sold Israel out yet?
Post by: G M on February 25, 2009, 11:57:52 AM

Hamas 'happy' with Obama's $900 million pledge
Funds earmarked for U.N. agency that openly employs terrorists
Posted: February 24, 2009
11:16 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Fawzi Barhoum
TEL AVIV, Israel – Hamas is "very happy" with a pledge this week from the Obama administration to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, a spokesman from the Islamist organization told WND.

"We are very happy with this decision," said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, speaking by cell phone from Gaza. "In the first place, this money will go toward reconstructing efforts."

Barhoum said he expects the money to be tightly controlled. He said the funds are likely to be delineated to the Palestinian Authority and to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, or UNWRA, which administers aid to millions of Palestinian "refugees" in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Hamas has a close relationship with UNWRA; the agency openly employs a large number of Hamas members, including some of the group's most senior terrorists.


The U.S. aid has not yet been officially approved by Congress. The package is expected to be formally announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she attends an international Gaza donors conference in Egypt next week. A U.S. official reported the money will not reach Hamas but will go instead to nongovernmental organizations, most notably UNWRA. Still, the terrorist organization controls the Gaza Strip. Any reconstruction efforts in the territory are likely to bolster Hamas.

Hamas, UNWRA closely linked

From 1990 until today, teachers affiliated with the Islamic Bloc, which is formally associated with Hamas, have won elections as representatives of the teachers' section of the UNRWA union. By 2003, they held all seats and fully constituted the executive committee of this section of the union. The publication of UNWRA school books in Gaza is coordinated with Hamas.

Saeed Siam, Hamas former interior minister and one of the leaders of the group's so-called military wing, taught in UNRWA schools from 1980 to 2003 and served as a representative to the UNWRA union. He was killed during an Israeli air strike last month.

Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the man who founded Hamas and has been immortalized by it, worked as a UNRWA teacher from 1967 to 1994.

On July 6, 2001, Hamas convened a conference in the UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, with students, teachers and school administrators in attendance. Yassin presented his ideology, and then an official named Saheil Alhinadi, who represented the teaching sector of UNRWA, praised students who had recently carried out suicide attacks against Israel, declaring "the road to Palestine passes through the blood of the fallen, and these fallen have written history with parts of their flesh and their bodies."

A 2002 report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Center at Israel's Center for Special Studies, a think tank associated with Israeli intelligence, documented how a number of wanted terrorists were found hiding inside schools run by UNRWA.

"A large number of youth clubs operated by UNRWA in the refugee camps were discovered to be meeting places for terrorists," said the report.

Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Hamas terrorist arrested in February 2002, confessed he had carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus, or biblical Shechem. He also reportedly told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the school's facilities.

Nidal Abd al-Fattah Abdallah Nazzal, a Hamas activist from Kalkilya, was arrested in August 2002. He had been employed as an ambulance driver by UNRWA. He confessed during his interrogation that he had transported weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance to terrorists.

Additional information about arrests of UNRWA employees by Israel came in 2003 from the U.S. General Accounting Office, which was charged with conducting an investigation of UNRWA operations. The office found that in three instances Israeli military courts convicted UNRWA employees of involvement with explosives.

More recently, in the time leading up to and since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in the summer of 2007, there has been concern in Jerusalem about UNRWA camps being used for the manufacture, storage, and launching of rockets and mortars into Israel. Also, camp residents have been suspected of active involvement in launching missiles and infiltrating shooters and suicide bombers into Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 25, 2009, 12:11:49 PM

This guy is going to make Jimmy Carter look like a warmongering genius.  We just threw away everything Israel just accomplished.    :cry: :cry: :cry:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 25, 2009, 12:14:42 PM

I'm sure Obama will make sure all the funds are used in a responsible manner, just like the rest of the US taxpayer's money he's spending.

Title: Israel Under the Bus
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 26, 2009, 12:54:04 PM

February 26, 2009
No Surprises Here

Richard N. Weltz
Although the New York Times and other MSM either ignored of played down the story, today's New York Post lays it right on the line:   

'Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.' - Senior US official

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent angry messages to Israel in the past week, complaining that humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip is being blocked by officials in Jerusalem, Israeli media reported yesterday.

Clinton aides made it clear she would make the supposed Israeli foot-dragging a central issue next week when she makes her first trip to the region as secretary of state, the newspaper Haaretz reported.

"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," a senior US official was quoted as telling Israeli authorities.

Gilad Shalit, the Israeli solider captured by Hamas in 2006, is apparently, in the view of Hillary and her boss, not a human being, as they've said not one word about his humanitarian plight, although the Post also notes that:

Israel refuses to reopen its crossing points into Gaza unless Hamas releases a soldier kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists two years ago.

Hamas rejects the quid pro quo.

In other news, some of which has been reported here in other message threads,

The Obama administration has decided not to boycott but to join in the Durban II anti-Israel hate fest
Obama has appointed Susan Rice, no friend of Israel, as US ambassador to the United Nations
Obama has offered $900 billion in aid to Gaza as a "reward" for suffering the repercussion of their own aggressive war on Israel
Obama has made Samantha Power, another Israel foe, a top foreign policy advisor
Charles Freeman, an Israel-hater and former Arab lobbyist responsible for publication of vicious anti-Israel propaganda is moving into the post of head of the Nationational Intelligence Council, the top intelligence advisory agency to the president
Obama continues to surround himself with advisers antipathetic to the Israeli cause such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley
Obama chose to make his first TV interview appearance on the al-Arabiya network where he essentially apologized for America, and reminisced about the good old days -- which happen to be the ones of Islamist bombing American sites in New York, Lebanon, Africa, and attacking our navy in Yemen
Obama has soft-pedaled Iran's nuclear efforts, for which that country slapped him in the face for his naïveté by stepping up their program, including an operational test this week and a promise to redouble enrichment efforts -- leaving Israel on its way under the infamous Obama bus
All this in a mere six weeks or so in office, and not counting the disastrous economic policies being foisted on the nation without due consideration or debate, nor the fool's game into which he has been suckered by Russia's Vladimir Putin regarding our essential supply lines for troops fighting in Afghanistan.

And, of course, thee is much more which time and space do not permit mentioneing here, but which have been amply covered by a plethora of analysts, commentators, columnists, and bloggers.

But whatever there may be, there is no cause for surprise. Not among the left-leaning cultists who were swept up in Obamania, and especially not among the 70%+ of the Jewish electorate who deliberately put their brains into neutral and voted for The One.  Everything the Obama administration has done and is in the process of doing, whether it is abandoning our longstanding support of Israel or driving the US economy into a quasisocialist format, were clearly promised and presaged by his campaign statements, his cohort of advisers, the organizations who backed him, and the parts of his past history that came to light -- despite massive efforts to seal and cover up important records of his college and political records.

Yes, no surprises here. But there is plenty to answer for the segment of the electorate who were plainly and repeatedly warned and yet out of venality or ignorance chose put their misguided utopian "ideals" above the interests of their country and their people. For shame!


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/no_surprises_here.html at February 26, 2009 - 03:52:48 PM EST

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 26, 2009, 01:14:51 PM

***Obama has soft-pedaled Iran's nuclear efforts, for which that country slapped him in the face for his naïveté by stepping up their program, including an operational test this week and a promise to redouble enrichment efforts***

What would anyone with a brain expect?  The only surprising thing is that Iran is open about its intentions.  IF they were really wise they'd pretend they want to dance with the BO.

He may have been brought up a Christian but his middle name is still Hussain.
The Blacks he hung out with hate Jews.  Many of my co Jews like to explain that we have a lot in common with Blacks and all being both groups have been oppressed.  Yet they fail to see that Blacks don't see it that way - bieng Jews are so successful, well to do and educated etc and they are not.  Many Jews had blacks clean their homes, due their gardening etc.   Wasn't Joe Louis and many other famous blacks in the entertainment industry robbed totally blind by their Jewish managers?  Remember Spike Lee said Hollywood is controlled by the Jews?

Blacks do not see the similarities with the Jews as the liberal Jews see with them.

So all my Jewish friends who love BO - you are being taken.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2009, 01:31:09 PM

In a closely related vein, see my post on the Intel Matters thread about the new head of the powerful NIE  :-o :cry:

Title: Funny, this IS the Hillary I always knew....
Post by: G M on February 26, 2009, 07:26:48 PM

http://wcbstv.com/national/hillary.clinton.israel.2.945238.html

Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know

Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To Gaza
Reporting
Marcia Kramer
NEW YORK (CBS) ?

Transition To A New Government
In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

As First Lady, Clinton raised eyebrows when she kissed Suha Arafat.

Since she was then seeking a Senate seat the resulting brouhaha caused her to "re-think" her positions.

"I'm a very strong supporter of Israel," Clinton said back in February 2000.

On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.

"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council.

"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."

Clinton's decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.

"We are working across the government to see what our approach will be," Clinton said.

"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."

For some, Clinton's change of position is upsetting.

"I feel it's unfortunate that they don't continue the policy of the Bush administration, which was much more pro-Israel," said Akiva Homnick of Jerusalem.

"I happen to have a lot of family who live in Israel and I feel, personally, when you are dealing with people who are very strong against you, you have to stand up to them," said Tami Davudoff of Kew Gardens.

"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."

"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.

All this could lead to a chilly reception when Mrs. Clinton arrives in the Middle East next week.

The new U.S. envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, arrived in Israel on Thursday with a mission to inject new life into peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 27, 2009, 06:54:18 AM

Only one question.
Why are they blasting Hillary?
The anger should be directed at the source - BO.
Are they afraid to go after him?  Politically incorrect?
Because he is black?
Because he is otherwise the liberal socialist they dreamed of for decades?
I don't recall ever hearing a black express sadness by the Jewish holocaust.  Yet I hear about the "Black holocaust".
I happen to agree the blacks did have a form of holocaust and this deserves the recognition but I say Jews and Blacks are not as aligned as the liberal Jews run around spouting for whatever their motives in so doing.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on February 27, 2009, 11:07:35 AM

"Why are they blasting Hillary? The anger should be directed at the source - BO."  - More convenient and less controversial to attack HRC.  They want to influence the Pres. not damage or destroy him, or even being seen undermining him.

"Jews and Blacks are not as aligned..."  - It's a strange coalition that makes up the Democrat power base.  Blacks and Jews are aligned by a common political enemy - Republicans.  Far left extremists are the most anti-Israel of any voters in the country, yet share a party with most Jewish voters.  Non-Jewish far-righters are the strongest defenders of Israel in this country, for not for religious reasons.  Meanwhile Blacks love school vouchers and school choice, directly at odds with another huge money and power base of the party - the education unions.  But no matter how much they all hate or disagree with each other, they will not jump parties. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but liberal American Jews would rather stand quiet while Israel is destroyed before they would ever support a moose hunting, peace through strength, conservative for Commander in Chief, just as Catholics pull the lever for for abortionist supporting candidates at the same rate as the rest of the country because of other liberal priorities. 

Title: Mubarak Got It Right
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 27, 2009, 11:22:51 AM

February 27, 2009
Mubarak is the Only One Who Got it Right

By Dan Gordon
It's been four weeks since I've been home from Israel and the fighting in Gaza. Three weeks since I turned in my helmet, body amour and M-16 and exchanged the olive drab fatigues for the jeans and a t-shirt which is my daily uniform in civilian life. The story of that conflict has been pushed to the back burners. But during the fighting itself, it generated millions of words and literally hundreds of hours of media coverage and yet, it seems, to this day no one but Hosni Mubarak the President of Egypt has gotten the story right.

There may be a lot of things that one can say about President Mubarak, not all of them complimentary, but one thing that cannot be said is that he is either a newcomer or naïve in the nuances, strategies and politics of the Middle East. Here is what President Mubarak said in a speech last week: 

"Why did (Hamas) object to our attempts to prolong the cease fire? And why did they not heed our warnings that their positions constitute an open invitation for an Israeli assault? Was this planned and deliberate? For whose benefit?... the recent crisis has exposed an attempt to exploit the Israeli aggression in order to impose a new reality on the Palestinian and Arab arena -- a new reality that will stack the cards in favor of a well known regional force, Iran, for the benefit of its plans and agenda."

Well, that's an interesting take and it didn't come from the Israeli Foreign Ministry or any Zionist advocacy group. It came from the President of the largest Arab country in the world. What he was referring to when he stated that Hamas had objected "to our attempts to prolong the cease fire" was the period just prior to Israel's incursion into Gaza. There had been a five month long tahadya or lull in Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel and Israel's reprisal raids against Hamas. This lull had been painstakingly negotiated by the Egyptians with a good deal of behind the scenes help from the Palestinian Authority, the Jordanians, the European Union and the United States. In December of 2008, however, Hamas unilaterally announced that the lull was over and they would resume their attacks against Israel.

They did so to the tune of seventy to eighty rocket attacks a day aimed exclusively against a civilian population of almost a million people in Southern Israel. It should be noted that most of these attacks were timed to coincide with when people dropped their children off at schools, kindergartens, pre-schools, and when they picked them up. These rocket attacks were terror attacks, pure and simple. That Israeli children were not killed is a testament to the effectiveness of Israel's civil defense program in Southern Israel.

I walked the streets of Sderot with a former US Marine Captain who noted that literally every single street corner had a bus stop that had been converted into a blast proof shelter while every other block had at least one "life shield" bunker. Every school, every playground, had the same type of reinforced steel and concrete shelters. He looked around incredulously, "Camp Faluja is the only place I've ever seen with such force protection in place." And yet, he noted "Sderot has no rocket launching pads or artillery equipment. Not only is there no offensive military presence but there is no mechanism to return fire either. If you told marines that they would be living in a place that received regular mortar and rocket fire, had no counter fire capability... they would tell you that you were completely insane... among other things." He said quite simply for civilians living in Sderot, "Israel is Iraq without the body armor."

When the five month tahadya ended Israel did everything humanly possible to extend the cease fire. It made it clear that it did not want to have to go into Gaza. Israel worked with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, leaders of the European Union and the American Secretary of State, trying to extend the cease fire indefinitely. Hamas' response? Seventy to eighty rocket attacks a day. Israel's Prime Minister finally went on Arabic language television and literally almost begged the people of Gaza to get their leaders to extend the cease fire. He stated again that Israel had withdrawn from all of Gaza three years ago to give peace a chance and hopefully never to return. He warned that if Israel had to invade it was stronger and it would prevail and there would be needless loss of civilian life as is the case in any war.

Hamas' reply was more vollies of rockets and mortars.

So like President Mubarak, any objective observer would have to ask the question why? "Was this planned and deliberate? For whose benefit?"

The answer is yes of course it was planned and deliberate. What major news outlets have completely missed is not the fact that Israel invaded. The story they have missed is that Hamas knowingly provoked Israel's incursion because this was to be their offensive. It had been planned and prepared for months. It was their strategy, their tactics, their battlefield, prepared according to their doctrine, to be fought at the time of their choosing.

I first put on the uniform of the Israel Defense Forces over 35 years ago. I have been involved in four wars and countless training exercises preparing for war. I have watched Israel's doctrine change and adapt to almost every new eventuality and the one thing I can say with absolute clarity and certainty is that Israel never goes to war in the winter time of its own accord. Never. When Israel can choose, its offensives take place in the spring and summer. It is as if there is a line drawn across the calendar that says from mid autumn and until well into the spring Israeli doctrine precludes offensive action.

The reason is quite simple, the cloud cover and rain of winter time can neutralize Israel's advantage in air and armor. Even with the most advanced avionics, aircraft have a tough time taking out targets which they cannot see because of cloud cover. Rain can turn the terrain of southern Israel into a soupy mud that can bog down Israel's tanks and armored personnel carriers making them sitting ducks for anti tank rockets and missiles. Israel has never gone to war in the winter of its own choosing, which is precisely why Hamas chose the dead of winter for its offensive.

The villages of the Gaza strip were crisscrossed with tunnels dug underneath the houses. Not weapons smuggling tunnels, mind you, these were kidnapping tunnels. They were communication tunnels through which Hamas militants could go unseen from house to house and carry out combat in a civilian environment disappearing from one house, as it came under fire, to pop up in another. Those tunnels were not dug after Israel invaded as a response to that invasion. No one in Hamas said "Quick let's dig these tunnels because the Israelis are coming!"

This was their battlefield and they prepared it according to a doctrine that said they would launch rockets from civilian areas in order to draw Israeli troops into those areas. They would turn whole villages into booby trapped battlefields while the villagers were still in them. Their hope was to kill two to three hundred Israeli soldiers and kidnap and take prisoner as many as fifty.

At the same time, because they were fighting in civilian areas, their plan was to maximize civilian casualties amongst their own people. In this way, any action Israel took against Hamas fighters would become a war crime. Photos of innocent Palestinians killed in an Israeli onslaught would arouse public sympathy and that sympathy in turn could be translated into political pressure to effectuate a cease fire advantageous to Hamas. In that way, they could at one and the same time, wear the mantle of victimhood and victor.

Here is what the New York Times reported on January 16th, 2009, when one of its reporters was imbedded with Israeli forces in the northern Gaza strip,

"The scene was one of rusting green houses and blown up houses that had been booby trapped with mannequins, explosive devices and tunnels. The area was a major site for Hamas launchers."

The reporter was briefed by an Israeli paratroop brigade commander who began his comments by stating that he hated war and that he did not want to be here, but that this operation was necessary to limit Hamas' abilities to launch rockets against Southern Israel. Here once again is the reporter from the New York Times:

"The rocket launchers, which sent deadly projectiles into Ashdod and Ashkelon, Israeli cities due north, were placed amongst the potatoes and peppers, explosive devices around them to prevent their dismantling... the soldiers found improvised explosive devices in the houses and, on Wednesday, in a mosque. The typical ruse for the houses was a mannequin with an explosive near by and a hole or tunnel covered by a rug. I can say that one third of the houses are booby trapped. ....

"He said. "You get into the houses and you see many IEDs..."

The reporter went on to state,

"The idea behind the set ups... was that Israeli soldiers would shoot the mannequin mistaking it for a man, an explosion would occur, and soldiers would be driven or pulled into the hole where they could be taken prisoner." The ruse failed, in part, the reporter went on to state because "the soldiers had found a hand drawn map with the booby traps laid out."

I was with that reporter in Gaza. We went in the same armored personnel carrier. Hamas' plan was to fire from civilian houses, draw infantry into those houses which were booby trapped, and then kill and wound soldiers inside. There were kidnapping teams standing by in the tunnels to pop up from under a false floor and drag the wounded soldiers or the bodies of the dead into those tunnels which criss crossed the whole village. Once inside the tunnels, the dead and wounded Israeli soldiers could be whisked off and taken prisoner. I held the map the reporter referred to of the village and studied it with an intelligence officer. The entire village is laid out as a battlefield... with the villagers still in it, sometimes unaware that their own houses or the houses of neighbors have been rigged. This plan was duplicated throughout Gaza.

This was Hamas' offensive and at least one part of it failed. Only ten Israeli soldiers were killed and none were taken captive. The part of their plan, however, which did not fail was making this war on the backs of their own innocent civilians. There is an old saying in journalism "if it bleeds it leads." Networks will go with the most sensational stories, without much investigation. The picture will speak more than a thousand words and Hamas knew that and counted on it. But there are other pictures. I have linked footage taken of  Hamas' so called "militants" machine gunning Palestinians whom they felt were of rival factions during their bloody coup and take over of Gaza in 2007. This picture tells exactly who Hamas is and what Israel faces on its southern border. Moreover, in the weeks since the fighting ended many of the charges against Israel have been refuted not just by Israel but International Aid Agencies.

One of the most sensational charges was that Israeli targeted a UN school and killed 43 Palestinian civilians who were hiding inside it. Israel maintained that it returned fire to a Hamas mortar launching site outside the school. On Tuesday, the UN office for Humanitarian Affairs stated categorically, "The shelling and all the fatalities took place outside rather than inside the school."

Separately, Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict stated that the organization would investigate the use of children as human shields by Hamas during the recent fighting. The head of the International Red Cross has stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Israel had used any weapons, including white phosphorous, in any manner banned by International Law.

The Italian newspaper Courierre Della Sera quoted a Palestinian doctor in Schifa hospital as saying that contrary to reports of 1300 people killed he estimated that there were only seven to eight hundred killed and of them the vast majority were males between the age of 17 and 23. It should be noted that by the second or third day of fighting Hamas militants had taken off their uniforms and were fighting exclusively in civilian clothes and most of them of course were young males between the ages of 17 and 23.

In the words of Presidnet Mubarak

" I have stressed this before and I'll say it again (Hamas) must face the cost benefit test... of the benefits it has brought for their problems along side the casualties, the pain, and the destruction it has caused... For how long will Arab blood be shed, only to listen to those who admit their mistakes later... and who wave resistance slogans over the corpses of casualties, the ruins and the destruction."

One wonders when some in the Western media will begin asking the same question and demanding the same answers.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/mubarak_is_the_only_one_who_go.html at February 27, 2009 - 02:20:54 PM EST

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 27, 2009, 02:17:04 PM

***Correct me if I'm wrong, but liberal American Jews would rather stand quiet while Israel is destroyed before they would ever support a moose hunting, peace through strength, conservative for Commander in Chief, just as Catholics pull the lever for for abortionist supporting candidates at the same rate as the rest of the country because of other liberal priorities.***

I am afraid so.  Republicans are worse than Nazis to the far left liberal Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2009, 02:27:10 PM

Good find BBG.

The liberal Jewish mindset is the one in which I was raised in Manhattan NYC.  It is now a mystery to me-- and I to them.

Crafty Dog--Infidel Dog of the Never Again Brigades!

Title: Congressmen try to restrict Gaza funds
Post by: rachelg on March 08, 2009, 11:42:41 AM

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Congressmen try to restrict Gaza funds
Mar. 5, 2009
ALLISON HOFFMAN, JPost correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST

US lawmakers are seeking restrictions on US funding for $900 million in proposed reconstruction and humanitarian aid for the Palestinians over concerns that the money might wind up in the hands of terrorist groups.

Sources on Capitol Hill told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that negotiations over restrictions could complicate the process and potentially delay getting aid to organizations on the ground.

"In general, there will be a desire on the part of Congress to work with the administration and give them the flexibility they need to conduct foreign policy," said one Congressional staffer.

The sticking point, he said, would be to ensure that none of those funds end up helping terrorists. "I'm sure there will be questions - as there always are with regard to this kind of aid - about transparency, vetting, and auditing to make sure money doesn't fall into the wrong hands."

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged the American assistance to Gaza last weekend at an international donors' conference in Sharm e-Sheikh, Egypt. But as much as $745 million of the promised aid would have to be approved by Congress.

Jewish Democratic congresswoman Shelley Berkley, who represents Las Vegas, sent a letter to Clinton asking for conditions to be placed on the funds. Her spokesman David Cherry refused to confirm or deny reports that the conditions included the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.

Berkley has signed on to resolutions in the past calling for Shalit's release.

Clinton spokesman Robert Wood said earlier in the week that the $600 in development aid would go directly to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. The other $300 million would be earmarked for relief in Gaza.

Meanwhile, nearly two dozen members of the House of Representatives have signed on to a resolution, sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Steve Rothman, calling for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza (UNRWA) to publish lists of its employees in order to assure donors that it does not employ terrorists.

He said at a press conference Thursday that he introduced the resolution "to ensure that not one cent of US taxpayer dollars provided to UNRWA is redirected to terrorists, or to activities that support terror or promote a culture of hatred." The resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

It came as a former attorney for the UN agency published a report saying it does little to check whether its staff or clients are linked to terrorist groups. UNRWA has repeatedly denied allegations that its facilities have been used to store or transport materiel for terrorist groups.

A spokesman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon declined to comment on the US negotiations over funding. Ban has traveled to member states in the past month soliciting aid for Gaza and has repeatedly appealed to large funders to continue their assistance via a UN "flash appeal" for Gaza.

The United States provides more than 20 percent of UNRWA's annual budget.

Title: US Affairs: Losing the lobby on the Hill/ Unhelpful reprimand
Post by: rachelg on March 08, 2009, 11:45:07 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236269356568&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

US Affairs: Losing the lobby on the Hill?
Mar. 5, 2009
Hilary Leila Krieger , THE JERUSALEM POST

Last month, three members of Congress made an usual trip, visiting Gaza for the first time since both the 2003 killing of three American security personnel by Palestinian militants, and the 2007 takeover of the coastal strip by Hamas, that prompted Israel and the United States to stay away.

That the visit by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and, separately, Congressmen Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and Brian Baird (D-Washington) took place at all might have been its most newsworthy aspect. But it was not its only atypical one. Ellison and Baird both made comments conspicuously critical of Israel, and then organized a briefing for members of Congress to share what they saw, in an effort to push for change in American policies. They would like to see the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip opened, and well as a rethinking of the ways America supports Israel.

Briefings of these sorts, particularly by members of Congress themselves, are rare. Though some observers downplay the significance of a few congressmen making such statements, and note they aren't unprecedented, others think these views could be spreading and receiving more traction as the Left gains power in America, and the administration puts itself firmly on the side of pushing for peace. While both groups agree it's too early in the session to jump to any broad conclusions, some already maintain that there is more space now for different perspectives on Israel, and more initiatives that aren't originating from the mainstream pro-Israel lobbies.

Already resolutions and letters to the administration have emphasized support for its peace and mediation efforts, most recently in a letter by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, calling on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to demonstrate her commitment to the peace process during her current trip to the region as events there "underscore the importance of tenacious American leadership and engagement, now and in the future."

More boldly, Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee, and represents heavily Jewish areas of New York's Long Island, issued a scathing critique of Israel at his first hearing of the session.

He declared that the situation in the region was "spiraling downward," and blamed both Israelis and Palestinians.

"The downward pressure comes from terrorism and the march of settlements and outposts, from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms … It comes from tunnels in Gaza and from digging in Jerusalem, as well. There is no moral equivalence between these acts, but they are part of the same destructive dynamic."

And he also alluded to seeming inconsistencies in Israel's own policies, particularly in Gaza. "Start with Hamas, a terrorist organization, an entity beyond the pale. They are the enemy, and no one can talk to them until they accept the Quartet's conditions of recognizing Israel, repudiating violence, and accepting the PLO's agreements with Israel," he said. "Except that for years, Israel has been talking to Hamas through Egypt, and directly to the Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails."

"I thought it was quite surprising that he went that far," one Jewish organizational official said of Ackerman's remarks. "That was very significant, because of who Ackerman is, and where his district is, and where he comes from. For someone like him, it requires real balls."

The official, who works for a left-wing organization and was therefore pleased by these developments, noted that it's too early to make any determination about where the new Congress is headed.

"But there are some indications so far that show there's a different atmosphere, that Congress is more willing to entertain perspectives that are more dovish," he said. "There's definitely a sense that there's an air of independence, and that people are more emboldened in their approach to this issue in general."

He explained that difference as stemming partly from groups like the self-described "pro-Israel, pro-peace" J Street, which started last year, making it clear that "AIPAC is not the only voice that's out there, that there are strong voices with different views."

But more important, he maintained, was that US President Barack Obama was squarely behind a peace deal. His early moves appointing George Mitchell as a Middle East envoy and reaching out to the Arab world "reverberated in the region, but it also reverberated on Capitol Hill," where members of Congress "feel more emboldened" to speak out on the issue.

ONE CAPITOL Hill staffer said having a new president with a new Middle East agenda made a difference in how members felt about engaging on the issue. But he added that a greater factor was Israel's own leadership - or lack thereof.

"It's not clear what Israel's policy is," he said, noting the unsettled state of its elections, but also its attitudes toward the Palestinians. He pointed to Israel's decision not to overthrow Hamas, yet also not willing to engage with it, as well as talking about a peace process at the same time that it says no deal is possible.

"There's a bit of a vacuum, which invites people to step into the vacuum," he said.

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi of The Israel Project, though, fingered the American political system. She pointed to gerrymandering which has increasingly made seats "safe" for Republicans or Democrats, meaning that the real fight for them takes place in the primaries, where party views are more extreme.

"You see that we have more of these very liberal members of Congress," she said. "You have people who are now in Congress who don't feel accountable to voters of a wider political spectrum, and that's bad for Israel, because support for Israel is much stronger among centrists and conservatives than among liberals."

At the same time, she said the latter were more likely to be swayed toward the Jewish state by the supportive messages for Israel coming from Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with whom they would identify politically.

She also said the current activity on Capitol Hill didn't represent a serious blow.

"As much as we might be upset about what two Congressmen say about the situation in Gaza," she said, "Israel will weather the storm."

And Morrie Amitay, a former executive director of AIPAC, who now heads his own pro-Israel political action committee, dismissed the activity altogether, saying there have always been members of Congress with different views.

"I don't see it as a new thing that there are some people in the Congress who are critical of Israel. And there have always been some in the American Jewish community who are part of what I call 'the blame Israel first crowd,'" he said. "It's a small minority, thankfully."

His bottom line: "I don't see any reason why support of Israel would diminish."

Doug Bloomfield, who once served as a legislative director of AIPAC, also thought that not much had happened - yet.

"Right now you're having a few people talking, but I don't see this as a big sea change," he said.

He added, though, that waves could be on the way, particularly as the US sees Israel moving to the Right at the same time that it itself is moving to the Left.

"There is a foundation there for a shift to a more activist peace policy," he said of Congress. "The foundation has already been laid by the administration."

---

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236269366086&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter


The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Unhelpful reprimand
Mar. 7, 2009
, THE JERUSALEM POST

During her visit here last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chided Israel for the Jerusalem Municipality's plans to demolish some 80 buildings illegally constructed by Arabs in east Jerusalem's Emek Hamelech.

Israel, according to Clinton, thereby violates "obligations entered into under the road map," proving itself "unhelpful" in furthering peace prospects.

But Clinton's comments during her first official foray into this region's diplomatic minefields were themselves unhelpful.

We're used to overseas critics of Israel championing, with little reflection, the Arab position. Yet since Clinton is new to her role, and represents Israel's most important ally, her every statement is scrutinized to divine what Israel can expect from the Obama administration.

What we heard, therefore, generated unease. The importance attached to Clinton's rebuke by outside diplomatic observers and the media makes it all the more unsettling.

We are concerned by the linkage she made between the road map and the operations of Jerusalem's municipal administration. If Israelis were to follow such a linkage to its logical conclusion, then any local authority here could at any time be accused of overstepping arbitrary bounds imposed by outside powers. This infringes on Israeli sovereignty at the most elementary level.

The Jerusalem Municipality, moreover, has acted with utmost care and in legally airtight fashion. It has, if anything, conducted this affair with greater circumspection, moderation, tolerance and restraint than would any American municipality given similar circumstances.

Not that the circumstances anywhere else can compare to those of Emek Hamelech (King's Valley or Silwan). This area, part of a First Temple royal enclave, perhaps King David's own, is of matchless historical significance and includes sites holy to all three monotheistic religions.

"Because of its importance to three billion people of faith around the world," observed a municipal spokesman, "Emek Hamelech is not intended for residential development but as an open public space. This position is concurrent with positions taken during the British Mandate and going back to Ottoman control of the area."

Residents of the unlawful buildings in question, continued the spokesman, had "turned to the District [Planning] Commission of the Interior Ministry, which rejected their petitions and did not [retroactively] approve the illegal construction of the buildings, due to the fact that the Emek Hamelech area is intended for public recreational use."

WHAT THE spokesman did not specify is that the area is a prime archeological site and that the illegal construction, according to the Israel Antiquities Authority, has already wrought considerable, often irreversible damage to some of the world's most unique biblical-era relics.

Paradoxically, Arab illegal construction in this particular area is recent and wouldn't have been possible without Israeli technological improvements. King's Valley was regularly flooded each winter, until the municipality devised means to drain it some 20 years ago. Since then, Arab squatters flocked to the reclaimed land and illegally constructed a variety of structures on what was earmarked as an archeological park.

There were 88 illegal buildings in all, of which seven were demolished over the years. Legal proceedings are under way to pull down the remaining structures.

Various advocacy groups appealed to the District Planning Commission. Their failure to secure retroactive approval for the land-seizure left the squatters legally vulnerable.

Thereupon, Hamas sympathizer Sheikh Raed Sallah of the Northern Branch Islamic Movement sounded the rallying cry and organized protests that culminated in an Arab general strike. As expected, this extremist garnered instant support abroad. We are, however, perturbed that even the American secretary of state has seen fit to amplify Sallah's incendiary propaganda.

It would have been better had she noted that of 28 court-ordered demolitions already implemented during 2009 in Jerusalem, 11 were in west Jerusalem. The municipality, furthermore, went out of its way to offer brazen offenders compensation and substitute holdings, as if their claim to the archeological site was bona fide.

Looking to the future, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat needs to honor his campaign promise to invest more city resources in Arab neighborhoods and make it easier for Arab residents to obtain necessary building permits.

Yet in the case of Emek Hamelech, Barkat is right to say that Clinton has been misled by Palestinian Arab "disinformation."

Title: Strangely Silent
Post by: rachelg on March 08, 2009, 12:03:09 PM

I have certainly been one of the chief defenders of President  Obama's relationship to Israel here so  it it would be inconsistent  not to criticize him when there  is cause. 

I am deeply disturbed by recent comments from the Hill especially some of Hillary Clinton's comments(clearly  a member of the Obama administration so he would bear the blame as well) Taking to Iran is useless.

I am not a fan of giving Hamas money  and I fully support  Shelley Berkley wanting to put conditions on the money
 
However  addressing your complaints about President  Obama giving the Palestinians money. Do you really think Senator  McCain would have watched the Palestinians starve to death on the front page on the NYT? It is a politically untenable situation.  The fact that it would  be better if we didn't hear about Palestinians is a different story.  No one deserves to starve to death but I would  put those who didn't provide so much  succor to mass murder higher  on the list to help. Gaza is a  million welfare victims who do  you think has been paying for them all along. I notice you specifically didn't mention Israeli aid is being doubled.  Do you really expect Obama to be to the right of Aipac and JPOST on Aid?


When the conversation is intelligent, respectful, and about ideas I actually really  enjoy arguing. I would have picked another site if I was  always  looking for agreement.  I think arguing about ideas gives them a strength that agreeing about ideas does not.  It does get exhausting though.  Thank you all for many intelligent conversations.
 
However, Lately  for a variety of reasons that  I am not interested in discussing further  every time I visit this forum I have a negative response. Every time I go to post all I seem capable of writing is snarky comments or a harangue. I deleted these kind of  comments before they were posted.  I'm sure you all  could handle my negatively but that is not the person I want to be.    Normally when I get upset I calm down eventually.  However it has been  over a month and I haven't calmed down. If and when  I feel capable of posting like a reasonable human being I will return.   I will be taking a vacation until then. I have a lot of reading  and other projects I want to catch up  on anyway.  This forum needs to enhance and not detract from the rest of my life. As Long as it is still being read  I will continue to post in in  The Power of the Word Thread.

I  do understand that I started   lot of these fights and I didn't mean to start fights I couldn't handle. I apologize for that and for any pain any  my comment caused to anyone.    I am not looking to stir up  trouble right now.  I am NOT fishing for compliments or looking to be persuaded. Usually reasoning with a crazy person doesn't work anyway. I had  originally planned on just doing a slow fade out but I am fan of closure. My Mother refers to this  place as the forum I can't leave so....

Best Wishes,
Rachel

Title: Re: Strangely Silent
Post by: G M on March 08, 2009, 01:48:53 PM

Quote from: Rachel on March 08, 2009, 12:03:09 PM

I have certainly been one of the chief defenders of President  Obama's relationship to Israel here so  it it would be inconsistent  not to criticize him when there  is cause. 

**Agreed.**

I am deeply disturbed by recent comments from the Hill especially some of Hillary Clinton's comments(clearly  a member of the Obama administration so he would bear the blame as well) Taking to Iran is useless.

**Yup.**

I am not a fan of giving Hamas money  and I fully support  Shelley Berkley wanting to put conditions on the money

**How about NO MONEY? Would you give money to fund a local KKK chapter, hoping it would moderate their hatred?**
 
However  addressing your complaints about President  Obama giving the Palestinians money. Do you really think Senator  McCain would have watched the Palestinians starve to death on the front page on the NYT?

**I gurantee that the "Palestinians" would not starve if we didn't so much as one cent.**

It is a politically untenable situation.  The fact that it would  be better if we didn't hear about Palestinians is a different story.  No one deserves to starve to death but I would  put those who didn't provide so much  succor to mass murder higher  on the list to help. Gaza is a  million welfare victims who do  you think has been paying for them all along. I notice you specifically didn't mention Israeli aid is being doubled.  Do you really expect Obama to be to the right of Aipac and JPOST on Aid?


**I expect Obama to look out for our (America's) best interests. Funding HAMAS isn't part of that.**

When the conversation is intelligent, respectful, and about ideas I actually really  enjoy arguing. I would have picked another site if I was  always  looking for agreement.  I think arguing about ideas gives them a strength that agreeing about ideas does not.  It does get exhausting though.  Thank you all for many intelligent conversations.
 
However, Lately  for a variety of reasons that  I am not interested in discussing further  every time I visit this forum I have a negative response. Every time I go to post all I seem capable of writing is snarky comments or a harangue. I deleted these kind of  comments before they were posted.  I'm sure you all  could handle my negatively but that is not the person I want to be.    Normally when I get upset I calm down eventually.  However it has been  over a month and I haven't calmed down. If and when  I feel capable of posting like a reasonable human being I will return.   I will be taking a vacation until then. I have a lot of reading  and other projects I want to catch up  on anyway.  This forum needs to enhance and not detract from the rest of my life. As Long as it is still being read  I will continue to post in in  The Power of the Word Thread.

I  do understand that I started   lot of these fights and I didn't mean to start fights I couldn't handle. I apologize for that and for any pain any  my comment caused to anyone.    I am not looking to stir up  trouble right now.  I am NOT fishing for compliments or looking to be persuaded. Usually reasoning with a crazy person doesn't work anyway. I had  originally planned on just doing a slow fade out but I am fan of closure. My Mother refers to this  place as the forum I can't leave so....

Best Wishes,
Rachel

**I look forward to your return when you are ready.**

Title: Why Israel can't negotiate peace
Post by: G M on March 08, 2009, 02:08:48 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2009/03/025130print.html

March 6, 2009

Egyptian cleric: The Jews "are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing."

They keep telling us that it isn't about "stolen land," and that land concessions and even the creation of a Palestinian state will not end the conflict. And we keep refusing to believe it.

"Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub: The Jews Are the Enemies of Muslims Regardless of the Occupation of Palestine," from MEMRI TV, January 17 (just posted), with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on January 17, 2009.
Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub: If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels – not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said: “The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are.” It is Allah who said that they are infidels.

That's Qur'an 9:30.

Your belief regarding the Jews should be, first, that they are infidels, and second, that they are enemies. They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing. Allah said: “You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the disbelievers [sic] to be the Jews and the polytheists.”
Qur'an 5:82.

Third, you must believe that the Jews will never stop fighting and killing us. They [fight] not for the sake of land and security, as they claim, but for the sake of their religion: “And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back you’re your religion, if they can.”
Qur'an 2:217.

This is it. We must believe that our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end until the final battle – and this is the fourth point. You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.
It is not me who says so. The Prophet said: “Judgment Day will not come until you fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and tree will call: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews.” I have heard that they are planting many of these trees now. [...]

That Hadith can be found at Sahih Muslim 6985.

As for you Jews – the curse of Allah upon you. The curse of Allah upon you, whose ancestors were apes and pigs.
That's Qur'an 2:62-65; 5:59-60; and 7:166.

You Jews have sown hatred in our hearts, and we have bequeathed it to our children and grandchildren. You will not survive as long as a single one of us remains.
[...]

Oh Jews, may the curse of Allah be upon you. Oh Jews... Oh Allah, bring Your wrath, punishment, and torment down upon them. Allah, we pray that you transform them again, and make the Muslims rejoice again in seeing them as apes and pigs. You pigs of the earth! You pigs of the earth! You kill the Muslims with that cold pig [blood] of yours.

And now the learned analysts will turn to one another and repeat once again that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with theology, nothing to do with Islam.

Title: NY Slimes slimes Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2009, 05:52:50 AM

Well, the NY Slimes is at it as usual, particularly virulent form this time.  Poor Israel.

====================

JERUSALEM — Israel, whose founding idea was branded as racism by the United Nations General Assembly in 1975 and which faced an Arab boycott for decades, is no stranger to isolation. But in the weeks since its Gaza war, and as it prepares to inaugurate a hawkish right-wing government, it is facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades.

Examples abound. Its sports teams have met hostility and violent protests in Sweden, Spain and Turkey. Mauritania has closed Israel’s embassy.

Relations with Turkey, an important Muslim ally, have suffered severely. A group of top international judges and human rights investigators recently called for an inquiry into Israel’s actions in Gaza. “Israel Apartheid Week” drew participants in 54 cities around the world this month, twice the number of last year, according to its organizers. And even in the American Jewish community, albeit in its liberal wing, there is a chill.

The issue has not gone unnoticed here, but it has generated two distinct and somewhat contradictory reactions. On one hand, there is real concern. Global opinion surveys are being closely examined and the Foreign Ministry has been granted an extra $2 million to improve Israel’s image through cultural and information diplomacy.

“We will send well-known novelists and writers overseas, theater companies, exhibits,” said Arye Mekel, the ministry’s deputy director general for cultural affairs. “This way you show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.”

But there is also a growing sense that outsiders do not understand Israel’s predicament, so criticism is dismissed.

“People here feel that no matter what you do you are going to be blamed for all the problems in the Middle East,” said Eytan Gilboa, a professor of politics and international communication at Bar Ilan University. “Even suicide bombings by Palestinians are seen as our fault for not establishing a Palestinian state.”

Of course, for Israel’s critics, including those who firmly support the existence of a Jewish state, the problem is not one of image but of policy. They point to four decades of occupation, the settling of half a million Israeli Jews on land captured in 1967, the economic strangling of Gaza for the past few years and the society’s growing indifference toward the creation of a Palestinian state as reasons Israel has lost favor abroad, and they say that no amount of image buffing will change that.

Israel’s use of enormous force in the Gaza war in January crystallized much of this criticism.

The issue of a Palestinian state is central to Israel’s reputation abroad, because so many governments and international organizations favor its establishment in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. And while the departing government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert negotiated for such a state, the incoming one of Benjamin Netanyahu says that item is not on its immediate agenda.

Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the European Union, said in Brussels on Monday that the group would reconsider its relationship with Israel if it did not remain committed to establishing a Palestinian state.

Moreover, Mr. Netanyahu is expected to appoint Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, as his foreign minister. This alone has Israelis and their allies in Europe and the United States worried because of Mr. Lieberman’s views of Israeli Arabs that some have called racist.

Mr. Lieberman had campaigned on the need for a loyalty oath in Israel so that those who did not support a Jewish democratic state would lose their citizenship. One-fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs, and many do not support defining the state as Jewish.

Mr. Lieberman also has few fans in Egypt, which has acted as an intermediary for Israel in several matters. Some months ago Mr. Lieberman complained that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had not agreed to come to Israel. “If he doesn’t want to, he can go to hell,” he added.

“Imagine that Hossein Mousavi wins the Iranian presidency this spring and he names Mohammad Khatami as his foreign minister,” said Meir Javedanfar, an Iran analyst in Israel, referring to two Iranian leaders widely viewed as in the pragmatist camp. “With Lieberman as foreign minister here, Israel will have a much harder time demonstrating to the world that Iran is the destabilizing factor in the region.”

Of course, all of this is being seen in the context of a new, Democratic administration in the United States that has announced a desire to press for a two-state solution. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has already criticized Israeli plans to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, and her department has criticized Israel’s banning of certain goods from Gaza.

This represents a distinct shift in tone from the Bush era. An internal Israeli Foreign Ministry report during the Gaza war noted that compared with others in the United States, “liberals and Democrats show far less enthusiasm for Israel and its leadership.”

The gap between Israelis and many liberal American Jews could be seen Tuesday in a blog by Bradley Burston, who writes on the Web site of the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz. He said that while visiting Los Angeles he faced many questions that amounted to “What is wrong with these people, your friends, the Israelis?”

He quoted an article by Anne Roiphe, an American Jewish liberal, which said that witnessing the popularity of Mr. Lieberman in Israel made her feel “as if my spouse had cheated on me with Mussolini.”

She added: “We here in America are waiting as of this writing for a government to emerge in Jerusalem, and most of us keep on hoping that its shape will not preclude the peace process, will not doom a two-state solution, will not destroy the hope that our new president brings to the table.”

Mr. Burston pointed to the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into Sderot and other Israeli cities and towns and titled his piece “The Racist Israeli Fascist in Me.”

Some Israeli officials say they believe that what the country needs is to “rebrand” itself. They say Israel spends far too much time defending actions against its enemies. By doing so, they say, the narrative is always about conflict.

“When we show Sderot, others also see Gaza,” said Ido Aharoni, manager of a rebranding team at the Foreign Ministry. “Everything is twinned when seen through the conflict. The country needs to position itself as an attractive personality, to make outsiders see it in all its reality. Instead, we are focusing on crisis management. And that is never going to get us where we need to go over the long term.”

Mr. Gilboa, the political scientist, said branding was not enough.

“We need to do much more to educate the world about our situation,” he said. Regarding the extra $2 million budgeted for this, he said: “We need 50 million. We need 100 million.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 19, 2009, 08:17:22 AM

Yes I saw this.
The article suggests that if only Israel would agree to a two state solution the problems would all go away.
OVer decades Israel has agreed to this in principal and only asked for a guarantee of its existence in return.
They have never been able to secure one from the Palestinians.

Did you FareeK Zakaria last weekend?  With his guest discussing the Israeli lobby, conspiracy, the radical right Jews who are controlling the US foreign policy?
Ot his later guests, one Indian who worked in the past for the UN, one from Pakistan and another Muslim and the one Jew from the NYT?  They all smuggly downed past US policy as creating all the ills in the Muslim world and agreed that wwe must work with Iran which is positioning itself the regional power in the Middle East.  While the Jewish guy from the times was all for blaming W for everything wrong in the middle east he at the end did wrap up the talk with we should not give in to Iran who is a thirld world country is not any kind of power in the Middle East.  The smug grins all disappeared off Fareed and his other Israel hating guests.

Title: NYT: Accounts disputed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2009, 05:32:44 AM

JERUSALEM — Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, asserting that an overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it.

Officers are stepping forward, some at the urging of the top command, others on their own, offering numerous accounts of having held their fire out of concern for civilians, helping Palestinians in need and punishing improper soldier behavior.

“I’m not saying that nothing bad happened,” Bentzi Gruber, a colonel in the reserves and deputy commander of the armored division, said in an interview. “I heard about cases where people shot where they shouldn’t have shot and destroyed houses where they shouldn’t have destroyed houses. But the proportion and effort and directions we gave to our soldiers were entirely in the opposite direction.”

The accusations caused a furor here and abroad because they came on top of others that the civilian death toll was high and that soldiers took an unusually aggressive approach in Gaza.

The accounts that have received the most attention came from a taped conversation of Gaza veterans at a pre-military course. The soldiers there told of a sniper killing a woman and her two children walking in a no-go zone and of another case in which an elderly woman was shot dead for approaching a commandeered house.

The army’s advocate general has opened an investigation and has not yet issued a report. But officers familiar with the investigation say that those who spoke of the killing of the mother and her children did not witness it and that it almost certainly did not occur. Warning shots were fired near the family but not at it, the officers said, and a rumor spread among the troops of an improper shooting.

The second killing may also not have occurred, they said, although a similar event was recounted by Col. Herzl Halevy in January in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot.

“We saw a woman coming toward us,” he said then. “We shouted at her. We warned her a number of times not to get closer. We made hand motions. She did not stop. We shot her. When we examined her body, we did not find a bomb belt.”

Israeli commanders defend such actions because they say they confronted armed women in Gaza and Hamas gunmen dressed as women and in other guises, like doctors.

“We had a woman run at us with a grenade in one hand and the Koran in the other,” Brig. Gen. Eli Shermeister, head of the military’s education corps, said in an interview in which he showed ethics kits distributed to commanders. “What we know till now is that there was no systematic moral failure. There were not more than a few — a very few — events still being investigated.”

Col. Roi Elkabets, commander of an armored brigade, told of occasions when fire was held. His troops saw “a woman, about 60 years old, walking with a white flag and six to eight children behind her, and behind them was a Hamas fighter with his gun.

“We did not shoot him.”

Almost everything about the Gaza operation has caused controversy: how many Palestinians were killed and what percentage were civilians, whether the rise in the number of religious Israeli soldiers has led to zealotry, and whether the use of enormous military force was a legitimate response to years of Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

The dispute is a proxy for a debate — both here and abroad — over whether Israel should shift its policy toward the Palestinians and whether Hamas should be seen more as a resistance movement or as a tool of Iranian ambition and terror.

Those who wish to press for an end to the occupation and settlement of the West Bank and to the boycott of Gaza so as to create a Palestinian state — either out of sympathy with Israel or contempt for it — have focused on the accounts of abuses. Those who think such moves would endanger Israel have dismissed them as a blood libel.

The debate began within hours of Israel’s attack in late December and continues daily. This week, Human Rights Watch issued a report citing six cases of improper use of white phosphorus by Israel and calling them evidence of war crimes. Israel has not completed its own study.

On Thursday, the military issued its first casualty count, saying 1,166 people were killed. Of those, it said 295 were noncombatants, 709 were what it called Hamas terror operatives and 162 were men whose affiliations remained unidentified.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza says that the number of dead is 1,417, of whom 926 were civilians and 236 combatants.

Both the military and the center have lists of names. The Israelis include some 250 policemen under “Hamas terror operatives.” The Palestinian center considers them noncombatants. The Israeli military argues that about 400 people die from natural causes in Gaza every month, a possible cause for the gap in the two counts.

Some soldiers have complained about the role of military rabbis and religious soldiers, saying that they have taken to their roles with the fervor of holy warriors, leading to more violence.

Stuart Cohen, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University who is religiously observant, says that the army has indeed grown more violent toward civilians in the past 25 years, partly because the Palestinians have. But he says it has nothing to do with the increase of religious soldiers.

For 12 years he has been studying the correspondence between religious soldiers and rabbis on combat morality, and overwhelmingly the rabbis have urged restraint. While he cannot measure how that advice has been put into practice, he suspects it has had a real effect. And other religious soldiers said their behavior in Gaza was especially respectful.

“When we entered houses, we actually cleaned up the place,” said Yishai Goldflam, 32, a religiously observant film student in Jerusalem whose open letter to the Palestinian owners of the house he occupied for some days was published in the newspaper Maariv. “There are always idiots who do immoral things. But they don’t represent the majority. I remember once when a soldier wanted to take a Coke from a store, and he was stopped by his fellow soldiers because it was the wrong thing to do.”

Yaron Ezrahi, a political theorist who lectures military commanders, said they rejected the notion of willful abuse by their troops. But the commanders say more civilians died than should have and attribute it to two factors: faulty intelligence that led to attacking the wrong houses, and a failure, after warning Palestinians to leave, to provide safe escape routes.

Israel lost only a handful of men and almost no equipment, which many attribute to its overwhelming use of force.

But the top commanders say their consciences are clean.

“The question is, did we do all we could do to avoid hitting civilians?” said General Shermeister, the chief education officer. “My answer is yes.”

Title: Editor's Notes: Defamed and deaf to it
Post by: rachelg on March 28, 2009, 05:57:58 AM

This is very similar to the NYT  article Marc  just posted but  provides some more information.



Editor's Notes: Defamed and deaf to it
Mar. 26, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

In a few days' time, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is scheduled to convene a meeting dedicated to the issue of exports to Britain from the West Bank.

Specifically, it is understood, British supermarkets are being pressed by critics of Israeli settlement policy to initiate a new labelling practice, whereby goods from Palestinian and Israeli producers are respectively marked as such, so that British consumers will know whether they are buying Israeli or Palestinian products.

Pro-Israel activists in the UK believe they stand a good chance of heading off this initiative. As of this writing, it does not appear likely that a representative from or supporting Israel will be present at the meeting, but lines of communication are open, and a strong argument has been formulated that such a practice as regards exports from disputed territories would be uniquely unfair and discriminatory.

If, however, the argument fails to prevail, this seemingly marginal initiative could yield far wider, indeed critical, repercussions.

For a start, pro-Israel activists in the UK and Europe believe that supermarket chains, with their attention firmly focused on profit margins, would likely be disinclined to enter the complex and costly minefield of separating "Palestinian" exports from "settler" exports, and might well decide just to purchase their goods somewhere else altogether.

Furthermore, the activists worry, the assiduous Israel-bashers who relentlessly press for academic and journalistic boycotts, who recently sought (and failed) to prevent seven Israeli university lecturers from giving talks to high school students at two British science museums, and who are now targeting settlement exports, will not stop at the Green Line. They will, rather, move on to seek a South African-style ban on all Israeli exports.

What begins in the UK, the activists with whom I spoke this week further noted, could quickly spread to Europe - where, incidentally, there have already been some extremist-organized consumer protests against the sale of Israeli products, and where Sweden will soon be succeeding the notably more sympathetic-to-Israel Czech Republic as president of the European Union.

The notion that the tried and true methods of anti-apartheid trade protest could be widely adopted against Israel in Britain and then Europe may seem unthinkable to some. But it is not unthinkable to those who are internalizing the degree to which Israel is being demonized and delegitimized post-Operation Cast Lead, and the extent to which this process makes defending Israel uncomfortable even for those on that continent who do have the rare capacity to distinguish between legitimate criticism and distortion, manipulation and outright falsehood.

Put simply, Israel has rarely looked this bad in European eyes.

CLAIMS FROM august-sounding UN bodies that Israel was guilty of war crimes in Gaza have been reported with immense resonance overseas. New allegations that Israel deliberately killed civilians (as detailed by Israel itself, in the shape of the head of a pre-army military academy), that it targeted medical personnel and that it illegally used children as human shields are making the front pages of many influential newspapers and feature high on TV news lists too.

Reports that Israeli soldiers designed "humorous" T-shirts, featuring slogans such as "The smaller they are, the harder it is" (accompanying a drawing of a Palestinian child in IDF gun sights) and "1 shot, 2 kills" (under a similarly framed sketch of a pregnant Palestinian woman), have been widely circulated, and set tellingly against Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi's insistence that ours is "a moral and ideological army."

And all such claims are detailed in the wider context of the massive civilian death toll in Gaza - "an estimated 1,400 Palestinians dead, most of them believed to be civilians," as the relatively pro-Israel London Times put it in its atrocities and T-shirts story this week, basing itself on Gaza's Hamas government figures.

Good faith consumers of news take such reports at face value. Why wouldn't they?

They don't know that Israel fiercely disputes the Hamas-fuelled assertion that most of the Gaza dead were civilians, with the IDF formally stating on Thursday that the "vast majority" of Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead had been found to be "terror operatives" - a total of 1,166 dead, of whom 709 had firm terrorist identifications, 295 were noncombatants and 162 men who had yet to be classified.

They don't know that Israel credibly argues that several key UN bodies and personnel highlighting Israeli atrocity allegations have a dismal track record of anti-Israel bias.

They don't know that even the patchy information released by the IDF makes plain that many of those "medical personnel" mourned as victims by the Gaza authorities and the disseminators of their narrative were actually Hamas gunmen.

They don't know that the reprehensible "humorous" T-shirts are not a widespread phenomenon.

They don't know that the head of the pre-IDF academy who compiled the targeting-the-innocent allegations went to jail for refusing to serve in the West Bank, that key soldiers involved now say they were discussing "rumors" and have no direct evidence of any such crimes, and that the central terrible charges of "cold-blooded" killing have been refuted after investigation by the relevant unit's brigade commander.

(As The Jerusalem Post was told by the IDF on Thursday, "In the [central] incident of the alleged shooting of the mother and her children, what really happened was that a marksman fired a warning shot to let them know that they were entering a no-entry zone. The shot was not even fired in their general direction... The marksman's commander ran up the stairs of a Palestinian home, got up on the roof, and asked the marksman why he shot at the civilians. The marksman said he did not fire on the civilians. But the soldiers on the first floor of that house heard the commander's question being shouted. And from that point, the rumor began to spread. We can say with absolute certainty that the marksman did not fire on the woman and her children... We know with certainty that this incident never took place.")

Many Diaspora Jews don't know much of this either. I was approached on several occasions in recent days by friends and acquaintances, anxiety etched into their features, asking me to help them distinguish between legitimate concerns that merit serious investigation and outrageous misrepresentations about what had happened in Gaza. "Why were so many Gaza civilians killed?" I've been asked a few times. "And what about those reports of deliberate attacks on civilians? It's Israelis themselves who are saying it."

I'm only glad that these people asked me.

Others, I'm sure, have peeled off in one of four directions: to join the chorus of under-informed or ill-motivated criticism, to silent noninvolvement, to a perceptive if uncertain sense that Israel is being defamed, or to a misguided I-don't-want-to-know because Israel-can-do-no-wrong mindset that precludes necessary discussion.

IN THE current toxic climate, there is little likelihood of Israeli generals being enabled to travel to parts of Europe in the near future safe from the risk of arrest and indictment for war crimes. There is every prospect of new and intensified boycott efforts.

And as our new, Right-led government takes office, the campaign of demonization will only gather force.

The confused results of the Israeli election showed a nation that, on the one hand, has long since internalized the need for an accommodation with the Palestinians but, on the other, saw scant possibility of achieving it on terms that don't threaten our ability to live here in elementary safety.

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's acknowledgement, with the cameras running, at the March 15 cabinet meeting that the failure to reach an agreement was "first and foremost the result of the Palestinian leaders' weakness, lack of will and lack of courage," merely confirmed what a consensus of his countryfolk had already sadly concluded.

But the fact that the most flexible Israeli government to date, insistently dedicated to seeking an accommodation, failed to prod its Palestinian interlocutors into accepting viable terms for coexistence has not resonated with remotely comparable impact to the various atrocity allegations. The argument that Israel tried, again, under Olmert, to build a sustainable two-state partnership, and that it failed, again, because even the relatively moderate Mahmoud Abbas would not meet him halfway, is all but inaudible outside resolutely pro-Israel frameworks.

Thus the electoral swing to the right is incomprehensible to some, and for others is ostensible proof of Israel's implacable, despicable refusal to liberate the Palestinians - proof, that is, of our obdurate opposition to peace.

The daily drip-feed of war crime claims reinforces this train of thought. The demolition of Palestinian homes and the disinclination to respect Supreme Court demands for the demolition of Jewish homes on private Palestinian land in parts of the West Bank adds further fuel to the fire. So, too, film of the far-Right marching in Umm el-Fahm. Loyalty oathman Avigdor Lieberman, getting ready to succeed gentle Tzipi Livni at the Foreign Ministry, is emblematic of our ostensible irredeemability.

Staunching the tide of delegitimization is a strategic imperative - an arduous battle that, first and foremost, requires the internalization here at home of what is happening to our standing abroad. Abysmally, while our political leadership is preoccupied with coalition-building (or more accurately with reconciling the conflicting narrow interests of egotistical would-be ministers) and a sensationalist, sometimes politically motivated media often exacerbates the problem, there is no sign at all that any such realization has dawned.

LABOR'S DISPUTED, Ehud Barak-led decision to bring stability and political width to the Netanyahu coalition will easily be dismissed by some of Israel's continental critics as meaningless. Labor, it will be claimed - indeed, as the party's own defeated minority does claim - is nothing but a fig-leaf, its leaders clinging desperately to power, betraying their voters, empowering the political enemy.

Netanyahu's genuine and desperate pursuit of some kind of "unity" partnership belies this. So, too, does the deliberately more dovish tone that the Likud leader set both during the election campaign and after its cloudy conclusion.

Where the Netanyahu-Barak partnership can emphatically stage a rhetorical defense against the swelling depiction of apartheid Israel, however, is in a reiteration of the vision of Israel contained in our Declaration of Independence and fundamental to our very establishment here as a Jewish state.

The international community brought Israel back to life 62 years ago as one of the two entities into which it was partitioning the former British mandate territory of Palestine. Israel's nascent leadership, though deeply unhappy with the contours of that proposed division, chose to accept it. Those who spoke for the Palestinians did not, and set about what they fondly and incorrectly imagined would be the rapid destruction of the new Israel.

"We extend out our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace," we declared in our founding statement. Our new government should make this plain again today. Netanyahu has said he seeks peace with the Palestinians. He has said he has no desire to rule over a single Palestinian. He has also said that Israel cannot countenance statehood for the Palestinians so long as there is every danger that their leadership would abuse the freedoms of their sovereignty to bring an end to ours.

But there is no contradiction between those positions and a ringing reendorsement of the principle of a two-state solution. Israel needs to separate from the Palestinians if we are to remain at once a majority Jewish state and a democratic one. That goal should be advanced by any and every government, and restated at any and every opportunity.

It will not persuade those who are resolutely deaf to the fundamentals of our reality. It will constitute nothing revolutionary for those who truly know and understand us. But it will have an impact on those many good-faith consumers of information from our region who currently don't know who or what to believe and who are being encouraged, day after day, by those whose real interest is not to "end the occupation" but to end Israel, to believe the very worst.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727553147&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: Who is Ben Nitay, and why does he look so much like Binyamin Netanyahu?
Post by: rachelg on March 29, 2009, 08:48:56 AM

(This video  has a really excellent explanation of the cause of the Middle East Conflict by a 28 year old Binyamin Netanyahu  before he became a politician.)

Who is Ben Nitay, and why does he look so much like Binyamin Netanyahu?
Mar. 29, 2009
mel bezalel , THE JERUSALEM POST

A familiar figure features in a YouTube video currently circulating the Web. It's a 28-year-old economic consultant whose appearance, expression and political opinions match Likud chief Binyamin Netanyahu's in every way. The only difference is the name: Benjamin Nitay.

The 10-minute clip, filmed in 1978 as part of a local Boston TV debate show called The Advocate, presents the future PM as a "witness" as to whether the United States should support the creation of a Palestinian state.

PRESS PLAY TO VIEW YOUTUBE VIDEO
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCRyG8Euibc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejpost%2Ecom%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fcid%3D1237727563489%26pagename%3DJPost%252FJPArticle%252FPrinter&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCRyG8Euibc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejpost%2Ecom%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fcid%3D1237727563489%26pagename%3DJPost%252FJPArticle%252FPrinter&feature=player_embedded



Netanyahu applied to have his name changed to "Ben Nitay" in the 1970s while living in America. His historian father, Benzion, occasionally wrote using the alias "Nitay," and Binyamin Netanyahu adopted the name because Americans found it easier to pronounce.

During a heated leadership debate with Shimon Peres in the run-up to the 1996 election, Netanyahu was asked whether his application to change his name meant he had wished to stay in America.

"Not for a single moment," Netanyahu replied. "I come from a Jewish, Zionist family, with roots here for 100 years."

Netanyahu studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, both in the Boston area, and worked at the Boston Consulting Group, an international business consulting firm, during the show's filming.

In the show, he is called as a "first witness" in the mock court case scenario that the TV program employed. He is introduced as "a graduate of MIT, an Israeli and a man who has written widely on the question [of a Palestinian state]."

Asked whether the issue of self-determination is at the heart of the Middle East conflict, Netanyahu replied, "No, I don't believe it is. The real core of the conflict is the unfortunate Arab refusal to accept the State of Israel... For 20 years the Arabs had both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and if self-determination, as they now say, is the core of the conflict, they could have easily established a Palestinian state, but they didn't... What we're talking about here is not the attempt to build the state but to destroy one.

"Nobody wants peace more than Israel," he said.

"But the stumbling block to the road for peace is this demand for a PLO state which will mean more war... more violence in the Middle East, and I sincerely believe that if this demand is abandoned, we can have real and genuine peace."

After being quizzed by members of the studio audience, Netanyahu concluded: "I think the US should oppose the creation of a Palestinian state for several reasons, the first being that it is unjust to demand the creation of a 22nd Arab state and a second Palestinian state at the expense of the only Jewish state... I believe we should fight for our survival. If I have to, I will fight again, but I hope not to."

The responses on YouTube to the video are mixed.

A forum member who identifies himself as "Scarletwool" said, "Wow! The next prime minister of Israel at age 28. And you know he still feels the same way about every topic that was mentioned at this forum. Very good video! Thanks!"

"Authenticinsight" commented, "Back before Netanyahu became a politician, he was an honest man. Hopefully Bibi remains honest in this new government."

A Netanyahu staff member said they were forwarded the clip dozens of times and that Netanyahu himself saw it.

"I felt kind of embarrassed to see how young I looked," Netanyahu said.

Gil Hoffman contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727563489&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Wafaa Younis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2009, 04:16:35 AM

Posted: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:05 AM
Filed Under: Tel Aviv, Israel
By Martin Fletcher, NBC News Correspondent

TEL AVIV – Wafaa Younis is a woman whose heart is in the right place;
she is an Israeli Arab who has made a real effort to help Palestinian
children in the Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank.
She started with the boys; she wanted them to put down their stones and
learn the violin, in the hope that they would not grow up and pick up a
gun. I first met her three years ago when she finally persuaded the
Israelis to allow the Palestinian children to leave the West Bank and go
to her home in the Israeli town of Ara for violin lessons.


Tara Todras-Whitehall / AP file
Palestinian children from the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank play a
concert for Holocaust survivors in Holon, Israel on March 25.


She even took them on trips to the coast; even though they grew up 30
miles from the Mediterranean, they had never seen the sea. Her first
attempts to teach a few boys the violin grew into a small orchestra of
boys and girls. She even rented an apartment in Jenin so that she could
teach them there, because it was easier for her to cross into the West
Bank than it was for them to leave.

Then Younis had an idea; as part of Israel’s annual Good Deeds Week, she
would arrange a little concert in Holon, near Tel Aviv. Her young
musicians from the "Strings of Freedom" orchestra would entertain
Holocaust survivors. They would play their favorite classics, and also
some songs of peace; a way to bridge the divide between Palestinians and
Israelis.

Too volatile an issue
At the concert last Wednesday, the group of 13 young musicians from
Jenin played for about 30 Holocaust survivors and they even dedicated
one song to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who has been held prisoner
by Hamas in Gaza for three years.

Younis is not the first person to make such an effort – there are
literally hundreds of peace groups that have the same aim – bringing
together Arabs and Jews with similar interests and hopes.


Tara Todras-whitehall / AP file
Holocaust survivors listen as Palestinian children from the Jenin
refugee camp in the West Bank play music in Holon, Israel on March 25.


But playing for the Holocaust survivors turned out to be bridge too far.
Adnan Hindi, a Palestinian political leader in Jenin, was outraged by
the concert. He called the Holocaust a political issue and said that the
Palestinian children had been tricked.

He complained that Younis had not told the children they would be
playing before such a politically sensitive audience. She answered that
she tried to explain to them, but that they made too much noise on the
bus and didn't hear her. Other Palestinians said that was a bit late to
tell them.

Younis said she didn't realize anybody could possibly object to playing
a concert for those "poor old people" – and anyway, most of the
Palestinian children had never heard of the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is a particularly sensitive subject for Palestinians.
There is widespread ignorance of the details of the atrocities committed
by the Nazis against Jews during World War II and there is a sense among
many Palestinians that why should they care about Jewish suffering more
than 60 years ago when Israelis don’t seem to care about the suffering
they are causing Palestinians today.

No good deed goes unpunished
Younis is an Israeli Arab who tried to do a bit of good. For her pains,
her apartment in Jenin has been boarded up and she is not allowed into
the town anymore. Her orchestra has been disbanded. She said the
Palestinian officials just want to take the money that she had raised
for the children's orchestra.

I know Younis. After I met her several years ago she called me for
months, asking for donations, for a contribution for a new violin, or
even an old one, just so that she could teach music to her Palestinian
students.

She wanted to introduce a bit of light into their lives and direct them
toward the violin bow, and away from the gun. She had many ideas to help
people, and she possessed in abundance that peculiar combination of
strength and naiveté that mark people who, against great odds, achieve
great things.

Today she didn't answer her phone.

Title: Arab MK calls for nuclear Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2009, 04:20:52 AM

second post

New Israeli Arab Parliamentarian Calls For Nuclear Iran

By David Bedein & Samuel Sokol, Middle East Correspondents
Monday, March 30, 2009
Jerusalem — Hanin Zoabi is the first woman to be elected to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, as a representative of an Arab party. Ms. Zoabi, former director of the I’lam: Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel, is a feminist and strong secularist.   She is now one of three representatives of the Balad (National Democratic Assembly) Party.

On one of her first days in the Knesset, the new parliamentarian asked for her thoughts regarding increased Iranian influence in Gaza. Ms. Zoabi replied that she welcomed it.

She said, “If this influence is supporting me, so I will not mind this influence. Even, I would ask for this influence ... The question is not whether there is an influence or not, the question whether this influence is supporting you, can support your demands or can go against your demands.”

Queried regarding Iran’s quest to manufacture nuclear weapons, she stated was that “It would [sic] be more supporting me to have a counter-power to Israel” and “I need something to balance its [Israel’s] power.”


She also spoke of Egypt and Jordan as being a threat to the Arabs of the Gaza Strip, intimating that they are scared of a free and democratic Palestinian state.

Ms. Zoabi was then asked if she felt worried due to the fact that Iran is getting close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and because she lives in close proximity to Jews. She replied, “No, I am not, I’m afraid from the nuclear Iran, I am more afraid from the Israeli nuclear [weapons].”

Israel does not officially admit to being a nuclear power, yet it is generally accepted that it has been a nuclear power since the 1960s.

When asked if she thought that Iran would use nuclear weapons, she deliberately misunderstood and replied, “The Israelis? I think yes. And I am afraid from real risk rather than from potential risk.” She said that everyone is asking about potential risk while “Every day the Israeli uses its violence, army violence.”

“The Iranian is a potential … but the real risk is the Israeli army.”

Ms. Zoabi said that Israel was an aggressor state, and that only a situation similar to that which existed between the Soviet Union and United States in the form of the doctrine of “Mutually Ensured Destruction” would restrain Israel.

“It’s the balance of power. This is the only idea. Our only idea that it is more dangerous to the world, more dangerous to everyone, more dangerous to the Palestinians, to Israelis to have Israel as the only powerful state. I need something to balance its power because this balance of power will restrict the Israeli using of power. The Israeli violence of the army is an outcome of the Israel’s convenient feeling that no one will restrict her, that no Arab country will really declare a war against [Israel].”

She continued by saying “and another thing … I need a power which can make contrast to the Israeli power and it’s not for myself. It is not supporting me the fact that Israel would be the only state with a nuclear weapon. It’s more supporting me to have counter power to Israel.”

“I believe that [Israel] would respect its use of power if she’s afraid from others. The fact that she is not afraid from Arab countries, the fact that she is not afraid from a potential  declaration of our Arab world to declare war against Israel, makes Israel more violent. You understand me. Sometimes I need power not in order to implement this power but in order to respect the other’s power. “

She was then asked if an Iranian bomb would lead to a nervous America and thus more U.S. pressure on Israel and if that would be good for her she replied “Exactly.”

Asked about Israel as a Jewish state, Ms. Zoabi declared that the very concept of a Jewish state is “inherently racist,” saying that Israel must be turned into a “state of all its citizens,” which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature.

The Knesset Central Elections Committee disqualified the Balad party from running in the recent elections due to its members’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and reported calls for violence against it.  The party was allowed to run when the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Elections Committee.

Party chairman Dr. Jamal Zahalka responded to MK Zoabi’s comments by saying “I think Ms. Zoabi tried to explain some analysis that’s what’s better if you have, but this is not a position it’s an analysis [of] what would be safer for the region, if there is a balance… this is not supporting a nuclear weapon in Iran.”

David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us

Title: Israel to Attack Iran?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 03, 2009, 03:13:55 PM

Friday, April 03, 2009

The Coming Israeli Attack on Iran   [Michael Ledeen]
Richard Beeston, of the London Times, is old enough to remember what happened back in 1981, when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. First, an Israeli went around to all the allied countries, warning that somebody had better do something soon. Nobody did. So the Israelis did it by themselves.

Beeston retells that story in the process of warning us that the Israelis have been doing the same thing of late, this time with regard to the Iranian nuclear project. He thinks that the new Israeli government has at least three men who are experienced in dangerous operations. He notes that Israel just attacked an Iranian convoy in Sudan that was headed for Gaza, and the Israeli planes had to fly farther than is required to attack the nuclear facility in Natanz. He concludes by saying that Israel won't attack without at least "tacit American approval," but warns that time is running out.

I can add another piece to his jigsaw puzzle. At the time of the attack on the Iraqi facility, I was Special Adviser to the Secretary of State (the same title that Dennis Ross holds today), and it was quite clear that nobody in the U.S. Government knew that attack was coming. Menachem Begin didn't ask for permission, and while there were some top Americans who were irked that they hadn't received advance warning, I didn't hear anybody say that the Israelis needed our approval, tacit or explicit.

If the Israelis think that Iran is likely to nuke them, I can't imagine why they would feel constrained by American wishes. Good relations aren't a suicide pact, after all. I doubt that the Israelis will ask any such question, in keeping with the old adage, don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.

It's clear that the "Western world" has no intention of doing anything serious about Iran. I rather suspect that many European countries would be pleased if Israel managed to do effective damage to Iran's nuclear program, and I'm quite sure that many Arab countries would privately cheer the event. I really don't know what the president and his various czars would think, although they would undoubtedly join in the chorus of denunciation.

But none of that really matters if you're Israel, and you are convinced that Iran is very close to removing you from the map.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTJiZDJlODE5MDY4ZDdmODE3NWRmNTVmMGUxYjczNjQ=

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Tom Stillman on April 03, 2009, 06:11:34 PM

I have been reluctant in the past, to post this propaganda film. If you can stomach the atrocities contained in this 90 minute film, you may get an idea of how some of these different cultures, like the PLO,  bread violence and hate into the young impressionable minds of their Innocent children. I feel it is important for people to see the real horrors that exists in our world. After seeing this film last year, I have a different view of the world and the potential evils that threaten each and every one  of us.

WARNING: This footage is extremely shocking! 


http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/buried_in_the_sand_the_deception_of_america/

Title: Biden takes a hard line!
Post by: G M on April 08, 2009, 12:43:57 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/08/biden-to-israel-leave-the-mullahs-alone/

So, does AIPAC get it's money back?

Title: Big News from Egypt
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 15, 2009, 12:12:36 PM

Egypt Crosses Critical Line in the Arab Sands, Labels Hezbollah ‘Terrorist’

Posted by Stanley Kober

The designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist group by Egypt highlights a fault line developing in the Middle East over relations with Israel and the United States.

On the one hand, there are those who favor negotiations to resolve the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. These countries include, most prominently, Egypt and Jordan, which both have signed treaties with Israel. Saudi Arabia also has promoted a negotiated solution.

Iran and Hezbollah, on the other hand, have emphasized what they call “resistance,” which means the use of arms to wrest territory from Israel ’s control. The admission by Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, that one of the people Egypt arrested was supplying arms to Hamas on Hezbollah’s behalf indicates that Hezbollah’s “resistance” is not limited to Lebanese sovereign territory.

Although Egypt’s action is directed against Hezbollah (and, by extension, Iran), it also carries a warning for the United States and Israel. The “resistance” argument is gaining ground in the Middle East. If it is to be successfully countered, negotiations need to deliver something tangible for the Palestinians—and soon. Otherwise, the regional governments who favor negotiation will find their arguments undercut, which could not only jeopardize hopes for Middle East peace, but might also threaten their own stability.

Stanley Kober • April 15, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Filed under: Foreign Policy and National Security
Tags: egypt, hamas, hassan nasrallah, hezbollah, Iran, Israel, middle east, negotiation, negotiations, palestinians, resistance, saudi arabia, terrorist group, treaties, war

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/15/egypt-crosses-critical-line-in-the-arab-sands/

Title: Bo/2.Israel.leave.the.settlements.or.we.will.not.support.you
Post by: ccp on April 18, 2009, 08:33:05 AM

I am not sure if this ruse is really the beginning of demands for concessions from Israel or the stumbling block.  I don't know enough to have an opnion as to whether Israle should or should not give up the settlements.  I believe it is a contested issue even in Israel.
However, the tone of BO who I believe truly is an antisemite (I don't care how many party loyal career liberal Jews he has wrking for him) certainly has the appearance of arrogance to Israel and conciliatory and sympathetic to Palestians.
Remember hsi middle name is Hussain not Joshua.

****The Age - Business
Obama's stance worries Israelis
Jason Koutsoukis
April 18, 2009
Page 1 of 2 | Single Page View
CAN Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media.

Watching the drama unfold inside Israel, the increasingly tense dialogue between US President Barack Obama and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking on all the trappings of a duel.

Almost every day brings news of another sore point between the two countries, a source of yet further inflammation of their once warm relations.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the more immediate threat to Israel's national security lay across the Atlantic rather than from closer to home.

It is bad enough that President Obama uses almost every opportunity he can to set the parameters of a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Now US officials are openly using Israeli anxiety over Iran's fledging nuclear program as a bargaining chip to force Israel's hand on giving up control of the West Bank Palestinian territory.

No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel — whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials — was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.

If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank.

Talkback radio blazed with fury across the country the same day, as Israelis protested that no US official had the right to tell them where to live.

Then on Thursday came the news that Mr Netanyahu's planned first meeting with President Obama in Washington next month had been called off.

Mr Netanyahu had hoped to capitalise on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House.

But Administration officials informed Mr Netanyahu's office that the President would not be "in town". Continued...

Title: Analysis: Real 2-state problem is the Hamas-Fatah feud
Post by: rachelg on April 18, 2009, 03:54:40 PM

 I am very disturbed by the recent actions of President Obama's administration and it seems like every time I look at the news it is worse.   Clearly I expected things to much be much much different.   "Brilliant" timing by Biden making the comment over the long Passover weekend when most Jewish Orgs were closed.  I am not worried about Israel. Israel will take care of itself. I am worried about the USA.

That being said
Here is a guy whose middle name could very well be Hussein who seems to gave good understanding of the region.

Analysis: Real 2-state problem is the Hamas-Fatah feud
Apr. 17, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Obama administration, through its special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, has launched what seems to be an aggressive campaign aimed at pressuring the new Israeli government into accepting the two-state solution.

But even if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman do finally succumb to the American pressure, they, along with Mitchell, will find that the Palestinians themselves are still far from achieving their goal of building a viable and independent state.

In fact, the Palestinians already have two separate political entities, or mini-states - one in the West Bank and the other in the Gaza Strip. These rival entities, controlled by Fatah and Hamas respectively, are acting and dealing with each other like two different countries.

Fatah representatives who participated in the last round of "reconciliation" talks with Hamas in Cairo said upon their return to the West Bank that they felt as if they were conducting negotiations with representatives of another country and not with Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

Repeated attempts by Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the past few months to persuade the two parties to end their differences and form a Palestinian unity government have failed, prompting Cairo and Riyadh to come up with the idea of establishing a confederation between the two "mini-states."

However, both Hamas and Fatah have categorically rejected the confederation idea out of fear that it would perpetuate and consolidate the split between the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian Authority officials said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas would ask Mitchell during their upcoming meeting in Ramallah to put pressure on the Netanyahu government to accept the two-state solution as the basis for a "just, comprehensive and everlasting peace" in the Middle East.

Abbas, the officials said, would also make it clear during his meeting with the US envoy that there was no point in resuming the peace talks with Israel as long as the Israeli government remained opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, continued settlement activity in the West Bank and demolished illegally built houses in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

Abbas, they added, would also brief Mitchell on the failed attempts to persuade Hamas to form a unity government with Fatah.

Spokesmen from both Palestinian parties have said over the past few days that only a miracle could lead to an agreement between the two sides. The gap between them remained as wide as ever, they noted, adding that the Egyptians were now considering canceling plans to host another round of reconciliation talks scheduled to take place in Cairo at the end of April.

For now, it appears that the Palestinians (and the rest of the world) will have to live with the fact that the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not a temporary or passing phenomenon.

If the Obama administration is serious about promoting the two-state solution, it must focus its efforts first and foremost on helping the Palestinians solve the dispute between the Fatah-run state in the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled entity in the Gaza Strip.

The divisions among the Palestinians, as well as failure to establish proper and credible institutions, are the main obstacle to the realization of the two-state solution.

Less than half of the West Bank is controlled by the corruption-riddled Fatah faction, which seems to have lost much of its credibility among the Palestinians, largely because of its failure to reform itself in the aftermath of its defeat to Hamas in the January 2006 parliamentary election.

The Gaza Strip, on the other hand, is entirely controlled by the radical Islamic movement that has, through its extremist ideology, wreaked havoc on the majority of the Palestinians living there.

The Obama administration is mistaken if it thinks the power struggle between these two groups is a fight between good guys and bad guys. This is a confrontation between bad guys and bad guys, since they are not fighting over promoting democracy or boosting the economy, but over money and power.

Netanyahu and Lieberman need not worry about accepting the two-state solution, because Fatah and Hamas don't seem to be marching toward achieving the national aspirations of their people.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710711874&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Here is another article he wrote in 2004
http://www.meforum.org/604/telling-the-truth-about-the-palestinians


Telling the Truth about the Palestinians

A briefing by Khaled Abu Toameh
April 27, 2004

http://www.meforum.org/604/telling-the-truth-about-the-palestinians

    Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab, is the West Bank and Gaza correspondent for the Jerusalem Post and U.S. News and World Report. He previously served as a senior writer for the Jerusalem Report, and a correspondent for Al-Fajr. He has produced several documentaries on the Palestinians for the BBC and many other networks, including ones that exposed the connection between Arafat and payments to the armed wing of Fatah and the financial corruption within the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Abu Toameh received his BA in English Literature from the Hebrew University and currently lives in Jerusalem with his wife and three children. He addressed the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia on April 27, 2004.

As an Arab journalist working among Palestinians, I am often asked if I feel threatened while I work. I am indeed frequently placed in life-threatening situations, yet the threats I experience do not come from the Israeli occupation, but from Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA). At least 12 Palestinian journalists have been attacked by masked men in the past four months in what appears to be an organized campaign to intimidate the media. Only days ago, a photographer working for Agence France-Presse had his arms broken by a masked man in Ramallah. Agence France-Presse did not do anything about this attack, but a great outcry is raised when Israeli soldiers allegedly harass journalists in the territories.
The Lack of Independence in the Palestinian Media

Twenty years ago, while studying at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, I worked for the PLO's newspaper Al Fajr (The Dawn). Al Fajr was more than a paper; it was a PLO institution. At the paper we basically received and carried out orders from Arafat's office in Tunisia. Although I eventually became an editor there, I did not mention my position at Al Fajr on my resume for years because I did not consider the work that went on there to be real journalism. Now, after being censured for my outspokenly critical views of the Palestinian media, I consider my time at Al Fajr testament to my knowledge of the lack of journalistic freedom at the PLO newspaper.

I continue to witness what is happening to the Palestinian media under Arafat. Many of my Palestinian colleagues actually envy me for writing for an Israeli paper. Working for the PLO, I was not able to write a word of my own free will. Yet in two years at the Jerusalem Post my editors have never told me what to write. I can function as a journalist at the Jerusalem Post in a way that many Palestinians have tried to function under Arafat, but have failed.
Arafat's Attack on Free Speech

When Arafat returned to the West Bank and Gaza from his exile, his security forces ignored pursuing terrorists and instead arrested independent journalists not loyal enough to the PLO. Over 38 journalists were forced out of their jobs or the country. This was not given much attention by the foreign media because at the time Arafat was allowed to do whatever he wanted in the name of Oslo. Although they did not cover the story heavily, I was not alone in pointing out to foreign journalists that the first thing Arafat did when PLO returned to the territories was to restrict freedom of speech.

Arafat has complete control over the Palestinian media to this day. Almost all Palestinian newspapers are financed by the PLO, and serve as a mouthpiece for the organization, which is basically Arafat's office. Some days the headlines for the three major Palestinians papers are identical. The lack of freedom at these papers is a big disappointment for Palestinian journalists; they were freer to write what they wanted under Israeli occupation before the PLO returned from exile.

Arafat's suppression of free speech is another example of an Arab leader not allowing the people to speak out. In this way Arafat is no different from other Arab dictators, who see the role of the media as subservient to – and a mouthpiece for – their regimes. In the Arab world, if you are an independent journalist or you criticize the regime, then you are branded a traitor – and that kind of suppression of dissent is how dictatorial Arab regimes survive.
Palestinian Media and their Impact on Foreign Media

The lack of free speech in the territories should not be dismissed as an internal Palestinian problem. When Palestinian journalists are intimidated, it affects foreign journalists, who depend on Palestinians to be their guides and translators in the territories. When foreign journalists interview Palestinians, many translators often mistranslate or even reprimand Palestinian interviewees critical of the Palestinian Authority, and foreign journalists' ability to accurately gather facts is thus hampered.

Another problem with the Palestinian media is the sad fact that some Palestinian journalists see themselves as foot soldiers serving the revolution. These so-called journalists are often politically affiliated with one group or another. Under the PA, you basically cannot be a journalist if you are not a member of Fatah or the security forces. All the credible independent journalists have been fired by the three major Palestinian newspapers, and there are many professional Palestinian journalists, but they have been forced to seek work with the Arab and foreign media.

There are some in the foreign media who knowingly hire consultants or journalists who are really political activists, and rely heavily on them for their reporting. These "consultants" include former security prisoners and political activists who are hired by major media organizations, including American ones, who are often aware of these so-called journalists' problematic backgrounds. Despite the bias of their consultants, which inevitably affects their reporting, the media organizations keep quiet about the consultants' backgrounds. It is hard to say if this acquiescence by foreign media organizations is due to intimidation or to the need to maintain a good relationship with the PA, but it seriously affects the ability of journalists in the region to report the facts on the ground to the world.
Conclusion

People in the rest of the world therefore do not get an accurate picture of what happens in the region, and there are two parties to blame for this journalistic failure. Partly to blame are foreign journalists who allow themselves to be misled by some of their Palestinian consultants. The bulk of the blame, however, rests with the PA, whose tyrannical approach and control of the media creates an atmosphere of intimidation and fear among Palestinian journalists.

Edited--  to make my thoughts more complete.

    Summary account by Robert Blum, research assistant at the Middle East Forum

Title: Editor's Notes: The Gaza precedent?
Post by: rachelg on April 19, 2009, 07:03:08 AM

 A really good article on the current situation in the region with some historically context/ 
Editor's Notes: The Gaza precedent?
Apr. 16, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel did not destroy Hamas in Operation Cast Lead, but it placed the Islamists on the defensive, and delayed their plans to take control of the West Bank. Is there a model here for the face-off against Iran?

In an interview late last month on Al-Jazeera, Saeb Erekat, the long-time chief Palestinian negotiator, recalled that Yasser Arafat had rejected the Clinton administration-brokered peace accord at Camp David in 2000 because he would not concede any Jewish claims to the Old City of Jerusalem and specifically the Temple Mount area.

Arafat, according to Erekat, "adhered to Jerusalem... Arafat said to Clinton defiantly: 'I will not be a traitor. Someone will come to liberate it after 10, 50 or 100 years. Jerusalem will be nothing but the capital of the Palestinian state, and there is nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif except for Allah.'"

Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, took the same position late last year, Erekat went on, when presented with yet more generous terms by the outgoing Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert, Erekat acknowledged in the interview (as translated by MEMRI), "offered the 1967 borders, but said... 'There is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin.' Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: 'I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine - the June 4, 1967 borders - without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places.' This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign..."

Pressed by the interviewer as to whether, in the past, he himself had signaled at least some readiness for a permanent accord that might include an Israeli role at the holiest places in Judaism, Erekat was adamant: "They will never have this."

Arafat's derision for the very notion that a Jewish Temple stood in Jerusalem, and by extension for the Jewish historical claim to sovereignty here, is all too familiar. It has also become all too clear over the years since Arafat's death that Abbas is unwilling to publicly contest that stance - to face his own Palestinian public, that is, and tell them that the Jews do have sovereign claims to Palestine.

Where Erekat's comments break further dismal ground is in confirming that, in private too, in the critical forum of the negotiation room, Abbas is similarly unprepared to acknowledge Jewish historic rights in this land - and thus to accept viable principles and terms for its division into the two peaceful entities that the international community always envisaged, that Israel's founding leaders endorsed and that those who spoke for the Palestinians never accepted.

This insistent blindness to Jewish history, as displayed and acted upon by the ostensibly moderate Abbas, only underlines the gaping distance any Palestinian leadership has yet to travel to meet Israel halfway along the road to genuine reconciliation.

It also places Abbas and his regime on the path to oblivion - too impossibly obdurate for even the most dovish of Israeli governments, yet too old, corrupt and manifestly unsuccessful for the Palestinian public.

Since the fundamental message of both main leadership hierarchies is that Israel has no legitimacy, why would the Palestinians stick with the fading Fatah as the vehicle for securing their independence, when Hamas offers so vibrant and violent an alternative?

The Palestinian public has made this preference increasingly clear in recent years - awarding Hamas victory after victory in a series of local elections. It gave Hamas the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament. And polls repeatedly indicate it would choose Ismail Haniyeh to replace Abbas if only afforded the opportunity.

It is hardly surprising that Gazans have reversed cause and effect, and overwhelmingly blame Israel (responding to relentless rocket fire at its civilians), rather than Hamas (which fired the rockets), for Operation Cast Lead.

It is more depressing, and telling, that so many Palestinians accepted with equanimity Hamas seizure of full control in Gaza in June 2007, despite the ruthlessness the Islamists employed against their own people.

For Hamas, such support has merely fed ambition. Emboldened by its successes at the ballot box and with the gun, and strategically encouraged by Iran, Hamas had intended 2009 to be the year in which it replicated its Gaza achievements in the West Bank.

Therefore, when assessing the results of winter's Operation Cast Lead, and calculating the balance of pros and cons, an additional factor should be taken into account.

Weighing the negative impact on Israel's international image, and the growing evidence of a failure to stop the flow of arms into the Strip, against the success in largely halting the rocket fire for now, Israelis should be aware of a further, highly significant benefit: The confrontation pushed Hamas firmly onto the defensive, and delayed its West Bank agenda. Israel's resort to force slowed the Islamists' march to power throughout the Palestinian territories.

Is there a precedent here as regards the face-off with Iran?

Israeli officials whose job it is to ensure that Hamas not take greater control in the West Bank have no doubt that this ambition has merely been delayed, rather than abandoned.

Israel's challenge now, the new Israeli government's challenge, is to ensure that this goal is quashed, and that circumstances can gradually be created in which moderates are encouraged and empowered - Palestinian leaders who, evidently unlike Abbas and his Fatah colleagues, are prepared to reconcile to the fact of Israel's existence.

The heart of that challenge, and thus the root of the solution, lies in Iran.

AS WITH Gaza and the West Bank, so too with Lebanon.

On Israel's northern border, the Olmert government's previous war, against Hizbullah, merely set back, rather than forced the abandonment of, an Iranian proxy's hegemonic ambition. Three years on, Hizbullah is now a markedly more robust military threat, and it may be only weeks away from establishing itself as Lebanon's dominant political entity.

More than a decade after it showed its international terrorist capabilities with two devastating attacks in Buenos Aires, at the Israeli Embassy and the main Jewish community offices, furthermore, Hizbullah is now demonstrating its open opposition to the mainstream Arab political establishment by operating terror networks in Egypt, directly challenging Hosni Mubarak's regime.

As its Islamist offshoots bolster their domination of the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, and spread terrorist tentacles ever wider, their Iranian state-sponsor is now widely acknowledged to have cleared all the technical obstacles to the manufacture of nuclear weaponry.

And rhetoric aside, there is no indication of remotely sufficient international will to prevent the project's completion. North Korea stands as a case study in obfuscation, manipulation and defiance en route to membership in the nuclear club.

IN AN extensive, radical article on slate.com last week, David Samuels, a veteran New Yorker, Harper's and The Atlantic feature writer, outlined Iran's rapacious regional ambitions, assessed the threat they pose to Israel, and concluded that Israel might well bomb Iran, quite possibly within the next year.

(Samuels, memorably, wrote a devastating profile of Arafat for The Atlantic in 2005, "In a Ruined Country: How Yasir Arafat Destroyed Palestine," which featured this unforgettable assessment of the late Palestinian leader from Defense Ministry heavyweight Amos Gilad: Arafat "loved smoke and blood and ruins. This is where he felt most comfortable. He believed that Israel was a temporary entity. To talk about him as a pragmatic person is utter nonsense. His goal was to destroy us, and he almost succeeded. He wanted to ride on his horse up to heaven.")

An Israeli attack on Iran, Samuels argued, "lines up quite well with Israel's rational interests as a superpower client." Israel, he recalled, "earned its role as an American client with a series of daring military victories won by a tiny embattled country with a shoestring budget and its back against the sea: the capture of the Suez Canal from Nasser in 1956, the audacious victory in 1967, and the development of a nuclear bomb." But an Israel that had "lost the capacity to project destabilizing power throughout the region would quickly become worthless as a client."

An attack on Iran would "do wonders for restoring Israel's capacity for game-changing military action," Samuels claimed, and he played down the notion that Iran could effectively retaliate - significantly understating, to my mind, the complexity and consequences of any strike against facilities that have been painstakingly constructed by Iran with Israel's 1981 Osirak attack uppermost in mind.

"Any Israeli air raid on Iran is likely to succeed in destroying masses of delicate equipment that the Iranians have spent a decade building at enormous cost in time and treasure," he wrote, albeit having invoked certain caveats. "It is hard to believe that Iran could quickly or easily replace what it lost. Whether it resulted in delaying Iran's march toward a nuclear bomb by two years, five years, or somewhere in between, the most important result of an Israeli bombing raid would be to puncture the myth of inevitability that has come to surround the Iranian nuclear project and that has fueled Iran's rise as a regional hegemon."

Samuels also minimized the likelihood of a "mass public outcry" in the Muslim world against Israel, relying, erroneously, on the purported precedent of the "public backing of the Gulf states and Egypt for Israel's wars against Hizbullah and Hamas." In truth, this was less "public backing" than the tacit support of those at the helm of the regimes themselves.

More convincingly, he noted that, "As the only army in the region able to take on Iran and its clients, Israel has effectively become the hired army of the Sunni Arab states tasked by Washington with the job of protecting America's favorite Middle Eastern tipple - oil."

In short, he asserted, "Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is the surest way for Israel to restore the image of strength and unpredictability that made it valuable to the United States after 1967 while also eliminating Iran as a viable partner for America's favor... Shorn of its nuclear program and unable to retaliate against Israel through conventional military means, Iran would be shown to be a paper tiger."

Concluding his piece with a flourish, Samuels stressed that an Israeli strike on Iran would simultaneously weaken Iranian "local clients like Syria and Hamas" and suggested that it could even enable Israel, acting from a position of newly demonstrated strength, to offset American and European criticism, and advance its own interests, by moving post-attack to impose viable conditions on a cowed Palestinian leadership for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

After all, wondered Samuels, who could argue "with the idea of trading the Iranian nuclear bomb for a Palestinian state? Saudi Arabia would be happy. Egypt would be happy. Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates would be happy. Jordan would be happy. Iraq would be happy. Two-thirds of the Lebanese would be happy. The Palestinians would go about building their state, and Israel would buy itself another 40 years as the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East. Iran would not be happy."

SO SPECULATIVE a notion also assumes that Abbas, or a successor, would be ready, even under these changed circumstances, to shift away from the uncompromising attitudes of the Palestinian leadership to date, as so recently restated in that Erekat interview, and finally, honestly, come to terms with the legitimacy and the fact of a Jewish state.

But what is particularly striking about Samuels's piece is the degree to which it accords with some notably outspoken recent remarks from Israel's most experienced diplomatic operator, President Shimon Peres.

Speaking in the context of Iran's nuclear progress and Hizbullah's exposed terrorist operations in Egypt, Peres in the last few days has declared that, "Sooner or later, the world will realize that Iran wishes to take over the Middle East, and that it has colonial ambitions."

He has highlighted the commonality of interests between Israel and relative Arab moderates in thwarting those ambitions, noting: "[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad recruits forces against us, but there are also forces against him. What happened [with Hizbullah] in Egypt created a fierce opposition and we must unify all his opponents - the Sunnis and the Europeans, as well as those afraid of nuclear weapons and terror."

And in the bluntest comments of all, Peres has warned that while he hoped US President Barack Obama's efforts at dialogue with Ahmadinejad to halt the Iranian nuclear drive would prove productive, if they did not soften the Iranian president's approach, "we'll strike him."

By contrast, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The New York Times this week that "Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran. I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world."

And after US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that an Israeli attack would unify Iran, "cement their determination to have a nuclear program and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them," the ever-malleable Peres on Thursday recalibrated his own earlier comments by dismissing talk of Israeli military intervention as "nonsense."

FOR THE record, even as they continue their re-evaluation of Israeli foreign policy, officials of the new Binyamin Netanyahu-led government remain committed to the notion that Iran can yet be stopped, and its proxies Hamas and Hizbullah consequently weakened, through a combination of intensified diplomatic and economic pressure on Teheran. They are not opposing Obama's efforts at dialogue, though they stress that time is in very short supply.

Away from the microphones, however, there most definitely are key Israeli officials who believe that the window of non-military pressure has already closed, and that the international diplomatic community, quite simply, is not going to stop Iran.

All that is left now, these officials believe, if Iran's nuclear program is to be thwarted, and with it the relentless drive to dominate this region at Israel's emphatic expense, are more radical options.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710711512&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on April 19, 2009, 07:08:35 AM

U.S.: Palestinians need not recognize Israel as Jewish state before talks
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a condition for renewing peace talks is unacceptable to the United States, the State Department said during special envoy George Mitchell's visits over the weekend to Ramallah and Cairo.

The State Department released statements saying that the United States would continue to promote a two-state solution. In Ramallah, Mitchell met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Mitchell's talks also seem to indicate that the United States does not accept Netanyahu's position that the renewal of negotiations should be postponed until the Iranian nuclear threat is removed.
While Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak has not spoken publicly on the issue, his associates said Saturday he is obligated to the party platform, which supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. The platform does not mention Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a precondition for establishing a Palestinian state.

Barak also reportedly opposes linking the renewal of the peace process with the Iranian threat and supports a regional peace agreement that includes dealing with that threat.

The demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people was raised for the first time about 18 months ago in talks between Israel and the United States ahead of the Annapolis Conference. Then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni demanded that the conference's closing statement mention a nation-state solution, a formulation meant to neutralize a Palestinian demand for refugees' right of return.

However, the Bush administration accepted the Palestinian objection that the issue should be subject to negotiation. The PLO leadership also told the United States that it supported unequivocally the Saudi peace initiative that includes a clause in favor of a just and agreed-on solution to the refugee problem in keeping with U.N. Resolution 194.

That resolution calls for the right of refugees to return at the earliest practicable date and compensation for those who choose not to return. The Arab League meeting last month appended a comment to its closing statement that its initiative does not include the right of return for refugees.

A few weeks before Yasser Arafat died in 2004, he told Haaretz that he understood that Israel is a Jewish state. However, he said on a number of occasions that official recognition by the PLO of this fact would hurt the status and feelings of the Palestinian minority in Israel. He said it was not the Palestinians' business to define the identity of another country.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079213.html

Title: What's all the fuss?
Post by: rachelg on April 20, 2009, 07:15:11 PM

http://www.treppenwitz.com/2009/04/whats-all-the-fuss.html
What's all the fuss?
 
Interesting artilce about the future of oil and the middle east. I am not a huge fan of his central analogy for  a variety of reasons but anyway---
 
from treppenwitz by David Bogner

Everyone seems to be in a lather today about the imminent opening of the Durban II anti-racism conference in Switzerland.  What the hell, people?!  Isn't there a ballgame on cable somewhere... or maybe a rerun of 'Friends'?

Seriously, a bunch of banana republics and costumed despots want to get together and air out their anti-semitism (dressed up as anti-Zionism) in the lush presence of a bunch of spineless appeasers... and you think this is worth getting your collective panties in a bunch?

These are not our friends, folks.  Never were and never will be.  They hate us... but they buy our battle-tested weapons.  They despise us...but they want us to show them how we are able to make our planes and missiles fly circles around theirs.  They loathe us... but they fly their children to our hospitals and beg us to make them better.

Yeah, yeah, it sucks that they will trade with us for technology and/or goods that they simply can't live without... while supporting quite literally, anyone with whom we have a quarrel.  But this isn't new.  So why all the fuss?

It's all good.  Really.

You see, even if our medical and technological exports don't keep them lining up (and trust me, they will), there is a new reason the haters can't leave us alone.  You see, Israel is like the last decent looking girl at the bar near closing time.  They all want - correction, make that need - something from us.  But they don't want to look like desperate pansies in front of their buddies.  So they call us names... and hope for an opening to get us alone.

And what do they need?  Energy.  The era of oil is nearly over folks, and it is pretty much a slam dunk that Israel is the only country making any serious investment in technologies for providing the world with alternative sources of energy.  Yes, the energy of the future will almost certainly come from this little racist slut everyone is badmouthing... but secretly wanting to bed.

Oh we'll put out when the time comes, don't you worry.  But there will be a steep price to be paid... even if stretching the previous sexual analogy to money changing hands makes us appear even more unsavory.  Supply and demand, people.  Weren't you paying attention in economics class?

And while our technological breakthroughs will make fossil fuel about as sought after as whale oil, it will also relegate these many noisome sheikdoms back to their natural state of decay and incestuous tribal infighting,

And best of all, Europe and much of Asia will be stuck dealing with a glut of the middle-east's second most volatile export; Islam (and it's invading mobs of restive practitioners).

When that happens, it will be interesting to see how well the virtuous and 'even-handed' opponents of racism and discrimination participating in Durban II are able to live up to the impossible standards of democratic rectitude with which they saddle Israel.

It'll be a whole 'nother ballgame trying to appear enlightened when faced with a choice between enacting Israeli-style security measures or suffering Dhimmi status in their own countries.

Good luck with that, guys.

Oh, and pass the remote control... I'm bored.

Title: Erev Yom Ha-Atzma'ut: A Brief Reminder About Purpose
Post by: rachelg on April 28, 2009, 08:05:03 PM

(http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102563553639&s=4544&e=001YL97C4zeWX9zrWzBKzne3gNUzkMh6IOcT18RmfAbpQTEEfkiDdujv20qNDkjhM9rkbQGTfTMsnj3rrXR4e1olcHaQ4MUh2sbbyyc_IZwDGpzubiBFa0IVKnIebDWwf1YVuwd26NPwb_7MOUXEzjpZczkYKciZFBKpa9r8_FRdCieaeuPvEpXYUQyVAC107kzmDSLV1xm2V4=)

(http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102563553639&s=4544&e=001YL97C4zeWX-SlJzEbsTrknfxoQ88BLOqWO2vk_gj1Tgjt3ijj4f-qR79n3tEJpVP2b0nfdeyXkstqL1rmo_E4HOXx0-amlgULMk6RuQAFLRtEv1Js3do4fnA_LH4r2yOZfC8mi0CZVCQhV97GMPAjc1TmBJQ2N43eT7Zo0hkYKbjQOB1sqhCljqA50pAZILiP8MJmQaGdTw=)

There's a certain look to a widow who's in her mid-twenties, whose husband was killed in Gaza in January.  Eyes swollen with tears, yet with steely determination at the same time.  A certain vulnerability on her still very young face, and a face that seems too old for her age, all at the same time.  An image of pain and of unspeakable sadness, but not asking for pity.  Was it just me, or was it clear that even in the midst of her unbearable burden, she knew full well that she - like the young husband who was taken from her far too early - is part of something much larger than she is?  Is that why, looking at her, I had a sense of - more than anything else - strength?
 
I would have liked many more people to see her.  President Obama, for example, as he prepares for another stab at Middle East peace-making.  Hillary Clinton, who's now telling us to make peace lest we lose American support in the looming confrontation with Iran.  All those Jews out there, beating their breasts, despondent that the Jewish state is so "un-Jewish" in its seeming unwillingness to make peace.
 
We hear all those people - of course we do.  And as we do, we can't help but wonder if the world has begun to tire of us, to regret the decision that it made on November 29, 1947.  (We know without doubt, for example, that were the UN to vote today, Israel would not be created.)  Calls for Israel to negotiate with Hamas despite the latter's commitment to Israel's destruction, the poisonous environment of Durban II and the Obama administration's willingness to engage with Iran even as it continues to enrich uranium, all contribute to this sense.
 
So to all those who are wringing their hands about Israeli intransigence and inflexibility, on this eve of Israeli Independence Day, a brief word about nations, and states, and purpose.  For without understanding purpose, there's no understanding Israel.
 
Israelis elected Ehud Barak in 1999 because he promised peace with the Palestinians.  When Barak put the majority of the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem on the table, most Israelis went along.  The deal fell apart because Palestinians unleashed the Second Intifada.  The majority of Israelis supported Ariel Sharon's decision to disengage from Gaza and to uproot all the Jewish communities there.  They even elected Ehud Olmert in 2006, after he ran on a platform of further withdrawal from the West Bank.  How did a country that has continually favored painful concessions for peace end up with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively?  It is that which Obama, Clinton and all the hand wringers must understand if they have any hope of being heard here.
 
To appreciate today's Israeli sentiment, all those people would do well to keep in mind two iconic photographs on which virtually every Israeli is raised.   These images have come to represent two radically different eras - Jewish powerlessness under the Nazis, and Jews at the height of their power, when they captured the Old City of Jerusalem from the Jordanians.
 
The former period is represented in the minds of many Israelis by a black and white photograph of a Jewish boy, probably no older than nine or ten, dressed in his finest coat and hat, his black dress socks pulled up almost to his knees.  He is the model of innocence, of European-Jewish financial and social success, and yet, he is pitiful - the very picture of vulnerability.  His parents are not at his side, and no onlookers have come to comfort him.  His hands raised high in surrender as a Nazi points a gun in his direction, the boy's fate depends entirely on the whim and will of his enemies.  He might as well already be dead.
 
A very different image was taken at the Western Wall in the aftermath of the paratroopers' conquering of the Old City during the June 1967 Six Day War.   This photo, by David Rubinger, is equally iconic.  It, too, portrays Jews and soldiers - three, in fact.  But now, the Jews and the soldiers are one and the same.  No longer is the Jew the frightened boy looking away from the Nazi's gun somewhere in Europe.  He is home, in Jerusalem, responsible for his own destiny.
 
Nothing in this image celebrates war.  The soldiers' weapons are nowhere to be seen.  Their helmets have been removed.  The figure in the center ­is young, almost boyish.  What captured the Jewish imagination was not the Jew as soldier, but image of a Jew whose existential condition had been entirely altered in the period between those two photos, all because of the creation of the Jewish state.  The Jewish state, Zionism promised, would radically alter the condition of the Jew in the world.  No longer would Jews live and die at the whim of others.  No longer would our children's safety be dependent on what our enemies decided.
 
Today, Israelis are concerned that that has begun to change, that we are sliding inexorably back to the reality represented by the first image.  For eight years, Palestinian rockets and mortars turned Israeli childhoods in Sderot and other cities into years of incessant fear.  Thousands of Israeli children studied and slept - and some died - at the whim of Palestinian Kassam-launchers.  And when Israel finally did respond, the world's outrage was instantaneous.   
 
Now, Israelis wonder if the Americans have quietly resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran.  If Israelis become convinced that that is the case, it will be not Netanyahu or Lieberman, but American policy, which will have caused Israeli intransigence.  For an Iranian nuclear weapon, even were it never used, would reverse the change in the existential condition of the Jew that Israel made possible.   Once Iran has nuclear capacity, every Israeli parent will put their children to bed at night knowing that once again, our survival and that of our children will depend not on what we do, but on what others decide our fate should be.  An Iranian nuclear weapon would represent not only a failure of American deterrence, but the failure of the promise of Zionism, to create and sustain a Jewish state that could keep its citizens safe.
 
An international community committed to significant progress in the Israel-Arab conflict must first convince Israelis that we are not being abandoned, that the world is committed to the purpose for which Israel was created.  Very few of us relish sending our sons and daughters off to war, to bear for life the scars of battle, or worse.  We, too, would like nothing more than an end to this horrific conflict.  Our voting record proves it.
 
But as we prepare to celebrate independence once again, one fact must remain clear: we will not end the conflict at all costs.  That is what the international community must demonstrate it understands.  For on this Erev Yom Ha-Atzma'ut, as on all the others, we, at least, know well what is at stake.  Given the choice between sending our children off to fight yet again, or of returning to the world of that first photograph in which someone else will decide if we live and for how long, almost all of us will choose the former.   

 
[RESPONSES AND REACTIONS can be posted at http://danielgordis.org/2009/04/28/erev-yom-ha-atzma%e2%80%99ut-%e2%80%93-a-brief-reminder-about-purpose/
.  Go to the end of the column and post your comments.]

Title: Guest Blog: 61 more things I love about Israel
Post by: rachelg on April 28, 2009, 08:07:47 PM

Inspired by last year's 60 Things I Love About Israel (also on JPost), without further ado, here are 61 more things I love about Israel.

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/guest/entry/61_more_things_i_love
1. I love that even though I may not have spoken with someone since the Ben-Gurion Administration, he will call me to check that I have somewhere to go for Passover Seder.
2. I love how you can bring your dog into any café to walk around and no one bats an eyelash.
3. I love that the social norm that allows us to double-dip in peace without neurotic fear of contracting the West Nile virus. Take your Purel bottle and stick it somewhere.
4. I love that you could take a homeless person with no marketable skills, put them behind the counter of Aroma, and they'd immediately be qualified to make a little foam heart in your cafe hafuch [cappuccino].
5. Mirpeseot. They're cool.
6. I love that I visited Dracula's castle in Transylvania, ran into an Israeli, and within 2 minutes realized we know someone in common. That could only be cooler if she were in fact a vampire and her name was Count Shawarmula.
7. I love tsofim, the Israeli scouts. I swear, these little MacGyvers can take wheat, some duct tape, and a falafel ball and make a nuclear reactor.
8. I love the magical phrase "yiyeh b'seder," the Economica [bleach] of the Hebrew language. What can't it handle? Flat tire? Failed test? Take two "yiyeh b'seder's and call me in the morning.
9. I love the peacefulness of Shabbat in Jerusalem. So quiet and relaxing. I can sit on my tuchus all day and not feel guilty.
10. I love how the smallest, least professional-looking chumusiot [hummus restaurants] serve the best tasting stuff. Within 7.2 seconds of your placing an order, they've scooped, spread, sprinkled and created what I like to call "beautiful goodness."

PHOTO: Does it get better than this? Don't worry, I already know the answer.

11. I love the impossible-to-predict playlist of Galgalatz. "Ok, Galgalatz, I dare you to play 'Yerushalayim shel Zahav' followed by 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'...............what do you mean you just played it?
12. I love how when it rains, people celebrate like we just won the gold medal in basketball.
13. I love that when we win a gold medal, we celebrate like a people who take pride in every individual award won by our tiny country.
14. I love the effectiveness of El Al security. All together now: if El Al doesn't do it, NO ONE SHOULD DO IT. Sorry, Delta, I'm not taking my pants off.
15. I love that while in America, Esti Ginzburg would be an 80-year-old grandmother in South Florida, here she's a hottie patottie Sports Illustrated model who also lights the Chanukkah candles.
16. I love the chassid who protested the sale of chametz by wearing only a strategically placed sock. Apparently the Red Hot Chili Peppers are huge in Mea Shearim. (And, no, you're not getting a picture.)
17. I love the number of people who hit the social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to defend Israel when it's being blasted in the international media.
18. I love that the popular kids game Simon Says is not in fact called Shimon Omer as Americans think but rather Herzl Amar (Herzl Said).
19. I love Friday in Tel Aviv and the incredible energy on the streets, in coffee shops, and oh yes....at the beach.
20. I love hanging out at Chof Bograshov in Tel Aviv and then seeing the same beach hours later in "You Don't Mess with the Zohan."
21. I love not so much that my friends visit from the States and get so excited to be in Israel that practically lose control of their bowels, but that I can secretly smile and and think to myself, "Yeah, I live here."
22. I love Rosh Hashana dinner with my friends and their family when they feed me enough to nourish a small army.
23. I love when this unathletic North American Jew meets massive wood-chopping Israeli gevers [man's man]. This dude's arms were so big, they required arnona payments.

24. I love that drinking tea with only nana in it. Teabag? Who needs it?
25. I love that Israeli tour guides know everything about every square inch of this country. If Moshe Rabeinu went #2 on this rock, you can be sure that your guide learned it.
26. I love the uniqueness of the Israeli job search. Even if you don't get the position you've applied for, there is roughly a 57% chance that you’ll be offered a date with the CEO's daughter.
27. I love that there's free wireless internet everywhere, especially in Ben-Gurion Airport. Eat your heart out, Starbucks.
28. I love that we put Shimon Peres on a wedding dress.

PHOTO: I don't even have a joke here.

29. I love that my friend overheard his bus driver telling Talmudic stories with morals and relating them to current events. Only in Israel.
30. I love how lifeguards on the beach turn into Jewish/Polish mothers when they freak out and yell in Hebrew "please please please, I urge you to come closer to the beach!"
31. I love that my cab driver offered me a peach and that I accepted it. That will happen in America when falafel balls fly.
32. I love the Israelis who take such pride in their country that they ask tourists, "You like Israel? Why you not live here???" When you've got Zionism, who needs linking verbs?
33. I love that this country is roughly the size of a parking spot yet is one of the most innovative producers of technology on the planet. Boycott us if you'd like, world. Just please return your cell phones, thanks. (And I'd like an iPhone while you’re at it.)
34. I love that the cable companies are named for English words, causing the inevitable awkward statement, "I'm waiting at home for the HOT guy to come."
35. I love sachlab in the winter.
36. I love that the vendors at the shuk sell their product as if their lives depend on it and like they just downed four cups of coffee. "AGVANIOOOOOOOOT! SHTAY SHEKEL!!!!!!!!" Do they know they're selling tomatoes? You bet they do.
37. I love that a two year old can wet the bed but still sing "Avadim hayinu" for Pessach. Goooooo, Jewish education!

38. I love the brave 18 year olds who serve to defend this country. Do I even need to tell you what I was doing at that age? Let’s just say it rhymes with "Meroxing body parts." Apologies to the administrative staff at Texas Hillel.
39. I love how the fruit shakes here contain the most obscure fruits in the history of the world. "Watch this....hey, can I get a shake with Abraham's desert star citrus fruit, but the one without the seeds that only grows in the Western Negev? (pause) YOU HAVE IT????
40. I love how the street names aren't Main, Elm, and MLK, but Hillel, Shamai, and Herzl. (Do you think Theodore had any idea that 100 years after his death, Tel Avivim would be selling furniture on his street? Hey, Ben-Yehudah, thanks for reviving our language. To show our gratitude, we've decided to give you a pedestrian mall where teenagers frolic and buy their name on a grain of rice.)
41. I love how Hebrew makes so much sense. A store with everything you need? Kol-bo. Delicious treat with cream in it? Crem-bo. We need more words like this. Bat Yam? The ars-bo! (Just kidding, Bat Yam, you know I love you.)
42. I love how Israelis will drink coffee even when it's 80,000 degrees outside. "We ahr five meen-utes from deh sun? B'sedeeeer! Hafuch gadol!"
43. I love words like "teetchadesh" that neither exist nor make sense in the English language. "Wow, cool shirt! Enjoy using your new thing!" Nice try.
44. I love the distant cousin of the shuk vendor, the guy outside the Arlozorov train station selling "baigeles." Apparently he gets paid to say baigele 568 times per minute without taking a breath. "BAIGELE BAIGELE BAIGELE!!!"
45. I love laughing when an Israeli turns to his friend and asks the question "mah ata dafuk?" (are you crazy?) The answer to that question is absolutely, positively, always yes. Whatever the guy just did, it was definitely dafuk.
46. I love that Agadir Burger Bar not only allows you to order a burger with just about anything on it but also publishes a calendar showcasing their waitresses.

PHOTO: All right, so maybe it's a little weird...

47. I love that I just saw someone tell their pet "shev" [sit] which he of course did. He's a dog and he knows Hebrew. Between this and the two-year old singing Passover songs, does it get any better?
48. I love that you can pay for everything in tashlumim, monthly installments. One of these days, I'm going to try this with an Egged bus driver just to watch his head spin.
49. I love that I went to a Guns N' Roses tribute concert in Jerusalem and not only did the singer speak to the crowd in Hebrew, when he sang he actually sounded just like Axl Rose. "Oh oh oh oooooooh, sweet child of miiiine! Bruchim habaim [welcome]!"
50. I love that Israel got its first Apple store this past year. Yeah, baby.
51. I love how people have no qualms about giving you a ride to the airport even if it's three in the morning and their wife is in labor.
52. I love the support that experienced olim (immigrants) give to prospective olim, answering questions and emails even if they've never met before.
53. I love flying into Israel and going through the "Israeli passport" line. (On a related note, I also derive some guilty pleasure watching the tourists lining up in the very lengthy "Foreign Passport" line as I quickly waltz on through. Does that make me a bad person?)
54. I love how on Rosh Hashana, the car radio display wished me a "shana tovah." I don't care what planet you're from, that's awesome.
55. I love the beautiful hills of Haifa which nevertheless caused me extreme confusion upon entering an elevator from ground level. "What do you mean we're on the 9th floor?"
56. I love watching the Super Bowl until 5 AM with the guys. When you work that hard for it, you enjoy it that much more.
57. I love the superhuman Israeli hearing which allows them to pick up the "beep beep beep" of the news even while someone is using a jackhammer three feet away.
58. I love how Google redirects you to the Israeli version of the site. The first time it happened, I looked behind me and thought, "WHOA!!! How do they know???"
59. I love the powerful emotion I feel during the Yom Hazikaron [Remembrance Day] siren which you can only experience in Israel. Was anyone else caught off guard the first time they heard the siren? Seriously, I thought aliens were coming to eat my brain.
60. I love Yom Ha'atzmaut which is apparently Hebrew for "go to the park and eat a cow."
61. I love that I've had this once-in-a-lifetime experience and that it's not over yet.

Title: Iranian arms ship sunk?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2009, 06:27:02 AM

LINK
CAVEAT: While sources not completely thin, not completely gelled either. Haaretz is reporting, as well as Egyptian & Sudanese media (with their different perspective as you might imagine).

Last update - 07:53 27/04/2009
'Iran arms ship bound for Gaza downed near Sudan'

By Haaretz Service

An Iranian vessel laden with weapons bound for the Gaza Strip was torpedoed off the coast of Sudan last week, allegedly by Israeli or American forces operating in the area, the Egyptian newspaper El-Aosboa reported on Sunday.

Anonymous sources in Khartoum told the newspaper that an unidentified warship bombed the Iranian vessel as it prepared to dock on Sudan before transferring its load for shipment to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

These sources said they suspects U.S. or Israeli involvement in the attack, but neither Washington nor Jerusalem have released a statement yet on the matter.

The Israel Air Force, meanwhile, is suspected of attacking a convoy of Iranian arms that passed through Sudan en route to Gaza in January, according to reports released in March.

American officials confirmed the IAF involvement in that attack, The New York Times later reported, abd said they had received intelligence reports that an Iranian Revolutionary Guards operative had gone to Sudan to help organize the weapons convoy said the report.

Israel has neither denied nor confirmed involvement in that incident.

In February, Cypriot authorities detained an Iranian arms ship en route Iranian arms ship en route to Syria, apparently upon request of the U.S. and Israel.

A search of the ship, which was sailing from Iran to the Syrian port of Latakia, found ammunition for T-72 tanks, used by the Syrian army, as well as various types of mortar shells, said a senior Israeli official.

The United States has claimed that the ship was carrying weapons from Iran to Hamas or the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah.

Title: Podhoretz: thought piece on Israel and BO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 01, 2009, 09:23:21 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/how-obama-s-america-might-threaten-israel-15132%20

Title: Washington's elders of anti-Zion/Video: The best of AIPAC
Post by: rachelg on May 06, 2009, 06:17:30 PM

I find the title of this piece obnoxious.

Washington's elders of anti-Zion
May. 5, 2009
Lenny Ben-David , THE JERUSALEM POST

AIPAC's annual conference opened this week to the auspicious news that the US Justice Department will drop its case against two former AIPAC employees on espionage-related charges based on a 90-year-old statute. But the original charges brought against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman left some friends of Israel uneasy over the calumny of American Jews' "dual loyalty." In recent weeks, the case escalated with accusations that Congresswoman Jane Harman, a strong congressional friend of Israel, attempted to influence the case.

In March the queasiness was widespread in the pro-Israel community after Charles "Chas" Freeman claimed that the Israel lobby torpedoed his appointment to head the US National Intelligence Council. "The aim of this lobby," Freeman told reporters, "is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views." One result, he continued, is "the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics."

Freeman's complaints echo the widely-criticized 2007 book, The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in which the authors claim that the Israel lobby's core consists of "American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend US foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests."

And all this came after former president Jimmy Carter published his anti-Israel screed, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in 2006.

BY NO MEANS should anyone ignore or minimize the Washington leaks and attacks against AIPAC, the American Jewish community or Israel. But it should be understood that these actions are part of a historic, decades-long, beneath-the-surface low-intensity war in Washington to weaken US-Israel relations. Not much has changed since an Arab propagandist in the US, Muhammad Mehdi, proclaimed some 40 years ago, "The road to the liberation of Palestine leads through Washington."

In more than 35 years of my involvement in US-Israeli relations, I have seen the ebbs and surges of various anti-Israel campaigns. Once the anti-Israel crusade was led or conducted by senator J. William Fulbright and congressman Paul Findley, assisted by Jewish anti-Zionists like Elmer Berger and the apostate Alfred Lilienthal, and supported by Arab propagandists and oil interests. In the 1960s and '70s the legislators charged that American policy in the Middle East was too pro-Israel and that Congress was corrupted.

In 1962 Fulbright launched an investigation of foreign lobbyists in Washington, attempting to force AIPAC to register as an agent of Israel rather than a domestic American lobby. His chief investigator was a journalist named Walter Pincus. (Today, Pincus, The Washington Post's veteran national security reporter, helps cover the Jane Harman story and the Rosen-Weissman trial.)

"Israel controls the United States Senate," Fulbright told Face the Nation in 1973. "Around 80 percent are completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants it gets. Jewish influence in the House of Representatives is even greater." (Years later, after retiring from the Senate, Fulbright registered as a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia.)

Freeman, Walt, and Mearsheimer are but parrots of Fulbright and under secretary of state George Ball who wrote a 1977 Foreign Affairs article, "How to Save Israel in Spite of Itself." Ball declared more than 30 years ago, "How far should we go in continuing to subsidize a policy shaped to accommodate understandable Israeli compulsions which do not accord with the best interests - as we see it - either of Israel or the United States, but are a threat to world peace?... Because many articulate Americans are passionately committed to Israel, the slightest challenge to any aspect of current Israeli policy is likely to provoke a shrill ad hominem response. To suggest that America should take a stronger and more assertive line in the search for Middle East peace is to risk being attacked as a servant either of Arab interests or of the oil companies, or being denounced as anti-Israel, or, by a careless confusion of language, even condemned as anti-Semitic."

In the mid-1970s, secretary of state Henry Kissinger, frustrated by Israel's tough negotiating position and encouraged by Ball, pushed president Gerald Ford to conduct a "reassessment" of relations with Israel. After AIPAC rallied strong congressional opposition to the administration's proposed policy change, AIPAC was investigated by the Justice Department to see if it should register as a foreign agent of Israel. The investigators concluded, "There is not one shred of evidence that AIPAC should be registered as a foreign agent."

AS RONALD REAGAN's vice president, George H. Bush reportedly led the efforts to embargo F-16 aircraft shipments to Israel after the bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1981. In 1991 as president, Bush went toe-to-toe with the American Jewish community when he sought to tie loan guarantees, which Israel needed to provide housing for the massive aliya of Soviet Jews, to restrictions on the building of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. When Jewish organizations went up to Capitol Hill to lobby for the aid, Bush went on national TV, pounded his fists and declared that he was "up against some powerful political forces... I heard today, there were something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We've got one lonely little guy [the president] down here doing it."

Bush went on to chip away at public support for Israel by claiming that American soldiers had "risked their lives to defend Israelis" in the Gulf War and that "despite our own economic problems the United States provided Israel with more than $4 billion in economic and military aid, nearly $1,000 for every Israeli man, woman and child."

Bush's speech unleashed a flurry of anti-Semitic comments in the US to an extent that the White House felt it had to react. "I am concerned that some of my comments at the Thursday press conference caused apprehension within the Jewish community," Bush wrote to American Jewish leaders. "My references to lobbyists and powerful political forces were never meant to be pejorative in any sense."

The animosity toward Israel and the American Jewish community expressed by the president was probably shaped in part by his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and shared by other senior staff. Scowcroft continues today to play an "elders" role in Washington, encouraging a change in policy toward Israel.

In 1991, Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, was under fire for using military and corporate aircraft for personal trips. According to press reports at the time, Sununu, a Lebanese-American, believed that the attacks against him were generated by pro-Israel groups motivated by his ethnic background and because his positions were "not fully supportive of Israel's demands on the United States." Sununu later sought out Jewish leaders to mollify them and deny that he made the charge.

Bush's secretary of state James Baker was infamous for his enmity toward Israel. His purported remark, "F*** the Jews! They don't vote for us anyway," probably marks a low point in contemporary American Jewish history.

ADMINISTRATIONS' POLICY differences with Israel and legislative challenges on Capitol Hill championed by AIPAC were often met in Washington by anti-Israel leaks to the press or by actions by counterintelligence officials. During the period 1977-1982 AIPAC led challenges on Capitol Hill against major US aircraft sales to Jordan, Egypt and particularly Saudi Arabia. On three occasions in those years I was approached at AIPAC by individuals offering classified information they claimed was important for Israel's security. Once, a man offered to provide blueprints of an air base being built in an Arab state. On another occasion, two men, claiming that their pastor encouraged them to help Israel, wanted to provide information on American military supplies to the Middle East. In the third case, information on US-Saudi ties was going to be provided.

In all cases, I assumed that the men were part of counterintelligence "sting" operations, and I sent the suspected agents provocateurs packing. The third individual, by the way, was named Jonathan Pollard. I was wrong about his intentions, but AIPAC was spared.

Ultimately, such a sting operation - without the transfer of any documents - was used to entrap the two AIPAC employees in 2005.

Counterintelligence agencies in the US - and there are several - have long suspected that Jonathan Pollard had an accomplice, Agent X, and that American Jews may be guilty of dual loyalties. In 1997, phone taps of Israeli Embassy lines purportedly picked up a conversation about obtaining a document from an American mole code-named "Mega." No such spy existed, Israel insisted. One overzealous official who worked at both the CIA and FBI, David Szady, was involved in the AIPAC arrests as well as the hounding of an entry-level Jewish attorney at the CIA who had visited Israel as a teenager. Another case of clear anti-Semitic persecution involved a Jewish engineer at a tank facility in Michigan. In all cases, the investigations were finally dropped.

Press leaks about Israeli spying, illegal weapons sales and the theft of military technology spout almost like clockwork during periods of tension between the two countries. The charges include claims that the Israeli Python air-to-air missile was based on Sidewinder technology, that the Lavie jet and Harpy drone technologies were transferred to China, and that Patriot anti-aircraft missile technology was compromised. No one should have been surprised, therefore by the most recent leak about Congresswoman Harman on the eve of the AIPAC Policy Conference and as the case against Rosen and Weissman crumbled. (Will there ever be an investigation launched to see who leaked details of a secret US government operation in which Harman was taped? Probably not.)

Today's anti-Israel cabal of Walt, Mearsheimer, Freeman, and columnists Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof have the luxury of several Jewish commentators and organizations that support them. Incredibly, the Jewish spokesmen claim to be pro-Israel, but their actions betray their claim. The spokesmen have recently defended Chas Freeman, praised the Walt-Mearsheimer book, lobbied Congress against supporting Israel's actions against Hamas in Gaza and called for the recognition of Hamas.

Some of the spokesmen for this appeasement lobby appear to be the disciples and descendants of Rabbi Elmer Berger of the now defunct American Council for Judaism who raised funds at a Beirut dinner after the 1967 war where he likened Israel's nationalism to South Africa's apartheid. (Note that the apartheid falsehood heard so often at the Durban conferences goes back more than 40 years.) The appeasement lobby's hero, Stephen Walt, by the way, just published an eight-point "user's guide" on how the United States can "put pressure on Israel."

AS THE 6,500 AIPAC conference attendees leave Capitol Hill and head back to their homes this week, they should be proud of their efforts.

I still recall the words of former vice president and senator Hubert Humphrey, responding to the detractors of the pro-Israel lobby at the time of the Ford "reassessment" in 1976, telling some 450 AIPAC conference attendees that "columnists, editorial writers have warned us about ethnic lobbies. We've heard careless, and I think, reckless things being said about the powerful Jewish lobby. As if somehow or another, it was against the law in this country to speak up for what you believe in.

"It is good for the basic democratic process," Humphrey continued, "that people who have convictions about what American public policy should be take time to get their fellow Americans and their public officials to understand what they believe and to urge their support. That's what we mean by free speech in this country. I say it will be a sad day for this country when its citizens stop using the precious guarantees in the first amendment to petition their government.

"So I say, there is nothing new about lobbying on behalf of causes in foreign places. It's as American as a hot dog or apple pie, spaghetti, gefilte fish or Polish sausage."

That sounds like a delicious menu.

The writer served in AIPAC offices in Washington and Jerusalem for 25 years. Later he served as a senior Israeli diplomat in Washington. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710872891&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull


Video: The best of AIPAC

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710879018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 

Title: I guess AIPAC missed this....
Post by: G M on May 06, 2009, 07:15:22 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/06/obama-to-force-israel-to-give-up-nukes/

Obama to force Israel to give up nukes?
POSTED AT 9:29 AM ON MAY 6, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY   


The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs.  Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes.  The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state:

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

Gottemoeller has a track record of demanding Israeli disarmament:

However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”

“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.

The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.

The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions.  It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.

Gottemoeller’s speech had to have been cleared by the Obama administration, and so appears to represent their foreign-policy position.  The Bush administration and its predecessors handled the situation more tactfully, supporting a “nuclear-free Middle East” without naming names.  Why?  The position of Israel in the Middle East is unique.  They are not just simply another nation among many.  They had been the one successful continuous democracy in that region, save Turkey, and quite obviously surrounded by nations explicitly threatening to annihilate them.  Israel had to develop a deterrent that would keep a nation of 5 million people alive among 100 million enemies.

Over the years, some of those neighbors have moderated their stance somewhat towards Israel; Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic relations with Israel, but in Egypt’s case only because Washington pays them to do it.  None of the rest of the nations in that region even recognize Israel’s existence, and two of them — Syria and Iran — have a long-running proxy war of terror running against Israel.  Under those conditions, Israel can be forgiven for thinking that a deterrent is still a damned good idea.

Besides, the Iranian nuclear program threatens the US as well.  We want to stop Iran from building nukes to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, and not just those aimed at Israel.  They don’t call us the Great Satan out of respect, after all, and Iranian leadership has been just as annihilationist towards America as it has been towards Israel.  Instead of disarming our allies, maybe we should just concentrate on disarming our enemies.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 06, 2009, 09:44:43 PM

 :-o :x :-o :x :-o :x

This is our CiC?  We are so fcuked , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on May 07, 2009, 08:19:57 AM

Speaking of nuclear weapons in the middle east, the Iraq Study Group concluded that although we did not find stockpiles of WMD, that Saddam in 2002 retained the ability and determination to restart his programs and would likely have nuclear weapons capabilities within 5-7 years.  FWIW, 5-7 years has gone by.  Obama and Israel are lucky to have this one threat removed as they attempt to isolate Iran.
--

I favor Israel dropping its nuclear weapons program also ... dropping in on Iran's nuclear facilities.  :wink:

Title: Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2009, 10:18:50 PM

Geopolitical Diary: A Familiar U.S.-Israeli Course On Iran
May 15, 2009
A report published Thursday by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama had sent an American envoy to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to lose patience and surprise Washington with an attack against Iran. The report claimed that, rather than waiting for Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington on May 18, Obama decided to send a senior American official to Israel (who was not named) to meet with Netanyahu and senior Israeli leaders. The message reportedly revealed the Obama administration’s concern that Washington would be “caught off-guard and find themselves facing facts on the ground at the last minute” in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

This report, like several preceding it in the Israeli press, appears to be a deliberate leak. On May 10, another report from Haaretz — this one citing “confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — claimed that the United States had set October as the deadline for completing its first round of talks with Tehran over its nuclear program. If the Iranians remained intransigent, the United States was expected to harden its stance against Tehran, according to the article.

Whether these leaks are coming from the Israelis or the Americans doesn’t matter much. What matters is the motive driving them — and in this realm, we see a familiar “good cop-bad cop” routine between the United States and Israel emerging.

The Israelis have made no secret about their lack of enthusiasm over Obama’s attempts to engage Iran diplomatically. They believe little will come out of these negotiations, and that Tehran feels little compulsion to make meaningful concessions over its nuclear program. All the same, Israel’s options toward Iran are limited. Talking about a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is one thing, but carrying out an operation on the scale necessary to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability would be extraordinarily difficult, even with U.S. participation, and nearly impossible without it. The Israelis understand the need to preserve their strategic relationship with the United States, but also harbor real fears about the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States, meanwhile, is juggling a dozen foreign policy issues at once. Given the growing military focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the last thing Washington needs is an Israeli attack against Iran and the Middle East flare-up that would follow. Right now, the goal for Washington is to seal things up in Iraq, hand off a good deal of responsibility for the region to Turkey, an ascending power, and turn its attention to other issues.

The Haaretz reports send a very clear message: The United States wants talks with Iran, does not want an Israeli attack against Iran, but is assuring Israel that firm deadlines are being established for negotiations. The Israelis are not pleased about the prospect of talks, and the U.S.-Israeli relationship is under strain. Therefore, Israel just might be rash enough to attack Iran on its own and surprise the United States.

This is a useful message for both Israel and the United States to be disseminating. Netanyahu can reaffirm perceptions at home that he is being tough on the Iranian nuclear issue and drawing a line with the Americans. Obama, meanwhile, can apply more pressure on the Iranians by giving the impression that Washington can only do so much to hold the Israelis back from attacking Iran. The likely next step in the cycle is for Iran to start reaching out to Russia and exaggerating perceptions of Moscow’s support for Iran. This can be accomplished through rhetoric over things like potential sales of Russian strategic air defense systems to Iran and Moscow finally giving Iran what it needs to complete the Bushehr nuclear facility.

So far, this is all very much expected. Israel’s options are limited; the United States’ options are limited; even Iran’s options are limited. The most practical move just now would seem to be a return to the rhetoric with which all three are so familiar.

Title: Re: I guess AIPAC missed this....
Post by: HUSS on May 16, 2009, 06:46:49 AM

hahahhaha, it doesnt matter. Israel will never give them up and the way obama is spending, the U.S will be irrelevant internationally in a matter of years. China is already doing half their transactions in their own currency.  Israel needs to be focussed on getting cozy with China now.  With their new off shore gas fields it might be possible. 

Quote from: G M on May 06, 2009, 07:15:22 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/06/obama-to-force-israel-to-give-up-nukes/

Obama to force Israel to give up nukes?
POSTED AT 9:29 AM ON MAY 6, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY   


The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs.  Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes.  The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state:

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

Gottemoeller has a track record of demanding Israeli disarmament:

However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”

“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.

The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.

The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions.  It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.

Gottemoeller’s speech had to have been cleared by the Obama administration, and so appears to represent their foreign-policy position.  The Bush administration and its predecessors handled the situation more tactfully, supporting a “nuclear-free Middle East” without naming names.  Why?  The position of Israel in the Middle East is unique.  They are not just simply another nation among many.  They had been the one successful continuous democracy in that region, save Turkey, and quite obviously surrounded by nations explicitly threatening to annihilate them.  Israel had to develop a deterrent that would keep a nation of 5 million people alive among 100 million enemies.

Over the years, some of those neighbors have moderated their stance somewhat towards Israel; Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic relations with Israel, but in Egypt’s case only because Washington pays them to do it.  None of the rest of the nations in that region even recognize Israel’s existence, and two of them — Syria and Iran — have a long-running proxy war of terror running against Israel.  Under those conditions, Israel can be forgiven for thinking that a deterrent is still a damned good idea.

Besides, the Iranian nuclear program threatens the US as well.  We want to stop Iran from building nukes to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, and not just those aimed at Israel.  They don’t call us the Great Satan out of respect, after all, and Iranian leadership has been just as annihilationist towards America as it has been towards Israel.  Instead of disarming our allies, maybe we should just concentrate on disarming our enemies.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2009, 07:44:06 AM

By RONEN BERGMAN
Those who leaf through the secret files of any intelligence service know what grave mistakes bad intelligence can lead to. But they also know that sometimes even excellent intelligence doesn't change a thing.

The Israeli intelligence community is now learning this lesson the hard way. It has penetrated enemies like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet despite former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's willingness to authorize highly dangerous operations based on this intelligence, and despite the unquestionable success of the operations themselves, the overall security picture remains as grim as ever.

In 2002, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon appointed his friend and former subordinate, Gen. Meir Dagan, director of the Mossad. Gen. Dagan found the organization lacking in imagination and shying away from operational risks. Mr. Sharon, who knew Gen. Dagan from his days as head of a secret assassinations unit that acted against Fatah in the Gaza Strip during the 1970s, told the general that he wanted "a Mossad with a knife between its teeth."

Gen. Dagan transformed the Mossad from top to bottom and made the organization's sole focus Iran's nuclear project and its ties to jihadist organizations. He put tremendous pressure on his subordinates to execute as many operations as possible. Moreover, he built up ties with espionage services in Europe and the Middle East on top of Israel's long-standing relationship with the CIA.

In tandem with Gen. Dagan's Mossad revolution, other Israeli military intelligence has also made outstanding breakthroughs. The Shin-Bet (Israel's internal intelligence service), in cooperation with the military, has made huge strides in its understanding of Palestinian guerilla organizations.

The results have been tremendous. During the last four years, the uranium enrichment project in Iran was delayed by a series of apparent accidents: the disappearance of an Iranian nuclear scientist, the crash of two planes carrying cargo relating to the project, and two labs that burst into flames. In addition, an Iranian opposition group in exile published highly credible information about the details of the project, which caused Iran much embarrassment and led to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

On July 12, 2006, thanks to precise intelligence, the Israeli Air Force destroyed almost the entire stock of Hezbollah's long-range rockets stored in underground warehouses. Hezbollah was shocked.

In July 2007, another mysterious accident occurred in a missile factory jointly operated by Iran and Syria at a Syrian site called Al-Safir. The production line -- which armed Scud missiles with warheads -- was shut down and many were killed.

In September 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor built by Syria and aided by North Korea in Dir A-Zur -- despite Syria's significant efforts to keep it a secret. With indirect authorization from a very high ranking Israeli official, the CIA published incriminating pictures obtained by Israel of the site before it was bombed. These photos convinced the world that the Syrians were indeed attempting to manufacture a nuclear bomb.

In February 2008, Hezbollah's military leader, Imad Mughniyah, was killed in Damascus. In August of that year, Gen. Mohammed Suliman, a liaison to Hamas and Hezbollah who participated in the Syrian nuclear project, was assassinated by a sniper.

In December 2008, Israel initiated operation Cast Lead, which dealt Hamas a massive blow. Most of its weapons were destroyed within days by Israeli air strikes. (Israel also knew where the Hamas leadership was hiding, but since it was in a hospital Mr. Olmert refused to authorize the strike.) In January 2009, Israeli Hermes 450 drones attacked three convoys in Sudan that were smuggling weapons from Iran to the Gaza Strip.

These are all excellent achievements, but did they change reality? Mostly not.

The destruction of the Syrian nuclear reactor seems to have put a temporary end to President Bashar Assad's ambitions of acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, the public humiliation caused by the site's bombing did not sway him from supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and hosting terrorist organizations.

Even worse, the heads of Israeli intelligence are now losing sleep over recent information showing that attempts to delay the Iranian nuclear project have failed. Despite some technical difficulties, the Iranians are storming ahead and may possess a nuclear bomb as early as 2010. Hezbollah, although weakened by the 2006 war and Mughniyah's assassination, has become the leading political force in Lebanon.

On the southern front, despite the convoy bombings in Sudan, the trafficking of weapons and ammunition into the Gaza Strip continues. Hamas's standing among Palestinians has strengthened. And if a cease-fire is negotiated between Hamas and Israel it would be perceived as a victory for Hamas.

The bottom line is that excellent intelligence is very important, but it can only take you so far. In the end, it's the tough diplomatic and military decisions made by Israeli leaders that ensure the security of the state.

Mr. Bergman, a correspondent for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, is the author of the "The Secret War With Iran" (Free Press, 2008).

 

Title: BO's latest move against Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2009, 08:49:11 PM

Obama's latest calculated move against the Jewish State

By Anne Bayefsky

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States today, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn't fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.


It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: "The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009."


This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that "The Security Council welcomes the Quartet's consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009." Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don't recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.


The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab "Peace" Initiative. That's a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that "we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach."


Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel's wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.'s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel's position: "Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States…Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council."


By contrast, Rice told reporters: "We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov's initiative to convene the Council, and we're very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council's behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we're pleased with the outcome."


The Obama administration's total disregard of Israel's obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious — that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international "solution" down the throat of the only democracy at the table — Rice told the Council: "The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries …must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts." In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop — for a price.


On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council's Western European and Others Group — it was a three-state contest for three spaces.


The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:




adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;
entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might "require the Council's attention";
held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;
insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;
spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states — and even observers like the Palestinians — get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.


Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council's constant anti-Israel barrage.


Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora's box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment by clicking here.

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and editor of www.EYEontheUN.org.

Title: Re: BO's latest move against Israel
Post by: HUSS on May 19, 2009, 05:23:00 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2009, 08:49:11 PM

 Instead, he agreed to this: "The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009."

nice.  But its ok for Russia in invade the Republic of Georgia under the guise of protecting its citizens after its citizens provoked the conflict.  It was even nicer that the Russians allowed chechnians to come along on their "tour de murder".  Something the media left out in reporting on the invasion, the Georgians were killing Russians at a rate of 10 to 1.  The Georgians were fighting with out armor (as it had been pulled back into Tbilisi), and no air support.  Out of all the people i have ever done business with, i love the Georgians the most. 

I hope the Israelis save a couple nukes for Moscow when they finally start tossing them around.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on May 20, 2009, 01:09:26 PM

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/


OBAMA TO SAY IT IS TIME TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM: No, Mr. President, it’s not.
I’m horrified by reports this morning that in his June 4th speech in Cairo, President Obama will say it is time to divide Jerusalem and make the holy city the capital of a Palestinian state.

No, Mr. President, it is not.

Jerusalem is and should be the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Dividing Jerusalem will not make peace. Rather, it would send a message to every Radical Islamic jihadist around the world that Israel is weak, that the Jews won’t even defend the sovereignty of their own capital, that there is “blood in the water,” and that it is time to strike Israel and wipe her off the map. Dividing Jerusalem would trigger an apocalyptic war in the Middle East the likes of which the region has never seen. Already, the Radicals believe Israel is doomed to destruction. Hearing that the American President is now ready to apply intense pressure against the Israelis to divide their capital will only embolden the Radicals and convince them further that Allah is on their side, the wind is at their back, and they will soon triumph over the Jews and Christians.

While I am not surprised by where the President is headed, I am horrified nonetheless. Right at the moment when the U.S. and Israel need to be working with Arab states in unity against the Iranian nuclear threat, this White House is systematically turning against Israel. Despite all the smiles and boilerplate rhetoric from senior administration officials over the last few days that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been in town — promising to stand with Israel and maintain her security — what the administration is actually advancing in terms of policy is dangerous and destabilizing. They are playing with fire, and they must be publicly and peaceably challenged and resisted.

I am committed to doing everything I possibly can to educate people — and particularly U.S. and Canadian evangelical Christians — to the threats facing Israel and the West due to Radical Islam, and to the biblical responsibility we have to show unconditional love and unwavering support to Israel and the Jewish people. We’ll use radio, TV, the internet, emails and other media to get the word out. But we can’t do it alone. We want and need your help.


One idea: let’s build an alliance of one million true friends of Israel — people who love Israel, are committed to blessing her in real and practical ways, are absolutely opposed to dividing Jerusalem, and will pray faithfully for the peace of Jerusalem and the protection of all the people of the epicenter. Currently, we have 100,000 subscribers to our Flash Traffic email updates who are committed to this cause. If each of us recruited just 10 new friends to sign up for Flash Traffic and be part of this alliance, we would be able to communicate new information, new projects, and new prayer requests to them instantly. We would be able to mobilize people for pro-Israel events. We would be able to mobilize people to write to President Obama and their Congressional leaders to stand with Israel, not against her. We would be able to work together to stockpile food, clothing, medical supplies and other aid in Israel ahead of the next war. We would be able to encourage one another with the knowledge that we are not alone in this important fight. And we can work with other like-minded organizations — including One Jerusalem, founded by my friend, Natan Sharansky — to defend the holy city and bless the people of Israel.


Let me be clear: I love the Israeli people. I also love the Palestinians. I want the Israelis to be able — by God’s grace — to live in safety, security and peace. At the same time, I want the Palestinians to be able to govern themselves and to live in autonomy and peace. But I strongly oppose dividing Jerusalem. I strongly oppose the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state that would endanger the very existence of Israel. I am not convinced that Mahmoud Abbas is a partner for peace. I know for certain that Hamas will never make peace; they are committed only to terror, bloodshed and the annihilation of Israel. What’s more, I submit that the last three “land for peace” offers that Israel has made to her neighbors — at Camp David in 2000 when Israel offered half of Jerusalem, 93% of the West Bank, and all of Gaza; in 2000 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon; and in 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza — have been absolute disasters for the Jewish State. All three initiatives triggered more war, not peace. They triggered waves of suicide bombers and tens of thousands of rockets, missiles and mortars against Israel. Why in the world would we think continuing down the same road with the same strategies will produce different and better results?

The Bible says in Zechariah 1:14-18, “So the angel who was speaking with me said to me, Proclaim, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and Zion. But I am very angry with the nations who are at ease; for while I was only a little angry, they furthered the disaster.” Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘I will return to Jerusalem with compassion; My house will be built in it,” declares the LORD of hosts, “and a measuring line will be stretched over Jerusalem.”‘ Again, proclaim, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “My cities will again overflow with prosperity, and the LORD will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.”‘”

This is good news. The God of Israel will neither sleep nor slumber. He is jealous for Jerusalem. He will defend His country, His city, and His people. But He expects us to do our part. And He promises in Genesis 12:1-3 that if we bless Israel, He will bless us

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on May 20, 2009, 01:11:48 PM

We're in trouble


Obama seeks reconciliation with Muslim world, and Israel will pay the price

Eitan Haber Published:  05.20.09, 19:57 / Israel Opinion 




Now that Benjamin Netanyahu has visited Washington and the White House and is back home, we can sum up the current situation, through the rumor mill for the time being: We are in trouble.


 

As opposed to almost all American presidents in recent generations, Barack Obama views himself as one who is guiding his country and the free world towards a new history, far beyond what we can see. Obama wishes to shape new universal discourse, which seeks to replace the confrontation with the radical Muslim world emerging before our eyes in recent times. Obama leads a line of reconciliation vis-à-vis this hostile world, and the price – whether we'd like it or not – will be paid by the State of Israel.

 

Israel has already started paying. Very soon, Obama will arrive in Cairo, and there, in a speech to more than one billion Muslims worldwide, he will take the first step out of a million steps of reconciliation. Obama still believes, apparently, that the Pakistani nuclear bomb and the Iranian nuclear bomb and other bombs expected from this terrible and hostile world can be neutralized by appeasement and accommodation.

 

Obama wishes to separate what have become Siamese twins for generations now: The US and Israel. He doesn't like the photographs we have seen in the last dozens of years from places as far as Jakarta and Tripoli, where Israeli and American flags are burned together. Always together. Just like speeches in Tehran and in Karachi always refer to American-Zionist imperialism.

 

No more. To their credit, Netanyahu and Obama did not even try to hide the deep disagreements between Washington and Jerusalem. They placed everything on the table, and according to all the talk and indications, two days ago we saw in the US capital the prologue to the play: At this time, the orchestra is playing the opening tune. Soon we will see the appearance of the gun in the first act; the one that will fire in the last act.

 

Wishing to change history 
We must make no mistake about it, and who knows this better than Netanyahu: The words of praise and politeness are part of the well-known American hypocrisy, the one that explains to you in nice language what America wants. And America, at this stage, is distancing from Israel, and is not even trying to accommodate its positions to the ones presented by Jerusalem this week.

 

So that's it. The window of opportunity regarding the special longtime ties between Washington and Israel is starting to close down. It won't happen quickly or tomorrow, but we are witnessing the beginning of the process.

 

You want another indication? It is still hard to believe that an American president will soon visit Cairo without arriving in Israel. Only a relatively short while ago, White House officials would ask Israel whether it's possible, "if you don't mind," to hold a quick visit in Cairo in addition to the major visit in Jerusalem (and when the Israelis hinted this was undesirable, it didn't happen.) Such superpower will not be asking   
us any longer. It won't inform us in advance either.

 

Thus far, Obama looks and sounds like a president who wishes to change history and enter the annals of history. He may certainly consider a forced agreement (and there are rather broad camps in Israel that would welcome such deal.) He may envision the 57 leaders of Islamic countries on a special stage in the White House, and in the middle, amidst all the robes and suits, Barack Obama himself along with Bibi Netanyahu, and everyone will be smiling from ear to ear (with the possible exception of Netanyahu, but perhaps him too?)

Title: Has Obama given up on halting Iran?
Post by: G M on May 20, 2009, 01:15:19 PM

**No, he never meant to in the first place.**

Has Obama given up on halting Iran?
May. 20, 2009
Yaakov Lappin , THE JERUSALEM POST
There are growing indications that the US has come to terms with a nuclear-armed Teheran, two analysts told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

"The Americans are in a state of mind according to which Iran has already gone nuclear," said Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan's Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Kedar, who served in Military Intelligence for 25 years, said US President Barack Obama was "at peace" with the idea of a nuclear Iran.

"You can tell from how the Americans talk. Look at how [US special envoy] George Mitchell talks, or how Obama talks. I don't see them being pressured by this threat. They have shown no urgent desire to change this reality," he added.

"Obama has given up," Kedar said.

The result is that the US and Israel have only "small things to talk about," mainly the Palestinian track.

"Netanyahu doesn't want to talk about the Palestinians. He wants to talk about Iran. But Obama does not see the bigger problem," Kedar said.

The June 7 legislative vote in Lebanon could serve as a "wake-up call" for Obama, he added, since "after these elections, the Hizbullah coalition could be the largest in the country. Very quickly, Hizbullah could change the constitution to turn Lebanon into a Hizbullah state" - a development Kedar said might cause Lebanon to split off into smaller polities as other sects opt out of the country.

This would be an unmistakable sign of Iran's growing influence in the region.

"If this happens, the Americans could wake up," he said.

Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, also believes there are a growing number of "hints" suggesting that Washington has come to terms with a nuclear Iran.

"There are implicit indications that it might be going in that direction," she said. "Even at the official level, [US Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton is on record as saying that the chances of success for negotiations with Iran are very small. If you're going into negotiations which you say ahead of time will likely fail, you're giving the sense that you might not be doing everything possible [to stop the Iranian nuclear program]," Landau said.

"The US administration is projecting some kind of sense that they're not taking these negotiations seriously enough. If they just go through the motions, but they don't believe talks will succeed, that is worrisome," she said.

Landau said she was disturbed that Obama appeared to view negotiations and sanctions as alternative policies, when in fact they needed to go together.

"In order to get Iran to be serious, you have to pressure it, and it must feel that the status quo is not more valuable than a negotiated settlement," she said. "I don't see that understanding in the Obama administration."

A source close to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took a more optimistic view, citing a recent interview with Obama in Newsweek that quoted him as saying he was not taking any options off the table on Iran, as a hopeful sign.

"Before Sunday's meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama would not put a time limit on talks with the Iranians. But what he said in effect on Sunday was that he was giving the talks six months. That's not so terrible," the source said.

However, he acknowledged that Obama's deadline was double that of Israel's requested deadline of three months.

Asked if America had come to terms with a nuclear Iran, the source said, "I don't think that appraisal is right."

He added that those who "held too high an expectation for Sunday's meeting were disappointed. Those who thought Obama would change all his stances and give a two-month time limit were disappointed. But there was a change in Obama's stance - he has given the talks a deadline, until the end of the year."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212418402&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: A Yom Yerushalayim ( Jerusalem Day) tradition
Post by: rachelg on May 21, 2009, 08:16:44 PM

http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2007/05/a_yom_yerushala.html

A Yom Yerushalayim tradition


    [This is the third year I'm posting this.  Sorry, but I can't improve on the original.  Go ahead and try not to cry... I dare you!]

It's Yom Yerushalayim today... the anniversary of Jerusalem being reunified during the Six Day War.

Every year on this day, no matter where I am, I find a way to listen to the recording of the radio broadcast of the recapture of the old city by Col. 'Motta' Gur's Paratroop forces.

Yossi Ronen was the news broadcaster reporting the event.  Rav Shlomo Goren, who was the Chief Rabbi of the IDF at the time (and also held the rank of General, having served as a soldier in the Haganah - Israel's pre-state army), joined the Paratroopers at the Kotel HaMa'aravi (Western Wall) and led them in prayer.  Colonel 'Motta' Gur was the Military commander of the forces that recaptured the old city.

This a pretty fair translation that was done by IsraCast*.(http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?id=374)   I strongly recommend that those who understand Hebrew go to their site and click the yellow link (about a third of the way down the page in the middle) and listen to the recording.  It might help to read along with the translation as the sound quality is sketchy.

To properly appreciate this you need to imagine being somewhere in Israel at the time, listening to this broadcast over your radio at home (perhaps in a bomb shelter)... or wherever your reserve unit was stationed at that moment.  Go get the tissues before you start listening!

    Colonel Motta Gur [on loudspeaker]: All company commanders, we’re sitting right now on the ridge and we’re seeing the Old City. Shortly we’re going to go in to the Old City of Jerusalem, that all generations have dreamed about. We will be the first to enter the Old City. Eitan’s tanks will advance on the left and will enter the Lion’s Gate. The final rendezvous will be on the open square above.
    [The open square of the Temple Mount.]

    [Sound of applause by the soldiers.]

    Yossi Ronen: We are now walking on one of the main streets of Jerusalem towards the Old City. The head of the force is about to enter the Old City.

    [Gunfire.]

    Yossi Ronen: There is still shooting from all directions; we’re advancing towards the entrance of the Old City.

    [Sound of gunfire and soldiers’ footsteps.]

    [Yelling of commands to soldiers.]

    [More soldiers’ footsteps.]

    The soldiers are keeping a distance of approximately 5 meters between them. It’s still dangerous to walk around here; there is still sniper shooting here and there.

    [Gunfire.]

    We’re all told to stop; we’re advancing towards the mountainside; on our left is the Mount of Olives; we’re now in the Old City opposite the Russian church. I’m right now lowering my head; we’re running next to the mountainside. We can see the stone walls. They’re still shooting at us. The Israeli tanks are at the entrance to the Old City, and ahead we go, through the Lion’s Gate. I’m with the first unit to break through into the Old City. There is a Jordanian bus next to me, totally burnt; it is very hot here. We’re about to enter the Old City itself. We’re standing below the Lion’s Gate, the Gate is about to come crashing down, probably because of the previous shelling. Soldiers are taking cover next to the palm trees; I’m also staying close to one of the trees. We’re getting further and further into the City.

    [Gunfire.]

    Colonel Motta Gur announces on the army wireless: The Temple Mount is in our hands! I repeat, the Temple Mount is in our hands!

    All forces, stop firing! This is the David Operations Room. All forces, stop firing! I repeat, all forces, stop firing! Over.

    Commander eight-nine here, is this Motta (Gur) talking? Over.

    [Inaudible response on the army wireless by Motta Gur.]

    Uzi Narkiss: Motta, there isn’t anybody like you. You’re next to the Mosque of Omar.

    Yossi Ronen: I’m driving fast through the Lion’s Gate all the way inside the Old City.

    Command on the army wireless: Search the area, destroy all pockets of resistance [but don't touch anything in the houses], especially the holy places.

    [Lt.- Col. Uzi Eilam blows the Shofar.  Soldiers are singing ‘Jerusalem of Gold’.]

    Uzi Narkiss: Tell me, where is the Western Wall? How do we get there?

    Yossi Ronen: I’m walking right now down the steps towards the Western Wall. I’m not a religious man, I never have been, but this is the Western Wall and I’m touching the stones of the Western Wall.

    Soldiers: [reciting the ‘Shehechianu’ blessing]: Baruch ata Hashem, elokeinu melech haolam, she-hechianu ve-kiemanu ve-hegianu la-zman ha-zeh. [translation: Blessed art Thou L-rd G-d King of the Universe who has sustained us and kept us and has brought us to this day]

    Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Baruch ata Hashem, menachem tsion u-voneh Yerushalayim. [translation: Blessed are thou, who comforts Zion and bulids Jerusalem]

    Soldiers: Amen!

    [Soldiers sing ‘Hatikva’ next to the Western Wall.]

    Rabbi Goren: We’re now going to recite the prayer for the fallen soldiers of this war against all of the enemies of Israel:

    [Soldiers weeping]

    El male rahamim, shohen ba-meromim. Hamtse menuha nahona al kanfei hashina, be-maalot kedoshim, giborim ve-tehorim, kezohar harakiya meirim u-mazhirim. Ve-nishmot halalei tsava hagana le-yisrael, she-naflu be-maaraha zot, neged oievei yisrael, ve-shnaflu al kedushat Hashem ha-am ve-ha’arets, ve-shichrur Beit Hamikdash, Har Habayit, Hakotel ha-ma’aravi veyerushalayim ir ha-elokim. Be-gan eden tehe menuhatam. Lahen ba’al ha-rahamim, yastirem beseter knafav le-olamim. Ve-yitsror be-tsror ha-hayim et nishmatam adoshem hu nahlatam, ve-yanuhu be-shalom al mishkavam [soldiers weeping loud]ve-ya’amdu le-goralam le-kets ha-yamim ve-nomar amen!

    [translation: Merciful G-d in heaven, may the heroes and the pure, be under thy Divine wings, among the holy and the pure who shine bright as the sky, and the souls of soldiers of the Israeli army who fell in this war against the enemies of Israel, who fell for their loyalty to G-d and the land of Israel, who fell for the liberation of the Temple, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and Jerusalem the city of the Lord. May their place of rest be in paradise. Merciful One, O keep their souls forever alive under Thy protective wings. The Lord being their heritage, may they rest in peace, for they shalt rest and stand up for their allotted portion at the end of the days, and let us say, Amen.]

    [Soldiers are weeping. Rabbi Goren sounds the shofar.  Sound of gunfire in the background.]

    Rabbi Goren: Le-shana HA-ZOT be-Yerushalayim ha-b’nuya, be-yerushalayim ha-atika! [translation: This year in a rebuilt Jerusalem! In the Jerusalem of old!] *

We should never forget or take for granted the sacrifices that were made so that we could have our city back under Jewish Control after 2000 years!  It makes me sad to think about how many people would re-divide Jerusalem again in a second on the off chance that it might buy us a few weeks of a shaky 'truce'.

How soon they forget.

BTW, if you feel like taking a virtual tour of Jerusalem via full screen 360-degree panoramic photos from the comfort of wherever you're sitting... go here and click on some of the incredible views. (thanks Michelle).
http://www.vrmag.org/issue25/JERUSALEM_A_VIRTUAL_TOUR_OF_THE_HOLY_CITY.html



 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2009, 06:30:52 AM

From the Los Angeles Times
Pain and hope

May 22, 2009

Palestinian doctor Izzeldin Abuelaish Izzeldin Abuelaish came to the world's attention during the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip, when the respected obstetrician, holed up with his family in their home, gave daily interviews from the battle zone on Israeli television and radio.

Then, on Jan. 16, the last day of the offensive, Israeli fire killed three of his daughters. "My God, my girls," Abuelaish wailed that night on Israeli television, decrying the loss of Bessan, 20, Mayar, 15, and Aya, 14, as well as his niece, Nur Abuelaish, 17. Now he is trying to use his fluent Hebrew and English -- and his pain -- to appeal for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. What follows is an edited transcript of an interview he did with The Times' Marjorie Miller.

I had returned home on Dec. 25 from Tel Hashomer, the hospital where I work in Israel. That day, they had opened the border for humanitarian aid for the first time in more than a month, which made me realize something bad would happen. At 10 a.m. on the 26th, the airstrikes started.

I gave radio and television interviews throughout the operation. We all slept in the salon in the middle of the house, but the night before the shelling began, we couldn't sleep. We were up at 1 a.m. and at 2:30 a.m. I gave a speech by phone to the Jewish community in Pittsburgh. Our neighbors had left, but we stayed in our home. Tell me a secure place in Gaza where I could have fled to protect my children. There was no place. And why flee? Am I militant? Are my children fighters? I would have left my home if there had been a place that was protected. But schools, public places, mosques -- there was no secure place.

During the war, we ate whatever food was available. On the last day, my brother, who had ducks, said we could have them. He and Bessan cleaned them. They cooked duck with rice, and we all ate together. They were happy. Afterward, I sat with the girls in their room and we talked. I had two job offers to discuss with them, one from Toronto University and one from Haifa University. "What would you like?" I asked. Aya said, "I want to fly." I said, "OK, you want Toronto."

It was January and very cold, so I left the girls' room and my sons, Abdullah and Mohammed, and I began to prepare the charcoal so we could have some fire. The girls were sitting in their room, Mayar and Aya in their seats. And the first shell came. I ran back to find Mayar and Nur; their bodies were disconnected from their heads. Their brains and the blood stained the ceiling; they were drowning in pools of blood. I saw my daughter Shadah, her eye coming out and fingers torn. Then the second shell, and I saw Aya lying on the ground, Bessan lying on the ground.

This was at the end of the ground operation on Jan. 16. On the 17th of January, there was a cease-fire. It was supposed to have been a day earlier. My daughters were killed in the dead time of playing at a cease-fire. It was a game, to play with human life. The leaders were playing with that. In war, we don't know who will defeat the other, but we know they will defeat the civilians on both sides.

There were no rockets launched from the area surrounding my house. There was no firing. It was an open area, and anyone who tried firing from there would have been seen immediately by the Israelis. So why was my house targeted?

They tried to make excuses. First, they said there had been a sniper. Then that there had been militants firing from the surrounding area. They took shrapnel from my niece and claimed it was from Palestinian rockets. After a month, the truth came out. They admitted responsibility for shelling the house with two shells from tanks. But this will never bring back my daughters. They are gone.

Now we have to learn to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Both sides should focus on saving lives. If we make mistakes, we should learn from our mistakes and not repeat them, not continue all our lives, Israelis and Palestinians, making mistakes. It's not mistakes, it's craziness.

I have never hated anyone in my life. I hate some acts. I hate and blame the circumstances that brought both sides to this situation. This is the target we have to focus on, rather than simply blaming. I am not a victim. I can say my daughters paid the price of the craziness that brought Palestinians and Israelis to that point.

Saving human lives is the main purpose of my work. There is a Palestinian nation and an Israeli nation, and I care about both sides. Words are stronger than thousands of bullets. I want others here to feel the Palestinian suffering and to open their eyes to the Palestinian suffering. I fully believe our humanity brings Jews and Arabs together.

I will never lose hope. Those players who oppose peace are not permanent players. The situation can be changed at any time for good. When the U.S. campaign started two years ago, did anyone think [Barack] Obama would be the president? But he was determined and confident. So nothing is impossible. It is not written in the Koran or in the Torah that they will control us forever.

This tragedy opened the eyes of both sides. For Israelis, it entered their rooms, their kitchens, their minds, and it made a difference. The next day, there was a cease-fire. And many other good things will come from this tragedy, I am sure. We need to shake hands and to look at each other in the eye. We have to face each other.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 06:52:38 AM

As usual, JDN is happy to propagandize for anything anti-American or Anti-Israeli.

Yawn.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2009, 07:14:12 AM

"Saving human lives is the main purpose of my work. There is a Palestinian nation and an Israeli nation, and I care about both sides. Words are stronger than thousands of bullets. I want others here to feel the Palestinian suffering and to open their eyes to the Palestinian suffering. I fully believe our humanity brings Jews and Arabs together."

"Now we have to learn to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Both sides should focus on saving lives. If we make mistakes, we should learn from our mistakes and not repeat them, not continue all our lives, Israelis and Palestinians, making mistakes. It's not mistakes, it's craziness."


Hardly anti-American or anti-Israeli....

Given what happened I think the good doctor is rather magnanimous.  I am not sure I would be so forgiving given the circumstances.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 22, 2009, 07:39:50 AM

"There is a Palestinian nation and an Israeli nation, and I care about both sides"

Unfortunately I doubt this is a majority opinion of most Palestinians.  It probably is from the Israeli point of view though I can't say for sure.

If it was we wouldn't be having Jews fighting for their lives.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 02:15:16 PM

Quote from: JDN on May 22, 2009, 07:14:12 AM

"Saving human lives is the main purpose of my work. There is a Palestinian nation and an Israeli nation, and I care about both sides. Words are stronger than thousands of bullets. I want others here to feel the Palestinian suffering and to open their eyes to the Palestinian suffering. I fully believe our humanity brings Jews and Arabs together."

"Now we have to learn to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Both sides should focus on saving lives. If we make mistakes, we should learn from our mistakes and not repeat them, not continue all our lives, Israelis and Palestinians, making mistakes. It's not mistakes, it's craziness."


Hardly anti-American or anti-Israeli....

Given what happened I think the good doctor is rather magnanimous.  I am not sure I would be so forgiving given the circumstances.

Done any due dilligence to see if there is any truth to this story? It sounds like a pallywood psy-op to me. If the "palestinians" don't like getting hit by the Israelis, they should stop starting wars.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 02:48:12 PM

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinian-doctors-daughter-may-have.html

Hmmmmm

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2009, 05:12:30 PM

The Israelmatzav blog.  Now there is an impartial influential report.  I believe I've read,
"Israel right wing under pressure".  Maybe a meteor hit the house?

Versus a very long list (BBC et al) of reputable neutral reporting?  Maybe I should check out what the
Hamas Daily Gazette had to say?

It was Israeli tank fire.  The guy was a hero.  Even the public in Israel is upset.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 05:16:52 PM

The BBC is a neutral reporting party? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 05:27:30 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-anti-Israel-bias-stay-secret.html#

Report on BBC's anti-Israel bias will stay secret

By PAUL REVOIR

Last updated at 17:55 27 April 2007



BBC chairman Sir Michael Lyons
The BBC has won its legal battle to block the publication of a report into alleged bias in its reporting of Middle East affairs.

A ruling obtained under freedom of information legislation had obliged the corporation to make the internal audit public.

But that decision was overturned by the High Court.

The BBC's decision to spend an estimated £200,000 of licence feepayers' money to keep the Balen Report secret has been widely condemned.

The corporation was accused of hypocrisy because it has regularly used freedom of information legislation to break news stories.

The attempt to force the BBC to publish the report - compiled in 2004 by its editorial adviser Malcolm Balen - was led by lawyer Steven Sugar, who represented himself in court.

The ruling will disappoint the Jewish community which would have wanted to know whether the 20,000-word document had found any evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.

Mr Justice Davis, sitting at the High Court in London, said last August's decision by the Information Tribunal for the report to be published was flawed.

He said: "I conclude that the BBC's submissions are well founded. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal."

The judge said the document was exempt from inspection under freedom of information laws because it was held by the BBC "for the purposes of journalism, art or literature".

After the verdict, Mr Sugar said: "It is a technical win by the BBC which has the result desired by the BBC of weighting the Freedom of Information Act in its favour.

"Perhaps the BBC Trust under its new chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, will take a different view to the BBC management and conclude that it is in the public interest for Mr Balen's report to

be published."

Mr Sugar called on ministers to review the journalistic exemption.

"The exception was drafted in general terms which has allowed its use to prevent the public gaining access to much material which I am sure the Government intended should be publicly available," he said.

"I hope Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, who is a supporter of freedom of information, will consider clarifying the journalism exception. This would not require primary legislation."

Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley and a member of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, said: "This seems to be outrageous. If the BBC are embarrassed about what they are doing they should not be doing it.

"If they are not embarrassed they should release the information. It is a sad day when they have spent so much money to keep it secret -people think this is a colossal waste of money."

The BBC has faced repeated claims that its reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed towards the Palestinian cause.

Its critics cite the revelation from Middle East correspondent Barbara Plett that she cried when Yasser Arafat was close to death in 2004.

A BBC spokesman said: "The BBC has always maintained that the Balen Report is held for purposes of journalism and, therefore, outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

"We believe that programme makers must have the space to be able to freely discuss and reflect on editorial issues in support of independent journalism.

"It was always intended as an internal review of programme content, to inform future output. It was never intended for publication.

"The BBC's action in this case had nothing to do with the fact that the Balen Report was about the Middle East - the same approach would have been taken whatever area of news output was covered.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 05:35:36 PM

Quote from: JDN on May 22, 2009, 05:12:30 PM

The Israelmatzav blog.  Now there is an impartial influential report.  I believe I've read,

**I'll put it's credibility up against any left wing bilge you unquestioningly swallow.**

"Israel right wing under pressure".  Maybe a meteor hit the house?

**Maybe, as is the well documented haji M.O.,  the jihadist used a civillian dwelling filled with innocents as a military site in the hope that any return fire will result in propaganda fodder to feed to the world's useful idiots.**

Versus a very long list (BBC et al) of reputable neutral reporting?  Maybe I should check out what the
Hamas Daily Gazette had to say?

**You've already been repeating HAMAS' propaganda, like a good leftist.**

It was Israeli tank fire.  The guy was a hero.  Even the public in Israel is upset.

**Please cite your source for this assertion.**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2009, 05:44:09 PM

I don't even watch the BBC (Heck I don't even have cable; I read books, but I'm not happy the Lakers are on
ESPN only).  :-(

Don't look to me to defend the BBC; choose another reporting newspaper.  They seem to ALL carry the story.
It's being talked about around the world AND in Israel.
Israeli Tank kills......  So it's your choice of a multitude of respected reporting versus a blog out of Jerusalem.

Not my job to argue your position,  :-) but I would focus on if the attack was justified.  Perhaps it was...
But you've got to admit, even the Hamas Film Institute couldn't have written a better story to support
their side. 

Wrong or right, this fight is being fought on the battlefield AND in the press.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 05:47:15 PM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=129471

Guns or Love? IDF, Gaza Doctor Trade Blame on Clash at his Home
Tevet 22, 5769, 18 January 09 12:07by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(IsraelNN.com) The IDF and a Gaza doctor who works in Israel traded charges on whether people in his Jabalya home were armed with guns or love. The IDF shelled the building, killing three of his daughters and wounding three others.

Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, who formerly worked at Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva and now works at the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv, protested the army shelling at a press conference at the Tel Aviv hospital.

Levana Stern, whose sons are serving in Gaza, interrupted the media event to protest, "Why is he engaging in propaganda? He is talking against Israel at the Sheba hospital. You should all be ashamed. All my children are serving in Gaza. Who knows what he had at his home?"

The IDF said his home was the source of gunfire at soldiers. The doctor told reporters, "Were they armed when they were killed? They were not armed with weapons, but rather, with love; love for others. They planned to travel to Canada; I got a job in Canada and they wanted to come with me."

After he was interrupted by Stern, Dr. Al-Aish replied, "They don't want to see the other side; they only want to see one side. They don’t want to see the others."

Stern said her heart aches over his children's deaths but added, "I don't understand why the people of Israel give him a platform at the hospital while our soldiers are lying here wounded. He needs to tell the story, but tell it once, and that's it."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 06:02:14 PM

Quote from: JDN on May 22, 2009, 05:44:09 PM

I don't even watch the BBC (Heck I don't even have cable; I read books, but I'm not happy the Lakers are on
ESPN only).  :-(

Don't look to me to defend the BBC; choose another reporting newspaper. 

**If you'll recall, you cited the BBC.**

They seem to ALL carry the story.

**Yes, the same story from the wire service. BFD.**

It's being talked about around the world AND in Israel.
Israeli Tank kills......  So it's your choice of a multitude of respected reporting versus a blog out of Jerusalem.

**Again, what "respected" reporting? The global media machine has time and time again unquestioningly swallowed jihadist propaganda and then never followed through when the truth emerged.**

Not my job to argue your position,  :-) but I would focus on if the attack was justified.  Perhaps it was...
But you've got to admit, even the Hamas Film Institute couldn't have written a better story to support
their side. 

**This may have well been a constructed story, just as there have been plenty in the past.**

Wrong or right, this fight is being fought on the battlefield AND in the press.

Yes, and you and your leftist ilk are queuing up to act as the global jihads' Tokyo Roses. Shame.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 06:20:58 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/poller/1011

The al-Dura Hoax
NIDRA POLLER - 10.02.2007 - 5:40 PM

Daniel Seaman, chairman of Israel’s Government Press Office, declared today that the al-Dura news report was staged. This was the report filmed on September 30, 2000 at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip by a Palestinian cameraman employed by state-owned French channel France 2, which purported to show the death of a Palestinian boy at the hands of the Israeli army. The news broke in the Israeli media this morning, is spreading in the United States, but has not pierced the firewall of mainstream media in France.

In the voice-over to the footage, France 2 Jerusalem bureau chief Charles Enderlin dramatically described the “death” of the twelve-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Dura, “target of gunfire from the Israeli position.” The 55-second video was immediately broadcast worldwide and assimilated by unsuspecting viewers. It functioned as a blood libel, justifying atrocities against Israelis and Jews.

For seven years investigators and analysts have labored relentlessly to counter that unfounded accusation. For seven years Charles Enderlin and France 2, protected by the Chirac government and upheld by mainstream media, have stifled criticism and discredited these investigators. The Israeli government, pursuing a “let sleeping dogs lie” policy, discouraged efforts to expose the hoax. Jewish organizations shied away from the controversy.

The al-Dura affair is a smudge on the face of coverage of the “Middle East conflict”; every attempt to wipe it away spreads and deepens the stain. In 2005, France 2 and Enderlin, apparently confident that they could wipe away the smudge, brought defamation lawsuits against three French-based websites that had posted material questioning the authenticity of the al-Dura video. The cases were heard in the autumn and winter of 2006-2007. France 2 lost one on a technicality, and won the other two. Suddenly mainstream media in France discovered the affair . . . long enough to report that the al-Dura scene was not staged!

But one of the defendants, Philippe Karsenty, director of the French news watchdog site Media-Ratings, appealed his conviction and has achieved a major victory—the Appellate Court asked France 2 to produce the 27 minutes of raw footage from which the 55-second “news” video was excerpted. If France 2 has not turned over the document by tomorrow, the Court will order them to do so. The raw footage will be projected at a hearing scheduled for November 14, and the case will be heard in full on February 27, 2008.

The Palestinian cameraman, Tala Abu Rahma, testified under oath that Muhammad al-Dura and his father Jamal were pinned down by uninterrupted gunfire from the Israeli position for 45 minutes. Rahma claims he filmed the incident off and on from beginning to end for a total of 27 minutes, from which Charles Enderlin excerpted 55 seconds for the news report. Enderlin, backed by his hierarchy, insists that the raw footage confirms the authenticity of the news report . . . but has refused to make it available for public scrutiny.

Four reliable witnesses who have viewed the footage testify that it is composed of staged scenes, faked injuries, and falsified ambulance evacuations. There are no images of the al-Duras.

If the raw footage is projected in the courtroom, the battle will be half won, no matter how the court rules on Karsenty’s appeal. If a dozen world-class journalists attend the November 14 hearing, the al-Dura affair will be brought out of its dark alley and into the agora of democratic societies, where it should receive its final judgment.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 06:26:04 PM

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2008/03/03/expert-idf-didnt-shoot-intifada-icon-mohammad-al-dura-media-yawn

Pallywood propaganda, aided and abetted by the global media.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 06:30:41 PM

http://www.seconddraft.org/history_pallywood.php

Hooray for Pallywood!

Title: War Sucks/ Daughters killed by IDF Shelling.
Post by: rachelg on May 22, 2009, 06:36:55 PM

This will come as  a surprise to no no one but  war sucks war is hell etc and most people who die are under 23 and innocent people die.

GM,
There is a lot of Pallywood stuff and his house could  have been selected by terrrorists but this story  does not seem to be fabricated.

The evidence currently is that he lost three of his daughter in shelling by the IDF  a horrible tragedy and there was sympathy for him all over Israel.  


There are celebrations all over Gaza when children all  murdered.

A dead child is a dead child but if you don't see the difference between the Palestinian side and the Israeli side you are one  or more of three three things misinformed, misguided, or there is something wrong with your value system.  




http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3657646,00.html



Army presents conclusions of inquiry into death of Gaza doctor's three daughters; IDF says troops fired at from nearby site, adds that it does not intend to take action against forces involved in incident

Hanan Greenberg
Latest Update:    02.04.09, 19:28 / Israel News

The IDF presented Gaza doctor Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish Wednesday with the conclusions of an inquiry into the death of his three daughters during Operation Cast Lead.

 
The army's investigation, approved by Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, revealed that an IDF tank fired two shells at the house after fire was opened at troops from a nearby area. The probe also showed that troops spotted figures at the top floors of the building helping to direct Palestinian fire at Golani forces.

 
Abu al-Aish was briefed on the findings Wednesday morning by the Coordination and Liaison Authority at Erez crossing. The IDF said it regrets the death of innocents.

 
Gaza Op
Soldiers' mother: Stop Gaza doctor's propaganda / Dudi cohen
Confrontation at Sheba medical center: Mother of three soldiers interrupts press conference convened by Gaza doctor who lost his three daughters, says 'why is he engaging in propaganda? Have you all gone crazy?'
Full Story

However, the army said that despite the tragic results it does not intend to take action against the troops involved in the incident in question, as such mistakes happen during operational activity.

 
'Hope at this dark time'

Wednesday evening, Abu al-Aish expressed his gratitude to "everyone who helped with this inquiry and brought the truth to light."

 

"This is a success for anyone who seeks justice and conscience, and it provides hope and justice at this dark time," he said, adding that he would be glad to receive an official apology for his daughters' death.

 

"The conclusions of this inquiry are not for me, but rather, for very many people who care; my family, people who are close to me, my daughter, and the people I belong to. Truth is on our side, but at times others don't want to bring it out."

  
'Why did they kill them?'  

The incident took place during battles between the Golani brigade and terrorists in the area that included close-quarters combat and operations aimed at uncovering weapons depots. After troops were fired at, and later spotted Palestinian lookouts in Abu al-Aish's building directing mortar fire at Israeli forces, military officials assessed the situation at length before the two shells were fired.

 

Doctor Abu al-Aish, who works at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv, convened a press conference at the hospital following the incident and spoke about his daughters.

 
"They participated in peace camps everywhere. Were they armed when they were killed? They were not armed with weapons, but rather, with love; love for others," he said. "Why they did kill them? Give me a reason."

 
   Advertisement   
      

At one point during the press conference, the doctor was interrupted by a mother of three soldiers who said: "Why is he engaging in propaganda? He's talking against Israel at the Sheba hospital. You should all be ashamed. All my children are serving in Gaza. Who knows what he had at his home?"

 

Daniel Edelson contributed to the story

 

First Published:    02.04.09, 17:32

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2009, 07:22:03 PM

Rachel,

The Doctor may or may not be complicit in the deaths of his daughters, but as I stated before, the jihadis are well known to place innocents in harm's way in the hopes that US or Israeli troops return fire and inflict civ. casualties so the global jihad's propaganda machine can wave the bloody shirts.

As far as any "palestinian" tragedy, I personally could give a rat's ass. Why? See below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
PA Muslims celebrating fall of the twin towers on 9/11
Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0bWEnW_WU
PA Muslims Celebrate 9-11-2001
CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzRV-t5fLM&feature=related
PA Muslims CHEERING deaths of Americans on 9/11

US/EU/UK governments must explain why they finance, arm, and train international PA/PLO terrorists in the global jihad war against Israel, America, Britain and the Free World.

The Palestinian Authority seeks global Islamic conquest:
Friday sermon, Palestinian Authority TV. May 13, 2005. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris:
“The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world…” http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 25, 2009, 11:46:34 AM

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-6448-Norfolk-Military-Affairs-Examiner~y2009m5d20-A-turn-for-the-dangerous

A turn for the dangerous
May 20, 6:42 PM ·

The standoff between Israel and Iran became even more dangerous today, with Tehran's successful test of a medium-range, solid-fueled missile. 
Iranian officials and state media announced the launch of the Sajjil-2 rocket, which was fired from the Semnan test range, located east of Tehran.  Footage of the launch showed a two-stage missile, lifting off from a mobile launcher.   Iranian radio quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying the missile "landed precisely on its target."  Ahmadinejad made the comments during a visit to the city of Semnan, near the test complex, and there was some speculation that the Iranian leader attended the test launch.
With a maximum range of 1,200 miles, the Sajjil-2 is capable of hitting striking Israel, much of the Middle East and some locations in southeastern Europe.  Tehran says that the missile has an advanced navigation system, making it  more accurate than its predecessors. 
While the navigation claim has not been verified, western experts have confirmed that the new missile is a solid-fueled system, giving Iran improved capabilities to strike distant targets.  Until now, Iran's long-range strike capabilities have been largely based on liquid-fueled systems like the Shahab-3.  Missiles that utilize liquid propellant are more dangerous to operate and their launch preparation time is considerably longer.
Why is that significant?  With the Shahab-3 (and shorter-range SCUD variants), it was more difficult for Iran to conceal missile activity.  Fueling a Shahab-3 in the field can take almost a hour--even longer under certain conditions.  During that time, the missile and its crew are vulnerable to detection and attack by enemy intelligence and air assets.
Additionally, the presence of fuel trucks and support vehicles increases the "signature" of deployed missile units, giving surveillance crews another indicator of pending launch activity.  The problem is also compounded by the design of some Iran's older transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicles, which cannot elevate a fully-fueled missile to firing position.  Under that scenario, the liquid-fueled missile must be raised vertically before fueling, making it easier to spot, from the air or on the ground.
Deployment of the Sajjil-2 will eventually eliminate those problems.  Solid-fuel is far less volatile and can be stored in the missile airframe for longer periods of time.  Elimination of fuel trucks and other support vehicles reduces the operational signature, making it easier for the missile crew to remain undetected.  And, most importantly, a solid-fueled system has a much shorter response time, making it ideally-suited for a surprise attack. 
Consider this possibility:  A fully-fueled (and armed) Sajjil-2 emerges from its underground bunker near Bakhtaran, some 200 miles southwest of Tehran.  Moving to a pre-surveyed launch site, the missile crew quickly raises the Sajjil-2 to firing position, and launches the missile.  Within seconds, Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites detect the sold-fueled missile, which is already in flight.  A warning is instantly transmitted to Israeli leaders--and their missile defense forces--but the reaction time is already measured in seconds, rather than minutes. 
Iran has long claimed that its missile and nuclear programs are for "peaceful" purposes, but the capabilities of the Sajjil-2 suggest otherwise.  Put another way, the missile tested today is an ideal weapon for a "bolt from the blue" attack, a fact that isn't lost on the Israelis, or Iran's neighbors in the Persian Gulf.  The successful test of the solid-fueled medium-range missile will only accelerate regional attempts to acquire advanced air defense systems (with anti-missile capabilities) and a potential nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Some analysts down-played today's launch, noting that Iran has had medium-range missiles--and the ability to strike Israel--for roughly a decade.  But the successful test of the Sajjil-2 (and its pending deployment) affirm Tehran's plans to upgrade its missile arsenal, and develop a true, first-strike capability.  Those developments will only further destabilize the Middle East, and raise prospects for a preemptive, Israeli attack. 
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the implications of today's test couldn't be more clear.  The same missile that can now deliver chemical or biological weapons with minimal warning will some day be outfitted with a nuclear warhead.  Meanwhile, President Obama has stated that he will give Iran "until the end of this year" to change its ways, or face the possibility of new sanctions.  The Iranian missile test had been planned for several months, but it offered a dramatic retort to Mr. Obama's plan. 
As for Mr. Netanyahu, he doesn't have the luxury of time--or geography. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 25, 2009, 07:14:30 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/nuclear_iran_israel/2009/05/24/217793.html

The Death of Israel

Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:31 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann   

From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel to "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran.

More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."

She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself." She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel's doing, not Iran's.

In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.

Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote, "diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.

All this means is that Israel's life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone.

Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler’s rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.

Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.

Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 26, 2009, 07:50:35 AM

I believe BO is resgined to a nuclear Iran.
His comment about giving talks another year is a joke.

It is probably already too late.
Bush was hamstrung by politics.  If Rumsfeld and Cheney did not lose their political power this might very well have been dealt with before the Iranians had years to dig in.

BO is selling Israel down the river.  No surprise there. 
Ironic so many liberal Jews are helping him do it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 26, 2009, 08:20:31 AM

 :x :cry: :x :cry: :x :x

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on May 27, 2009, 08:19:08 PM

Why is obama marginalizing Israel??????????? he is going to force them to hit iran.

Obama to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss peace, Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090527/pl_nm/us_obama_saudi_5

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama will meet Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in Riyadh next week to seek his support over the nuclear standoff with Iran and reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Obama will visit Riyadh on June 3 in a surprise addition to his scheduled three-day trip to Egypt, Germany and France, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, is a staunch U.S. ally in the region and potentially a key player in the drive for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which Obama has declared a top foreign policy priority.

The Obama administration has embraced the 2002 Arab peace initiative, a proposal authored by Saudi Arabia that offered Israel normal ties with all Arab states in return for a full withdrawal from the lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East war, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.

Gibbs dismissed the idea the Saudi stop was added to persuade Arab states to make conciliatory gestures to Israel.

"The president believes it's an important opportunity to discuss important business, like Middle East peace, but it's not born out of anything specific," he said.

Gibbs last week scotched speculation that Obama would use his much-anticipated speech to Muslims, which he is due to deliver in Egypt on June 4, to unveil a new Middle East peace initiative.

Obama has held talks with Jordan's King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent weeks as part of efforts to jumpstart stalled Palestinian-Israeli peace moves and will meet Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Thursday.

ANTI-IRAN ALLIANCE

The visit to Saudi Arabia comes as Obama is seeking to build an alliance of moderate Muslim nations to put pressure on Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, which Washington fears is a cover to build a nuclear bomb.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal called in March for Arabs to agree on how to tackle Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for electricity generation.

Obama's administration has been at pains to reassure Saudi Arabia that Washington's efforts to reach out diplomatically to Iran will not affect bilateral relations.

Saudi Arabia, which sees itself as the leader of mainstream Sunni Islam, fears the growing regional power of non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran, which backs Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamist factions such as Hamas and has considerable influence in neighboring Iraq.

The United States has raised the idea of sending Yemeni terrorism detainees held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, which Obama has said he will close by next January, to Saudi Arabia, as Riyadh has a program to rehabilitate militants.

Saudi Arabia is among the United States' top 15 trading partners. Last year, two-way trade was $67.3 billion, which equaled about 2 percent of total U.S. exports and imports.

Saudi Arabia exported $54.8 billion worth of oil and a few other products to the United States in 2008 and imported $12.5 billion of U.S. goods.

(Additional reporting by Doug Palmer in Washington and Ulf Laessing in Riyadh; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on May 27, 2009, 08:21:45 PM

France denounces Netanyahu's Jerusalem 'forever' vow


French Foreign Ministry spokesman accuses PM of prejudicing outcome of Middle East peace process by declaring that city would forever be Israel's undivided capital. 'Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states,' he says

AFP Published:  05.22.09, 16:21 / Israel News 




France accused Prime Minister Benjamin Neyanyahu on Friday of prejudicing the outcome of the Middle East peace process by declaring that Jerusalem would forever be Israel's undivided capital.

 

"The declaration made by the Israeli prime minister yesterday in Jerusalem prejudices the final status agreement," Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux told reporters in Paris.

 

Netanyahu's Vow
 
PM: Jerusalem will always be ours / Ronen Medzini
 
State ceremony marking Jerusalem Day sees Netanyahu, President Peres vow capital will never again be divided. Abbas aide: Israeli occupation of east Jerusalem illegal
Full story
 
 
 
The international community doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the city's status is a stumbling block in negotiations with Palestinians, who want east Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state.

 

Desagneaux said the internationally sponsored "Middle East Road Map" to peace called on both parties to negotiate an agreement on Jerusalem.

 

Likud: France won't agree to divide Paris
Knesset Member Ofir Akunis (Likud) said in response to the French criticism that "the Israelis don't agree to divide Jerusalem, just like the French won't agree to divide Paris."


 

According to MK Akunis, "Our policy in every agreement is that Jerusalem will remain under Israel's sovereignty."


 

On Thursday, at a ceremony marking Jerusalem's unification in the 1967 Six Day War, Netanyahu said, "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It has always been, will remain so forever and will never be divided."

 

Reacting to the speech, the French spokesman took the opportunity to restate Paris' position on the future status of Jerusalem and to criticise Israel for allowing Jewish settlers to build on disputed land.


 

"In France's eyes, Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states," he said, adding that President Nicolas Sarkozy had told Israeli lawmakers this in a speech last year.


 

"Actions such as the destruction of Palestinian homes or the transformation of Arab districts risk provoking an escalation in violence. They are unacceptable and contrary to international law," Desagneaux said.


 

 
 
   
 
"In broad terms, France condemns the ongoing settlement, including in East Jerusalem. We reiterate the need for a freeze on colonisation activities, including those linked to natural population growth," he added.


 

The previous Israeli government said it might agree to give up sovereignty on some Arab neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem, but Netanyahu has ruled this out and has refused to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 28, 2009, 01:02:41 PM

"Why is obama marginalizing Israel?? he is going to force them to hit iran."

I was asking one of my patients who is Israeli about his thoughts on the Middle East:

"very bad, very very bad".

When I asked him about Iran,

"We have no choice but to hit Iran".

He added,

"I didn't vote for him but Bush was behind Israel 100%".

I guess he voted for Obama because I asked him why then are so many Jews for BO.  He just looked away.

He said Israel will wipe out all of Irans nucs but it will "take a million lives" with it.

I said how ironic the victoms of thousands of years of oppression (egyptians, hittites, babylonians, philistines, assyrians, persians, romans, most european countries, turks, and probably a dozen more) and the holocaust will now be put in the position of having to do this.

He said with a nod, "thank you" on that thought.

If and after they do this -

We know the world will of course blame the Jews, once again, or rather, as they always have.

BOs popularity will probably go up.  And that is what he is all about - staying high in the polls so he can rearrange the wealth of this country and in so doing make us weaker not stronger.

And the duped liberal Jews will of course make all sorts of excuses for him.

Title: In defense of the Constitution
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 31, 2009, 04:48:13 AM

In Defense Of The Constitution

News & Analysis
May 31, 2009


Why, Jew?


     According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) world fact book, the State of Israel occupies a total of 20,770 square kilometers which includes 440 sq km of water.  To put this in perspective, the entire country of Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. 

     The total population of Israel is listed as 7,233,701; this includes non-Jewish Arabs whom are Israeli citizens.  Israel is 76.4% Jewish with a minority of Muslims (16%), Arab Christians (1.7%) with “other Christians”, Druze, and unspecified making up the remaining religious groupings.

     The government of Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a number of factions making up the Knesset, which includes members who are not only anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic as well.
 
     In short, Israel, excepting its parliamentary form of government, is somewhat a microcosm of the United States; a multi-religious society with a participatory government that includes those dedicated to its destruction from within.

     The US president is expected to present a “Peace Speech” in Egypt on June 4.  President Obama is expected to announce his support for a “settlement of the Jewish question” by calling on Israel to accept the two state “solution” that will make it impossible for Israel to effectively defend itself.  To be blunt, Israel is being asked to commit national suicide first by division into indefensible borders and secondly by massive immigration that will destroy the country from within.

     Israel, a country occupying a fraction of the Middle East; a country re-born following the Holocaust; a country that makes a home even for those dedicated to its destruction; is being demanded of by the rest of the world to commit national suicide by dividing itself into two; one side that is expected to live with a false promise of peace and the other that is totally dedicated to destroying the other by any means necessary.  Israel must win every war; her numerous enemies only one.

     We shall not have peace by any division of Israel; nor will we “solve the Jewish question” by partnering with countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other Muslim-majority country in the Middle East.  History has proven, time and time again, that political agreements with Muslim-majority countries are not worth the paper they are printed on and that all “agreements” are viewed by Muslim-majority governments as concessions to their religious ideology.

     Let us ask the Saudi’s, the Syrians, and the rest of the Muslim world why they accept the presence of refugee camps housing multi-generations of Palestinians; why they refuse to take these refugee’s or provide them any meaningful assistance?  Are not the Palestinians their Muslim brothers and sisters?  Why do these Muslim countries turn their back on their brethren and demand of the Jews to destroy their country to accommodate those who have absolutely NO RIGHT to Israel?

     The next time someone says “Why, Jew?” when the question of Israel arises, turn your back on him.  For an American to pose such a question; given our own history with tyranny at our founding; clearly demonstrates a lack of appreciation for our own freedoms, it would be impossible for such a person to understand other people’s right to the same. 

     President Obama may get his wish for what could lead to the destruction of Israel; but this would only show the world, again, that the United States stands for what is expedient, not for what is right.  How many of our allies will continue to trust us if we turn our backs on Israel? 

     As for me, I stand for a united Israel…from the river to the sea.


Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2009, 08:54:45 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 Administration blocks helicopters for Israel due to civilian casualties in Gaza
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has blocked Israel's request for advanced U.S.-origin attack helicopters. ShareThis
Government sources said the administration has held up Israel's request for the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter. The sources said the request was undergoing an interagency review to determine whether additional Longbow helicopters would threaten Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
"During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip," a source close to the administration said.
The sources said Israel has sought to purchase up to six new AH-64Ds in an effort to bolster conventional and counter-insurgency capabilities. They said Israel wants to replenish its fleet after the loss of two Apache helicopters in the 2006 war with Hizbullah.
The Israel Air Force has also requested U.S. permission to integrate the Spike extended-range anti-tank missile into the AH-64D. Spike ER, developed by the state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, has a range of eight kilometers and was installed on the Eurocopter Tiger and AgustaWestland A129 helicopters.
The sources said the deployment of Spike would require integration into the Longbow's millimeter-wave fire control and acquisition system. They said this would require permission from both Boeing and the U.S. government.
Israel's Defense Ministry and air force have discussed procurement of additional Longbows with the U.S. firm Boeing. But the sources said the Longbow as well as other defense requests have been shelved by the administration amid its review of the potential use of American weapons platforms by Israel.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...0424_05_27.asp






Egypt - AH-64D APACHE Longbow Helicopters (Source: US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; issued May 26, 2009) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...licopters.html WASHINGTON --- On May 22, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified
Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Egypt of
12 AH-64D Block II APACHE Longbow Helicopters and associated equipment,
parts, training and support for an estimated cost of $820 million.
The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale of 12 AH-64D Block II
APACHE Longbow Helicopters, 27 T700-GE-701D Engines, 36 Modernized Targeting
Acquisition and Designation Systems/Pilot Night Vision Sensors, 28 M299
Hellfire Longbow Missile Launchers, 14 AN/ALQ-144(V)3 Infrared jammers, and
14 AN/APR-39B(V)2 Radar Signal Detecting Sets.
Also included: composite horizontal stabilizers, Integrated Helmet and
Display Sight Systems, repair and return, transportation, depot maintenance,
spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical
documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support, and other
related elements of program support.
The estimated cost is $820 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national
security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a
friendly country which has been and continues to be an important force for
political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is
consistent with these U.S. objectives and with the 1950 Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security.
Egypt will use the AH-64D for its national security and protecting its
borders. The aircraft will provide the Egyptian military more advanced
targeting and engagement capabilities. The proposed sale will provide for
the defense of vital installations and will provide close air support for
the military ground forces. Egypt will have no difficulty absorbing these
helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic
military balance in the region.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 02, 2009, 09:26:18 AM

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.

Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that "they can embrace and affirm."

Obama added that there is a danger "when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200947_pf.html

Title: Superb zinger by Israeli press secretary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2009, 11:33:03 AM

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...9186990802.txt

State Dept.: Obama’s Demands To Stop West Bank Expansion Includes Jerusalem


By David Bedein, Middle East Correspondent

Published: Friday, May 29, 2009

Jerusalem — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.

The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.

There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.

Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”

That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.

“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.

One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.

Ms. Clinton’s press spokesman was asked if President Obama’s demand to halt expansion of “West Bank Jewish communities” included a demand to stop expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

The answer was affirmative. The U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in these areas of Jerusalem, “whose status remains to be determined” in negotiations.

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”

Title: Re: Superb zinger by Israeli press secretary
Post by: HUSS on June 02, 2009, 07:18:36 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2009, 11:33:03 AM

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”

That has got to be the quote of the year.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 03, 2009, 12:03:42 PM

GM; your knowledge of the Israeli conflict/history is much (!) better than mine.  Rather I think
my understanding is equal only to the average American or European.

Could you, unbiased if possible,  :-)  explain to me why Israeli should not cease and desist
expanding settlements?  I am not looking for a fight; just understanding...

I would learn, and I am sure there are others like me who read but don't post here who
are curious.  It seems to me like a reasonable request.

Thank you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2009, 05:33:49 PM

Well, the quick and dirty response is, just as the Obamas didn't get permission from the Iroquois tribe before convicted felon Tony Rezko, helped them with their home purchase, Israel need no permission to build additional housing for it's citizens in land it won in war. What native people used to live on the land your home now rests on?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 03, 2009, 06:18:26 PM

Quote from: JDN on June 03, 2009, 12:03:42 PM

GM; your knowledge of the Israeli conflict/history is much (!) better than mine.  Rather I think
my understanding is equal only to the average American or European.

Could you, unbiased if possible,  :-)  explain to me why Israeli should not cease and desist
expanding settlements?  I am not looking for a fight; just understanding...

I would learn, and I am sure there are others like me who read but don't post here who
are curious.  It seems to me like a reasonable request.

Thank you.

A couple things off the top of my head;

Look into the Palestinians lineage, there is no such thing ethnically as a Palestinian.  They are simply Arab refugees.  Arafat, the most celebrated Palestinian of all time was Egyptian born.

Historically you can trace the Jews owner ship of the Temple mount back to the days of roman occupation.  Islam was not even created until the 600's

When Israel was re created in the 40's Jordan was also created, unlike Israel there is no mention of a nation known as Jordan in any history book prior to the 40's.  The kingdom/nation of Jordan was created as a home land for the Palestinians and was actually enlarged several times at the cost of Jewish land to appease the Arabs during the 40's.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 03, 2009, 08:26:37 PM

Quote from: G M on June 03, 2009, 05:33:49 PM

Well, the quick and dirty response is, just as the Obamas didn't get permission from the Iroquois tribe before convicted felon Tony Rezko, helped them with their home purchase, Israel need no permission to build additional housing for it's citizens in land it won in war. What native people used to live on the land your home now rests on?

You are too intelligent; you can do better than that.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2009, 08:37:50 PM

Well, I will add to the mix that the United Nations created the modern state of Israel.

I will add that Jews have been the majority of Jerusalem since the Catholics threw them out of Spain.

I will add that, working from memory here, for the few decades of Israel, the majority of its immigration was emmigration from various Arab/Muslim lands due to the poor treatment there. 

I will add that Arabs are Israeli citizens, vote, have members of parliament, can sue and win, can have mosques, can have Korans and so forth.  Try finding that in Saudi Arabia.

Also, women are legally equal to men, and are not beaten by the religious police if they do not cover themselves in potato sacks from head to toe when it is 120 degrees out.

Title: NYT: Isreali settlement agreement with Bush?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2009, 04:59:27 AM

Its the NYSlimes, so caveat lector:
================================================

JERUSALEM — Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement “freeze.”

The complaint was the latest in a growing rift between the Obama administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to move forward to achieve peace in the Middle East. Mr. Obama was in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and is scheduled to address the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday.

The Israeli officials said that repeated discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 resulted in agreement that housing could be built within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss an issue of such controversy between the two governments.

When Israel signed on to the so-called road map for a two-state solution in 2003, with a provision that says its government “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements),” the officials said, it did so after a detailed discussion with Bush administration officials that laid out those explicit exceptions.

“Not everything is written down,” one of the officials said.

He and others said that Israel agreed to the road map and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth could continue.

But a former senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the Israeli characterization “an overstatement.”

“There was never an agreement to accept natural growth,” the official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we weren’t able to reach agreement on that.”

The former official said that Bush administration officials had been working with their Israeli counterparts to clarify several issues, including natural growth, government subsidies to settlers, and the cessation of appropriation of Palestinian land.

The United States and Israel never reached an agreement, though, either public or private, the official said.

A second senior Bush administration official, also speaking anonymously, said Wednesday: “We talked about a settlement freeze with four elements. One was no new settlements, a second was no new confiscation of Palestinian land, one was no new subsidies and finally, no construction outside the settlements.”

He described that fourth condition, which applied to natural growth, as similar to taking a string and tying it around a settlement, and prohibiting any construction outside that string.

But, he added, “We had a tentative agreement, but that was contingent on drawing up lines, and this is a process that never got done, therefore the settlement freeze was never formalized and never done.”

A third former Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, who was on the National Security Council staff, wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post in April that seemed to endorse the Israeli argument.

The Israeli officials acknowledged that the new American administration had different ideas about the meaning of the term “settlement freeze.” Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have said in the past week that the term means an end to all building, including natural growth.

But the Israeli officials complained that Mr. Obama had not accepted that the previous understandings existed. Instead, they lamented, Israel now stood accused of having cheated and dissembled in its settlement activity whereas, in fact, it had largely lived within the guidelines to which both governments had agreed.

On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said Israel “cannot freeze life in the settlements,” calling the American demand “unreasonable.”

Dov Weissglas, who was a senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote an opinion article that appeared Tuesday in Yediot Aharonot, a mass-selling newspaper, laying out the agreements that he said had been reached with officials in the Bush administration.

He said that in May 2003 he and Mr. Sharon met with Mr. Abrams and Stephen J. Hadley of the National Security Council and came up with the definition of settlement freeze: “no new communities were to be built; no Palestinian lands were to be appropriated for settlement purposes; building will not take place beyond the existing community outline; and no ‘settlement encouraging’ budgets were to be allocated.”

He said that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser at the time, signed off on that definition later that month and that the two governments also agreed to set up a joint committee to define more fully the meaning of “existing community outline” for established settlements.

In April 2004, President Bush presented Mr. Sharon with a letter stating, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

That letter, Mr. Weissglas said, was a result of his earlier negotiations with Bush administration officials acknowledging that certain settlement blocks would remain Israeli and open to continued growth.

The Israeli officials said that no Bush administration official had ever publicly insisted that Israel was obliged to stop all building in the areas it captured in 1967. They said it was important to know that major oral understandings reached between an Israeli prime minister and an American president would not simply be tossed aside when a new administration came into the White House.

Of course, Mr. Netanyahu has yet to endorse the two-state solution or even the road map agreed to by previous Israeli governments, which were not oral commitments, but actual signed and public agreements.

In his opinion article in The Washington Post, Mr. Abrams, the former Bush official who was part of negotiations with Israel, wrote: “For the past five years, Israel’s government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians.”

Mr. Abrams acknowledged that even within those guidelines, Israel had not fully complied. He wrote: “There has been physical expansion in some places, and the Palestinian Authority is right to object to it. Israeli settlement expansion beyond the security fence, in areas Israel will ultimately evacuate, is a mistake.”

Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2009, 06:21:30 AM

Quote from: JDN on June 03, 2009, 08:26:37 PM

Quote from: G M on June 03, 2009, 05:33:49 PM

Well, the quick and dirty response is, just as the Obamas didn't get permission from the Iroquois tribe before convicted felon Tony Rezko, helped them with their home purchase, Israel need no permission to build additional housing for it's citizens in land it won in war. What native people used to live on the land your home now rests on?

You are too intelligent; you can do better than that.

The point is valid. You live on land that other claim as theirs, that was taken by military might. Aside from Native Americans, Los Angeles was once part of Mexico, and may be once again in the future. So, explain how your case is different.

Title: Israel, meet the Obama bus
Post by: G M on June 04, 2009, 07:14:59 AM

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-cairo-speech-threw-israel-under.html

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
How Obama's Cairo Speech Threw Israel Under the Bus

President Obama's speech in Cairo was historic.  No other President has gone to a foreign nation to so publicly throw a strong ally under the bus. Once again the President, pandered to the Muslim world by dissing Israel in a major way, he downplayed the role of terrorism, made Hamas look like a rowdy Boys Glee Club, called for the internationalization of Jerusalem, and used the Palestinian party line to describe the Israeli presence not only in the West Bank and Gaza but its VERY existence at all:

He started his Israel/Palestinian discussion by talking about the Holocaust and Anti-Semitism:
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
You notice that how he discusses Anti-Semitism, without mentioning the fact that the Muslim Middle East is the major supplier of Anti-Semitic fervor in the world.

Obama then goes on to talk about the 60+ years of Palestinian suffering, taking the Palestinian view that the very creation of Israel was bad. He mixes the "Christian" Palestinians with the Muslim ones, ignoring the horrible persecution of Palestinian Christians by their Muslim neighbors. Obama also discusses Gaza as an occupied territory. Er..Mr. President maybe you didn't read the newspapers in August 2005, but Israel pulled out of Gaza almost four years ago.  I know--I was in Jerusalem at the time.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
Obama also forgot to mention the role of Egypt and Jordan in making sure that the Palestinians stayed in camps and the fact that there were more Jews thrown out of Muslim countries in 1948 than Arabs leaving Israel. A mistake he repeats below:
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
Displacement? I am surprised he didn't use the word nabka (catastrophe) that's what the Muslims call it. Again accepting Muslim propaganda, the President doesn't make the point that the Arab Palestinian's weren't thrown out, the were told to leave by the Arab League states.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Violence? You mean Terrorism? No because in the next few lines he reaches out to HAMAS:
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
He makes Hamas seem like naughty children, "OK Hamas stop hitting your brother." Here again what Obama doesn't say is just as bad as what he says, "recognize Israel's right to exist." The words he missed is ..as a Jewish state. Neither Hamas or the supposedly moderate Fatah recognize Israel as a Jewish State, they both call for flooding the country with millions of Muslims to ensure that Israel becomes another Muslim country:
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
We have discussed this Ad nauseam during the past few days, by saying this, not only is Obama throwing Israel to the international wolves, but he is ignoring agreements that previous administrations made with Israel about natural growth of existing settlements.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
This was one of Bibi Netanyahu's campaign promises, but not as an obligation as a way to peace.  This is not Israel's obligation, this is the obligation of Egypt and Jordan who created the problem.

His discussion of the "humanitarian crisis" was a bit disingenuous. Maybe he should have mention why Israel closed the borders, and the fact that Hamas has been stealing many of the supplies heading to Gaza.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
Again he doesn't call for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Now he calls for the internationalization of Israel's capital Jerusalem:
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer
During the campaign, I warned all lovers of Israel, that Barack Obama would abandon the state of Israel, today he foreshadowed that abandonment to the Muslim world

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 04, 2009, 07:55:54 AM

GM said; "The point is valid. You live on land that other claim as theirs, that was taken by military might. Aside from Native Americans, Los Angeles was once part of Mexico, and may be once again in the future. So, explain how your case is different."


I thought colonialism among the industrialized world was a thing of the past; I guess not...

And it seems the U.S. Government's position (not to mention most of the world) is that indeed the settlements are illegal.

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Title: Well that's it folks - the "genius argument"
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2009, 12:56:56 PM

I guess that was the "genious argument" that will begin the healing process so we can all sing the pepsi generation song together.
I don't know if W is laughing or crying.

We "must do this", "we must do that" blah blah blah.
Thank God we finally have someone with all the answers.  How come no one had the brains and sense to figure this all out before?

Heavy on the sarcasm.

Not only are we screwed but so are the Israelis.

His middle name is todays gloriusly noted as Hussain.

Like I said all along, it ain't Joshua.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2009, 01:18:56 PM

I meant that today he gloriously notes his middle name.

And even though

I don't know if W is laughing or crying but I know our enemies are laughing.

Of course they love BO.

He has put our country on full scale retreat.

He is not Pres of the USA.  He is president of the united world of Obama.

Yet, there is no alternative on the horizon in most people's eyes.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2009, 04:21:59 PM

Quote from: JDN on June 04, 2009, 07:55:54 AM

GM said; "The point is valid. You live on land that other claim as theirs, that was taken by military might. Aside from Native Americans, Los Angeles was once part of Mexico, and may be once again in the future. So, explain how your case is different."


I thought colonialism among the industrialized world was a thing of the past; I guess not...

**I guess you are still living on colonialized land, yes? Is that alright?**

And it seems the U.S. Government's position (not to mention most of the world) is that indeed the settlements are illegal.

**Our current president's position, shocking given his anti-semitic associations. Funny how world opinion isn't so upset over China's brutal occupation of Tibet, as an example.**

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Barack Hussein Obama, standing with his muslim brothers. Big surprise!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2009, 05:57:11 PM

An Absolut Outrage
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The Border: A vodka maker's ad campaign in Mexico is more than a marketing faux pas that offends many Americans. There's a real movement out there that feels our Southwest is really occupied Mexico.

The first rule of marketing is know your customer base. So when the makers of Absolut vodka began an ad campaign in Mexico featuring what a map of North America might look like "In An Absolut World," it was well aware it might appeal to many Mexicans there and here.
The ad by the Swedish Absolut Spirits Co. features an 1830s era map where Mexico includes California, Texas, Arizona and other southwest states. The U.S. border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico ceded to the U.S.
The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of the leading Latino advertising agency in the U.S., Grupo Gallegos.
"Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land," the Argentine native said of the Absolut campaign, "so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."
This isn't the first ad campaign targeted at what some Mexican activists call the "Reconquista" movement of those who dream and work toward the day when the American Southwest will be reconquered. To them, illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border are merely returning home.
In 2005, a Los Angeles billboard advertising a Spanish-language newscast showed the Angel of Independence, a well-known monument in Mexico City, in the center of the L.A. skyline, with "CA" crossed out after "Los Angeles" and the word "Mexico" in bold red letters put in its place.
The activists working for this cause actually see themselves as "America's Palestinians" and view the Southwest as their Palestine and Los Angeles as their lost Jerusalem.
An editorial in the newspaper La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles stated: "There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States."
The editorial went on to say: "The similarities are many. The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have used military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
A key player in the "Reconquista" movement is the National Council of La Raza. Its motto: "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing."
Few caught the significance of the warmly received words of then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo before the Council in Chicago on July 27, 1997:
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." During a 2001 visit to the U.S., President Vincente Fox repeated this line, calling for open borders and endorsing Mexico's new dual-citizenship law.
A secondary group in the "Reconquista" movement is an Hispanic student activist group known as MEChA, for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan).
It has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming that the American Southwest was stolen and should be returned to its rightful owners, the people of Mexico, under the name "Nation of Aztlan."
Aztlan is the mythical place where the Aztecs are said to have originated.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez award. Another MEChA member is former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 annual convention.
We have an idea: Let's build the border fence and pay for it by selling ad space, even to an ideologically driven company such as the makers of Absolut vodka. We'll drink to that.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2009, 06:08:16 PM

So, JDN, when are you going to stop illegally occupying Aztlan ?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Boyo on June 04, 2009, 06:08:48 PM

Here is a history lesson for the obama frompalestinianfacts.org (http://palestinianfacts.org)

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?
  
Grand Mufti with Hitler
 
Muhammed Amin al-Husseini [many spelling variations] was born in 1893 (or 1895), the son of the Mufti of Jerusalem and member of an esteemed, aristocratic family. The Husseinis were one of the richest and most powerful of all the rivalling clans in the Ottoman province known as the Judaean part of Palestine.

Amin al-Husseini studied religious law at al-Azhar University, Cairo, and attended the Istanbul School of Administration. In 1913 he went to Mecca on a pilgrimage, earning the honorary title of "Haj". He voluntarily joined the Ottoman Turkish army in World War I but returned to Jerusalem in 1917 and expediently switched sides to aid the victorious British. He acquired the reputation as a violent, fanatical anti-Zionist zealot and was jailed by the British for instigating a 1920 Arab attack against Jews who were praying at the Western Wall.

The first Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. He was a weak administrator who was too ready to compromise and appease the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. When the existing Arab Mufti of Jerusalem (religious leader) died in 1921, Samuels was influenced by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff. He pardoned al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. He was simultaneously made President of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council. Al-Husseini thereby became the religious and political leader of the Arabs.

The appointment of the young al-Husseini as Mufti was a seminal event. Prior to his rise to power, there were active Arab factions supporting cooperative development of Palestine involving Arabs and Jews. But al-Husseini would have none of that; he was devoted to driving Jews out of Palestine, without compromise, even if it set back the Arabs 1000 years.

William Ziff, in his book "The Rape of Palestine," summarizes:

Implicated in the [1920] disturbances was a political adventurer named Haj Amin al Husseini. Haj Amin, was sentenced by a British court to fifteen years hard labor. Conveniently allowed to escape by the police, he was a fugitive in Syria. Shortly after, the British then allowed him to return to Palestine where, despite the opposition of the muslim High Council who regarded him as a hoodlum, Haj Amin was appointed by the British High Commissioner as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for life. [P. 22]
Al-Husseini represented newly emerging proponents of militant, Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept. Once he was in power, he began a campaign of terror and intimidation against anyone opposed to his rule and policies. He killed Jews at every opportunity, but also eliminated Arabs who did not support his campaign of violence. Husseini was not willing to negotiate or make any kind of compromise for the sake of peace.

As a young man, al-Husseini worked with a native Jew, Abbady, who documented this comment:

Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country.
In 1929, major Arab riots were instigated against the Jews of Palestine. They began when al-Husseini falsely accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa. The call went out to the Arab masses: "Izbah Al-Yahud!" — "Slaughter the Jews!" After the killing of Jews in Hebron, the Mufti disseminated photographs of slaughtered Jews with the claim that the dead were Arabs killed by Jews.

In April, 1936 six prominent Arab leaders formed the Arab Higher Committee, with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini as head of the organization, joining forces to protest British support of Zionist progress in Palestine. In the same month, riots broke out in Jaffa commencing a three-year period of violence and civil strife in Palestine that is known as the Arab Revolt. The Arab Higher Committee led the campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets.

Using the turmoil of the Arab Revolt as cover, al-Husseini consolidated his control over the Palestinian Arabs with a campaign of murder against Jews and non-compliant Arabs, the recruitment of armed militias, and the raising of funds from around the Muslim world using anti-Jewish propaganda. In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population. Following an assassination attempt on the British Inspector-General of the Palestine Police Force and the murder by Arab extremists of Jews and moderate Arabs, the Arab Higher Committee was declared illegal by the British. The Grand Mufti lost his office of President of the Supreme muslim Council, his membership on the Waqf committee, and was forced into exile in Syria in 1937. The British deported the Arab mayor of Jerusalem along with other members of the Arab Higher Committee.

According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the Nazi Germany SS helped finance al-Husseini's efforts in the 1936-39 revolt in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann actually visited Palestine and met with al-Husseini at that time and subsequently maintained regular contact with him later in Berlin.

In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right:

... to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.
While in Baghdad, Syria al-Husseini aided the pro-Nazi revolt of 1941. He then spent the rest of World War II as Hitler's special guest in Berlin, advocating the extermination of Jews in radio broadcasts back to the Middle East and recruiting Balkan Muslims for infamous SS "mountain divisions" that tried to wipe out Jewish communities throughout the region.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
With the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945, the Mufti moved to Egypt where he was received as a national hero. After the war al-Husseini was indicted by Yugoslavia for war crimes, but escaped prosecution. The Mufti was never tried because the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if the hero of Arab nationalism was treated as a war criminal.

From Egypt al-Husseini was among the sponsors of the 1948 war against the new State of Israel. Spurned by the Jordanian monarch, who gave the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to someone else, Haj Amin al-Husseini arranged King Abdullah's assassination in 1951, while still living in exile in Egypt. King Tallal followed Abdullah as king of Jordan, and he refused to give permission to Amin al-Husseini to come into Jordanian Jerusalem. After one year, King Tallal was declared incompetent; the new King Hussein also refused to give al-Husseini permission to enter Jerusalem. King Hussein recognized that the former Grand Mufti would only stir up trouble and was a danger to peace in the region.

Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husseini" as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.

Boyo

PS I know it doesn't quit fit but it is a good look into the history of the region and the web site is loaded with info.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Boyo on June 04, 2009, 06:12:38 PM

slight correction the website ispalestinefacts.org (http://palestinefacts.org)not the othetr one I posted earlier my bad.  :oops:

Boyo

Title: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
Post by: rachelg on June 04, 2009, 06:35:37 PM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jewref.html
Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
By Jacqueline Shields

Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. In 1945, there were more than 870,000 Jews living in the various Arab states. Many of their communities dated back 2,500 years. Throughout 1947 and 1948 these Jews were persecuted. Their property and belongings were confiscated. There were anti-Jewish riots in Egypt, Lybia, Syria, and Iraq. In Iraq, Zionism was made a capital crime. Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel. They arrived destitute, but they were absorbed into the society and became an integral part of the state. In effect, then, a vertible exchange of populations took place between Arab and Jewish refugees. Thus, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries became full Israeli citizens whereas the Arab refugees who fled their homes in Palestine, remained “refugees“ unaided by the neighboring Arab countries.

Little is heard about the Jewish refugees because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened the Jews living in their countries with expulsion and violence if partition were to occur. Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition.“ Following the 1947 United Nations vote to partition Palestine, Arab violence against Jews erupted throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

On January 18, 1948, the president of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Stephen Wise, appealed to U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in 'the greatest danger of destruction' at the hands of Moslems being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine. . .Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity.“ The United States, however, did not take action to investigate these pleadings.

On May 16, 1948, a New York Times Headline read “Jews in Grave Danger in all Muslim Lands: Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia face wrath of their foes.“ The story reported of a law drafted by the Arab League Political Committee “which was intended to govern the legal status of Jewish residents of Arab League countries. Their bank accounts would be frozen and used to finance resistance to 'Zionist ambitions in Palestine.' Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned and their assets confiscated.“ Pogroms and persecutions, and grave fears for their future, regularly preceded the mass expulsions and exoduses of the Jews, whose ancestors had inhabited these regions from time immemorial. Beginning in 1948, more than 650,000 Jews left their homes in the Arab world to become refugees, and were eventually integrated into Israel, even as the country was being threatened with annihilation by neighboring Arab League states. Since their belongings were confiscated as the price of leaving from their repressive homelands, they arrived in Israel penniless, but they were welcomed and quickly absorbed into Israeli society. Approximately 300,000 more Jews found refuge, and a new homeland, in Europe and the Americas.

The mass displacement of the Jews from Arab countries has been a breach of international law. The 1945 Nuremberg Charter made wartime mass deportation a crime against humanity, and the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War also prohibits deportations and forcible transfers, whether mass or individual. Decrees and practices discriminating against Jews in Arab countries, especially denationalization, is eerily similar to the Nazi Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race, and the victims are the same, the Jews.

Roughly half of Israel's 5 million Jews are Jewish refugees from Arab countries or their descendants, and they received no humanitarian aid from the United Nations. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing their homelands. Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on June 04, 2009, 06:39:21 PM

JDN,
Please explain why you think America has right to tell  Israel what to do with their borders.
Why no calls for the freedom of Tibet or Kashmir first.  Tibetans and Kashmirians certainly deserve it more

There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Arab refugees from Israel

A different question about is whether or not Settlements are good for Israel.

Israel has a choice to make  It can pick two of three things.--  greater , Jewish, or democratic. 

I  am not Israeli ( it being their choice) I  would personally choose Jewish and democratic.   I would wold like to see the Palestinian state be Jordan it is already a majority Palestinian.   
A huge problem is that  Israeli withdrawals  from territory only increases violence.  I used to think that people who said that were right wing nut jobs.
 Right wing nut job or not the statics are in their favor.

 I think there will be peace in Israel last after there is peace in the rest of the middle east.     

I don't think there will be peace in the middle east until there are very different borders in the middle east. 
The British (GM Colonialism/The British  absolutely sucked for the middle east) created  terrible borders for the Middle East
An excellent book on this topic is  A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East  by David Fromkin

Title: Analysis: Cairo scorecard: The good, the bad & the omitted
Post by: rachelg on June 04, 2009, 06:43:36 PM

Analysis: Cairo scorecard: The good, the bad & the omitted
Jun. 5, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

The address US President Barack Obama delivered in Cairo on Thursday was one of the most anticipated and hyped speeches in recent memory. And now that the 5,804-word address has been delivered, every sentence will be dissected for days, weeks and months by various states and groups trying to figure out just how they fared.

Leading the pack, of course, will be the Jews and Israel, obsessed - not unjustifiably - with how we are seen in the eyes of the strongest power on earth.

What follows is an Israeli Jewish primer on the good, bad and omitted.

The good

• Although it often sounds banal, it is not insignificant for the president of the United Sates to go the center of the Arab world and declaim that America's bonds with Israel are unbreakable, and based on cultural and historical ties.

The premise of a strong, unshakable Israeli-US relationship is the basis for any diplomatic process. As Dennis Ross wrote in his book, The Missing Peace, "Would the Arab world even believe it had to accommodate itself to Israel's existence if it had reason to question the staying power of the US commitment to Israel?"

Peacemaking, Ross wrote, required that the Arabs understand "that no wedge would be driven between the United States and Israel, and that Israel was not going to disappear."

Obama made that clear.

• There was something powerful about hearing Obama address the Holocaust, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in a city where Holocaust denial and vile anti-Semitism are a major export.

"The Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust," he said. "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

One would be hard pressed to find other examples of world leaders stating this case to the Arab world so unequivocally.

• Obama put paid to Saudi Arabia's contention that it doesn't have to make any gestures to Israel because it initiated the Arab Peace plan in 2002. The initiative called for a normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world when Israel returns completely to the pre-1967 borders and agrees to a "just" solution to the refugee question.

Frankly, Obama said, this was not enough. "The Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past."

The bad

• While it was highly significant that Obama addressed Jewish suffering and the Holocaust in Cairo (see above) there was something rather problematic about his use of the term "on the other hand" in transitioning from Jewish to Palestinian suffering.

"Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today," Obama said, stating a fact. "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

On the other hand? As if there is room for comparison between the Holocaust, brought upon the Jews due to no fault of their own, and the suffering of the Palestinians, for which a cogent argument could be made that the Palestinians bear a good share of the responsibility.

• Obama's comparison of the Palestinian cause to the US civil rights movement struck a jarring note, though here he was not blazing new ground, but following former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made similar comments in the past.

"Palestinians must abandon violence," he said, strongly.

"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding."

The comparison is facile: the civil rights movement fought for integration and equal rights for black Americans. The movement was not fighting to destroy white America. The same can not be said of the Palestinian movement in its relation to Israel.

• The president was much too lenient on Iran.

"It is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point," Obama said. "This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."

A decisive point? How about telling us, and the Iranians, something we don't know, like what the consequences of Teheran's continued intransigence will be, and how long they have to stop uranium enrichment, or else.

The omitted

• The biggest omission, from Israel's point of view, is not mentioning the Jewish historic and religious right to be in this part of the world.

Granted, Obama mentioned the Holocaust as a context for the Jews' right to a state, but he didn't mention their historic, religious rights. This omission strengthens the argument in the Arab world that the Palestinians are paying the price for European crimes against Jews, and that if it were not for the Holocaust, the Jews would never have come back to Israel.

The Jewish historic right to be in Israel is something Arabs have never acknowledged, and Obama could have seized the opportunity to stress the point. He did the exact opposite, however, when he said that "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away."

Recognizing Israel because it will "not go away" is not the same as accepting its legitimacy, and the historic rights of the Jews to be here.

The don't-get-too-worked-up-about

• Some government officials complained after the address that Obama went overboard trying to appease the Muslim world, painting a picture of a moderate Islam that most Israelis don't know and exaggerating both the impact and influence of Muslims on American society.

Forget it; it doesn't matter. This is not a zero-sum game wherein if Obama praises Islamic civilization, he is thereby denigrating the Jewish one. Honoring Muslim influence in America isn't something Jews should feel threatened by.

Though some may get nervous when Obama says "Islam is a part of America," they don't have to. Just because "Islam is part of America" does not mean - as contemporary history has shown - that America will turn its back on Israel.

• Some will see in Obama's remarks about Jerusalem a call for internationalization of the city.

"All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear," he said. "When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

The story of Isra tells of how Muhammad was carried from Mecca to the "farthest mosque" on his winged steed, Barak. The location of this mosque is not explicitly stated in the Koran, but is traditionally considered to be the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - something which might explain the huge round of applause Obama received at this point.

Obama's comments on Jerusalem are not a blueprint for policy, but rather
an overall aspiration. It shouldn't be seen as a clarion call to wrest
Jerusalem out of Israeli control, because the issue of control, of sovereignty, was not mentioned. Who doesn't want peace in Jerusalem? The question, and one which Obama skirted, is how exactly to go about achieving it.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035003338&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: An alternative two-state solution
Post by: rachelg on June 04, 2009, 06:46:41 PM

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

An alternative two-state solution
Jun. 3, 2009
JEROLD S. AUERBACH , THE JERUSALEM POST

A "two-state" solution for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems like an idea whose time has come - yet again. Everyone who is anyone, especially President Obama, supports it. But his two-state proposal is inexorably linked to a demand for a total freeze on Israeli settlements and, inevitably, their disappearance. They are, it is widely - and erroneously - assumed, illegal under international law.

Advocates of the two-state division of "Palestine" seem oblivious to the fact that partition already occurred - nearly 90 years ago. After World War I the League of Nations mandate for Palestine (then geographically defined as the land that now comprises Jordan, the West Bank and Israel) recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

But Great Britain, the Mandatory trustee, retained the discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the right of Jews to settle east of the Jordan River.

To satisfy the ambitions of Hashemite Sheikh Abdullah for his own kingdom, colonial secretary Winston Churchill removed all the land east of the river from the borders of Palestine. With that amputation, three-quarters of Palestine became the new Kingdom of Trans-Jordan.

Ever since, "Palestine" has referred only to the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Following the Six-Day War, UN Resolution 242 authorized Israel to administer the West Bank until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" was achieved. Even then, however, Israel would only be required to withdraw its military forces "from territories" - not from "the territories" or "all the territories." The absence of "the," the famous missing definite article, was intentional. Israel would not be expected to relinquish all the spoils won during a defensive war for survival.

EVER SINCE 1967, two-state proposals for the division of shrunken "Palestine" have sprouted like weeds whenever the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved too frustrating for outsiders to endure.

Nonetheless, hope springs eternal - especially in Washington, where the Obama administration seems determined to restrict, if not eradicate, the right of Jews to settle in their ancient homeland.

There are, however, complications. For one, there already are (at least) two de facto Palestinian states, one (governed by Fatah) in the West Bank and another (ruled by Hamas) in Gaza. They have yet to make peace with each other, much less with Israel. For another, two-thirds of the population of Jordan is Palestinian, suggesting that a Palestinian state already exists - in historic Palestine - in all but name.

An obvious two-state solution presents itself: Israel would remain the Jewish state that it has been for 61 years. Israeli settlements, now home to 300,000 Jews, would become part of Israel. Jordan, Gaza, and West Bank Palestinian cities, villages and lands would converge to comprise the state of Palestine.

Each state would police and protect its own people (as Israelis and Palestinians already do); a joint Israeli-Jordanian/Palestinian police force would maintain law and order between communities and supervise border crossings.

It may not seem perfect, nor even sound plausible. But it has two distinctive virtues: It neither ethnically cleanses Jews from their biblical homeland in Judea and Samaria nor would it permit minority rule anywhere within its boundaries. Palestinians will govern Palestinians; Israelis will govern Israelis; and they will each have their own state - in historic Palestine. And the weary debate over Israeli settlements would finally evaporate.

It seems worth a try.

The writer is professor of history at Wellesley College and the author of Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, to be published by Roman & Littlefield in July.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244034989184&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2009, 06:49:29 PM

Rachel,

I'd agree that the borders created by the British empire created a real mess that we face today.

My tribe traded land for peace and let's say it didn't work out real well for us.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 04, 2009, 07:07:53 PM

Quote from: Rachel on June 04, 2009, 06:39:21 PM

JDN,
Please explain why you think America has right to tell  Israel what to do with their borders.
Why no calls for the freedom of Tibet or Kashmir first.  Tibetans and Kashmirians certainly deserve it more

I'll try...  :-)

When I was growing up, I was very lucky, my parents provided for me and loved me very much.  But occasionally,
I would rebel.  "I'm going to move out".  My father would look at me and say, "Fine, and how are you going to
pay for it?"  "What are you going to do?"  Now mind you, the situation was never so dreadful that I ever left, but
also, I considered his words.

We are like the "father" in this story.  Without our money, we give billions to Israel, without our weapons and protection, Israel
would cease to exist.  Yes, Israel is a very good friend, loved I think like my father loved me, but...  it is the way of
the world, if I keep taking your money and handouts, you have a price to pay.  And others will argue that America
has paid a huge price by supporting Israeli in dire times, yet I argue that is the right thing to do.  But in exchange...

But because we are the "father" in this story, one who loves his child, there is a reasonable expectation of obedience.

In contrast, Tibet and Kashmir for whom I am sympathetic receive little from us.  They are not one of our children
whom we support.  The world is full of good causes, each one deserving, but we must pick and choose for many reasons.
There are orphans in the world that I or America cannot help.

But occasionally, although there is love, in exchange, I think it is reasonable to expect compliance.  Or Israel can "go it alone".
They can "move out".  And I doubt if they would last much longer than I would have lasted if I have moved out in High School.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on June 04, 2009, 07:46:29 PM

JDN,
A longer response will have wait but the US has not always been a great friend to Israel.   The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 04, 2009, 08:29:52 PM

Mmmmm I wonder if today, "The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US"
Frankly, I disagree. It is sort of like the song, "He's my brother..."
Yet I think we should be there for Israel, but it is a burden, obligation/love matters, but it is not a benefit...

But I look forward to your reply. 
And I always enjoy and respect your opinion.
Until tomorrow...   :-)
Have a nice evening.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 05, 2009, 05:55:24 AM

Quote from: JDN on June 04, 2009, 07:07:53 PM

Quote from: Rachel on June 04, 2009, 06:39:21 PM

JDN,
Please explain why you think America has right to tell  Israel what to do with their borders.
Why no calls for the freedom of Tibet or Kashmir first.  Tibetans and Kashmirians certainly deserve it more

I'll try...  :-)

When I was growing up, I was very lucky, my parents provided for me and loved me very much.  But occasionally,
I would rebel.  "I'm going to move out".  My father would look at me and say, "Fine, and how are you going to
pay for it?"  "What are you going to do?"  Now mind you, the situation was never so dreadful that I ever left, but
also, I considered his words.

We are like the "father" in this story.  Without our money, we give billions to Israel, without our weapons and protection, Israel
would cease to exist.  Yes, Israel is a very good friend, loved I think like my father loved me, but...  it is the way of
the world, if I keep taking your money and handouts, you have a price to pay.  And others will argue that America
has paid a huge price by supporting Israeli in dire times, yet I argue that is the right thing to do.  But in exchange...

But because we are the "father" in this story, one who loves his child, there is a reasonable expectation of obedience.

In contrast, Tibet and Kashmir for whom I am sympathetic receive little from us.  They are not one of our children
whom we support.  The world is full of good causes, each one deserving, but we must pick and choose for many reasons.
There are orphans in the world that I or America cannot help.

But occasionally, although there is love, in exchange, I think it is reasonable to expect compliance.  Or Israel can "go it alone".
They can "move out".  And I doubt if they would last much longer than I would have lasted if I have moved out in High School.

Kahsmir is another western social experiment gone wrong.  The land called pakistan used to be part of India.  As the the muslims in that area became more violent the british gave them a homeland and carved up india.  How is that working out???????????? 

As for Israel, the U.S needs them more then Israel needs the U.S.  Here is why, the western world cannot survive with out cheap fossil fuels (oil, gas).  Imagine now that the U.S throws Israel under the bus and war breaks out.  Israel is going to start tossing nukes around if it looks like they are going to lose.  If Iran gets thumped they may every well close down the straits of Hormuz, sink a few tankers and the next thing we know oil is at $200 a barrel and this current down turn becomes a pleasent memory.
Why would we throw Israel under the bus when we are fighting two war in the same region for the purpose of installing democracy?  do you think with israel gone hamas and hez will suddenly embrace democracy and act kindly towards the west? if you believe that i suggest you read up bit more on islam. it is not just a religion, its a complete political system that governs an individuals life in every aspect.  If you read the Koran through and look at what is happening in the west you will also realize that its imperialistic in nature and that they are slowly infiltrating western culture (CAIR is a good example, a group of convicted terrorists are still abel to recieve tax payer money).  Keep in mind, the crusades were reactionary, they did not begin until 1095 but parts of europe had been over run as early as 711.


Here is a translation that i read - http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2009, 06:22:09 AM

I think unfortunately there are a lot of western social experiments gone wrong.

You are right, the world cannot survive without fossil fuel.  Israel doesn't have
any, but the Muslims do...

However, I truly hope Israel would not "start tossing nukes"...


Thank you for your translation reference link; I definitely will read that one since it is published at my alma mater   :-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2009, 06:26:59 AM

An additional point to consider on the benefits and merits of Israel as an ally:

History Question:

How did it happen that Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, all of which were once Soviet client states, ceased being such?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 05, 2009, 06:40:10 AM

Quote from: JDN on June 05, 2009, 06:22:09 AM

I think unfortunately there are a lot of western social experiments gone wrong.

You are right, the world cannot survive without fossil fuel.  Israel doesn't have
any, but the Muslims do...

However, I truly hope Israel would not "start tossing nukes"...


Thank you for your translation reference link; I definitely will read that one since it is published at my alma mater   :-)

I think you will be surprised that even with a very liberal school doing the translation the book is extremely violent and hostile towards non muslisms........ which is exactly how mohammed lived.

As for Israel not having oil and the muslims having it.............. i think your are making the assumption that with Israel gone the arabs will live in peace with us and act rationally.  Never in history have they done that, why do you feel they would now?  thats a dangerous bet.  It also makes us hypocrites should we abandon Israel as we are fighting two wars on the pretense of installing freedom.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2009, 07:14:17 AM

Huss, I'll have you know USC is a very conservative school; definitely not liberal.   :-)

And yes, I agree to expect the "arabs to live in peace with us and act rationally" is maybe asking too much.
But that is the best hope for peace and prosperity for all.

And I have never ever suggested we abandon Israel...
This post's recent turn was in response to Rachel's question to me, "why does America have the right to
tell Israel what to do with their borders."  I gave the analogy of the wayward disobedient son.  While father/son might be
in disagreement, and the father thinks he has authority to impose certain rules, underlying, there is always still love.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 05, 2009, 09:06:13 AM

Quote from: JDN on June 05, 2009, 07:14:17 AM

And yes, I agree to expect the "arabs to live in peace with us and act rationally" is maybe asking too much.
But that is the best hope for peace and prosperity for all.

If our best hope for peace is to hope that people who have lived a certain way for 1500 years will suddenly change because we changed our policy towards israel, we are so screwed its not funny.  Islam as i said before is imperialistic in nature and in its current form, as mohammed created it.  With out a reformation that removes 99% of what mohammed did we have no hope of living in peace with them.  As an experiement, name me one single country that has an islamic majority that does not mistreat its non muslim citizens (excluding turkey whose constitution is based on secular values).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2009, 11:11:59 AM

Not trying to dodge the question, but could you define "mistreat".

For example, I sincerely like Japan, go there often, and can speak a little.  IF I became
a citizen of Japan, I assure you I would still be "mistreated" in comparison to ethnic
Japanese (I am a caucasian).   Deep down, I think most Japanese are racist.

Now, I wouldn't be severely beaten if that is what you mean by "mistreated", but I would have
difficulty getting a loan, entering some bath houses, finding an apartment, being questioned
by the police, entering management levels at a company; many jobs would be off limits, i.e.
police, fire, almost any government employment, and I would always be "watched" etc. 
I'm always gaijin - an outsider even if I could speak perfectly and my citizenship papers were
all in order.

My attitude; accept it and go with the flow.  I know I am a minority so I need to adjust; the
majority does not need to adjust for me.  And enjoy the good, but accept that I am not "equal".

So what do you mean by mistreated? 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Boyo on June 05, 2009, 11:47:49 AM

An example of being "mistreated" . Friend of mine worked corperate security after he retired from the state police.He was sent to Saudi Arabia with some auto execs.One unsuspecting wife walked off the US compound in some capri pants:OOPS  :-P.She was beaten by a group of men, with switches, until she reached the compound and security was able to protect her.Sharia law and how it deals with outsiders is worlds apart from being a minority "gaijin" in Japan.They are living in the dark ages and like it there. :-D

Boyo

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2009, 01:25:55 PM

I agree, they do seem seem to live in the dark ages and seem to like it there.

So if you live/visit there, you better know the rules.  Sorry; she was stupid to walk around in capri pants.
And the same punishment would have been meted out whether she was muslim or not;
maybe even worse for the muslim woman.  That seems "fair" to me.  Hardly, a "mistreatment" of
non muslims.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2009, 11:03:43 PM

Boyo posted: "One unsuspecting wife (in Saudi) walked off the US compound in some capri pants (non-Muslim behavior) OOPS  .She was beaten by a group of men, with switches"

JDN actually wrote: "Sorry; she was stupid to walk around in capri pants. And the same punishment would have been meted out whether she was muslim or not...seems "fair" to me.  Hardly, a "mistreatment" of non muslims."

Repeat:  a western woman wore NORMAL western clothing, was beaten by a group of men, and that is hardly a mistreatment of a non-Muslim???
---

Crafty, you really want us to IGNORE that level of comment rather than react/over-react?  Besides offensive and not genuine (he also wrote: "they do seem seem to live in the dark ages), these posts are tiresome.  IMO he is just trying to bring down the conversation; these posts don't fit anyone's pursuit of the truth.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Boyo on June 06, 2009, 03:57:36 AM

So who are you tired of Boyo or JDN? I showed one example of a vistitor in the middle east being mistreated.then make a sarcastic comment.JDN answered big whoop.Its fun. :lol:

Its not like we go over there and put in holy water dipensers in public schools using public money.That happens here at the University of Michigan Dearborn with islamic foot baths, or at the indianapolis Airport. Its not like we force church bells to ring calling people to worship over there . They now have a call to prayer 5 times a day in a predominatly Polish Catholic neighborhood in Detroit.Its not like when they give speeches that we get all up in arms and kill nuns.Oh thats right they did after the Pope quoted a Byzantinian emporer warning about islam.

Boyo

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 06, 2009, 06:04:02 AM

Quote from: JDN on June 05, 2009, 11:11:59 AM

Not trying to dodge the question, but could you define "mistreat". 

Not allowed bibles, churches, voting rights and in some countries like saudi they still have slave markets and collect the jizya from non muslims.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2009, 06:15:15 AM

@Doug: You have a PM

========

I would add to Huss's post the enforcement mechanisms behind "not allowed" can be pretty severe. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 06, 2009, 06:16:03 AM

Boyo,  I have found all your posts to be right on the mark.  Sorry if I sugar coated my criticism of the other poster so badly that it lost all its meaning.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 06, 2009, 07:06:39 AM

Huss posted; "As an experiement, name me one single country that has an islamic majority that does not mistreat its non muslim citizens (excluding turkey whose constitution is based on secular values)."

The implication being that Muslim countries mistreat, i.e. discriminate against their non muslim citizens.  I didn't even disagree, I merely asked for a clarification of "mistreat".

Boyo posted a tragic incident where a wife of a friend was "beaten with switches".

Is this "pretty severe"?  Yes, by our standards it is extremely severe and uncalled for.  But that is the law for all; muslim and non muslim.
Her "normal western clothing" is not normal in that country; it is illegal and not acceptable for either a muslim or non muslim.
And I am sorry, but I do think it was stupid that she was allowed off compound and/or went off on her own without knowing the rules and the law.
She should have been either not there (many don't bring their wives) or educated in the proper rules and regulations before venturing off base.
Your friend took the big bucks to work in Saudi Arabia (I have an engineering friend who did the same), but in exchange you put up with their rules and the heat.

But... my point, my response to Huss is that this is not an example of how a Muslim country discriminates against non muslims since that is the law and further, if it had been
a muslim women she too would have suffered the same consequences or probably even worse.

That is the "TRUTH".  We might not like that law or many others, but they are not discriminatory towards non muslims; "fair" in that it is simply the law applicable to ALL citizens
and guests in the country, muslim OR non muslim.


And yes, I do agree they do seem to live in the dark ages.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 06, 2009, 07:10:21 AM

Sharia law, based on the qu'ran, ahadith and the sunna (life of Muhammad) mandate the treatment of non-muslims in a discriminatory manner.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 06, 2009, 07:17:45 AM

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/838-The-Unreported-Legal-Abuse-of-Non-Muslims-in-Islam.html

Wednesday, December 28, 2005
The Unreported Legal Abuse of Non-Muslims in Islam

 

Indian in Saudi Arabia to Have an Eye Gouged Out

The big story here is not the brutality of the Saudi justice system. What is never reported is that because non-Muslim testimony has half the weight of a Muslim's in a sharia court, non-Muslims are almost always the losers of disputes. (The same holds true for women.) In this case, for example, an Indian gas station worker pointlessly testified that the injury he inflicted was in self-defense.

This presents enormous potential for abuse, even disregarding corruption and the routine hostility toward the "other" in the Muslim world. This is how the most unbelievable items are routinely stolen from Christians, for example, such as land and houses in the West Bank and Gaza. It is one reason why Christians are fleeing nearly every country with Muslim rule.

This system offers unscrupulous Muslims carte blanche to abuse others in private, which is behind the routine oppression (including rape) and de facto enslavement of foreign domestic workers in Saudi Arabia.

A former PLO terrorist, Walid Shoebat, explained how his land and property in Judea were stolen from him by his family after he converted to Christianity. His case was not typical, given the death sentence meted under sharia for converts from Islam. After he converted, he learned that his American mother had been held prisoner for 35 years after a honeymoon in the Holy Land. His father's responses to her attempts to flee made her keep her Christianity a secret from her own children.

Update (Dec. 29): Here is a shocking illustration:

79 Lashes for Gangrenous Maid Who Spoke Against Saudi Torturer (from The Arab News-Saudi Arabia, via the excellent Lost Budgie Blog).
A Riyadh judge sentenced an Indonesian maid, who accused her sponsor and his wife of torturing her, to 79 lashes yesterday....In March, Miyati was brought to a hospital in Riyadh by her sponsor in a critical condition suffering from gangrene to her fingers, toes and a part of her right foot. Doctors had to remove some of her fingers and toes....A judge later sentenced the sponsor?s wife, who admitted to beating Miyati, to 35 lashes. The husband was found innocent due to lack of evidence against him.
There was a "lack of evidence" against the husband despite the pictures, the medical evidence and the wife's confession. The (apparently Muslim) maid's testimony was essentially discarded because it is accorded half of the weight of that of a Muslim man.

Despite the distinction unanimously claimed by the mainstream media between "radicals" and the "moderate majority," there is no significant Muslim opinion that disagrees with either the desirability of implementing Muslim law or the half-valuation of testimony under it. There is almost no source other than IRIS explaining the systemic incentive to exploit the "other" under Islam.

See also:

Saudi Police Arrest Thousands of... Runaway Maids

Saudis to Gouge Out More Eyes

April 24, 2006: Pakistani Teen Raped, Jailed in Saudi Arabia
"Isma Mahmood, 16, was deported to Pakistan last month after having served six months in shackles and handcuffs in a prison in Saudi Arabia. Her crime?being raped by a Saudi man"

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2009, 08:25:19 AM

JDN:

Since you are relatively new around here, you may not been here or found the time to go back through the various threads on Islam.  If/when you do, you will find a plethora of material such as GM just posted. 

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 06, 2009, 08:48:38 AM

Actually, I was just about to post.

My original post was asking Huss what he meant by "mistreatment" of non muslims.

GM's immediate post is exactly on mark, identify and giving an excellent example of a "mistreatment" of non muslims in a discriminatory way.
Indefensible. 

In contrast, Boyo's post was not an example of discriminatory mistreatment of non muslims and therefore I disagreed.

But I will do further research on past posts.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2009, 09:58:47 AM

"GM's immediate post is exactly on mark, identify and giving an excellent example of a "mistreatment" of non muslims in a discriminatory way. Indefensible." 

Agreed!

"In contrast, Boyo's post was not an example of discriminatory mistreatment of non muslims and therefore I disagreed."

Fair enough.

"But I will do further research on past posts."

Thank you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 06, 2009, 12:41:24 PM

Quote from: JDN on June 06, 2009, 08:48:38 AM

Actually, I was just about to post.

My original post was asking Huss what he meant by "mistreatment" of non muslims.

GM's immediate post is exactly on mark, identify and giving an excellent example of a "mistreatment" of non muslims in a discriminatory way.
Indefensible. 

In contrast, Boyo's post was not an example of discriminatory mistreatment of non muslims and therefore I disagreed.

But I will do further research on past posts.

JDN,

a really good website to visit for more info on islam is www.thereligionofpeace.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2009, 05:03:04 PM

Hey Huss!

Remember how you and I used to go around the Mulberry Bush over at WT?   

JDN, watch out for him!  In my conversations with him I used to sound like you do now here, but now look at me :-o :lol:

Anyway gentlemen, further discussion of this strand within Islam should be continued on one (or more) of the Islam threads.  Please used advanced search funtion for "Islam" in the subject and see what pops up.

Marc

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 06, 2009, 06:11:10 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2009, 05:03:04 PM

Hey Huss!

Remember how you and I used to go around the Mulberry Bush over at WT?   

JDN, watch out for him!  In my conversations with him I used to sound like you do now here, but now looks at me :-o :lol:

Anyway gentlemen, further discussion of this strand within Islam should be continued on one (or more) of the Islam threads.  Please used advanced search funtion for "Islam" in the subject and see what pops up.

Marc

hahahahahaha, i almost got banned from there for it.  I will say this JDN, read through the Koran on the link i supplied you.  When you are done reading you will not be able to defend islam at its core as a peacefull religion.  I also suggest you study the time line of mohammed life, he was nothing more then a murdering bandit.

Title: Stratfor: The settlements and the future of US-Isreali relations
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 10, 2009, 06:49:45 AM

WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS AND THE FUTURE OF U.S.-ISRAELI RELATIONS

By George Friedman

Amid the rhetoric of U.S. President Barack Obama's speech June 4 in Cairo, there was one substantial indication of change, not in the U.S. relationship to the Islamic world but in the U.S. relationship to Israel. This shift actually emerged prior to the speech, and the speech merely touched on it. But it is not a minor change and it must not be underestimated. It has every opportunity of growing into a major breach between Israel and the United States.

The immediate issue concerns Israeli settlements on the West Bank. The United States has long expressed opposition to increasing settlements but has not moved much beyond rhetoric. Certainly the continued expansion and development of new settlements on the West Bank did not cause prior administrations to shift their policies toward Israel. And while the Israelis have occasionally modified their policies, they have continued to build settlements. The basic understanding between the two sides has been that the United States would oppose settlements formally but that this would not evolve into a fundamental disagreement.

The United States has clearly decided to change the game. Obama has said that, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to stop building new settlements, but not to halt what he called the "natural growth" of existing settlements.

Obama has positioned the settlement issue in such a way that it would be difficult for him to back down. He has repeated it several times, including in his speech to the Islamic world. It is an issue on which he is simply following the formal positions of prior administrations. It is an issue on which prior Israeli governments made commitments. What Obama has done is restated formal U.S. policy, on which there are prior Israeli agreements, and demanded Israeli compliance. Given his initiative in the Islamic world, Obama, having elevated the issue to this level, is going to have problems backing off.

Obama is also aware that Netanyahu is not in a political position to comply with the demand, even if he were inclined to. Netanyahu is leading a patchwork coalition in which support from the right is critical. For the Israeli right, settling in what it calls Samaria and Judea is a fundamental principle on which it cannot bend. Unlike Ariel Sharon, a man of the right who was politically powerful, Netanyahu is a man of the right who is politically weak. Netanyahu gave all he could give on this issue when he said there would be no new settlements created. Netanyahu doesn't have the political ability to give Obama what he is demanding. Netanyahu is locked into place, unless he wants to try to restructure his Cabinet or persuade people like Avigdor Lieberman, his right-wing foreign minister, to change their fundamental view of the world.

Therefore, Obama has decided to create a crisis with Israel. He has chosen a subject on which Republican and Democratic administrations have had the same formal position. He has also picked a subject that does not affect Israeli national security in any immediate sense (he has not made demands for changes of policy toward Gaza, for example). Obama struck at an issue where he had precedent on his side, and where Israel's immediate safety is not at stake. He also picked an issue on which he would have substantial support in the United States, and he has done this to have a symbolic showdown with Israel. The more Netanyahu resists, the more Obama gets what he wants.

Obama's read of the Arab-Israeli situation is that it is not insoluble. He believes in the two-state solution, for better or worse. In order to institute the two-state solution, Obama must establish the principle that the West Bank is Palestinian territory by right and not Israeli territory on which the Israelis might make concessions. The settlements issue is fundamental to establishing this principle. Israel has previously agreed both to the two-state solution and to not expanding settlements. If Obama can force Netanyahu to concede on the settlements issue, then he will break the back of the Israeli right and open the door to a rightist-negotiated settlement of the two-state solution.

In the course of all of this, Obama is opening doors in the Islamic world a little wider by demonstrating that the United States is prepared to force Israel to make concessions. By subtext, he wants to drive home the idea that Israel does not control U.S. policy but that, in fact, Israel and the United States are two separate countries with different and sometimes conflicting views. Obama wouldn't mind an open battle on the settlements one bit.

For Netanyahu, this is the worst terrain on which to fight. If he could have gotten Obama to attack by demanding that Israel not respond to missiles launched from Gaza or Lebanon, Netanyahu would have had the upper hand in the United States. Israel has support in the United States and in Congress, and any action that would appear to leave Israel's security at risk would trigger an instant strengthening of that support.

But there is not much support in the United States for settlements on the West Bank. This is not a subject around which Israel's supporters are going to rally very intensely, in large part because there is substantial support for a two-state solution and very little understanding or sympathy for the historic claim of Jews to Judea and Samaria. Obama has picked a topic on which he has political room for maneuver and on which Netanyahu is politically locked in.

Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama's point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn't give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states.

Thus, the question is what Netanyahu is going to do. His best move is to say that this is just a disagreement between friends and assume that the rest of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is intact, from aid to technology transfer to intelligence sharing. That's where Obama is going to have to make his decision. He has elevated the issue to the forefront of U.S.-Israeli relations. The Israelis have refused to comply. If Obama proceeds with the relationship as if nothing has happened, then he is back where he began.

Obama did not start this confrontation to wind up there. He calculated carefully when he raised this issue and knew perfectly well that Netanyahu couldn't make concessions on it, so he had to have known that he was going to come to this point. Obviously, he could have made this confrontation as a part of his initiative to the Islamic world. But it is unlikely that he saw that initiative as ending with the speech, and he understands that, for the Islamic world, his relation to Israel is important. Even Islamic countries not warmly inclined toward Palestinians, like Jordan or Egypt, don't want the United States to back off on this issue.

Netanyahu has argued in the past that Israel's relationship to the United States was not as important to Israel as it once was. U.S. aid as a percentage of Israel's gross domestic product has plunged. Israel is not facing powerful states, and it is not facing a situation like 1973, when Israeli survival depended on aid being rushed in from the United States. The technology transfer now runs both ways, and the United States relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. In other words, over the past generation, Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the United States to one of mutual dependence.

This is very much Netanyahu's point of view, and from this point of view follows the idea that he might simply say no to the United States on the settlements issue and live easily with the consequences. The weakness in this argument is that, while Israel does not now face strategic issues it can't handle, it could in the future. Indeed, while Netanyahu is urging action on Iran, he knows that action is impossible without U.S. involvement.

This leads to a political problem. As much as the right would like to blow off the United States, the center and the left would be appalled. For Israel, the United States has been the centerpiece of the national psyche since 1967. A breach with the United States would create a massive crisis on the left and could well bring the government down if Ehud Barak and his Labor Party, for example, bolted from the ruling coalition. Netanyahu's problem is the problem Israel has continually had. It is a politically fragmented country, and there is never an Israeli government that does not consist of fragments. A government that contains Lieberman and Barak is not one likely to be able to make bold moves.

It is therefore difficult to see how Netanyahu can both deal with Obama and hold his government together. It is even harder to see how Obama can reduce the pressure. Indeed, we would expect to see him increase the pressure by suspending minor exchanges and programs. Obama is playing to the Israeli center and left, who would oppose any breach with the United States.

Obama has the strong hand and the options. Netanyahu has the weak hand and fewer options. It is hard to see how he will solve the problem. And that's what Obama wants. He wants Netanyahu struggling with the problem. In the end, he wants Netanyahu to fold on the settlements issue and keep on folding until he presides over a political settlement with the Palestinians. Obama wants Netanyahu and the right to be responsible for the agreement, as Menachem Begin was responsible for the treaty with Egypt and withdrawal from the Sinai.

We find it difficult to imagine how a two-state solution would work, but that concept is at the heart of U.S. policy and Obama wants the victory. He has put into motion processes to create that solution, first of all, by backing Netanyahu into a corner. Left out of Obama's equation is the Palestinian interest, willingness and ability to reach a treaty with Israel, but from Obama's point of view, if the Palestinians reject or undermine an agreement, he will still have leverage in the Islamic world. Right now, given Iraq and Afghanistan, that is where he wants leverage, and backing Netanyahu into a corner is more important than where it all leads in the end.


This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.

Copyright 2009 Stratfor.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 10, 2009, 07:54:03 AM

Comment, Rachel?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 10, 2009, 09:25:36 AM

Yes, please!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors, glibness vs. settlements
Post by: DougMacG on June 10, 2009, 11:11:04 AM

My take (even though they all wanted someone else  :-)) on this Stratfior piece - that Obama is in a position of strength and Netanyahu of weakness:  Strat is always insightful and thought provoking.  Their points are valid, but... I don't think Netanyahu puts clinging to power above clinging to his principles and his vision Israel's best interests.  Far as I know he never has. Obama is just the opposite.  He has swayed with the wind on dozens of issues and shows no sign of extraordinary backbone on this one. 

Israel lost at least part of an ally in the last 2 American elections.  Israel's strategy now is survival with or without the full support of the U.S.  The re-emergence of Netanyahu is a sign of that.

From Statfor: "[Israel] is not facing a situation like 1973, when Israeli survival depended on aid being rushed in from the United States. The technology transfer now runs both ways, and the United States relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. In other words, over the past generation, Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the United States to one of mutual dependence."

To me, that is instructive.  The debate on the board recently over who needs whom the most misses the reality that the need is mutual.  Obama may not realize this yet as he learns the names of the intelligence agencies, after basketball practice and auto company board meetings.

Strat thinks Netanyahu's political survival rests on compliance with US demands.  Maybe so but a man based in principle isn't likely to cave based on opinion polls or a cling to power.  The assumption that Obama is an eternal legend with the everlasting excitement of his victory speech in Grant Park Chicago is fading.  Power dissipates with falling opinion polls.  Bush learned that.  At the peak of the exuberance, Obama won 28 states.  Bush won 31 states just 4 years earlier before losing it all in the congressional midterms 2 years later. 

Netanyahu knows about 9.4% American unemployment and that Dems in the US are starting to poll behind R's on key issues at home.  That is before the fights on cap trade taxation, nationalized healthcare, activist confirmation hearings, full year record trillion and a half dollar deficit numbers release and double digit unemployment materializing.  His 'unity' coalition includes Jewish Americans (like Rahm) working with the world's greatest haters of Jews and Israel, and independent deficit hawks voting with the world's biggest spenders.  There is plenty on Obama's plate without this fight and Israeli settlements won't be in the top 10 or top 100 issues facing his administration or the American public as he heads into his own mid-terms, nor is Middle East tranquility about to break out suddenly either way. 

Obama makes pandering appearances and statements in his photo-ops for his own sake and Netanyahu recognizes that.  JMHO.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on June 10, 2009, 11:31:59 AM

My company does business in Israel so i get to talk to quite a few Israelis on a regulary basis, one of them knows Rham Emmanual personally and says he is a national villian.  I think we are looking at this situation through a western lens and not having exposure to other news outlets and lines of thought.  Israel does a brisk business with India, Russia and China, those relationships are growing all the time.  If Israel is going to ask for permission to take out Iran they will ask Russia or China before they ask the U.S.  what is Obama going to do if he gets a call from China and/or Russia saying piss off or your currency is done.  Think about it, China needs the oil to flow im sure they must realize that a nuclear iran is a threat to that.  If the oil is shut off as a result of war or a nuke going off in Israel China's economy will die when the oil stops flowing.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on June 10, 2009, 07:57:14 PM

There was other response so you didn't really need me but anyway.  This is sort of rough but I ran out of time and  you asked.


Stratfor's theory about Obama actions is interesting and a  definitely possibility but I am not fully convinced

In terms about how I feel about Obama and Israel  is  there is good and bad but the bad is  a lot worse than the good

 

It is good that he had a Seder at the White house and I found his speech  at Buchenwald touching (Elie Weisel's was way better of course). His speech on Middle East  and other statements he has mad about Israel have positive elements.  However  Israel's existential threat is a nuclear Iran and he had done nothing to fix that problem ( Bush didn't fix it either)and the settlement should not  really be an issue.
 

The harsh rhetoric about the settlements  but I don't  believe that Obama et all has all the cards. Congress is still very pro Israel   North Korea is managing to Ignore Obama on Nukes. I pretty sure Israel can manage to ignore Obama on settlements.
I am very curious to see the future of the Israeli/Russia relationship

It seems like you always view the word  in that anything positive Obama tends to do will fail miserably and anything  negative he does will succeed brilliantly
Is he a moron or a brilliant strategist I'm confused.

G  M ,

I was certainly wrong about Obama and Israel but you come way  too close to extremists on the other side to be "right"

I am annoyed right now but you the reason you won't be hearing from me for a few days or longer  is that I am heavily booked.

Rachel

Title: Editor's Notes: Picking your battles
Post by: rachelg on June 10, 2009, 07:58:18 PM

      DAVID HOROVITZ
Jun 5, 2009 20:36 | Updated Jun 8, 2009 16:02

Editor's Notes: Picking your battles
Jun. 5, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Many Israelis, and many of Israel's firmest supporters, believe Obama's insistent focus on a settlement freeze to be wrongheaded. But plainly the president sees Netanyahu's obduracy on the issue, and on the subject of Palestinian sovereignty, as a major irritant as he reaches out to the Muslim world. With the Iranian threat looming ever closer, is this a fight our prime minister could, and should, be avoiding?

***

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

- From an April 14, 2004, letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon by US president George W. Bush.

"Within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea and Samaria... The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution - Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security - as the key to peace in the Middle East."

- From an April 13, 2004, letter to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice by prime minister Ariel Sharon's bureau chief, Dov Weissglas.

A man walks into a used car lot, tells the salesman what he's looking for and is shown an appropriate vehicle. The salesman names his price, sees that the buyer is hesitant, so adds: "I'll throw in a free CD player as well."

The client promises to think about it, leaves, and comes back the next day. "I'm not going to take the car," he says. "But I will have the CD player."

That, in a motoring-sales nutshell, is how the critics of Binyamin Netanyahu - critics within the administration of President Barack Obama, and within the ranks of the center-left Israeli opposition - regard the prime minister's complaint that that the US is being "unreasonable" in demanding a complete freeze, with no exceptions for "natural growth," to settlement building.

Netanyahu, they say, is on shaky ground when he protests that the Americans are abrogating understandings which for years saw them turn a blind eye to limited building within existing settlement "construction lines."

Such understandings were indeed worked out behind the scenes by well-coordinated officials in the Israeli and American governments, and were vaguely referred to in such documents as the George W. Bush letter to Ariel Sharon and the Dov Weissglas note to Condoleezza Rice quoted above. But they were framed in the context of a firm Israeli commitment to partner the Americans and, should one emerge, a like-minded Palestinian leadership, in the quest for a viable two-state solution.

Today, in contrast to his predecessors including Sharon, the critics point out, Netanyahu is adamantly refusing to utter the phrase "two-state solution," insistently withholding an explicit endorsement of that vision even in principle. And therefore, they conclude, he has no grounds for complaining that Obama is departing from historic US commitments on the details when he is departing from historic Israeli commitments on the fundamentals. He can't have the CD player if he isn't buying the car.

It is by no means clear that Israel ever actually completed the effort promised by Weissglas in April 2004 to provide "a better definition of the construction lines of settlements" within which Israel was to limit all further building in Judea and Samaria. It seems more than likely, in any case, that Netanyahu has nothing planned that would radically depart from the previous, tacitly accepted parameters for ongoing settlement construction. There is every sense that, like his recent predecessors, he does not envision establishing new settlements, taking control of further disputed territory or re-introducing government-funded incentives to encourage Israelis to move to Judea and Samaria, although he does not oppose Israelis moving to the major settlement blocs of their own volition.

But in the absence of an explicit endorsement of the two-state solution, there is, all-too plainly, no willingness on the part of the Obama administration to quietly live with the gradual expansion of the settlement enterprise until or unless a viable Palestinian partnership, and a substantive peace process, take shape.

As one veteran Israeli government insider put it this week, "The Americans have always opposed Israeli settlement activity. Always. But in recent years, the critical rhetoric on this from Washington, on a one-to-10 scale, never went higher than four. Today it's at eight."

Obama's presidency is quickly bringing the anticipated reassessment of America's interests and orientation. His Israel-free Middle East visit, marked by Thursday's painstakingly calibrated address in Cairo, emblemizes a thorough and daring effort to usher in a new era of conciliation with the Muslim world, including even the proponents of the most extreme interpretations of Islam - uncompromising ideologues hitherto utterly irreconcilable to the West, determined to widen their sphere of influence, and reading a desire for engagement as weakness. Obama is adamant that this high-stakes effort can only benefit Israel - as indeed it would... if it were to succeed. And in this context, Netanyahu's obduracy on the two-state solution and on settlement building is a real irritant to the US, perceived by Obama to be undermining his credibility as he reaches out to the region.

THE DISTRESS within the Netanyahu administration is plain to see. Washington's removal of wiggle room on settlement building - with the president and his secretary of state ruling out the construction of so much as an extra housing unit even at settlements that fall firmly into the Bush letter's definition of "new realities on the ground" - stands at odds with the contention of those around the prime minister just a few days ago that the subject could be finessed and common ground re-established.

In Netanyahu's circle the plaintive cry goes up that Israel has been honoring its commitments, with no land grabs and no new settlements; that the US is "unfairly depicting us as cheats and liars"; that the illegal outposts will go; and that Israel has demonstrated its willingness not merely to freeze but to uproot - from Gaza - an entire vibrant community of Jewish life. It is also argued that Netanyahu couldn't halt all settlement construction even if he tried, since some homes are being built on Jewish-purchased private land, and appeals to the Supreme Court to keep building there would be upheld.

While Israel has been keeping to its road map obligations, they add, the so-called moderate leaders of the Palestinian Authority have abidingly failed to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state to flourish alongside their sought-for Arab entity - the entire basis of the original, internationally mandated division of this land - and continue to foster incitement for Israel's demise. And far from the Palestinians implementing their phase one road map obligation to dismantle "terrorist capabilities and infrastructure," Gaza has become a full-fledged terrorist state.

Interviewed by The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl last weekend, Mahmoud Abbas casually acknowledged that Ehud Olmert had shown him a map relinquishing 97 percent of the West Bank, accepted the "right of return" in principle and agreed to a limited influx to Israel of Palestinian refugees, but said that such an offer - which Diehl described as unprecedented and unlikely to be repeated - still left gaps "too wide" to bridge. Were Abbas or any subsequent Palestinian leadership to move toward positions that would enable a viable peace process, those around Netanyahu insist, this would be a gamechanger, and Netanyahu's stance would immediately become more flexible and generous.

They stress, too, that Netanyahu's objections to Palestinian statehood stem from valid concerns about the threat to Israel such a fully sovereign entity would pose - concerns, they note, that are shared by the leadership of the previous Kadima-led coalition. And they note that he has made clear his commitment to all previous government agreements including the road map - full title "A performance-based roadmap to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - which they argue is tantamount to acceptance of a two-state solution.

But tantamount, with this US administration, clearly won't do.

AMID THE palpable dismay, those around Netanyahu nonetheless believe that even this charismatic, popular president will have to pull back a little and agree to some form of compromise on settlement building.

While those around Abbas say they expect Obama to force Netanyahu from office within a couple of years, and are more than happy to wait, the prime minister's loyalists argue that he won't be so easily dislodged. He, too, is popular. And he, too, was elected on a mandate for change, after the Gaza disengagement brought the opposite of peace and after the Olmert government tried so hard to attain a two-state solution, only to be thwarted by Palestinian intransigence.

But in volatile Israel, experience shows how foolish it is to bet on the medium-term, let alone long-term stability of any prime ministership.

Certainly, mainstream Israel holds the Palestinians to blame for the failure of peace efforts to date. Certainly, too, mainstream Israel does not regard ongoing building within existing settlements as constituting a central factor in that failure, and is baffled, if not outraged, by Obama's disproportionate focus on the issue. Obama's speech in Cairo on Thursday, blaming Israel and the Palestinians evenly for the failure to make peace, ignoring six decades of Arab rejectionism and again highlighting that the US "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," will have done nothing to change that feeling.

The surprise extends beyond Israel, into neutral circles too. As Diehl was moved to observe in his Washington Post piece: "In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian."

The Palestinians, under Bush, knew that "until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel," he elaborated. But Obama, with his repeated demands for a settlement freeze, "has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud."

But mainstream Israel has also heard Netanyahu insisting that his top priorities are Iran, Iran and Iran. And Israelis may be left wondering why, even for the sake of issues as emotive and compelling as settlement and Palestinian sovereignty, the prime minister is weakening Israel's vital relationship with the United States as the existential Iranian threat looms ever closer.

Saying "two states" might cause Netanyahu's coalition to wobble, but is unlikely to make it fall. Not saying "two states" is already wobbling our relationship with this administration and complicating the necessary meeting of Jerusalem and Washington minds on Iran. And incidentally, none of that, in turn, is good for Netanyahu's standing in the critical Israeli political middle ground.

CERTAIN INFLUENTIAL American Jewish leaders, I am given to understand, feel strongly that Netanyahu is caught up in the wrong fight, and have urged him this week to, however reluctantly, utter those words "two state solution" - by all means adding the caveat "in principle." Others, though, are more inclined to rally behind the prime minister, and may come out with increasingly open criticism of Obama, although it will be harder for them to do so given the astute construction of the president's Cairo speech.

Tellingly, at its conference just a month ago, AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, sent its thousands of delegates to Capitol Hill to explicitly press "for a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side, in peace, with the Jewish state of Israel." This wording, unpalatable to the prime minister, was included because it reflected AIPAC's long-term position and, quite simply, because it was essential to gaining the traditional overwhelming support for Israel from America's legislators.

AIPAC not merely gently backing, but vehemently demanding a peace-process outcome for Israel that Israel's own government opposes? That's all but unthinkable, and a reflection of how out of sync Netanyahu's stance has put him even with some of those whose entire raison d'etre is to advance and safeguard Israel's interests. If AIPAC has ever been accused of taking a partisan position - a charge it has always denied - its critics have asserted that it sometimes stood to the right of center-left and left-wing Israeli governments. Here, now, it is undeniably, energetically, promoting a position to the prime minister's political left.

WHILE OBAMA has been giving interviews this week, arguing that the US and Israel have a shared interest in Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu has been relatively quiet. The hope in Jerusalem, presumably, is that the president was ratcheting up the rhetoric ahead of his Cairo outreach, possibly even picking a deliberate mini-fight with Israel to bolster his even-handed peace-making credentials, and that now the dispute will simmer down to more tolerable dimensions. Administration officials on Thursday night told The Jerusalem Post gently that "a professional, constructive dialogue" was proceeding on the settlement issue, and that there was an ongoing "conversation" with Jerusalem, too, on the matter of two states.

But if the US rhetoric stays at level eight, Netanyahu can be expected to mount an outreach effort of his own in the near future, to try to rally Israelis and Israel's supporters around the world, especially in the US, behind him.

He may be discomfited to discover, however, that many Israelis, and many of our most committed supporters, strongly share his sense that Iran is our key danger, and therefore depart from him in his dispute with the US on the two-state terminology and on settlements, however wrongheaded they believe Obama's approach to be.

Even were Netanyahu to now publicly and explicitly endorse a "two-state solution," there is no guarantee that a compromise would follow on the parameters for Jewish building in the West Bank. No guarantee whatsoever. But it would be a start. And many friends of Israel would suggest that he make it. The sorry truth is that the Palestinians are the true obstacle to peace, runs their argument, and Obama will discover this sooner or later, so why allow Israel to be mistakenly perceived as the holdout?

Or, to return to the used car lot, they might say: Take the CD player and the car, and be ready to hit the road for a toughened, unified drive to halt Iran's nuclear program.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035008694&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: good article
Post by: ccp on June 11, 2009, 12:45:15 PM

eom

Title: Stratfor: Netanyahu's speech
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2009, 06:53:50 AM

Geopolitical Diary: Netanyahu's Speech and the Peace Process
June 15, 2009
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday gave his long-awaited speech, which was in effect a response to U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Israel stop expanding its settlements in the West Bank. Netanyahu framed his response in the context of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election victory. His argument was essentially that the problem was not the presence of Israeli troops in the West Bank, but rather the attitude of Palestinians, Arabs and Iranians to Israel. In doing this, Netanyahu is trying to transform the discussion of the Palestinian peace process, particularly in the United States.

Netanyahu argued that the occupation was not the problem. First, he pointed out that Palestinians had rejected peace with Israel prior to 1967, just as much as after. He went on to say, “Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.” In other words, the U.S. demand for a halt to settlement expansions misses the point. There was no peace before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and there was no peace when Israel withdrew or offered to withdraw from those territories.

Therefore, he argued, the problem is not what Israel does, but what the Palestinians do, and the core of the problem is the refusal of the Palestinians and others to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Essentially, the problem is that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel — not that Israel is occupying Palestinian territories.

The prime minister went on to make an offer that is radically different from the traditional concept of two states. He accepted the idea of a Palestinian state — but only as a disarmed entity, with Israel retaining security rights in the territories. Having defined the problem as Palestinian hostility, he redefined the solution as limiting Palestinian power.

This clearly puts Netanyahu on a collision course with the Obama administration. He rejected the call to stop the expansion of settlements. He has accepted the idea of a two-state solution — but on the condition that it includes disarmament for the Palestinians — and he has rejected the notion of “land for peace,” restructuring it as “land after peace.” This is not a new position by Netanyahu, and it will come no surprise to the United States.

The game Obama is playing is broader than the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He is trying to reshape the perception of the United States in the Islamic world. In his view, if he can do that, the threat to the United States from terrorism will decline and the United States’ ability to pursue its interests in the Muslim world will improve. This is the essential strategy Washington is pursuing, while maintaining a presence in Iraq and prosecuting the war in Afghanistan.

There is obviously a tension in U.S. policy. In order for this strategy to work, Obama must deliver something, and the thing that he believes will have the most value is a substantial Israeli gesture leading to a resumption of the peace process. That’s why Obama focused on settlements: It was substantial and immediate, and carried with it some pain for Israel.

Netanyahu has refused to play. He has rejected not only the settlements issue but also the basic concepts behind the peace process that the United States has been pushing for a generation. He has rejected land for peace and, in some ways, the principle of full Palestinian sovereignty. Rather than giving Obama what he wanted, Netanyahu is taking things off the table.

Netanyahu has said his piece. Now Obama must decide what, if anything, he is going to do about it. He has few choices other than to persuade Netanyahu to back off, sanction Israel or let it slide. Netanyahu cannot be persuaded, but he might be forced. Sanctioning Israel in the wake of the Iranian election would not be easy to do. Letting it slide undermines Obama’s wider strategy in the Muslim world.

Netanyahu has called Obama’s hand. All Obama can do is pass, fold or raise. According to Reuters, the White House has responded to Netanyahu’s speech by announcing that Obama “believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel’s security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations for a viable state.” Obama is trying to pass for the moment. The Arabs won’t let him do that for long.

Title: Carter Gums Up the Works
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 17, 2009, 06:30:39 PM

Obama's Jimmy Carter problem?
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 5:56pm


When Fox News reported today from Gaza that former President Jimmy Carter plans to urge President Barack Obama to take the Palestinian militant group Hamas off the U.S. terrorist list in meetings later this week, Washington Democrats and the Obama administration collectively cringed.

"The president has addressed Hamas questions, including in the Egypt speech," an administraton official said. "[We] won't have more to say about this."

"Just like with President Clinton, Carter is becoming a huge problem and a growing concern for Obama," a Washington Middle East hand said. "They are very pissed with him."

After observing Lebanon's elections, Carter visited Damascus last week and met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, as well as exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal. This week, he met with Israeli settlers in the West Bank and toured Gaza with top Hamas leader Ismail Haniya as his guide. His trip to Damascus came a day ahead of that of Obama Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell.

Carter's objectives in Gaza, a Washington Middle East expert familiar with the matter told The Cable, are "to open up Gaza, and to see what he can do to pave the way to some [sort of] engagement between Hamas and the U.S.," the expert said, on condition of anonymity, cautioning that he didn't think any such engagement would happen anytime soon. "And to see whether Hamas can shift its position, and the U.S. can shift its position. ...  I think he is smart enough to realize they aren't going to come off the terror list."

"Don't forget people in Gaza were spreading rumors last week that Carter was bringing Hamas a letter from Obama," the expert added. "It's absurd, but it made the rounds for a day."

Don't overreact to an unconfirmed news report, agreed veteran U.S. Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller. "This is Jimmy Carter being Jimmy Carter," Miller said by email. "I didn't see any confirmation that Carter intends to ask the administration to remove Hamas from the terrorism list; more likely he'll urge Obama at the right time to consider opening up a  dialogue with Hamas."

"But that's a key to an empty room right now given everything that Obama is trying to do with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ] Netanyahu and [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas," Miller continued. "In fact, the way to lose both of them and much of Congress to boot would be to do precisely what the former president recommends."

Seeking to deflect a potential firestorm from the unconfirmed report, the National Jewish Democratic Council's Ira Forman suggested that instead of taking Hamas off the terrorism list, people should put Carter on a list of people one shouldn't pay attention to. "When someone is saying something so outrageous, even if they're a Democrat, we can't take them seriously."

Mitchell didn't directly address Carter's mission at his first State Department news conference Tuesday. But asked about recent statements from Hamas officials urging that the United States to talk to them without preconditions, and asserting that they seek a Palestinian state in land confined to that seized by Israel during the 1967 war, Mitchell said Hamas is welcome to join talks if it agrees to what he called a "democratic dialogue," which he later specified to be the so-called Quartet conditions. "We made our position clear," Mitchell said. "We welcome the participation of any party that meets the requirements of a democratic dialogue."

Like Mitchell, White House officials and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have repeatedly said Hamas members could join a Palestinian unity government if they agree to renounce terror, recognize Israel and abide by past agreements, the conditions set out by the so-called Middle East Quartet made up of the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union. Hamas's 1988 charter calls explicitly for the destruction of Israel.

Carter himself has reiterated that message to Hamas, according to reports. "I called on Hamas leaders that I met with in Damascus and I told Hamas leaders in Gaza today to accept these conditions," the former president reportedly said after his meeting with Haniya. "They made several statements, and showed readiness to join the peace [process] and move towards establishing a just and independent Palestinian state."

Behind the scenes, there have been some debates in mostly left-leaning Washington and European Middle East circles about whether there should be a softening of conditions to facilitate Hamas members joining a Palestinian unity government. Those who advocate it are concerned that with Fatah only representing the West Bank, and Gaza controlling Hamas, there is not a sufficiently representative Palestinian entity that the United States can push Israel to negotiate with for a two-state solution. One option being floated in the region by independent Palestinians would be to relax conditions in order to achieve a Palestinian technocratic unity government that would mainly prepare for Palestinian elections scheduled for early next year, and then dissolve.

But there's no sign that such ideas have any traction inside the Obama administration.

Indeed, administration officials have indicated that Omar Suleiman, the Egyptian intelligence chief and the lead negotiator on Palestinian unity government talks, has explicitly urged them in meetings not to soften the conditions for Hamas to join a Palestinian unity government. (Some veteran Middle East hands say that neither Egypt, concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood of which Hamas is an affiliate, nor Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is enthusiastic about including Hamas in a Palestinian power-sharing government and may be happier if one doesn't materialize.)

Mitchell told journalists today that he would plow ahead with comprehensive Middle East peace talks with the parties that show up in the room, and meet the conditions that have been established.

For its part, Hamas has welcomed Carter's attention. "Someone as high-profile as Carter, coming to the region to meet with Hamas and the government of Ismail Haniya but also [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas, is very positive," the Christian Science Monitor quoted Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef. "He can convey messages to President Obama about the situation in Gaza and in the West Bank and the consequences this blockade has had on our lives. Carter is the messenger that we trust - and that the world community trusts."

What's prompting the recent stream of Hamas interviews and requests for dialogue with Washington? "I think they are intrigued by Obama," the Washington Middle East expert familiar with the matter said. "They saw his [Cairo] speech that had both things that they couldn't swallow and things they are extremely intrigued by. For the first time they are a bit curious, even very curious. And in some ways, they don't know how to deal with him and don't know what to do."

But perhaps not yet quite curious enough or convinced they're going to get left behind to find a way to agree to Obama's conditions for dialogue.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/16/obamas_jimmy_carter_problem

Title: IDF training
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2009, 07:11:31 AM

Last update - 01:49 19/06/2009     
 
 
How an IDF colonel trains infantrymen to think, as well as charge 
 
By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent 
 
Tags: Israel News, IDF, Infantry 
 
 

During the final exercise for Battalion 906, which ends a week-long program for squad leaders at the infantry combat training school, the Brigade Commander, Colonel Yaron Boim, as well as his small group of command officers, run at least twice as much as the soldiers participating in the training. Brigade commanders normally oversee the big picture and large unit movements under their command, but in this case Boim runs alongside the companies and the platoons, simulating counter-attacks against hills in the mountains of the northern Negev.

He feels it's important to operate with the lowest levels, that of the foot soldiers in the field and the junior officers. During the exercise Boim barely talks to the officers, but appears behind the squads; as shots ring out, he fires questions at those who in a few weeks will lead fresh squads in IDF infantry units. He points out the slightest details in terms of managing their fire, and how they should move in the terrain. When a soldier exposes himself to the fire of an imaginary foe, Boim does not hesitate to "drop" them as wounded, thus delaying the entire squad that now must evacuate an injured man to the rallying point.

"With this kind of exercise we force the trainees to stop thinking only as a soldier that needs to rush forward and shoot on his own, but to look around, get a feel of his position on the ground and a sense of where the other elements of the force are, choose a path for progress and a direction for the assault," Boim says. "We ask them to plan the exercise, prepare the commands, and offer various ways for conquering targets."
 Advertisement
 
The IDF decided to hold a battalion-size exercise at the completion of the course for infantry squad commanders. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to prevent the possibility that young squad commanders in infantry brigades would move to their next assignments without having experienced a large-scale exercise in command.

Combining ground forces with air power

Even though most of the large exercises, starting at battalion level, have been held regularly since the Second Lebanon War in 2006, great emphasis is placed on combining the various types of ground forces with an element of air power. As such, it is not uncommon to now have infantry, armor, combat engineers and artillery participating in combined training operations with helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and air strike units.

All participants are trained in various command skills, navigation, using the terrain, and all the specializations of infantry soldiers. The exercise begins a short while before midnight, with a slow advance of infantry carrying their equipment through rough terrain, along dry river beds. At about 2:30 AM, they form into units at their assault points; half an hour before sunrise, heavy machine guns begin firing from selected positions prepared ahead of time. They are then followed by a gradual wave assault, carried out by three companies.

The course for squad leaders lasts 13 weeks and includes training in all the specializations of infantry soldiers - including navigation in open terrain, urban warfare, and indoctrination and morale classes that revolve around Zionism.

Boim says the assault on the Gaza Strip in January, as part of Operation Cast Lead, proved that the course is effective in training infantry squad leaders. Lessons from the operation have already been adopted into the second part of the training, which involves 30 different classes for training infantry troops in using various types of weapons and driving armored vehicles.

"From the operation [in Gaza] we learned to place emphasis on the use of mortars, especially on how to locate and pinpoint targets," Boim says. On a number of occasions during Cast Lead, mortars were fired against mistaken locations, injuring IDF troops and Palestinian civilians. In most of these cases, the issues stemmed from problems in relaying target data to the units operating the mortars.

Since the Second Lebanon War, the IDF has invested a great deal in the infantry Brigades, including acquiring new combat gear that no longer requires . Plans to acquire new armored personnel carriers, which have been delayed for budgetary reasons for nearly 20 years, are now being implemented in the form of the Namer tank, modeled on the chassis of the Mercava main battle tank.

The level of investment is also evident in the infrastructure at the base, where classrooms are air-conditioned, and there are computer rooms where the trainees undergo testing. The troops are also housed in permanent structures, rather than the typical tents. "It does not make the soldiers soft," Boim assures us. "We still go out to the field a great deal and we sleep in tents under difficult conditions, but the new means are force multipliers. Think of the time saved when we can now check the trainees' tests with computers rather than manually," he adds. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 21, 2009, 08:18:35 AM

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven%2F06202009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fisrael_betrayed_175238.htm

ISRAEL BETRAYED
By JAMES KIRCHICK


June 20, 2009 --
When Barack Obama was running for president, he vigorously reassured voters of his firm commitment to America's special relationship with Israel. Indeed, he worked to beef up his pro-Israel bona fides long before he even announced his intention to run. In a 2006 speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama recounted a helicopter tour over the Israeli border with the West Bank. "I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel," he said. In that same speech, Obama called the Jewish State "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." During the primary and general election campaigns, Obama dispatched a stream of high-profile Jewish supporters to canvas Florida, and in a 2008 AIPAC speech, he went so far as to declare that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided" capital of Israel.

For all the qualms that anti-Obama "smears" would depress support in the Jewish community, Jews rewarded Obama with nearly 80% of their votes, more than they gave John Kerry.

Just six months into the new administration, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that those who harbored suspicions about Obama's approach to the Middle East had good reason to be worried. A confluence of factors -- including his administration's undue pressure on Israel, a conciliatory approach to authoritarian Muslim regimes, and the baseless linkage of the failed "peace process" to the curtailment of the Iranian nuclear program -- point to what could become "the greatest disagreement between the two countries in the history of their relationship," as Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek.

This dramatic shift in American policy began several months ago when the administration signaled that it would make the cessation of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank the centerpiece of its policy to revamp the region. And that approach, mostly hinted at through anonymous leaks, became as good as official when Obama delivered his vaunted address to the Muslim world in Cairo earlier this month. In that speech, Israel (and, specifically, its policy of settlement construction) was the only state to merit specific criticism from the president of the United States. Among all the degradations and injustices in the Middle East, from the abhorrent treatment of women in nations like Saudi Arabia, to Syrian-backed assassinations of pro-sovereignty politicians in Lebanon, to the arrest and imprisonment of gay men in Egypt, the leader of the free world singled out America's one, reliable democratic ally in the region for rebuke.

Obama's strategic worldview assumes that once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, other problems in the Middle East will be easier to fix, if not solve themselves. "We understand that Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat," National Security Advisor Jim Jones told George Stephanopoulos last month. "We agree with that. And by the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."

By establishing this connection, the fate of the entire region thus hinges upon the resolution of a problem that hasn't had a solution for over six decades. This is an awfully convenient view for those who enjoy the status quo, which is why so many Arab despots cling to it, and it's discouraging to see the Obama administration joining them.

"Linkage" is faulty for two reasons. The first is intrinsic to the peace process itself, as it is going nowhere. And it will continue to go nowhere for at least as long as Hamas -- a terrorist organization constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews -- rules the Gaza Strip, which it has controlled since violently seizing power in the summer of 2007. But it's not just Hamas that remains hesitant to work with Israel. To see the continued intransigence of the Palestinians, witness their bizarre reactions to Benjamin Netanyahu's momentous speech last week, in which the Israeli Prime Minister, for the first time in his career, announced his support for the two-state solution so obsessively demanded by the international community. The Palestinian Ambassador to Egypt denounced Netanyahu's pledge as "nothing but a hoax." The PLO Executive Committee Secretary called Netanyahu a "liar and a crook" who is "looking for ploys to disrupt the peace endeavor." A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that, "The speech has destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution." And these are the so-called "moderates."

The second reason why "linkage" is a faulty premise, and why the Obama administration is so foolish to pursue it, is that the problems of the Middle East are not inspired by the lack of a Palestinian state. The biggest crisis in the Middle East right now is Iran's mad quest for nuclear weapons. Nothing even comes close. Even the Arab states -- whose citizens, we are told, cannot rest due to Palestinian statelessness -- are letting the world know that their foremost concern is a revolutionary Islamic theocracy with nuclear weapons (As the dramatic and inspiring street protests in Tehran over the past week have amply demonstrated, what really rouses the Muslim "street" is the venality and cruelty of the region's authoritarian governments, not far-off Zionists reluctant to give Palestinians a state).

These regimes know that Iran, thus armed, will be able to act with far greater impunity that it already does, causing more trouble for coalition forces in Iraq, ordering its proxy armies of Hamas and Hezbollah to ramp up attacks on Israel and stir chaos in Lebanon, and support radical elements throughout the region. It would also set off a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt as the next likely proliferators. Yet the Obama administration does not seem to realize that stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb ought take precedence over the stalled "peace process."

In his otherwise admirable remarks about the significance of the Holocaust and the hatefulness of its denial in his Cairo speech, Obama did further damage by paying obeisance to the Arabs' false narrative about Israeli's creation. In neglecting to affirm the Jews' historic claim on the land of Israel, Obama confirmed the Arab belief that they are paying for the crimes of mid-twentieth century Europe. However awful the misfortune that befell them, Obama's narrative -- in the minds of his audience -- portrays the Jews, however awful their misfortune, as occupiers, not indigenous neighbors.

The Cairo speech provided Obama with an opportunity to call on the Muslim world to acknowledge that Jews are as much a part of the Middle East and its history as are Persians and Arabs, Sunnis and Shia, Druz and Christians. He failed in that task.

Unfortunately, the President seems to be paying no domestic political price for turning on Israel. Given the historic support that the American public has shown for the Jewish State, this is in and of itself a disturbing sign. But when an American administration's rhetoric and diplomacy render Israel the obstinate actor and portray its supposed recalcitrance as the main obstacle to peace, public opinion will follow.

The percentage of American voters who call themselves supporters of Israel has plummeted from 69% last September to 49% this month, according to the Israel Project. Meanwhile, only 6% of Jewish Israelis consider Obama to be "pro-Israel," a Jerusalem Post poll found, pointing to a disturbing gulf between the two nations. There are even signs of rising anti-Semitism, as a survey by Columbia and Stanford professors found that 32% of Democrats blamed Jews for the financial crisis.

Obama is turning America against Israel, for what exactly? The false hopes of improved relations with Arab nations and a nuclear-equipped Iran. That is not what he promised in his campaign, and neither a fair practice or a fair trade.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic and a Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow.

Title: Iran from an Israeli point of view
Post by: ccp on June 24, 2009, 04:47:49 PM

This could have been under the Iran thread but this is probably the best spot.


****Unrest in Iran Poses Dilemma For Israel
By Nathan Guttman
Published June 24, 2009, issue of July 03, 2009.
Print Email Share Author Archive News
Washington — Iran’s descent into instability has confronted Israel and its American supporters with a dilemma in choosing between two competing approaches: one based on human rights, and the other on realpolitik.

Israeli officials might personally be rooting for the fall of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom they view as a tyrant. But at the same time, some fear that his defeat would set back their fight against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

As a result, Israelis in official positions have avoided, for the most part, publicly taking sides between presidential candidates as the disorder in Iran has intensified over Ahmadinejad’s disputed June 12 election victory. Still, some public and private remarks have slipped through the cracks, shedding light on the debate in Jerusalem.

“Israel would have had a more serious problem” had Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, emerged victorious in the recent election, said Meir Dagan, chief of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

In testimony before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on June 16, Dagan said that a Mousavi victory would have required Israel to “explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived in the international arena as a moderate element.”

Dagan went on to argue that on the nuclear issue, there is no difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, the latter of whom has voiced doubt about the historical existence of the Holocaust and expressed his wish to see Israel liquidated.

Last May, speaking at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel Washington lobby, Ilan Berman, a hawkish Iran scholar at the American Foreign Policy Council, called Ahmadinejad “the gift that keeps on giving,” since his harsh rhetoric compels the world to take him seriously.

In the long term, Iran’s rapidly changing profile could mean a difficult challenge for Israel. If Iran is indeed in the process of change, as most analysts agree, Israel could end up the lone voice advocating a tough stance toward it, while Washington and the world seek ways to reach out and embrace the change.

“Already, in Washington policy circles, the Israelis’ mantra, let’s bomb them, has gone off the table,” said Marshall Breger, a former Reagan and Bush senior White House aide and Orthodox Jew who has been engaged in interfaith dialogue with senior Iranian clerics. “It’s not considered serious.”

For now, Israeli leaders, including Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, have tried to maintain an approach similar to that of the Obama administration as events unfold, condemning the brutal suppression of demonstrators without publicly supporting the reformists’ claims of electoral fraud.

But Dagan’s harsh and more candid analysis did draw detractors in what is clearly an ongoing internal debate. Ephraim Halevy, a former head of the Mossad, termed it “simplistic” to say there is no difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad on the nuclear issue. “No one can predict what Mousavi would do” if he emerges as the winner of this standoff, Halevy said in a June 21 speech in Jerusalem. Halevy believes there will be “a new ballgame in Iran” if that happens.

For Israel and pro-Israel activists, the crucial question that remains is how events in Iran will affect Tehran’s foreign policy. The Israelis’ goal is to stop Iran from enriching uranium it claims it needs to develop civilian nuclear power but that could potentially be used for nuclear weapons.

No one knows how Mousavi would approach this issue if he gained influence in the end — an eventuality most analysts still consider unlikely.

The only clue thus far comes from an interview that Mousavi gave the Al-Jazeera news network a day before the June 12 elections. He said the West should not expect Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear technology, but he stressed, “What we can talk about, in the international level, is whether we deviate toward the development of nuclear arms.”

This may hint at possibilities for an approach long advocated by Ray Takeyh, a prominent Iran analyst recently appointed to a senior State Department Iran policy post.

Takeyh and others advocate a U.S. “détente” with Iran that would include a negotiated agreement to enforce much stricter control and monitoring of Iran’s enriched uranium. Takeyh argues that this could prevent its diversion to any military use and yet allow Iran to enrich it, as permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Breger agreed that this was likely the direction developments will take if there is eventual progress with any government in Tehran.

“All Iranians believe they have a right to nuclear technology,” he said. “But many moderates are more interested in economic development than in exercising that right.

“As one told me, ‘We want nuclear technology for Iran, we don’t want to sacrifice Iran for nuclear technology.’”

Breger, who served as Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community, added: “This is a problem for Israel, since as long as there is an Islamic republic, Israel doesn’t want strict inspections, they want regime change.”

The real problem for Israel, he explained, was not the prospect of Iran dropping a nuclear bomb on it — a prospect he viewed as unlikely because of Israel’s own nuclear deterrent — but that “an Iran with nuclear capability, even with no weapons, will constrain Israel’s freedom of action. Israel’s first military principle has always been, they must have total regional military hegemony, or as has been more politely stated, a qualitative military edge.”

“Solutions [to the nuclear issue] that can satisfy the U.S. security needs might not satisfy Israel’s sense of security,” Breger said.

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com****

Title: Hillary is wrong about the settlements
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 24, 2009, 09:37:39 PM

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.

In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?

 
Getty Images
 
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan's King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?

We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?

As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.

In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.

The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.

These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.

After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.

Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.

On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."

Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."

Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."

In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."

These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.

It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.

Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?

Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.

For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.

Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 26, 2009, 05:53:40 AM

Geopolitical Diary: A Shift in the U.S.-Israeli Drama
June 25, 2009
A meeting that had been scheduled this week in Paris between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, was canceled Wednesday.

Netanyahu’s spokesman said the meeting was called off so that the Americans and Israelis could have more time to “clarify some issues.” But Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot then published a report citing an unnamed Israeli official, who said the U.S. administration had sent the following “stern” message to Netanyahu: “Once you’ve finished the homework we gave you on stopping construction in the settlements, let us know. Until then, there’s no point in having Mitchell fly to Paris to meet you.”

The U.S. explanation for the scrapped meeting was much tamer: State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Netanyahu and Mitchell had canceled the meeting so that Mitchell could meet first with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak next Monday in Washington. It is still unclear who canceled on whom, but the Israelis seem intent on giving the impression that the Americans are the ones being unreasonable.

Tensions in the U.S.-Israeli relationship can be traced to the post-election crisis in Tehran.

To understand this, we need to rewind to June 4 in Egypt, as U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to reach out to the Muslim masses and distinguish his policies in the region from those of George W. Bush. In that speech, Obama focused on the Israeli-Palestinian issue for several reasons. First, by generating perceptions that his administration was not afraid to stand up to Israel over the issue of West Bank settlements, he might draw an increase in Arab support that could be used to form a more solidified coalition against Iran. Second, he could counter Iranian attempts to hijack the Palestinian cause. Iran’s increasingly blatant support for Hamas is designed to call out the hypocrisy of Arab regimes who pledge support for the Palestinians in public for rhetorical reasons, but whose actions are limited by their own strategic concerns. By laying the groundwork rhetorically for greater acceptance of U.S. policy in the region, Obama could strengthen his negotiating position in regard to Iran — or so the theory went.

But by issuing an ultimatum on the West Bank, Obama also invited a confrontation with Israel. From the Israeli point of view, there is no compelling reason to negotiate on the Palestinian issue. The Palestinian territories are divided geographically, politically and ideologically between the Fatah-controlled West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip — and because the Palestinian government is in shambles, there is no authority for the Israelis to deal with in the first place. Still, Obama thought it would be worth the risk to raise tensions with Israel if it would advance his agenda in dealing with Iran.

That strategy already had a number of built-in flaws, but its chances of success appear even slimmer in the aftermath of Iran’s June 12 presidential election. Obama has been careful in his statements on Iran for good reason. He made it clear before and after the Iranian election that he was prepared to deal with Tehran, regardless of who won the presidency. An exclusive report by the Washington Times on Wednesday reinforced this idea: Prior to the election, Obama was said to have delivered a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei through the Swiss Embassy, reiterating his desire to negotiate. Though Obama recognizes that it would be useless to reject the election victory of someone he would be dealing with anyway, he still faces a significant problem at home. With the right wing stressing the futility of talking to an unchanged Iranian regime and the left wing and human rights groups condemning talks with a regime that violently suppresses protests, he is under pressure to take a tougher stance on Iran. Any attempt at talks with Iran also will be widely viewed in the United States as negotiating with an illegitimate government, given the strong allegations of vote fraud in the election.

The Israelis can see that Obama’s diplomatic strategy for Iran — a strategy about which Israel was never really enthused — is rolling toward the gutter. Therefore, the Israelis have an opportunity. Obama previously had tried to pressure Israel over the settlements issue, when he was in a stronger position and knew that Netanyahu would have a heck of a time balancing between the right- and left-wing parties in his own coalition an issue as contentious as the West Bank. Netanyahu first sidestepped the issue with his own peace speech, driving U.S.-Israeli negotiations into the ground by insisting on the right to “natural growth” in the West Bank and the disarmament of the Palestinian territories. Now, Israel sees a U.S. president who is getting hammered at home for his Iran strategy —and whose options on dealing with Iran are dwindling rapidly on the international front.

Obama desperately wants to avoid harsher actions against Iran for fear that Russia will use Iran as a geopolitical lever. The Russians are already hinting privately that they can make the Iran issue more complicated for Washington, through strategic weapons sales, should the Americans fail to meet Moscow’s demands in Eurasia. In essence, Obama is fast becoming stuck in the same mess that ensnared a number of presidents before him.

With the U.S. president in a quandary over Iran, Netanyahu has an opportunity to regain the upper hand, pull the settlement issue from the agenda and start pushing his preferred methods of dealing with Iran — including harsher sanctions. Knowing the constraints Washington is facing on the Iran front, Netanyahu at the very least can get Obama to back off on his demands for Israel, but first he has to snap Washington back to attention. This begins with a mini-diplomatic drama over a canceled meeting with a U.S. envoy. Netanyahu likely will be able to generate several more “crises” should he need them, but that all depends on how much strain Israel wants to put on its relationship with the United States at this point.

Title: Gilder'
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2009, 12:00:00 PM

"My friends, it would behoove you to study everything
you can get your hands on by George Gilder, a true
American genius." -- Rush Limbaugh

"Israel is the crucial battlefield for Capitalism and Freedom in our
time." -- George Gilder, author of The Israel Test

George Gilder's global best seller Wealth & Poverty made the moral case
for capitalism to millions of Americans, changing the national debate. Now
Gilder, in The Israel Test, makes the moral case for Israel as a bastion
of capitalism and freedom.

Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the
attack on Israel? After reading The Israel Test you will never wonder
again. Gilder brilliantly shows that Israel is the ultimate test dividing
those who really stand with Capitalist Democracy from those who always
blame America and Israel first.

Gilder's argument has even long-time defenders of Israel saying things
like "I never looked at Israel that way before. I never truly realized
what was at stake." The Jerusalem Post raves about the book's "unexpected
power." But that's the way it has always been with Gilder's work. He has
an astonishing knack for making his readers see fresh what should have
been obvious all along.

The official publication date of The Israel Test is not until July 22. But
we can show you a way to get your copy weeks before it shows up in
bookstores.

Click here to pre-order The Israel Test today at 25% off publisher's
price!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Israel-Test/Richard-Vigilante-Books/e/9780980076356/?itm=4lkid=J28248347&pubid=K158729


DOCUMENTS ISRAEL'S EMERGENCE
AS HI-TECH POWER: "ISRAEL INSIDE" 

What's so revolutionary about The Israel Test?  Well, for one thing,
Gilder portrays Israel not as a needy "poor relation" dependent on the
U.S. but as a leader of the hi-tech economy indispensable to continued
U.S. success. "The reason America should continue to 'prop up' Israel," he
writes, "is that Israel itself is a crucial prop of American wealth,
freedom, and power."

Obscured by the usual media coverage of the "war-torn" Middle East are
Israel's rarely celebrated feats of commercial, scientific, and
technological creativity. Today tiny Israel, with its population of 7.23
million, five and one-half million Jewish, stands behind only the United
States in technological contributions. In per-capita innovation, Israel
dwarfs all nations. The forces of civilization in the world continue to
feed upon the quintessential wealth of mind epitomized by Israel.

In The Israel Test Gilder documents Israel's transformation into a hi-tech
powerhouse, profiling the top companies and entrepreneurs that are making
Israel into Silicon Valley's greatest rival-and ally-and shows how the
world's leading-edge technologies increasingly feature "Israel Inside."

Obviously with the book still "embargoed" we can't quote The Israel Test
at length here. But here is a just a snippet to whet your appetite: From
The Israel Test , by George Gilder:

The central issue in international politics, dividing the world into two
fractious armies, is the tiny state of Israel.

The prime issue is not a global war of civilizations between the West and
Islam or a split between Arabs and Jews. These conflicts are real and
salient, but they obscure the deeper moral and ideological war. The real
issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism,
between creative excellence and covetous "fairness," between admiration of
achievement versus envy and resentment of it.

Israel defines a line of demarcation. On one side, marshaled at the United
Nations and in universities around the globe, are those who see capitalism
as a zero-sum game in which success comes at the expense of the poor and
the environment: every gain for one party comes at the cost of another. On
the other side are those who see the genius and the good fortune of some
as a source of wealth and opportunity for all.

The Israel test can be summarized by a few questions: What is your
attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other
accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it?
Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it
and seek to tear it down? Caroline Glick, the dauntless deputy managing
editor of the Jerusalem Post, sums it up: "Some people admire success;
some people envy it. The enviers hate Israel."

. . . . Today in the Middle East, Israeli wealth looms palpably and
portentously over the mosques and middens of Palestinian poverty. But
dwarfing Israel's own wealth is Israel's contribution to the world
economy, stemming from Israeli creativity and entrepreneurial innovation.
Israel's technical and scientific gifts to global progress loom with
similar majesty over all others' contributions outside the United States.

Though Jews in Palestine had been the most powerful force for prosperity
in the region since long before the founding of Israel in 1948, more
remarkable still is the explosion of innovation attained through the
unleashing of Israeli capitalism and technology over the last two decades.
During the 1990s and early 2000s Israel sloughed off its manacles of
confiscatory taxes, oppressive regulations, government ownership, and
Socialist nostalgia and established itself in the global economy first as
a major independent player and then as a technological leader.

Contemplating this Israeli breakthrough, the minds of parochial intellects
around the globe, from Jerusalem to Los Angeles, are clouded with envy and
suspicion. Everywhere, from the smarmy diplomats of the United Nations to
the cerebral leftists at the Harvard Faculty Club, critics of Israel
assert that Israelis are responsible for Palestinian Arab poverty. . . .
Denying to Israel the moral fruits and affirmations that Jews have so
richly earned by their paramount contributions to our civilization, the
critics of Israel lash out at the foundations of civilization itself--at
the golden rule of capitalism, that the good fortune of others is also
one's own.

In simplest terms, amid the festering indigence of Palestine, the state of
Israel presents a test. Efflorescent in the desert, militarily powerful,
industrially preeminent, culturally cornucopian, technologically
paramount, it lately has become a spearhead of the global economy and
vanguard of human achievement. Believing that this position was somehow
captured, rather than created, many in the West still manifest a primitive
zero-sum vision of economics and life. . . .

Click here to pre-order The Israel Test today at 25% off publisher's
price.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Israel-Test/Richard-Vigilante-Books/e/9780980076356/?itm=4lkid=J28248347&pubid=K158729

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2009, 02:45:49 PM

Some news about the ongoing "Iran Caper"
Last update - 14:49 03/07/2009     
 
 
Israeli sub sails Suez sending message to Iran 
By Reuters 
Tags: Israel news, Suez, submarine   
 
An Israeli submarine sailed the Suez Canal to the Red Sea as part of a naval drill last month, defense sources said on Friday, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic reach in the face of Iran.

Israel long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely assumed to carry nuclear missiles, away from Suez so as not to expose them to the gaze of Egyptian harbormasters.

It was unclear when last month the vessel left the Mediterranean. One source said the voyage was planned for months and so was not related to unrest after the June 12 re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom the Israelis see as promoting the pursuit of nuclear weapons to threaten them.
 Advertisement
 

Sailing to the Gulf without using Suez would force the diesel-fueled Israeli submarines, normally based in the Mediterranean, to circumnavigate Africa - a weeks-long voyage.

That would have limited use in signaling Israel's readiness to retaliate should it ever come under an Iranian nuclear attack.

Shorter-term, the submarines' conventional missiles could also be deployed in any Israeli strikes on Iran's atomic sites, which Tehran insists have only civilian energy purposes.

A defense source said the Israeli navy held an exercise off Eilat last month and that a Dolphin took part, having traveled to the Red Sea port though Suez. Israel has a naval base at Eilat, a 10-km (6-mile) strip of coast between Egypt and Jordan, but officials say it has no submarine dock there.

"This was definitely a departure from policy," said the source, who declined to give further details on the drill or say whether the Dolphin had undergone Egyptian inspections in the canal, through which the submarine sailed unsubmerged.

A military spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the voyage, first reported on Friday by the Jerusalem Post.

Egyptian officials at Suez said they would neither confirm nor deny reports regarding military movements. One official said that if there was such a passage by Israelis in the canal, it would not be problematic as Egypt and Israel are not at war.

Egypt is one of only two Arab states to have signed a peace treaty with Israel, but relations remain cool. However, Arab states that are allies of the United States appear to share some of Israel's concerns about non-Arab Iran's nuclear program.

Israel is assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, but does not discuss this under an "ambiguity" policy billed as deterring its enemies while avoiding provocations.

Another Israeli defense source with extensive naval experience said the drill "showed that we can far more easily access the Indian Ocean, and the Gulf, than before".

But the source added: "If indeed our subs are capable of doing to Iran what they are believed to be capable of doing, then surely this is a capability that can be put into action from the Mediterranean?"

Each German-made Dolphin has 10 torpedo tubes, four of them widened at Israel's request - to accommodate, some independent analysts believe, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. But there have been questions about whether these would have the 1,500-km
(1,000-mile) range needed to hit Iran from the Mediterranean.

Israel plans to acquire two more Dolphins early next decade. Naval analysts say this could allow it to set up a rotation whereby some of the submarines patrol distant shores while others secure the Israeli coast or dock to undergo maintenance.
 

Title: Israel denies Saudi airspace clearance given
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 05, 2009, 08:47:47 AM

Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike 
 
By Haaretz Service 
 
Tags: Saudi Arabia, Mossad
 

Saudi Arabia has indicated to Israel that it would not protest use of its airspace by Israeli fighter jets in the event the government resolves to launch a military assault against Iran, according to a report which appeared in the British newspaper The Sunday Times.

The Prime Minister's office issued a statement in response Sunday morning, saying that "the Sunday Times report is fundamentally false and completely baseless."

According to The Sunday Times, Mossad chief Meir Dagan held secret meetings with Saudi officials, who gave their tacit approval to Israel's use of the kingdom's airspace.
 Advertisement
 

"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia," The Sunday Times quoted a diplomatic source as saying last week.

The report also quoted John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as saying that it would be "entirely logical" for Israeli warplanes to fly over Saudi Arabia en route to bombing nuclear targets in Iran.

Though any Israeli attack would be roundly condemned by Mideast leaders at the UN, Bolton said Arab leaders have privately expressed trepidation at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

"None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn't trumpet it as a big success," Bolton told The Sunday Times.

Title: Re: Gilder'
Post by: rachelg on July 05, 2009, 07:03:11 PM

Anything recommended by Rush Limbaugh I am tempted to skip but anyway.

I have not read the book but this review makes the ideas sound really simplistic. People view of Israel is not only or even mostly about their view on Capitalism. Plenty of Libertarians  are critical of Israel. 


I am not a liberal  (or at least the liberal for this board) l because I am envious of successful people.  I actually happen to consider myself moderately  successful and I know people who make  a lot more money  or are more accomplished than me who  are much more liberal than I am.    Truthfully I occasionally jealous of people who have more money but in general I don't  want their work/life balance  or family life and I feel grateful for what I have.

This sort of confirms my views that a lot of conservatives don't understand what motivates liberals/progressives at all.

People views on Israel are based on many factors not just capitalism.  The articles does not even mention antisemitism.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 05, 2009, 07:34:47 PM

In general, conservatism is working from ideas that are proven to work while "liberalism" is generally based on fantasy and emotion.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 05, 2009, 07:51:57 PM

Hi Rachel:

George Gilder has quite a bit more going for him than a recommendation from Rush Limbaugh.

He was one of the house intellectuals of the Reagan Revolution, wrote a rather amazing book called "Wealth and Poverty" and then self taught himself high tech stuff to where he hangs out with multi-phds in stuff I don't even know how to describe.  He's made (and lost!) huge amounts of money advising in investments in high-tech stocks (including I might add making a lot of money for me, and then losing me quite a bit more). 

Anyway, I think you have dialed on a key weak link of his-- which is to have a clever insight and then to overuse it.  Nonetheless, the insight is, IMHO, exactly that.

Marc

Title: The Green Light?
Post by: G M on July 06, 2009, 04:47:58 PM

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/07/green-light.html

SUNDAY, JULY 05, 2009

The Green Light?
A pair of reports, published this weekend, suggest that Israel has received tacit permission for a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The first account, from the U.K. Telegraph, claims that Saudi Arabia has assured Israel that it will "cast a blind eye" to IAF jets flying over the kingdom, during any potential raid against nuclear targets in Iran.

The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.

Use of Saudi airspace would solve enormous logistical, planning and tactical challenges for the IAF. Without a direct route (through Saudi Arabia or Iraq), Israeli pilots would be forced to use corridors through Turkey or around the Arabian Peninsula. As we noted more than three years ago, longer routes put added pressure on Israel's small tanker fleet, which would be used to re-fuel strike aircraft on the Iran mission.

Estimates vary on the exact numbers of tankers in the IAF inventory, but most analysts believe there are only 5-7 KC-707s. These aircraft would be an integral part of any long-range mission to Iran, providing aerial refueling and (possibly) command-and-control functions, such as radio relay. Israeli aircraft use the same "boom" refueling system as the USAF; fighters maneuver behind the tanker as the "boom operator" extends the refueling probe into the refueling receptacle of the receiving aircraft. Once contact is established, the tanker begins pumping fuel to the receiver, at a rate of several hundred pounds per minute.

The number of tankers available, coupled with their potential offload, will limit the size of any Israeli strike package. Again, estimates on the size of the formation vary (depending on the number of targets to be struck, fighter payload, target distance and airspeed), but many analysts believe the Israelis would launch 4-5 tankers, supporting no more than 30 strike aircraft, divided roughly between F-15Is and F-16Is (which would attack the nuclear facilities) and other F-15s and F-16s, flying air defense suppression and air superiority missions. Divide the number of "bombers" (say 15) by the number of nuclear complexes (four), and you'll see that the IAF has virtually no margin for error.

Flying across Saudi airspace would not only decrease in-flight refueling requirements, it could also allow the IAF to add additional strike aircraft to the package, and increase their munitions load, improving prospects for success. Utilizing a corridor through Saudi Arabia would also provide "plausible denial" for two of Israel's most important allies, Turkey (which controls northern approaches to Iran), and the United States, which controls Iraqi airspace.

But if securing the Saudi route is critically important--and it is--why leak the information? A couple of possibilities come to mind. First, there's the chance that someone in Israel or Saudi Arabia decided to leak the information, trying to deter the attack for political reasons.

Secondly, the leak may be designed to send a message to Iranian leaders. Saudi complicity means that Israel has overcome one of the last major obstacles in striking Iran's nuclear facilities. That means an attack would come at any time, giving the mullahs something to contemplate as they set strategy in Ahmadinejad's second presidential term.

The announcement about the Saudi air route came just days after another disclosure from Tel Aviv. Late last week, the Defense Ministry disclosed that an Israeli Dolphin-class recently transited the Suez Canal in June. It was the first IDF warship to use the waterway in years, and signals improving relations between Israel and Egypt. The transit also gives Israeli subs direct access to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, putting them closer to possible targets in Iran.

According to various defense and press accounts, Israel's newest subs are capable of launching cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes. Details on the weapons system remain sketchy; some analysts believe the cruise missile is a modified Harpoon or Popeye with limited range. Others suggest a long-range weapon, capable of hitting targets up to 750 miles away. Whatever its capabilities, the cruise missile gives Israel another option for striking Iran.

There are also indications that the U.S. will not stand in the way if Israel attacks Tehran's nuclear facilities. In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Vice President Joe Biden said the Israelis are free to set their own course on Iran. According to the AP, Biden's remarks suggest the administration is adopting a "tougher" stance toward Tehran, although the vice president still holds out hope for talks with the Iranians.

Given Mr. Biden's penchant for verbal slips and gaffes, it's hard to say if his comments actually reflect administration policy, or he was simply free-lancing once again. Assuming his remarks are consistent with White House views, then it looks like the Obama team may be accepting the inevitable.

In other words, Tehran has no plans to give up its nuclear program, and Israel will not allow Iran to get the bomb. That makes an Israeli strike almost inevitable, and there's only so much the U.S. can do to prevent it.

Besides, even the "diplomacy first" crowd that dominates the White House and State Department must recognize the bottom line. If the Israelis go after Iran, they will be doing the world a favor, and (possibly) prevent a regional conflagration. It's the sort of bold action that-- in another time--might be openly endorsed by the U.S. But in today's political environment, tacit approval is about as good as it gets.

Title: Cyberwar vs. Iranian nukes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 07, 2009, 05:28:48 PM

Last update - 18:06 07/07/2009     
Israel turns to cyberware to foil Iran nukes 
By Reuters 
Tags: Cyberwar, Israel News, Iran   
 

In the late 1990s, a computer specialist from the Shin Bet security service hacked into the mainframe of the Pi Glilot fuel depot north of Tel Aviv. It was meant to be a routine test of safeguards at the strategic site. But it also tipped off Israel to the potential such hi-tech infiltrations offered for real sabotage.

"Once inside the Pi Glilot system, we suddenly realized that, aside from accessing secret data, we could also set off deliberate explosions, just by programming a re-route of the pipelines," said a veteran of the Shin Bet drill.
 Advertisement
 
So began a cyberwarfare project which, a decade on, is seen by independent experts as the likely new vanguard of Israel's efforts to foil Iran's nuclear ambitions. The appeal of cyber attacks was boosted, Israeli sources say, by the limited feasibility of conventional air strikes on the distant and fortified Iranian atomic facilities, and by U.S. reluctance to countenance another open war in the Middle East.

"We came to the conclusion that, for our purposes, a key Iranian vulnerability is in its on-line information," said one recently retired security cabinet member, using a generic term for digital networks. "We have acted accordingly."

Cyberwarfare teams nestle deep within Israel's spy agencies, which have rich experience in traditional sabotage techniques and are cloaked in official secrecy and censorship. They can draw on the know-how of Israeli commercial firms that are among the world's hi-tech leaders and whose staff are often veterans of elite military intelligence computer units.

"To judge by my interaction with Israeli experts in various international forums, Israel can definitely be assumed to have advanced cyber-attack capabilities," said Scott Borg, director of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, which advises various Washington agencies on cyber security.

Technolytics Institute, an American consultancy, last year rated Israel the sixth-biggest "cyber warfare threat", after China, Russia, Iran, France and extremist/terrorist groups".

The United States is in the process of setting up a "Cyber Command" to oversee Pentagon operations, though officials have described its mandate as protective, rather than offensive.  Asked to speculate about how Israel might target Iran, Borg said malware - a commonly used abbreviation for "malicious software" - could be inserted to corrupt, commandeer or crash the controls of sensitive sites like uranium enrichment plants. Such attacks could be immediate, he said. Or they might be latent, with the malware loitering unseen and awaiting an external trigger, or pre-set to strike automatically when the infected facility reaches a more critical level of activity.

As Iran's nuclear assets would probably be isolated from outside computers, hackers would be unable to access them directly, Borg said. Israeli agents would have to conceal the malware in software used by the Iranians or discreetly plant it on portable hardware brought in, unknowingly, by technicians.

"A contaminated USB stick would be enough," Borg said.

Ali Ashtari, an Iranian businessman executed as an Israeli spy last year, was convicted of supplying tainted communications equipment for one of Iran's secret military projects.  Iranian media quoted a security official as saying that Ashtari's actions "led to the defeat of the project with irreversible damage." Israel declined all comment on the case.

"Cyberwar has the advantage of being clandestine and deniable," Borg said, noting Israel's considerations in the face of an Iranian nuclear program that Tehran insists is peaceful.

"But its effectiveness is hard to gauge, because the targeted network can often conceal the extent of damage or even fake the symptoms of damage. Military strikes, by contrast, have an instantly quantifiable physical effect."

Israel may be open to a more overt strain of cyberwarfare. Tony Skinner of Jane's Defence Weekly cited Israeli sources as saying that Israel's 2007 bombing of an alleged atomic reactor in Syria was preceded by a cyber attack which neutralized ground radars and anti-aircraft batteries.

"State of War," a 2006 book by New York Times reporter James Risen, recounted a short-lived plan by the CIA and the Mossad to fry the power lines of an Iranian nuclear facility using a smuggled electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) device. A massive, nation-wide EMP attack on Iran could be affected by detonating a nuclear device at atmospheric height. But while Israel is assumed to have the region's only atomic arms, most experts believe they would be used only in a war of last resort.

Related articles:

Shin Bet: Terrorists on Facebook trying to recruit Israeli spies

Israel recruits 'army of bloggers' to combat anti-Zionist Web sites

Is Israel's booming high-tech industry a branch of the Mossad?

Israel, Iran liable to clash in 2009 over nukes, says U.S. intel chief
 
 
 

PROMOTION: Mamilla Hotel
Get Haaretz news headlines delivered daily to your inbox!

Title: The IDF, Intl law, Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 08, 2009, 07:08:21 PM

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 International Law and Military Operations in Practice
Col. Richard Kemp -
[Watch the Video]
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/s...&FID=765&PID=0
[Read the Full Transcript]
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/S...ns_in_Practice

Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Col. Richard Kemp told a
conference in Jerusalem on June 18, 2009:

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

The battlefield - in any kind of war - is a place of confusion and chaos, of
fast-moving action. In the type of conflict that the Israeli Defense Forces
recently fought in Gaza and in Lebanon, and Britain and America are still
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, these age-old confusions and complexities
are made one hundred times worse by the fighting policies and techniques of
the enemy.

Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict
carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli
commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of
engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they
view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is
built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by
the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating
consistently outside international law.

Civilians and their property are routinely exploited by these groups, in
deliberate and flagrant violation of international laws or reasonable norms
of civilized behavior. Protected buildings, mosques, schools, and hospitals
are used as strongholds. Legal and proportional responses by a Western army
will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce
international outcry and condemnation.

Hamas' military capability was deliberately positioned behind the human
shield of the civilian population. They also ordered, forced when necessary,
men, women and children from their own population to stay put in places they
knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Israel was fighting an enemy that
is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people, deliberately trying to
lure you into killing their own innocent civilians.

And Hamas, like Hizbullah, is also highly expert at driving the media
agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews condemning
Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting
incidents.

When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave
areas targeted for attack. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning the
population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated areas. The
IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic
to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to
fight.

Many attack helicopter missions that could have taken out Hamas military
capability were cancelled if there was too great a risk of civilian
casualties in the area. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of
humanitarian aid into Gaza, even though delivering aid virtually into your
enemy's hands is to the military tactician normally quite unthinkable.
By taking these actions the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of
civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Title: Jordan Revokes Citizenship
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on July 21, 2009, 05:32:17 AM

Quick: call the Left and let them know about this disenfranchisement . . . oh wait, it's Arabs doing it. Nevermind.

Amman revoking Palestinians' citizenship
Jul. 20, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Jordanian authorities have started revoking the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians living in Jordan to avoid a situation in which they would be "resettled" permanently in the kingdom, Jordanian and Palestinian officials revealed on Monday.

The new measure has increased tensions between Jordanians and Palestinians, who make up around 70 percent of the kingdom's population.

The tensions reached their peak over the weekend when tens of thousands of fans of Jordan's Al-Faisali soccer team chanted slogans condemning Palestinians as traitors and collaborators with Israel. Al-Faisali was playing the rival Wihdat soccer team, made up of Jordanian-Palestinians, in the Jordanian town of Zarqa.

Anti-riot policemen had to interfere to stop the Jordanian fans from lynching the Wihdat team members and their fans, eyewitnesses reported. They said the Jordanian fans of Al-Faisali hurled empty bottles and fireworks at the Palestinian players and their supporters.

Reports in a number of Jordanian newspapers said that the Jordanian fans also chanted anti-Palestinian slogans and cursed Palestine, the PLO, Jerusalem and the Aksa Mosque.

Prince Ali bin Hussein, chairman of Jordan's National Football Association, strongly condemned the racist slurs chanted by the Jordanian fans, saying those responsible would be severely punished.

Baker al-Udwan, director of Al-Faisali team, also condemned the behavior of his team's supporters. He said that a minority of "outcasts" and "corrupt" elements were behind the embarrassing verbal and physical assault on the Palestinian soccer players and their fans.

"We condemn this uncivilized demeanor and welcome any step that would result in the elimination of this tiny group of parasites," he said.

Tarek Khoury, chairman of the Wihdat team, instructed his players to abandon the field as soon as the Jordanian fans started hurling abuse against Palestinians and the Aksa Mosque.

Palestinians said that the confrontation with the Jordanians was yet another indication of increased tensions between the two sides.

"Many Palestinians living in Jordan are convinced that the Jordanian authorities are trying to squeeze them out," said Ismail Jaber, a West Bank lawyer who has been living in the kingdom for nearly 20 years. "There is growing discontent and uncertainty among Palestinians here."

He and other Palestinians said that Jordanians' "hostile" attitude toward them had escalated after the rise to power of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu earlier this year.

Several Jordanian government officials, they said, are convinced that Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are secretly working toward turning Jordan into a Palestinian state.

As a preemptive measure, the Jordanian authorities recently began revoking the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians, leaving many of them in a state of panic and uncertainty regarding the future.

The Jordanians have justified the latest measure by arguing that it's aimed at avoiding a situation in which the Palestinians would ever be prevented from returning to their original homes inside Israel.

Since 1988, when the late King Hussein cut off his country's administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, the Jordanian authorities have been working toward "disengaging" from the Palestinians under the pretext of preserving their national identity.

That decision, said Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi, was taken at the request of the PLO and the Arab world to consolidate the status of the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

"Our goal is to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants," the minister explained, confirming that the kingdom had begun revoking the citizenship of Palestinians.

"We should be thanked for taking this measure," he said. "We are fulfilling our national duty because Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from their homeland."

Kadi said that, despite the new policy, Palestinians would be permitted to retain their status as residents of the kingdom by holding "yellow ID cards" that are issued to those who have families and homes in the West Bank.

He said that Palestinians working for the Palestinian Authority or the PLO were among those who have had their Jordanian passports taken from them, in addition to anyone who did not serve in the Jordanian army.

The Jordanian minister said that the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank had been notified of the decision to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinians.

A PA official in Ramallah expressed deep concern over Jordan's latest move and said that it would only worsen the conditions of Palestinians living in the kingdom. The official said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas raised the issue with King Abdullah II on a number of occasions, but the Jordanians have refused to retract.

Asked by the London-based Al-Hayat daily where the Palestinians should go after they lose their Jordanian passports, the minister replied: "We're not expelling anyone, nor are we revoking the citizenship of Jordanian nationals. We are only correcting the mistake that was created after Jordan's disengagement from the West Bank [in 1988]. We want to highlight the true identity and nationality of every person."

Kadi claimed that the kingdom was seeking, through the new measure, to thwart an Israeli "plot" to transfer more Palestinians to Jordan with the hope of replacing it with a Palestinian state.

"We insist that Jordan is not Palestine, just as Palestine is not Jordan," he stressed. "We will continue to help the Palestinians hold on to their Palestinian identity by pursuing the implementation of the 1988 disengagement plan from the West Bank."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443863400&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 22, 2009, 10:16:55 AM

Well today's headlines are a final "explanation point" to BO's policies all along.
Remember when McCain said he would be Hamas and Hezbollah's worst nightmare and BO said we need to meet, hug and kiss them more or less.
I keep reading how politicians, military personel state how it would be a "disaster" or catastrophe" if we, or Israel were to use military force against Iran to slow or halt their nuclear weapons persuit.  Not one ioda that if Isreal were laid to waste by a nuclear attack that that would be a disaster. 
It is clear to me that those in power today have decided it is more in the US interest to risk annhilation of Israel than use war with Iran.  People who are not Jewish who otherwise don't care about Jews, do have an argument that Israel is not enough of a major player that it would be worth it to the US.  I can't rationally deny that. 
As a Jew I hate the thought.  As a Jew I will feel sorry for the 80% of Jews who gave up their fellow Jews to vote for a liberal who made his intentions know throughout his life.  For them to say now they are surprised that Bo is siding more with the Jew haters than the Jews is hypocricy.  It is and was obvious.

We can only hope for some sort of political change in Iran before it is too late.
If only we allowed our oil companies to drill for off shore oil off the continental US 5 or 10 years ago we wouldn't be as much at the mercy of foreign oil.  All the darn windmills, corn, solar panels covering the entire midwest won't solve our problems any time soon.
The environementalist have won.  And we have lost.  And indirectly it hurt the Jews in Israel.  The risk of flow of oil throught the Persain gulf is obviously one factor that is being considered in siding against military force against Iran.

Just my arm chair thoughts on today's Drudge headlines:

  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday stirred Israeli fears that Washington would accept a nuclear armed Iran when she raised the idea of a US "defence umbrella" for Gulf allies.
However, Clinton, during a visit to Thailand for an Asian security conference, said later that she was not announcing a new policy and simply wanted to turn Iran away from pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Clinton told Thai television in Bangkok that President Barack Obama's administration was still open to engage Iran in talks about its nuclear programme but warned that Tehran would not be safer if it obtains a bomb.

"We will still hold the door open" to talks over its nuclear program Clinton said.

"But we also have made it clear that we will take action, as I've said time and time again, crippling action, working to upgrade the defence of our partners in the region," she said.

Her previous references to "crippling action" have referred to sanctions.

"We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment: that if the US extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it is unlikely Iran will be any stronger or safer," Clinton said.

"They won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon."

In Jerusalem, Israeli Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor criticised her remarks.

"I heard without enthusiasm the American declarations according to which the United States will defend their allies in the event that Iran uses nuclear weapons, as if they were already resigned to such a possibility," he said.

"This is a mistake," Meridor said. "We cannot act now by assuming that Iran will be able to arm itself with a nuclear weapon, but to prevent such a possibility."

Clinton made her initial comments during a recording for a Thai television show before heading to Asia's largest security forum in the Thai resort island of Phuket, where talks were expected to focus on possible nuclear links between North Korea and Myanmar.

Speaking at a press conference in Phuket later, Clinton suggested her remarks were misunderstood.

"I'm not suggesting a new policy. In fact we all believe that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and I've said that many times," she said.

"I'm simply pointing out that Iran needs to understand that it's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not advance its security or achieve its goals of enhancing its power regionally and globally," she said.

"The focus that Iran must have is that it faces the prospect -- if it pursues nuclear weapons -- of sparking an arms race in the region," she said.

"That should affect a calculation of what Iran intends to do and what it believes is in its national security interest because it may render Iran less secure, not more secure," she said.

US lawmakers on Monday stepped up pressure on Obama to ready tough new economic sanctions on Iran in the event Tehran fails to freeze its uranium enrichment programme by late 2009.

Iran, labouring under UN sanctions for its defiance, has rejected the West's charges that it seeks nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

Obama has said he wants a diplomatic solution to the standoff but has repeatedly warned that he has not ruled out the use of force.



 

Title: Buchanan: "No evidence" Iran is working on a nuclear bomb
Post by: ccp on August 04, 2009, 08:12:00 AM

Buchanan on the threat to Israel:

Comments Tell Israel: Cool the Jets!
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

07/31/2009


Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who is wired into the cabinet of "Bibi" Netanyahu, warns that if Iran's nuclear program is not aborted by December, Israel will strike to obliterate it.

Defense Secretary Gates' mission to Israel this week, says Bolton, to relay Obama's red light, was listened to attentively, but will not be decisive.

Israel will decide.
 

One trusts Gates got into the face of Defense Minister Ehud Barak. For an Israeli strike on Iran, which Joe Biden foolishly said was Israel's call, would drag this country into a third war in the Middle East and destroy a policy that is visibly succeeding.

The Iranian regime is still reeling from the June 12 election, widely perceived in Iran and worldwide as stolen, and its tumultuous aftermath. Hundreds of thousands poured into the streets to protest the election, and then attack the legitimacy itself of the Islamic regime.

The government is gripped by its worst crisis since the revolution of 1979. Members of Iran's establishment with unimpeachable revolutionary credentials have declared the election a fraud.
   
Ahmadinejad's selection as first vice president of Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, whose son is married to his daughter, and who has said some kind words about Israel, outraged conservatives.
   
Ahmadinejad was ordered by Ayatollah Khamenei to rescind the Mashaie appointment. For days he balked, then sent a curt note saying he would comply. Ahmadinejad further affronted the ayatollah by naming Mashaie his chief of staff.
     
Teheran is now ablaze over reports that scores of street protesters arrested in June may have been beaten to death in prison.
     
There is talk in Teheran, even before he has been sworn in for a second term, that Ahmadinejad may be impeached or ousted long before he can complete it.
     
America's policy of patience is working.
     
And as Ahmadinejad is Israel's bete noire, who Netanyahu cites as the religious fanatic who wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and will launch a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv as soon as he gets it, why would Israel strike now, and reunite Iranians behind this regime?
     
Why does Israel insist that America has only five months to halt Iran's nuclear program, or Israel must attack?
     
Says Bolton: "(W)ith each passing day, Iran's nuclear and ballistic laboratories, production facilities, and military bases are all churning. Israel is focused on these facts, not the illusion of 'tough' diplomacy."
     
Now, Iran's nuclear "production facilities" may be "churning" out the low-enriched uranium of which it has produced enough for one test bomb. But IAEA inspectors still have their eyes on this pile. None of the LEU has been diverted anywhere.
     
There is no evidence Iran has built the cascade to raise LEU to highly enriched weapons-grade uranium, or that the facilities even exist to do this. The Iranian regime has declared it has no intention of building nuclear weapons, indeed, that their possession would be a violation of Koranic law.
     
And the United States has not rescinded its own National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran, in 2003, abandoned its weapons program.
     
Israel has been saying for years an Iranian bomb is months away.
     
Where is the proof? Where is the evidence to justify a new U.S. war in the Middle East to destroy weapons of mass destruction that may not exist in Iran, as they did not exist in Iraq?
     
Iran may wish to have a nuclear deterrent, considering what happened to neighbor Iraq, which did not. But the idea that the regime, having built a nuclear weapon, would launch it on Tel Aviv and bring massive retaliation by scores of Israeli nukes on Teheran and other cities, killing millions of Iranians and all the leaders and their families of all factions of this disputatious people, seems like total madness.
     
For Israel to launch a war on such reasoning would seem to meet Bismarck's definition of preemptive war as "committing suicide out of fear of death."
     
America lived for decades under a threat of nuclear annihilation. We relied on a policy of containment and deterrence, outlasted the Soviet regime in a 40-year Cold War, and are now at peace with Russia.
     
Ahmadinejad is not so tough a customer as Stalin, Khrushchev or Mao, who talked of accepting 300 million dead in a nuclear exchange. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has no nukes, no authority to take Iran to war, and is looking like a very lame duck before his second term has begun.
     
And when one looks to U.S. and Iranian interests, they coincide as much as they conflict. Iran detested the Taliban before we took them down, and no more wants them back than do we. Iran is even more pleased with the Shia regime we brought to power in Baghdad than we are.
     
Iran needs technology to restore its depleted oil and gas fields, and an end to sanctions to restore an economy whose disintegration helped put the regime in crisis and lose it the support of its young.
     
Obama should tell the Israelis, "Cool the jets!" literally.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reader Comments: (844)

Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers. Click to view all
Please remember the opinions expressed by our readers are in no way those of Human Events, nor are they condoned by us, and we reserve the right to remove abusive posts. Report Abusive Post
Seems like every time the price of oil sags, Israel (or her apologists) start floating the idea of striking Iran. Funny, isn't it?
Jul 31, 2009 @ 10:18 AMWallaby, The outback
Report Abusive Post
Is everyone who posts here anti-Semitic or just plain ignorant?
Jul 31, 2009 @ 10:35 AMRandy, Dallas
Report Abusive Post
The problem with this, of course, is that US concerns aren't the primary concern of Israel; Israel is. They also aren't stupid so I find it unlikely that they will actually launch an attack until they are sure they have no choice because they are just as aware of the fallout they'll have to deal with. However, if they believe that Iran is close to a working bomb and knowing what the likely repercussions of that would be for Israel, they're not going to care what we think. Since we're obviously not overly concerned with the effect our policies have on them, I fail to think them blamable for that attitude.
Jul 31, 2009 @ 10:48 AMMDF, Mass
Report Abusive Post
Amen. I totally agree with this. Any strike now would reverse all the hard work already done
Jul 31, 2009 @ 10:51 AMGraham, Slough
Report Abusive Post
ISRAEL, SEND THE JETS TO IRAN. Let's get this show on the road.
Jul 31, 2009 @ 10:52 AMHarold Reimann, Lucerne Valley, CA
Report Abusive Post
One big problem with your analysis Pat. The leaders of the Soviet Union were not suicidal. The leaders of Iran are. The MAD policy worked with the Soviet Union because they had no personal interest in dying. Ahmadinejad on the other hand believes he will get lots of virgins and eternal drunken party if he dies in a conflict with the “Great Satan” or “Little Satan”. He has no reason to fear annihilation.
Jul 31, 2009 @ 10:59 AMRD, Texas
Report Abusive Post
Wrong, Pat. Israel has no choice but to attack Iran and she will. She is just waiting for Obama's popularity to fall.
Jul 31, 2009 @ 11:06 AMjorgen, SShare Your Comment  Show All Comments
 
     

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: HUSS on August 04, 2009, 08:52:49 PM

Russia and Israel.
Ahmed Hany May 12, 2009The ex-Soviet Union was the first country that recognized Israel. Moreover, there was an untold agreement between it and the Western powers to keep the military balance in the Middle East in the favor of the Hebrew State. The military relaxation in the Middle East was the term agreed by both superpowers while Israel was occupying Sinai, Golan, West Bank and Gaza. Egypt fought against the will of both superpowers to create new strategic facts on the ground, so that political negotiations could be profitable.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia kept the same views in the Middle East. It opened doors for its Jewish community to immigrate to Israel and within few years about a million and half Jews reached Israel from Russia. It kept the military balance by limiting arms supplies to its allies. It frankly assured Israel that its arms supplies to Syria and Iran will not change the military balance in the Middle East. These facts mean that Russia have an interest in keeping Israel in the region and safeguarding its security against all countries including Russia´s allies. This should be clear for those who still see the solution of the conflict in the Middle East would be only achieved by throwing Israel into the sea.

In fact Napoleon was the first who thought about creating a nation for Jews in the East separating Egypt from Turkey so that, the Ottoman Empire would collapse. Let us not forget that Russia saw the Ottoman Empire a strategic threat. The Egyptian army saved Turkey in its war against Russia. Few years later, when Mohamed Ali was about to transfer the capital of the Empire to Cairo to renew it against the will of the Ottoman Sultan, Russia joined the international alliance against Egypt. Then, Russia sees Israel beneficial for its strategy provided that Israel itself does not pose a threat to it. This clears the swinging Russian policy in the Middle East since creation of Israel. The Russians see the Israeli nuclear force hostile because they consider it a part of the Western nuclear force. However they see Israel vital for not creating a great power on their Southern borders.

Within the frame of the global conflict between NATO expansion to the East and the Russian desire to safeguard its vital space, the Balkan War erupted. Regardless of the victory over Georgia, the Russians discovered that their aerial surveillance by their unmanned aircrafts was not advanced like the equipments that their tiny rival used. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Levini asked the military institutions to stop exporting arms to Georgia not to anger Russia. In fact, the untold agreement that kept the military balance in the Middle East is more important for Israel than Georgia.

Israel always tries to keep military relation and cooperation with any country that produce arms. That happened with China, India, Brazil, Argentina and even Turkey. While the Arabs might buy arms from these countries, Israel might provide technical aid to develop their industry. Of course cooperation with Israel is more profitable for these countries. Anyhow, Arabs would buy the older less advanced versions because they have no other choice. Israel even may spy on the US and exchange secrets with these countries as what happened with China. Therefore, it was normal for Russia to buy advanced unmanned aircrafts with 49 million dollars from Israel. One should not be astonished if Russia went into more cooperative steps as military exercise.


Since the Balkan War, Russia applies a new strategy that compete militarily with the US up to the level of threatening it European allies with ground to ground missiles and with long range strategic bomber planes. It consolidated its military presence in Latin America. Russia chose to return differently to the Middle East. It is returning to this volatile region as one of the Quartet not as a rival to the US. The difference shows the limit of Russian support to the Palestinian cause. Being a rival to the US opens the door for Russia to stand against Israel. Being one of the Quartet means that Russia would support solving the problem to reach the Two-States solution while safeguarding the presence and security of Israel.

Regarding the Iranian nuclear file, Russia is in favor of dialogue. However it refuses and perhaps more than the US that Iran becomes a nuclear power. Russia does not want another war on its Southern border that may destabilize Central Asia. Even in Afghanistan, Russia is ready to fight if NATO lost the war. It does not want to see Taliban rule again at any cost as the extremism would spread to it small republics that seek independence. Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO that was formed by four Central Asian republics along with Russia and China did military exercise and is ready for development in Afghanistan. Some strategic analysts predict that SCO would not last long. However, it showed to the Russians that NATO operations in Afghanistan may form a good base for SCO-NATO cooperation. It is known that the US and NATO use unmanned aircrafts heavily for offensive operations against Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The conclusion is to change the military balance in the Middle East the Arabs should develop their ability to industrialize weapons. Russia may not take policies that contradict with the western powers and at the same time its policies are not a copy of them. The global strategy may open doors for some countries to be allies for a certain aim and their contradicting national strategies may lead them to be rivals in other subjects. The military industry and export is now more opened than before. While Russia buys unmanned aircrafts from Israel and provides Iran with military and nuclear aid, it may sell advanced air defense systems to Turkey, the NATO member while assuring that these systems will not be deployed in Syria and Iran.

Arabs should define their regional strategy and their role in the global strategy before talking to or criticizing global powers. They may discover opportunities by coordinating their strategy with the strategies of some global powers and they would know how to defuse threats. The real security strategy is built in schools, laboratories and research centers.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2009, 08:22:58 AM

Huss:

What do your know about the author of that piece?

Title: We'll Kill Until It's Ours
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on August 09, 2009, 09:22:45 AM

And these would be the moderates. . . .


Last update - 17:56 08/08/2009         

Fatah: We'll sacrifice victims until Jerusalem is ours

By Haaretz Service and DPA

Tags: Jerusalem, Israel News, Fatah


 

The status of Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state is a red line that no Palestinian leader is permitted to cross, President Mahmoud Abbas' ruling Fatah faction declared in the West Bank on Saturday.

According to Israel Radio, the Fatah general conference, which convened in Bethlehem for a three-day gathering, adopted a position paper which also states that the Palestinian national enterprise will not reach fruition until all of Jerusalem, including the outlying villages, come under Palestinian sovereignty.

Fatah, which rules the West Bank but was ousted from power in Gaza by the Islamist Hamas movement, also ruled out any interim agreements with Israel.
    Advertisement

"Fatah will continue to sacrifice victims until Jerusalem will be returned [to the Palestinians], clean of settlements and settlers," the paper states.

According to Israel Radio, the paper does not make a distinction between the eastern and western halves of the capital, nor does it distinguish between the territories within the Israeli side of the Green Line and the areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Abbas relected to lead Fatah
Mahmoud Abbas was re-elected on Saturday to lead Fatah by consensus at the party conference.

There was no vote taken because no other Fatah member challenged Abbas'
five-year rule of the party. Hundreds of delegates cheered and clapped as
Fatah leader Tayib Abdul Rahim announced that Abbas was chosen to lead the party.

Technically Abbas can only lead the party for five years, until a new
conference is announced, but this is the first time Fatah members have met in 20 years, so it isn't clear how long his mandate will last.

Also Saturday, Ahmed Qureia, also known as Abu Alla, told reporters that delegates meeting in Bethlehem would elect a new Central Committee and a Revolutionary Council on Sunday or Monday.

Qureia said the convention would hold the elections for both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank at the same time, adding that "some Gaza members will contest the elections."

He said the modalities of the election were still under discussion. Changes to Fatah's platform were being discussed during Saturday's sessions, he said.

Abbas Zaki, a Fatah representative from Lebanon said "100 candidates are running for membership of the Central Committee and 646 for the Revolutionary Council.

Voting by the some 2,500 delegates for the 18-member Central Committee, and 120-member Revolutionary Council had originally been expected to start on Saturday morning.

The convention is meeting for the first time in 20 years to elect a new leadership for the organization founded by Yasser Arafat.

However, Fatah rival Hamas, which has ruled the Gaza Strip since June 2007, banned scores of Fatah members there from traveling to the West Bank to attend the gathering.

On Friday, Central Committee member Nabil Shaath announced an agreement reached with the convention's leadership that would allow Gaza delegates to vote by telephone.

Fatah said in a statement that Hamas security forces had placed several Gaza convention delegates under house arrest and prevented them from leaving their homes.

It said that on Friday and Saturday, Hamas security personnel detained several Fatah leaders for questioning before releasing them. Hamas Interior Ministry spokesman Ihab al-Ghussein denied there were any detentions.

U.S. to demand Israel, Palestinian deal with borders

The U.S. administration will demand that Israel and the Palestinians address the issue of borders as the first step in the Middle East peace plan, senior Palestinian officials said Thursday.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that Washington will present its new plan for a comprehensive Middle East peace soon.

The Americans will also outline proposals for an Israeli peace with Syria and Lebanon, the Palestinian officials said Thursday.

The American plan will not specify step-by-step actions for an Israeli-Palestinian solution, but will address final status issues - borders, Jerusalem and refugees.

The Americans will set a timetable of about a year and a half for the negotiations and demand the sides first solve the border issue, under the belief that this will lead to solutions for other issues, such as the settlements and water. After that the sides will discuss the other fundamental issues - Jerusalem and the refugees.

The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians probably will be conducted in the presence of American officials, the sources said. The American administration is likely to present its plan before or during the UN General Assembly set for September.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106050.html

Title: Editor's Notes: Not Obama, but Abbas
Post by: rachelg on August 15, 2009, 07:26:46 AM

Editor's Notes: Not Obama, but Abbas
Aug. 13, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

It's not the US president we Israelis most need to hear from. It's the Palestinian leader, though after the Fatah conference it's harder than ever to believe he has anything very constructive to say.

The assertion has been gaining ground in recent days that Israelis need some Obama time.

The 44th president is now almost seven months into his term, he's done his fair share of globe-trotting, including in this region, and yet he's not yet found the day or two to pop in and visit the only allied democracy in the Middle East.

Not only are we anxious to host the president, runs the argument advanced in a number of recent newspaper editorials and op-ed articles, but if only Obama were to speak directly to us - as he spoke to the Muslim world in Cairo in June - we would understand him better, like him more, and act accordingly. As things stand, goes this line of thinking, we're feeling unloved, marginalized, even irritated - and so we're digging in our little Zionist heels.

Well, of course we'd welcome a presidential visit. Just over a year ago, when candidate Obama made a brief trip here, he was accorded the full rock-star treatment. The preceding visit, by a bona fide serving national leader, Britain's dour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was utterly overshadowed by his arrival. Everybody wanted to meet the glamorous Democratic nominee. Every journalist wanted to interview him. Every politician of most every stripe wanted their photo taken with him... sorry, wanted to hold substantive political discussions with him.

Were he to return, now, as leader of the free world, the interest would be still more intense, the clamor for his attention yet more feverish, and the joy that he had spared us some of his time even more unbridled.

At a stroke, I suspect, the very fact of his arrival would begin to remake some of those opinion polls which show that an overwhelming proportion of Israelis consider his presidency to be anything but pro-Israeli. We are a volatile, enthusiastic and easily pleased people. When the leaders of Arab nations embrace the leaders of ours, we have proven ready overnight to put aside decades of well-founded suspicion and to shift, by morning, to a veritable insistence on territorial compromise for the awakened cause of peace. Were the president of our most beloved and most important ally to fly into Ben-Gurion Airport, reemphasize his country's unwavering commitment to our well-being, and set out his vision of our path to long-term stability, we would applaud him, carefully examine what he had to say, and perhaps even shift our attitudes... a little.

But the notion that a few well-chosen words, delivered on our home turf by an articulate, charismatic president, would fundamentally change us, and by extension fundamentally alter the complex mix of forces that, to date, are stymieing Obama's energetic bid to revive the Israeli-Arab process, is simplistic and mistaken.

Because the fact is that it's not Barack Obama we Israelis most need to hear from. It's Mahmoud Abbas - and a very different Abbas, at that, from the one who presided over the just-ended Fatah conference in Bethlehem.

DAY AFTER incendiary day in Bethlehem this week and the week before that, we did hear from Abbas, and from his colleagues in the Fatah leadership. And the noise was not good.

We heard the absurd accusation that Israel, under former prime minister Ariel Sharon, had conspired in the assassination of Abbas's predecessor Yasser Arafat. This is a pernicious charge indeed - that the Zionists killed the symbol of the Palestinian national cause. Risibly, a committee was established, with unanimous approval, not to probe whether Israel had done the foul deed - that ridiculous assertion was treated as a given - but rather how it had been achieved.

We heard speeches insisting on the Palestinian right to "resistance." We heard speeches in defense of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades - Fatah's chief perpetrators of suicide bombings - a terrorist organization that the Palestinian Authority is supposed to have dismantled but which was ringingly re-endorsed as the Fatah armed wing. We heard pledges of looming Fatah "sacrifices" in the cause of liberating all of Jerusalem, until the city "returns to the Palestinians void of settlers and settlements."

By comparison with some of the resolutions his colleagues approved, Abbas's own address to the conference was relatively mild - endorsing "the path of peace and negotiations" and rejecting "all forms of terrorism" even as he reserved the Palestinians' "authentic right to legitimate resistance as guaranteed by international law."

But what we heard overall - what the Israeli and the Palestinian publics heard overall - were not the harmonious melodies of reconciliation, but the fiery, bitter rhetoric of conflict and confrontation. What we heard overall was not even the reluctant acceptance of Jewish sovereign legitimacy alongside the struggle for Palestinian sovereign rights, but the angry denunciation of an Israel whose claim to its own capital was rejected and whose Jewish demographic majority was to be overturned by an influx of millions of "returning" Palestinians.

AN OBAMA visit to Israel might just help chivvy along some kind of formula over settlement building that would enable the current Israeli government to honor its own platform and the American president to save face. But mainstream Israel's discomfort with the president's calls for a settlement freeze is not a function of his Israel-free travel itinerary to date. It is, rather, a consequence of his having pressed emphatically for a halt to all building - in east Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim as well as at remote isolated settlements and outposts.

Into one undistinguished whole, the Obama administration has lumped those areas where most Israelis insist we have the right to build (in parts of Jerusalem to which Israel extended sovereignty after the 1967 war), along with areas most Israelis would like to retain under a permanent accord (such as Ma'aleh Adumim and the Etzion Bloc), together with settlement areas most Israelis would be prepared to relinquish under a permanent accord (dozens upon dozens of settlements beyond the security barrier) and minor settlements that this government vows it is about to remove (the illegal outposts).

By removing the distinctions between these categories of settlement, the administration has galvanized a far larger body of Israeli opposition to a freeze than would have resulted from a more nuanced approach - in the process undermining its own efforts to foster support for compromise.

Moreover, by pushing so relentlessly for a freeze even as it has failed to prise significant steps toward normalization from key Arab players such as Saudi Arabia, it has left Israelis bristling and bemused. Why, it is quite widely wondered here, does the US administration seem convinced that, if only Israel would freeze settlement building, harmony and peace would ensue, when so many Palestinian and Arab utterances make the opposite conclusion so unavoidable? By extension, if the US is so wrongheaded about this, how much of a risk can Israel really take with this administration as it seeks to mediate an accord?

And let there be no doubt: Israel is already taking security risks, in the shape of eased restrictions on Palestinian movement in the West Bank, and in the shape of support for the widening authority of US-trained Palestinian security forces.

AN OBAMA visit would be encouraging, welcome and almost certainly constructive. Israel would certainly be pleased to hear directly from the president. But the voice we need to hear is that of Abbas - an Abbas speaking to his people and to ours in terms he did not employ at Fatah's Bethlehem gathering. An Abbas countering the duplicitous Arafat's assertion to the Palestinian public that the Jews have no rights and no legitimacy here. An Abbas explaining to his people and to ours that we are fated to live together and that he will meet us on the road to a better future.

The trouble is that it gets ever harder to believe that Abbas is indeed a Palestinian leader devoted to compromise when he, by his own admission, so derisively rejected Ehud Olmert's unprecedented peace overtures. It gets ever harder when Abbas presides over the relegitimization of the murderous Aksa Martyrs Brigades at a Fatah conference that did anything but advance prospects for reconciliation.

Worthy columns and editorials notwithstanding, you see, it's not what the US president isn't saying directly to us that's most worrying for Israelis. It's what the Palestinian leadership is saying, to its own people and to anyone else who's listening: far too much that is deeply troubling, and far too little that engenders good faith.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604189&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2009, 08:13:34 AM

Good post Rachel. 

Why oh why can't Israel negotiate with and trust these people?

======================

Hamas crushes challenge by al-Qaida-inspired group








AP � Members of a militant Islamic group Jund Ansar Allah, stand guard as their leader Abdel-Latif Moussa, �
By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer � 14 mins ago


RAFAH, Gaza Strip � The leader of an al-Qaida-inspired group in the Gaza Strip blew himself up during a shootout Saturday with Hamas security forces, ending hours of violence sparked by a rebellious sermon at a mosque near the Egyptian border.


At least 24 people were killed in clashes with the shadowy group, which posed one of the biggest challenges to Hamas since the militant group seized power in Gaza two years ago.


The fighting broke out Friday when Hamas security men surrounded a mosque in the southern Gaza town of Rafah on the Egyptian border where about 100 members of Jund Ansar Allah, or the Soldiers of the Companions of God, were holed up.


Flares lit up the sky overnight as Hamas machine gun fire and rocket propelled grenades slammed into the mosque. The militants inside returned fire with automatic weapons and grenades of their own.


The head of the radical Islamic group, Abdel-Latif Moussa, detonated an explosives vest he was wearing when fighting resumed after dawn Saturday, said Ihab Ghussein, a Hamas Interior Ministry spokesman.


"The so-called Moussa has committed suicide ... killing a mediator who had been sent to him to persuade him and his followers to hand themselves over to the government," Ghussein said.


He said the fighting ended later in the morning. Dr. Moaiya Hassanain of the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza said a total of 24 people, including six Hamas police officers and an 11-year-old girl, were killed and 150 were wounded.


The group's Web site vowed revenge: "We swear to God to avenge the martyrs' blood and we will turn their women into widows."


Hamas also confirmed the death in the fighting of one of its high-level commanders, Abu Jibril Shimali, whom Israel said orchestrated the capture three years ago of Sgt. Gilad Schalit, an Israeli soldier who is still being held by Hamas.


The fighting appeared to confirm Hamas' iron rule in Gaza despite a punishing Israeli and Egyptian blockade that keeps all but basic humanitarian supplies from entering the impoverished seaside territory.


It also underscored the group's determination not to allow opponents with differing ideologies to gain a foothold in Gaza. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are together supposed to make up a future Palestinian state, but Hamas' bloody seizure of Gaza in 2007 created rival governments in the two territories � located on opposite sides of Israel � that are complicating Palestinian efforts to gain independence.


Jund Ansar Allah claims inspiration from al-Qaida's ultraconservative brand of Islam but no direct links have been confirmed.


The confrontation was triggered when the leader of the group defied Gaza's Hamas rulers by declaring in a Friday prayer sermon that the territory was an Islamic emirate.


Jund Ansar Allah and a number of other small radical groups seek to enforce an even stricter version of Islamic law in Gaza than that advocated by Hamas.


These groups are also upset that the Hamas regime has honored a cease-fire with Israel for the past seven months.


Hamas says it does not impose its religious views on others, but only seeks to set a pious example for people to follow.


Radical splinter groups such as Jund Ansar Allah call for a global jihad against the entire Western world, while Hamas maintains its struggle is only against the Israeli occupation.


"They are inspired by unbalanced ideologies and in the past they carried out a number of explosions targeting Internet cafes and wedding parties," said Ghussein, adding that the groups do not have any external ties.


The hard-line groups are perhaps the most serious opposition Hamas has faced since it seized control of Gaza and ousted its rivals in the Fatah movement in a five-day civil war in June 2007.


Hamas security blocked all roads to Rafah and declared the town a closed military zone. They said they have arrested about 40 members of the group so far.


Hamas is also investigating the launching of 11 homemade rockets from Gaza into Egypt on Friday. Only five of the rockets detonated, injuring a young girl, said Egyptian security forces.


Saeb Erekat, a senior peace negotiator with Israel and a member of the rival Fatah group in the West Bank, described the situation in Gaza as "alarming."


"Gaza is going down the drain in chaos and lawlessness," he told the AP.


Jund Ansar Allah first came to public attention in June after it claimed responsibility for a failed attempt to attack Israel from Gaza on horseback.


In July, three Muslim extremists from the group holed themselves up in a building in southern Gaza, surrendering to Hamas police only after a lengthy standoff.


It is unclear how many adherents Jund Ansar Allah or other similar extremist groups have in Gaza.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_gaza_shootout

Title: Different Gilder Article
Post by: rachelg on August 16, 2009, 06:12:04 PM

Gilder and this kind of article are not really my thing. I  think he states the main point too strongly and antisemitims has many causes  mostly not ratiaonal and I don't think resenting achievemnet is at the heart of it.
 However  I thought some of you might be interested and  this article it has more depth (imo) than the original. 
The Israel Test
by George Gilder

Israel is hated not for her vices but her virtues.

Like the Jews throughout history, Israel poses a test to the world. In particular, it is a test for any people that lusts for the fruits of capitalism without submitting to capitalism's imperious moral code. Because capitalism, like the biblical faith from which it largely arises, remorselessly condemns to darkness and death those who resent the achievements of others.

At the heart of anti-Semitism is resentment of Jewish achievement. Today that achievement is concentrated in Israel. Obscured by the usual media coverage of the "war-torn" Middle East, Israel has become one of the most important economies in the world, second only to the United States in its pioneering of technologies benefiting human life, prosperity, and peace.

But so it has always been. Israel, like the Jews throughout history, is hated not for her vices but her virtues. Israel is hated, as the United States is hated, because Israel is successful, because Israel is free, and because Israel is good.

As Maxim Gorky put it: "Whatever nonsense the anti-Semites may talk, they dislike the Jew only because he is obviously better, more adroit, and more capable of work than they are." Whether driven by culture or genes -- or like most behavior, an inextricable mix -- the fact of Jewish genius is demonstrable. It can be gainsaid only by people who do not expect to be believed.

Charles Murray distilled the evidence in Commentary magazine in April 2007. The Jewish mean intelligence quotient is 110, ten points above the norm. This strikingly higher average intelligence, however, is not the decisive factor in overall Jewish achievement.

The three-tenths of 1 percent of the world population that is Jewish has contributed some 25 percent of notable human intellectual accomplishment in the modern period.

What matters in human accomplishment is not the average performance but the treatment of exceptional performance and the cultivation of genius. The commanding lesson of Jewish accomplishment is that genius trumps everything else. Whatever the cause of high IQ, as Murray explains, "the key indicator for predicting exceptional accomplishment (like winning a Nobel Prize) is the incidence of exceptional intelligence... The proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else" and rises at still higher IQs.

The great error of contemporary social thought is that poverty must result from "discrimination" or "exploitation." Because Jews tend to be overrepresented at the pinnacles of excellence, a dogmatic belief that nature favors equal outcomes fosters hostility to capitalism and leads inexorably to anti-Semitism.

The socialists and anti-Semites have it backwards. Poverty needs little explanation. It has been the usual condition of nearly all human beings throughout all history. What is precious and in need of explanation and nurture is the special configuration of cultural and intellectual aptitudes and practices -- the differences, the inequalities -- that under some rare and miraculous conditions have produced wealth for the world. Inequality is the answer, not the problem.

In his book Human Accomplishment Murray focused on the fact that the three-tenths of 1 percent of the world population that is Jewish has contributed some 25 percent of notable human intellectual accomplishment in the modern period. Murray cites the historical record:

He then proceeds to more recent data:

 

The achievements of modern science are heavily the expression of Jewish genius and ingenuity. If 26 percent of Nobel Prizes do not suffice to make the case, it is confirmed by 51 percent of Wolf Prizes in Physics, 28 percent of the Max Planck Medailles, 38 percent of the Dirac Medals, 37 percent of the Heineman Prizes for Mathematical Physics, and 53 percent of the Enrico Fermi Awards.

Jews are not only superior in abstruse intellectual pursuits, such as quantum physics and nuclear science, however. They are also heavily overrepresented among entrepreneurs of the technology businesses that lead and leaven the global economy. Social psychologist David McClelland, author of The Achieving Society, found that entrepreneurs are identified by a greater "need for achievement" than are other groups. "There is little doubt," he concluded, explaining the disproportionate representation of Jews among entrepreneurs, that in the United States, "the average need for achievement among Jews is higher than for the general population."

"Need for achievement" alone, however, will not enable a person to start and run a successful technological company. That takes a combination of technological mastery, business prowess, and leadership skills that is not evenly distributed even among elite scientists and engineers. Edward B. Roberts of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School compared MIT graduates who launched new technological companies with a control group of graduates who pursued other careers. The largest factor in predicting an entrepreneurial career in technology was an entrepreneurial father. Controlling for this factor, he discovered that Jews were five times more likely to start technological enterprises than other MIT graduates.

For all its special features and extreme manifestations, anti-Semitism is a reflection of the hatred toward successful middlemen, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, lenders, bankers, financiers, and other capitalists that is visible everywhere whenever an identifiable set of outsiders outperforms the rest of the population in the economy. This is true whether the offending excellence comes from the Kikuyu in Kenya; the Ibo and the Yoruba in Nigeria; the overseas Indians and whites in Uganda and Zimbabwe; the Lebanese in West Africa, South America, and around the world; the Parsis in India; the Indian Gujaratis in South and East Africa; the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire; and above all the more than 30 million overseas Chinese in Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

Capitalism overthrows theories of zero-sum economics and dog-eat-cat survival of the fittest. Thus, as in the United States (outside the academic arena), anti-Semitism withers in wealthy capitalist countries. It waxes in socialist regimes where Jews may arouse resentment by their agility in finding economic niches among the interstices of bureaucracies, tax collections, political pork fests, and crony capitalism.

Socialist or feudal systems, particularly when oil-rich and politically controlled, favor a conspiratorial view of history and economics. Anti-Semitism is chiefly a zero-sum disease.

As Walter Lippmann eloquently explained in The Good Society, capitalism opened a vista of mutually enriching enterprise with the good fortune of others creating opportunities for all. The Golden Rule was transformed from an idealistic vision of heaven into a practical agenda. From Poor Richard's Almanack to rich Andrew Carnegie's autobiographical parables, all were rediscovering the edifying insights of the author of Proverbs.

Judaism, perhaps more than any other religion, favors capitalist activity and provides a rigorous moral framework for it. It is based on a monotheistic affirmation that God is good and will prevail through transcending envy and hatred and zero-sum fantasies. Judaism can be plausibly interpreted as affirming the possibilities of creativity and collaboration on the frontiers of a capitalist economy.

The incontestable facts of Jewish excellence constitute a universal test not only for anti-Semitism but also for liberty and the justice of the civil order. The success or failure of Jews in a given country is the best index of its freedoms. In any free society, Jews will tend to be represented disproportionately in the highest ranks of both its culture and its commerce. Americans should celebrate the triumphs of Jews on our shores as evidence of the superior freedoms of the U.S. economy and culture.

The real case for Israel is as the leader of human civilization, technological progress, and scientific advance.

In a dangerous world, faced with an array of perils, the Israel test asks whether the world can suppress envy and recognize its dependence on the outstanding performance of relatively few men and women. The world does not subsist on zero-sum legal niceties. It subsists on hard and possibly reversible accomplishments in technology, pharmacology, science, engineering, and enterprise. It thrives not on reallocating land and resources but on releasing human creativity in a way that exploits land and resources most productively. The survival of humanity depends on recognizing excellence wherever it appears and nurturing it until it prevails. It relies on a vanguard of visionary creators on the frontiers of knowledge and truth. It depends on passing the Israel test.

Israel is the pivot, the axis, the litmus, the trial. Are you for civilization or barbarism, life or death, wealth or envy? Are you an exponent of excellence and accomplishment or of a leveling creed of frenzy and hatred?

This essay is based on George Gilder's new book, The Israel Test. This article originally appeared on www.american.com

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jw/me/52829062.html. 

Title: Re: Different Gilder Article
Post by: captainccs on August 17, 2009, 06:52:49 AM

Quote from: Rachel on August 16, 2009, 06:12:04 PM

Gilder and this kind of article are not really my thing. I  think he states the main point too strongly and antisemitims has many causes  mostly not ratiaonal and I don't think resenting achievemnet is at the heart of it.
 However  I thought some of you might be interested and  this article it has more depth (imo) than the original. 

I've read several books by George Gilder which I found interesting and entertaining but I also discovered a knack of his to come to unwarranted conclusions. At times it seems he does research backwards, he comes to conclusions and then goes in search of supporting data.

Frankly the The Israel Test and the original Charles Murray research have very little in common. Gilder uses the supposed genetic selection of Jews to support his zero sum game economic theories. Instead of looking far back into history, let's see who is being demonized in the modern world. Bill Gates and Microsoft were much too successful not to be hounded. AT&T was broken up because it was too big. And currently the hate is directed to the financial elite who managed to make too much money. Or have a look at a school with no Jewish kids, who gets picked on? More that likely the non-conforming kid who is different. I think the success and oddness are sufficient reasons for anti-Semitism.

I find research and writing such as done by Charles Murray troubling. Some people use it as a point of pride, often I get emails telling me how great we Jews are. But pride is a capital sin.

Quote

Pride – Pride is an unrestrained and improper appreciation of our own worth. This is listed first because it is widely considered the most serious of the seven sins; pride often leads to the committing of other capital sins. Pride is manifest in vanity and narcissism about one’s appearance, intelligence, status, etc. Dante described pride as “love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor.”

What is Capital Sin or a Capital Vice? (http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/title/The-Seven-Capital-Sins/FuseAction/store.displayArticle/article/252/)

I want to take you back to the Six Day War. Israel took on and defeated five Arab neighbors with brilliant military strategy, tactics and execution. In a matter of hours the air forces of these five nations ceased to exist, most of their war planes were destroyed on the ground. Dayan's panzer tactics made him a living legend. Out of this victory came inordinate pride. The jokes were telling:

"Let's buy some airplanes to bomb the Pyramids."
"Whatever for?"
"The Jews are doing it. It must be good business!"

The worst part was referring to the defeated Arabs as "Camel Drivers."

Atonement (or revenge) came just six years later with the Yom Kippur War which almost wiped Israel off the map.

---

Changing the subject somewhat, I have always been in favor of a secular Israel but not in favor of a theocratic Israel. If "secular Israel" is an oxymoron so is a "theocratic democracy." Either we rule ourselves (democracy) or self selected representatives of god do (theocracy). Mesopotamia has two such theocratic democracies, Iran and israel. Both are nominally democratic (one more than the other) but in the end god's representatives make up the rules of the game.

If a state must have religion then it should adopt the American model of separation of church and state, that is the only way liberal democracy can be combined with religion.

Over the weekend I was going to post a cartoon about the life cycle in Gaza. At first blush it was amusing but then the mocking of the Gazans became apparent to me, somewhat akin to bombing the pyramids. The fortunate part of the incident was that while researching the subject I came across  lectures by Azmi Bishara, a Christian Arab Israeli ex-member of the Knesset (wonders never cease in the land of milk and honey). Never before had I stopped to listen to the Arab side of the question. I really have no time for murderous Mullahs, suicide bombers and terrorists. To them, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Kill them before they kill you.

The two videos I watched were US Policy & Redrawing the Middle East, a lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, which is about American Imperialism now that it is the only superpower and the other, more germane to the Israel/Palestine issue, The Last Colonial Question, a lecture at the City Club of Cleveland.

It was a pleasure to listen to a different point of view, very well reasoned and with no inflammatory rhetoric which would have turned my ears deaf. As the title of the lecture states, Bishara sees the issue as one of colonialism, the colonizers taking land from the natives. Before 1948 Jews and Arabs lived side by side in the land of milk and honey. Then the UN decreed that Jews could become a colonizing power by creating the State of Israel. I'm not going to argue if this was right or wrong. I have already stated that I support a secular State of Israel (even if it is an oxymoron). I just want to state that from a logical point of view, Bishara's colonial argument makes perfect sense. But that was 1948 and there is nothing that we can do about it. Now it is a fait accompli. No more can Israel be returned to the natives than America can.

Bishara offers two solutions, a one state and a two state solution, both of which sound quite reasonable to me. The one state solution would give all Israeli citizens equal rights which is not possible under a theocracy unless all citizens are of the same faith. In a theocratic democracy there will always be an underclass, in the case of Israel, the gentiles. If you institute separation of church and state then it is no longer a theocracy. As I see it, the one state solution, as Bishara proposes it, is not going to happen, the rabbis will not give up their powers.

Bishara's two state solution is much more in accordance with my own thinking that you cannot turn the clock back. He proposes a two state solution based on the lines of 1967. While this demarcation is over 40 years old, and therefore likely to lose any relevance if not acted upon soon, it would return the land of milk and honey to the pre Six Day War condition. Of course it is not entirely "fair" as both sides are likely to claim but without compromise there is no solution. I think it could be the best bargain both sides could drive. The two state solution would recognize Israel's right to exist which is one of the central issues.

The one item I cannot agree to, and this is not something that I have heard Bishara talk about, is the exclusion of Jews from any future Palestinian state, specially if a Jew is already living in that land. As long as there are theocracies on either side of the fence, the problem will not be solved, it will, at best, be palliated.

---

Crafty, for someone who likes Stratfor's geo-political analysis, this lecture should be of interest:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8thYEPrz5w[/youtube]

and Bishara on the Israel/Palestine issue

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6RkCusKL-E[/youtube]

Title: Obama 'borderline anti-Semitic'
Post by: G M on August 18, 2009, 08:08:45 AM

Minister Herschkowitz: Some of Obama's policies are 'borderline anti-Semitic' (ftp://'borderline anti-Semitic')

Aug. 16, 2009
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will reject US President Barack Obama's request for a freeze on natural growth in Judea and Samaria, Habayit Hayehudi head Daniel Herschkowitz said Sunday, based on conversations with Netanyahu.

In an interview with the science and technology minister at his Jerusalem office, Herschkowitz told The Jerusalem Post that he did not believe Netanyahu would cross any red lines of Habayit Hayehudi, the most right-wing party in his coalition.

"From my own talks with the prime minister, I can say confidently that I don't think he will freeze natural growth in the settlements," Herschkowitz said. "I am sure he is in favor of allowing natural growth, but he must navigate smartly and walk between the rain drops to ensure that he will get along with the American administration."

Herschkowitz suggested that an arrangement could be found that could allow construction in the settlements to continue without public acknowledgment.

He said this would be preferable to the opposite scenario of press reports of settlement construction when in fact there is none.

A former resident of Madison, Wisconsin, where he was a mathematics professor at the University of Wisconsin, Herschkowitz did not hold back criticism for Obama, especially his decision to grant the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former UN human rights commissioner and longtime Israel basher Mary Robinson.

"I am disappointed in Obama's policies," Herschkowitz said. "Some of the steps he has taken, like giving a medal to Mary Robinson, are borderline anti-Semitic. Israel is an independent state. Relations with the US are important, but relations must go both ways. I don't know if Obama understands it, but most Americans believe that Israel is their only anchor in the Middle East."

Herschkowitz has been criticized by the Right for praising Netanyahu's June 14 policy address at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center in which he conditionally endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state.

He said he himself opposed a Palestinian state, but a prime minister had to speak differently than the average politician.

"It was a good speech, because he shifted the ball to the other side by setting important conditions," Herschkowitz said. "If they can't accept recognizing a Jewish state and the end of the conflict, it shows their real face. But if they would have, there would have been something to talk about. A leader must say yes, and not just no, so it's ideal to say yes while shifting the ball back to the other side."

The Habayit Hayehudi leader said there was a consensus that Israel did not want to control the Palestinians. He said a demilitarized Palestinian state as Netanyahu outlined it would not be that different from the autonomy the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians already had.

But Herschkowitz said he did not think a peace agreement could be reached.

"It is clear that there is no partner," Herschkowitz said. "Every diplomatic plan, even the most conservative one, is wishful thinking, because there is no plan that both sides would accept."

Regarding the tensions inside Habayit Hayehudi, Herschkowitz denied charges he had made a political deal with Netanyahu to vote for his Israel Lands Authority bill, a vote that enraged the other two MKs in his party, Zevulun Orlev and Uri Orbach. His opponents in the party accused him of receiving a commitment in return from Netanyahu that he would no longer advance the mini-Norwegian bill that would have forced Herschkowitz to quit the Knesset in favor of former MK Nisan Slomiansky.

While Herschkowitz said he had a long talk with Orbach, he admitted he had not yet discussed the matter with Orlev nearly two weeks after the August 5 clash in which Orlev called Herschkowitz's behavior shameful.

Netanyahu had threatened to fire Herschkowitz had he voted against the bill. Herschkowitz's associates mocked Orlev for urging him to take a step that would have resulted in him leaving the cabinet after Orlev himself hesitated to resign from his ministerial post ahead of the Gaza Strip withdrawal.

Asked whether he believed he would still be Habayit Hayehudi's leader in the next election, he said he did not know. He noted that to obtain his present positions, he turned down two plum jobs: president of the Technion and chief rabbi of Haifa.

"Politics is very dynamic," he said. "If you would have asked me nine months ago if I would ever be an MK or a minister, I would have said no. Anything, really anything can happen."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418621164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 23, 2009, 05:54:24 PM

Did Mossad hijack Russian ship to stop Iran arms shipment?

Aug. 23, 2009
The Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST
Was Israel's secret service behind the unexplained hijacking of a Russian freighter, to foil a secret attempt to ship cruise missiles to Iran?

The mystery surrounding the hijacking of a Russian freighter in July has taken a new twist with reports claiming the pirates were acting in league with the Mossad in order to halt a shipment of modern weapon systems hidden on board and destined for the Islamic republic.

While Israeli and Russian officials dismissed the reports, accounts published in the Russian media sounded more like a spy thriller than a commercial hijacking.

"There is something fishy about this whole story, no doubt about it," former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh told The Media Line. "But I can't comment further on this."

The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported over the weekend that the vessel Arctic Sea had been carrying x-55 cruise missiles and S300 anti-aircraft rockets hidden in secret compartments among its cargo of timber and sawdust.

The eight hijackers originally claimed to be environmentalists when they boarded the ship in the Baltic Sea in Swedish waters on July 24. The Russian navy tracked it down three weeks later and recaptured it near the West African archipelago of Cape Verde on August 17, thousands of kilometers from its original destination of Algeria.

The hijackers were charged late on Friday with kidnapping and piracy, the Interfax news agency reported. Russian authorities have declined to revealing further information about the suspects' motives.

But Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO, said allegations that the Arctic Sea had been smuggling weapons were "fantasy" and "ridiculous."

Pravda's Web site reported that the ship had been smuggling cruise missiles to Iran on a well-worn path via Algeria, but a "power that has relations with Ukraine" had prevented this. Novaya Gazeta reported that the hijackers had been operating on behalf of the Mossad. It also reported that President Shimon Peres's visit to Moscow the day after the Russians recaptured the vessel had been motivated by an urgent request to his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, to refrain from arming Iran.

Israeli officials dismissed the reports as "classic conspiracy theories," but defense experts noted that Israel has a record of seizing foreign vessels carrying arms to its enemies.

"This appears as the classic conspiracy theory. I didn't see any evidence for it and so we aren't going to comment," said Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

A spokeswoman for Peres also dismissed the report, saying the visit had been planned long in advance.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, did not rule out Israeli covert action against Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear arms, but doubted Israel would take action against Russian ships.

"It seems that it's full of mystery since everything surrounding Russia is mysterious. And if it's mysterious they dump it on Israel," he told The Media Line.

Brom, a retired senior intelligence officer, added he did not believe such an operation could enhance the Mossad's image since it appeared to be a failed hijacking.

Israel relies heavily on intelligence. Naval Intelligence monitors vessels together with other agencies in order to detect suspicious behavior of ships around the world. It was this way that Naval Intelligence was able to detect the PLO arms ship Karine A in 2002. Officers noticed its log was not entirely in keeping with a cargo ship and correlated the information with other intelligence to build a picture of an arms shipment in the making. The weapons had originated in Iran.

Israeli security agents routinely stage surprise at-sea boardings of ships headed to Israeli ports to search for terrorists, contraband and stowaways.

In March, Israeli forces reportedly struck a weapons convoy in Sudan, some 1,400 km. from the Jewish state. According to CBS, the weapons were intended for Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Nearly 40 people were killed in that attack.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418676474&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: 3 Years and Counting
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on August 28, 2009, 06:29:01 PM

Gilad Shalit

Liran Kapoano
Gilad Shalit will feel worse on his 23rd birthday than you will on your 93rd.

Yesterday on Twitter, in honor of Gilad Shalit's birthday (his 3rd in captivity) there was a concerted effort to make #giladshalit a top trending topic. Despite the demise of Ted Kennedy dominating the headlines, this effort was a success, indicating just how much support there is for this 23-year-old. Unfortunately, none of that gets him out of Gaza.



Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/gilad_shalit_1.html at August 28, 2009 - 09:27:52 PM EDT

Title: Israeli/Palestinian Police Cooperation
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on September 11, 2009, 12:20:51 PM

Growing ties between Israeli, PA police forces
Sep. 10, 2009
Yaakov Lappin , THE JERUSALEM POST
Away from the media spotlight on efforts to kick-start diplomatic talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the two parties' police forces together with the IDF's civil administration are increasing their cooperation, and have implemented a series of confidence-building measures over the past two years.

The cooperation has taken a number of surprising forms.

One example is the payment of an estimated NIS 4 million in traffic fines paid to Judea and Samaria Police by PA residents. The police transfer the money to the civil administration, which in turn invests the money in Palestinian infrastructure in the West Bank.

The traffic offenses include speeding, U-turns, and failure to obey traffic signs, and the fines are given out by Judea and Samaria Traffic Police.

Ch.-Supt. Daniel Israel, who heads the Israel Police's Coordination Unit with the Palestinian Civil Police, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that the fines represent an effort by both Israeli and Palestinian police to crack down on dangerous driving habits in the West Bank.

"Almost every day, traffic violations in Judea and Samaria kill Palestinians and Israelis. Those who are fined know they can't escape payment, because of the cooperation between the two police forces. The real deterrent effect is what is important," he said.

Daniel Israel is a fluent Arabic speaker. He began speaking the language as a child with Beduin neighbors who had resettled from the Negev to near his home in the Central region. He then studied the Middle East at university, and earned a master's degree in Arabic. In the army, his Arabic proved vital to his service in Military Intelligence.

Today, Israel communicates with his counterparts in the Palestinian police Arabic every day, through e-mails, faxes and phone calls, as well as in weekly face-to-face meetings.

"The cooperation between us certainly helps to build a positive atmosphere," he said. "It most helps in building deterrence, so that both Israeli [Arab] and Palestinian lawbreakers don't feel they can seek shelter in West Bank cities. We still have a long way to go - we still have criminal fugitives in Palestinian cities, and the PA will not transfer Palestinian criminals to our custody, even through this was mentioned in the Oslo agreements. But cooperation has been growing steadily," Israel said.

The Palestinian Civil Police has jurisdiction over 10 West Bank cities, including Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm, Hebron, Bethlehem and Jericho. The Judea and Samaria Police are responsible for enforcing the law in the remainder of the West Bank.

"The PCP [Palestinian Civil Police]'s enforcement is improving. In traffic enforcement, the PCP has begun cracking down on drivers who talk on cellphones and who fail to buckle up. This is partly due to a political will by the Palestinians, to show that they are a future country," Israel said.

"The enforcement is being assisted by the European Union in the form of the EUCOPPS [European Union Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support] program, which provides training courses, vehicles and equipment on a large scale, and facilitates the opening of new Palestinian police stations in rural areas," he added.

"It is also being assisted by cooperation with us. In November we will hold a joint five-day joint training course with our Palestinian counterparts to study drug enforcement, traffic enforcement, and proper crime scene investigation conduct and evidence collection," he said.

One of the most important results of the cooperation is the safe evacuation of hundreds of Israeli civilians who mistakenly enter Palestinian cities in the West Bank every year.

Since January 1,232 Israelis have been returned to Israeli police by Palestinian Civil Police officers. Some innocently drove down the wrong street, ending up in Jericho or Ramallah, while others were Israeli Arab lawbreakers who entered the West Bank as part of their activities.

Of the 24,000 cars that are stolen annually in Israel, 17,000 end up in the West Bank, and here too, the two police forces have been trying to stem crime together. So far this year, a mere 438 cars have been returned, but officer Israel says it is a start.

In 2008, Israeli and Palestinian police jointly interrogated two murder suspects - one, an Israeli resident from east Jerusalem, and the second from Ramallah, before trying them separately in Israeli and Palestinian courts for the same crime.

Palestinians who seek tourist visas from the US Consulate in east Jerusalem turn to the Israel Police for a document that states that they do not have a criminal record.
"These are confidence-building steps," Israel said.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804541953&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: The "P" Word
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on September 15, 2009, 06:34:17 AM

September 15, 2009
Wrong use of the 'P word'

By Victor Sharpe
Throughout the Arab, and most of the Muslim world, the territory between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea is called Palestine while the name, Israel, is blotted out.

The so-called moderate wing of the Palestinian Authority displays a wall map behind the desk of its Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, showing the State of Israel in its entirety but named Palestine.

Indeed, the PA too often refuses to use the name, Israel, preferring to call it "the Zionist entity." In doing so, it should remove from the minds of objective observers any faith in the Arabs' interest in making a true peace. If the Arabs cannot even bring themselves to name their partner, then the entire peace process is a farce: a disaster waiting to happen.

But the general use of the term, Palestine, in a geographical and historical biblical context is often used just as insidiously as that employed routinely by the Palestinian Authority.

Christian and even Jewish writers, many eminent and admirable, often use the word Palestine along with or even instead of Israel, Judea and Judah when referring to the biblical period. This, consciously or unwittingly, helps to belittle the inextricable links of the Jewish people to their biblical and ancestral homeland.

It is time to restore historical correctness and dispose, once and for all, of the literary and present day propagandistic use of the term Palestine when referring to the biblical period.

Nowhere in the Jewish Bible is the word Palestine used. Nor is it ever used in the Christian Bible. Read the New Testament texts and look for the word, Palestine. It does not exist. But Israel is used. For instance in Matt. 2:20-21:

And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the Land of Israel.

The Bible, both Jewish and Christian, never employs the name Palestine in reference to biblical times. Any Bible commentary that refers to the biblical period as 'in Palestine' is either committing an historical error or is making a determined and sinister effort to deny the Jewish biblical names of Judah, Israel, Judea, Samaria and Galilee - especially that of Israel. It is, therefore, necessary to review some brief history to understand the monumental error being committed.

During the First Jewish uprising against the Romans, the Roman general, Titus, destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Subsequently Rome issued coins with the phrase, Judea Capta, meaning that the Jewish province of Judea had been captured. However, they did not use the term, Palestine, for it was as yet unknown and certainly never employed in Roman coinage of that time.

The second Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation of Judea broke out under the banner of Bar-Kochba in 132 AD. It was eventually crushed in 136 AD after years of heroic resistance against the legions of Rome's emperor, Hadrian Publius Aelius.

Incidentally, a discovery of 120 coins minted by followers of Bar Kochba, who was known as the Son of a Star, have just been found by Israeli archaeologists near the Dead Sea where the Jewish defenders made their final stand against Rome. The coins all had the words, ‘Freedom for Jerusalem' imprinted on them.

It is intriguing to consider that if the British tribes, at the other end of the empire, had risen in revolt at the same time, both peoples may have prevailed and history would be very different from what it became.

Hadrian destroyed Jewish Jerusalem, plowing the city under and filling the furrows with salt. He renamed it Aelia Capitolina, in part after his own name, and built a shrine to the Roman god Jupiter on the site where the Holy Jewish Temple had once stood.

But he also chose to rename Judea with that of the hated ancient enemy of Israel; the now long extinct Philistines. This was done as a lasting insult to the Jewish people. Hadrian thus renamed the land Philistia, later Latinized into Palestina and, in time, becoming Palestine.

We should note that the Philistines were known as the "Sea Peoples" whom, it is believed, originated from Crete. They settled along much of the south eastern Mediterranean coastline and certainly had nothing to do with the ancestry of any Arabs -- despite the deluded imaginings of the late arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat.   

The usage of the Hadrianic term, Palestine, was subsequently absorbed into the lexicon of the Church, which has continued to use the historically incorrect term, Palestine, when referring to biblical history in maps and literature: often replacing the word, Israel.

Interestingly, when the Crusader King Frederick II obtained a lease of much of the Holy Land from the Egyptian Sultan, Al-Kamil, including Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem, he called it the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

When Great Britain was awarded the Mandate for the territory in 1920 by the League of Nations, it immediately employed the term, Palestine, on both sides of the River Jordan. 

The British term became the geo-political usage for several decades and the Jewish community was obliged to use terms such as the Palestine Post for today's Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra for today's Israel Symphony Orchestra. The historically correct name, Israel, was finally revived after the reconstituted State of Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948.

No such place as Palestine existed in Christ's time or at the time of the biblical Jewish Judges or Kings. The Jewish patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, never lived in a place called Palestine, nor did any of the biblical prophets. Canaan would be accurate for patriarchal times but the Canaanites, the Philistines, and a host of other pagan tribes had already long disappeared by later biblical times. Indeed, as we know, no independent state called Palestine has ever existed in recorded history, certainly not an Arab one. Palestine - like, for instance, Patagonia or Siberia - has always been merely a geographical area. 

Those still believing in historical correctness, not the dubious and transitory concept known as political correctness, might wish to urge publishers and writers to restore historical correctness to the nomenclature in their works.

It is sad to witness glaring historical errors in such titles as: Palestine in Biblical Times; Palestine under the Time of the Judges; Palestine in the Times of the Kings or Jesus' Palestine, when a geographical territory called Palestine did not even exist during those times.

After all, we do not write of Alexander the Great's journey through Bactria as Alexander in Afghanistan. Nor do we describe the invasion into Carthage of Scipio Africanus as Scipio in Tunisia. So why use the term, Palestine, to describe a historical period and location when that word had not yet been invented?   

Surely the use by authors and bible commentators of a name that never existed until at least 135 AD can finally begin to be corrected.

After all, historical correctness must always trump political correctness.

Victor Sharpe is the author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/wrong_use_of_the_p_word.html at September 15, 2009 - 09:33:14 AM EDT

Title: part one
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2009, 02:34:04 PM

About Thomson ReutersIran attack: Israel ex-min sees end-yr deadline
Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:15am EDT 

Featured Broker sponsored link
 By William Maclean, Security Correspondent

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel will be compelled to attack Iran's nuclear sites if Western powers cannot agree crippling sanctions against Tehran by the end of the year, a former Israeli deputy defense minister said on Wednesday. Ephraim Sneh, who holds no position in the current Israeli government and was speaking in his personal capacity, told Reuters it was not clear the United States and European Union had the decisiveness to take such steps, which should include tougher banking and oil curbs, by year's end.

"We cannot live under the shadow of an Iran with nuclear weapons," he said in an interview on a visit to Britain. "By the end of the year, if there is no agreement on crippling sanctions aimed at this regime, we will have no choice."

"This is the very, very last resort. But ironically it is our best friends and allies who are pushing us into a corner where we would have no option but to do it."

"I wonder if they will do it (a tougher sanctions regime) quickly enough. If not, we are compelled to take action."

Sneh, a retired brigadier-general, is a former member of parliament's defense and intelligence committees. As deputy defense minister, he held responsibility for Iran.

A "BLOODLESS" STRATEGY

Sneh's visit was facilitated by The Israel Project, a privately-funded media organization that seeks to explain Israel's security position in the region and has arranged news conferences for serving Israeli officials overseas.

The United States, Germany, France and Britain have threatened Iran with a fourth round of U.N. sanctions if it continues enriching uranium and refuses to clear up concerns it has done extensive research into how to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran says the activity is a civilian electricity program.

Israel has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence and points to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

That has raised worries that Israel could ultimately carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

Sneh said the sanctions should consist of a total Western boycott of the Iranian banking system, a ban on selling Iran refined petroleum products, a ban on selling spare parts to the Iranian energy industry and a ban on senior Iranian officials traveling to Western capitals.

Sneh said the sanctions need be imposed only by the United States and European nations, because it was clear Russia and China would not go along with them and in any case the need for the involvement of "Russia and China is a myth." Imposed by the West, such a strategy would be tough enough to work.

"It is bloodless, and it even stops short of a naval blockade," he said.

In comments that appeared to signal Israel had not given up on international diplomacy to curb Tehran's atomic ambitions, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday the time had come for tougher sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.  Continued...


View article on single pagePrevious Page 1 | 2 Next Page

 

Title: part two
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2009, 02:35:10 PM

Iran attack: Israel ex-min sees end-yr deadline
Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:15am EDT  Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text

Featured Broker sponsored link
 Sneh said Israel had many reasons to block the emergence of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran, because in that event

-- Immigration to Israel would stop.

-- More able young men and women would emigrate to pursue their future in places seen as more secure.

-- Investment in Israel would be reduced.

-- Decision-making by the cabinet would be hostage to the fear of Iranian nuclear retaliation. The processes of government would thereby be "substantially distorted."

-- Extremist forces in the Middle East would be empowered.

-- Iran would pressure moderate forces in the region to toughen their positions in contacts or negotiations with Israel, for example in discussions over Jerusalem or the Golan Heights

-- Saudi Arabia and Egypt would seek to obtain nuclear weapons themselves, bringing about a Middle East "fully loaded with nuclear weapons."

(Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 18, 2009, 07:30:23 AM

I think the post on Drudgereport about Amendinjad again proclaiming it is religious duty to snuff out zionists and the holocaust didn't occur makes it clear Israel has no other choice.
My question is will they have to go nuclear to get the job done.
What a horrendous situation.
Just the thought of it.
But the alternative is worse.

Title: ON the other hand
Post by: ccp on September 18, 2009, 08:34:16 AM

This is a little encouraging:

***Others chanted, "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" — a slogan directly challenging the government's support for anti-Israeli Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrilla"***

Full text below:

Hosted by      Back to Google NewsThousands march in Iran opposition protests
By NASSER KARIMI (AP) – 57 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran — Hard-liners attacked senior pro-reform leaders in the streets as tens of thousands marched in competing mass demonstrations by the opposition and government supporters. Opposition protesters, chanting "death to the dictator," hurled stones and bricks in clashes with security forces firing tear gas.

The opposition held its first major street protests since mid-July, bringing out thousands in demonstrations in several parts of the capital. In some cases only several blocks away, tens of thousands marched in government-sponsored rallies marking an annual anti-Israel commemoration.

The commemoration, known as Quds Day, is a major political occasion for the government — a day for it to show its anti-Israeli credentials and its support for the Palestinians. Quds is the Arabic word for Jerusalem. During a speech for the rallies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against Israel and the West, questioning whether the Holocaust occurred and calling it a pretext for occupying Arab land.

But the opposition was determined to turn the day into a show of its survival and continued strength despite a fierce three-month-old crackdown against it since the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Top opposition leaders joined the protests, in direct defiance of commands by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who barred anti-government demonstrations on Quds Day. That could provoke an escalation in the crackdown: hard-line clerics have been demanding the past week that any leader backing the protests should be arrested.

Tens of thousands joined the government-organized marches, starting in various parts of the capital and proceeding to Tehran University. Police and security forces, along with pro-government Basij militiamen, fanned out along main squares and avenues and in many cases tried to keep nearby opposition protesters away from the Quds Day rallies to prevent clashes, witnesses said.

Opposition supporters poured onto main boulevards and squares, wearing green T-shirts and wristbands and waving green banners and balloons — the color of the reform movement. They waved their fingers in the air in V-for-victory signs along with pictures of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, chanting "death to the dictator."

Others chanted, "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" — a slogan directly challenging the government's support for anti-Israeli Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrilla. Some shouted for Ahmadinejad's government to resign. Some women marched with their children in tow.

But at one of the several opposition rallies around the city, a group of hard-liners pushed through the crowd and attacked former President Mohamad Khatami, a cleric who is one of the most prominent pro-reform figures, according to a reformist Web site. The report cited witnesses as saying the opposition activists rescued Khatami and quickly repelled the assailants.

Another reformist Webs site said Khatami's turban was disheveled and he was forced to leave the march.

Hard-liners tried to attack the main opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, when he joined another march elsewhere in the city, a witness said. Supporters rushed Mousavi into his car when the hard-liners approached, and the vehicle sped away as his supporters pushed the hard-liners back, the witness said. He and other witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation.

Another pro-reform leader, Mahdi Karroubi, who also ran in the presidential election, also joined protests elsewhere in the city.

In one of the main Tehran squares, Haft-e Tir, security forces weilding batons and firing tear gas tried to break up one of the opposition marched, and were met with protesters throwing stones and bricks, witnesses said. Several policemen were seen being taken away with light injuries. At least 10 protesters were seized by plainclothes security agents in marches around the city, witnesses said.

The pro-government Quds Day rallies were held in cities around the country. In the southern city of Shiraz, the opposition held a counter-demonstration, and a witness said police rushed the protesters with batons, scuffling with them. Opposition Web sites also reported pro-reform protests in the central city of Isfahan.

The opposition claims that Ahmadinejad won the June election by fraud and that Mousavi is the rightful victor. Hundreds of thousands marched in support of Mousavi in the weeks after the vote, until police, Basij and the elite Revolutionary Guard crushed the protests, arresting hundreds. The opposition says 72 people were killed in the crackdown, thought the government puts the number at 36. The last significant protest was on July 17.

In sheer numbers, the opposition turnout was far smaller than the mass pro-government Quds Day marches — not surprising given the state's freedom to organize the gathering.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — who is a behind-the-scenes supporter of Mousavi — made an appearance at one Quds Day march, as would be expected from him as a senior cleric in the leadership. For the past 25 years, Rafsanjani traditionally has delivered the Friday prayer sermon on Quds Day, but he was barred from doing so this year and replaced by a hard-liine supporter of Ahmadinejad, Ahmad Khatami.

Customarily on Quds Day, Iranians gather for pro-Palestinian rallies in various parts of the city, marching through the streets and later converging for the prayer ceremony. The ceremony was established in 1979 by the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Just hundreds of yards (meters) away from opposition protesters on the main Keshavarz Boulevard, thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters marched carrying huge photographs of the president and Supreme Leader Khamenei. Some in the government-sponsored rally chanted: "Death to those who oppose the supreme leader!"

At the climax of the occasion, Ahmadinejad addressed worshippers before Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus, reiterating his anti-Holocaust rhetoric that has drawn international condemnation since 2005. He questioned whether the "Holocaust was a real event" and saying Israel was created on "false and mythical claims."

(This version CORRECTS that Rafsanjani appeared at a Quds Day rally, not an opposition protest.)

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 18, 2009, 08:36:03 AM

Obama will support Israel just like he supports our other allies.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 18, 2009, 10:01:00 AM

"Obama will support Israel just like he supports our other allies....."

Unless there is something behind the scenes we are not privy to he has already made it clear he will leave Israel at risk for a nuclear attack without lifting a finger.

What would one expect of a person who sat in J Wright's church for 20 years and like many radical Blacks defends the Muslim Palestinians before they would ever say a kind thing about Jews?

The Jews who work for him are just along for the ride to power (and riches from subsequent consulting fees) and have thrown Israel onto the back burner - pun intended.

George Soros - and a holocaust survivor too - are you happy now?

You just helped put your own heritage into the situation of either being murderers in self defense or risk being victoms of another holocaust.   What say you?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 19, 2009, 08:30:10 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/brezinski_calls_for_obama_to_s.asp

Brezinski Calls for Obama to Shoot Down Israeli Jets; "A Liberty in Reverse"

In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don't read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites -- the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:


DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.


Contrary to Brezinski's half-hearted disclaimer that no one wishes for such an outcome, there are plenty on the left who would delight in a pitched battle between the United States and Israel. Democrats in Congress routinely support resolutions affirming Israel's right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to assure its own national defense. And Obama has at least paid lip service to the concept. But hostility to Israel among the rank and file is very real on the left -- and among "realists."

So conjure the image -- the Obama administration sending U.S. aircraft up to protect Iran's airspace and it's nuclear installations from an attack by a democracy that is one of America's closest allies. Unfortunately, this may not be so hard to imagine in Israel, where the number of people who believe Obama is pro-Israel is at just 4 percent -- and falling. And given Obama's (literally) submissive posture to the Saudis, his indulgence of the Iranians, and his simultaneously hard-line approach to Israel, it seems even some of Obama's supporters can savor the possibility of a "reverse Liberty."

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on September 19, 2009 03:38 PM

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 19, 2009, 08:36:23 PM

CCP,

Obama just sold out our allies in eastern europe. Things don't look good for Israel either, just as I predicted last year.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 19, 2009, 09:21:16 PM

"Obama just sold out our allies in eastern Europe. Things don't look good for Israel either..."

Already mentioned here but isn't it odd and a potential political time-bomb to know that the current, US ruling party includes nearly all Jewish-Americans and nearly all American haters of Israel, all in one big tent.

I recall in 2004 when international polling indicated that nearly everyone overseas hoped John Kerry would win, the exception was Israel where the Jerusalem Post reported that Bush was favored by a wide margin.

I suppose that liberal Jewish Americans don't favor Netanyahu or his policies so the contradiction is mutual.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 20, 2009, 12:47:36 PM

"isn't it odd and a potential political time-bomb to know that the current, US ruling party includes nearly all Jewish-Americans and nearly all American haters of Israel, all in one big tent."

Doug,

Not only odd but remarkable.

I have asked the "how can this be question" many times.

All I can say is liberal Jews (At least the American ones) despise conservatives, Republicans more than ANYTHING else.
To them cans are worse than Nazis.  I am not kidding.

There pure hatred for anything leaning right will warp their reasoning.

They are in total denial about Obama and Israel.   They will endlessly rationalize away the obvious fact he is an enemy of Israel because they otherwise agree with his radical left wing agenda. 

"I suppose that liberal Jewish Americans don't favor Netanyahu or his policies so the contradiction is mutual."

I don't know the answer to this question but it is a good one.

*W was Israel's best friend.* 
An Israeli who is now in America and I suspect was supporter of Obama does agree with this statement - at least now.   I think he was duped by Obama's "make them think you are one of them" strategy.

He ain't duping me.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on September 20, 2009, 01:52:24 PM

Not all Jews are Zionists. Some Jews are Anti-Zionists. Recently my neighbor showed me a video of a group of American Rabbis who visited Iran to express their solidarity with the evil midget, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

Anyone who pretends to understand Jews is delusional.

Denny Schlesinger
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Freki on September 20, 2009, 04:10:57 PM

captainccs  that hurts my brain...I feel dizzy...it makes no sense.....bizaro world :-o.  Could it be a weird form of Stockholm syndrome.  How twisted is their world view?  Is it really true or a joke....you got me it is a joke right?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on September 20, 2009, 04:24:02 PM

Quote from: Freki on September 20, 2009, 04:10:57 PM

captainccs  that hurts my brain...I feel dizzy...it makes no sense.....bizaro world :-o.  Could it be a weird form of Stockholm syndrome.  How twisted is their world view?  Is it really true or a joke....you got me it is a joke right?

Not a joke:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkZ3YV-HV6U[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on September 20, 2009, 04:31:09 PM

Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism (http://www.nkusa.org/)

Neturei Karta is an international organization of Orthodox Jews dedicated to the propagation and clarification of Torah Judaism.


Neturei Karta: What is it?

http://www.adl.org/extremism/karta/#

Title: Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial
Post by: captainccs on September 21, 2009, 05:44:02 AM

Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial

AP – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks before Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus in …

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday he was proud his denial of the Holocaust had enraged the West, as the controversial leader geared up for a United Nations trip to stress what he said would be a message of "peace and friendship."

Ahmadinejad's latest comment about the killing of millions of Jews during World War II comes as Iran is locked in a bitter dispute with the U.S. and other Western nations over its nuclear program. Even as that fight continues, his remarks were sure to earn the Iranian president an even more frigid reception when he heads to New York on Tuesday to attend the U.N. General Assembly.

"The anger of the world's professional killers is (a source of) pride for us," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

He was responding to a question about criticism from the European Union following a speech on Friday in which he questioned whether the Holocaust was a "real event." The manslayers reference appeared to be directed primarily at Israel and the U.S.

"It's a sad day for the Iranian people," French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Christine Fages said in an online briefing Monday in reference to Ahmadinejad's latest Holocaust statements. She said "they unfortunately add to the long list of hateful statements" by Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly raised questions about the Holocaust. He has said it has been used as a pretext for Israel's formation, and that Israel and Jewish groups are actively muzzling any attempt to link shame over the Nazi atrocities with the what many in the Muslim Middle East believe is the West's bias for the Jewish state at their expense.

The comments have done little to bolster sympathy for Iran's conservative government, which the U.S. and others believe is looking to enrich uranium with an eye to nuclear weapons production. Iranian officials deny the charge, saying the program is for purely peaceful purposes.

The Iranian president is slated to address the U.N. on Wednesday, said IRNA.

"The most important message of this year's visit by president to New York is peace and friendship for all nations, fighting suppression and interaction with all nations in the framework of justice and mutual respect," Mohammad Jafar Mohammadzadeh, a spokesman for Ahmadinejad's office told IRNA.

Ahmadinejad's last trips to the U.N. have been marked by sharp protests. In 2007, before a planned speech at New York's Columbia University, he sat through a scathing criticism by the elite university's president.

Mohammadzadeh said Ahmadinejad was planning to meet extensively with the media while in the U.S., and that the "Zionist lobby," despite its efforts, will be unable to "stop the publication of the justice-seeking message of Iranians by their president."

Ahmadinejad is sure to face a drubbing over the nuclear issue and questions about whether Iran will negotiate or face the threat of even deeper sanctions.

The U.S. administration has invited Iran to start a dialogue on its nuclear program and gave a vague September deadline for Tehran to take up the offer. The U.S. and five other world powers accepted an offer from Iran earlier this month to hold "comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive" talks on a range of security issues, including global nuclear disarmament.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Oct. 1 for talks on the nuclear issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 21, 2009, 07:28:37 AM

"Some Jews are Anti-Zionists."

Sorting out the meaning of this, Zionism is support for the existence of a state of Israel.  I couldn't tell from the video if the anti-Zionists along with Ahmedinejad favor annihilation or some other method of disappearance.

Further I find it odd that anti-Israel nations find comfort in the UN.  Wasn't that the origin of their problem.  Or through war where they lost even more ground?

Life is odd in the US also where the further our fading system of liberty and free enterprise brings us toward health, peace, and prosperity and the more people we find that want to turn it back in failed directions.

Title: Mister Zimmerman on the Neighborhood Bully
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on September 27, 2009, 11:42:38 AM

Bob Dylan and a slide show make for a powerful statement:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlHlXHimo_g&feature=player_embedded#t=148[/youtube]

Title: The IDF's new Yom Kippur challenges
Post by: rachelg on September 29, 2009, 05:07:06 AM

Editor's Notes: The IDF's new Yom Kippur challenges
Sep. 24, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Defense chiefs are learning how to confront enemies who operate among civilians, and to confront them while trying to hold to a fine moral line. But the task of conveying our complex reality tothe international community is not being adequately met.

For 36 years, the Israeli army has struggled to shake off the trauma of a war for which it was unprepared.

Yom Kippur 1973 is modern Israel's "never again" moment - never again will the defenders of this country risk the destruction of the Jewish nation through hubris, through misconception, through the misreading of enemy intentions and the underestimation of enemy capabilities.

For all its qualitative advantages over neighboring armies, the Israel Defense Forces simply does not possess nearly enough manpower, equipment and budget to maintain the deployment of the forces necessary on each and every potential front to confront all possible dangers all the time. So protecting Israel in this most hostile and ruthless of neighborhoods, 36 years after their predecessors so fatefully miscalculated, inevitably remains a matter of assessment - for the IDF's intelligence chiefs and their colleagues across the General Staff and in the security services: How likely is an initiated enemy attack across this or that border? Which other players might also be drawn into conflict? How must we allocate our resources to face the potential threat? Which additional capabilities do we require?

Day after day, week after week, year after year, the dangers are assessed and reassessed, and the IDF's commanders adjust and perfect the strategies and tactics to meet them.

Except that safeguarding Israel, the little country that was almost overrun in 1973, has become significantly more complex since then.

THE THREAT of conventional warfare is ever-present - of enemy tanks on coordinated fronts seeking to punch deep into Israeli territory, with enemy aircraft striving for supremacy in the skies above. But, for now at least, a wealth of factors - notably including Israel's currently peerless air power and the cold but stable peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan - mean that it is not deemed likely.

Over recent years, instead, our enemies have focused on an alternate avenue through which to seek our defeat - terrorism: The deliberate targeting not of our military power - in the "classic" confrontations of men at war with guns and tanks and fighter planes and bombers - but of our civilians, especially via suicide bombers and missile attacks.

The construction of the West Bank security barrier and the sealing of the Gaza Strip drastically reduced the capacity for suicide bombers to easily enter Israel and blow us up in our malls and restaurants and buses. But we are still several years away, at best, from a hermetic defensive solution to the missile threat posed by Hizbullah's tens of thousands of Katyushas and worse to the north, Hamas's gradually reviving Kassam and Grad capacity to the south, and yet more dangerous capabilities in Syria and, most worryingly, in Iran.

Our enemies' departure from the regulated "norms" of warfare is not limited to the targets of their violence, however. The challenge facing today's IDF derives not only from the need to keep our civilians safe. It extends to the need to keep the enemy's civilians as safe as we can, too. For Hamas and Hizbullah don't only fire into civilian territory. They fire out of civilian territory - from the backyards of homes in the villages of south Lebanon; from outside the mosques and schools and along the refugee camp alleyways of the Gaza Strip. Judge Goldstone has it back to front: It's Hamas that kills and wants us to kill Palestinian civilians. We're the ones who don't want to.

Hamas fires into our homes and schools, and celebrates when it murders and maims. And when the civilians it has so ruthlessly put in harm's way are killed or hurt as Israel bids to staunch the salvoes, it duplicitously protests our "aggression" to the international community. And much of the international community, most recently emblemized by Goldstone, is proving incapable of distinguishing between aggressor and defender, between terrorism and sovereign protection.

IN AN interview three years ago, Maj.-Gen. Eliezer Shkedy, then the commander of the Israel Air Force, spoke to me of the "cynicism" of Hamas in Gaza - terrorists who, as he put it, "cloak themselves in civilians."

They are "capable of putting their own children in the car when they set off to fire a Kassam at the State of Israel," he noted. "They can take their own children to terror training bases. Cynicism is firing missiles from the yard of a house, a meter from the house, where it's obvious that if we hit back, we hit the house. We are always grappling with these dilemmas," he said. "All the time. Understand?"

A few weeks after our conversation, we did indeed understand. The Second Lebanon War erupted, and it became plain to all Israelis that Hizbullah was employing an identical strategy in south Lebanon.

Do we shoot at those missile crews when there are children nearby, children deliberately brought into the line of fire by Hamas, I asked Shkedy back then? No we do not, he responded. Instead, he said, the IDF was improving its accuracy. "Our answer is to create a situation where you hit within a meter, a meter and a half. If we know that [the terrorist] is holding his son's hand, we do not fire. Even if the terrorist is in the midst of firing a Kassam, and the Kassam is aimed to kill. We do not fire."

Enemy "cynicism" has only deepened since then - presenting new moral dilemmas for the IDF.

Facing the IDF's Operation Cast Lead onslaught at the turn of the year, Hamas stored weapons in mosques. It booby-trapped schools. It left guns ready to fire in homes all over Gaza, while its gunmen, "unarmed," dodged from home to home out of uniform knowing that their weapons were waiting.

In Gaza nine months ago, Shkedy's successors say, the IDF did its utmost to isolate the combatants from Hamas's civilian pawns. That the IDF dropped leaflets and made phone calls and sent SMS messages and more to warn Palestinian civilians to leave combat zones is well-known and thoroughly documented. And while the IDF acknowledges that hundreds of civilians were killed and is itself investigating several allegations of illegitimate use of force against Palestinian civilians, some of them raised by local human rights watchdog organizations, the most senior officers are adamant that they have come across not a single instance in which civilians were deliberately targeted.

Nevertheless, in its assault on Hamas, the IDF was guided by the principle that its priority was, first, to protect Israeli civilians and, second, to protect its own soldiers, while still aborting innumerable operations because of feared Palestinian civilian casualties.

As commanders in the field said at the time of the fighting, therefore, if their troops were coming under fire from a building where civilians had been ordered to leave, air power was sometimes called in and the building targeted from above. That makes for a striking contrast to 2002's Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank. In that offensive, no remotely comparable effort was made to persuade civilians to leave the combat zone, and a dozen soldiers lost their lives in a single ambush in Jenin refugee camp, for example, because the IDF felt it had to choose close-combat over air power given that so many civilians were in the vicinity.

The shift in IDF tactics is highly significant. Still coming to terms with Palestinian terrorists' readiness to operate from the heart of residential areas in 2002, the IDF placed soldiers' lives in acute danger by fighting house to house in West Bank terror enclaves with many of its superior military capabilities, most notably in the air, neutralized by the imperative to minimize Palestinian civilian losses. Having internalized that Hamas cynicism by 2008-09, the IDF made a priority of compelling Palestinian civilians to evacuate, and thus, while close-combat was still a dominant feature during the fighting, it felt it could more legitimately call in air support on occasion to save the lives of its troops on the ground.

As IDF commanders have stressed again and again, it was Hamas that created the civilian theater of war in Gaza. Israel had left the Strip and had no desire to return. The rocket fire on Sderot and beyond ultimately left no choice. But it had adjusted its tactics and internalized lessons bitterly learned in previous such confrontations.

In an interview in these pages last week, Shkedy's successor, Ido Nehushtan, responding to questions about the level of Palestinian civilian fatalities, was emphatic that the Israel Air Force's choice of targets was moral. Pressed on the specific targeting of Hamas police personnel in the IAF's initial attacks, Nehushtan referred to Hamas as a terrorist construction from top to bottom, a rogue force that killed fellow Palestinians when seizing power from the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in Gaza in June 2007.

"Look at the way they killed Fatah... their own people," he recalled. "We need to disconnect from traditional military concepts and understand that Hamas doesn't work that way. They don't come in uniforms or in tanks to a battlefield... We did the detailed inspection of every single target. But they are the opposite and intentionally target civilians. This is an asymmetric conflict not just on a military level but also on an ethical and moral level."

Other security officials note that the vast majority of the 89 Hamas police personnel killed in those first December 27, 2008, air strikes were members of the Izzadin Kassam Brigades or other military forces, and that several of them had been directly involved in acts of terrorism.

It was the chief of the General Staff himself, Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, who took the decision not to bomb Gaza City's Shifa Hospital during Cast Lead, even though the Hamas leadership was known to have established a key center of operations there. He could not justify the unavoidable loss of civilian life. By contrast, as I noted in these pages in January, the IDF unprecedentedly blew up a series of Gaza mosques - 14 in all, it transpires - in which Grad rockets were stored, tunnel entrances were concealed and other Hamas operations were centered.

Goldstone, risibly, could find no proof that mosques were utilized for Hamas military purposes, despite IDF footage released at the time. The absence of an Islamic outcry, moreover, underlines that the watching Muslim world was aware of the legitimacy of the IDF's choice of targets - aware, that is, of Hamas's abuse of what should have been tranquil places of worship.

In retrospect, given Goldstone's evident gullibility or worse, Hamas has doubtless realized that it missed an opportunity when failing to encourage global Islamic protests - Danish cartoon-style - against what it could have branded the IDF's senseless destruction of houses of prayer. In retrospect, too, it has doubtless realized it could have gained more international sympathy, and brought more criticism down upon Israel, by vociferously protesting that its dead policemen were innocent traffic cops.

Next time, and there will almost certainly be a next time, it can be sadly anticipated that Hamas will have rectified such failings, the better to demonize Israel. Whether the IDF is learning similar lessons is, unfortunately, a more open question.

OUR DEFENSE chiefs have demonstrably found many of the military answers to the challenge of fighting enemies who operate among civilians, and to confront them while trying to hold to a fine moral line. But the challenge of explaining the moral legitimacy of those military answers, for a world inclined to rush to superficial judgment, is not being adequately met. The Goldstone panel may have been a lost cause from the start - given its mandate and its mindset. But the task of conveying our complex reality to the international community, an essential mission if Israel is to attain wider sympathy and empathy and, by extension, wider room for military maneuver, is certainly not a cause Israel can afford to abandon.

The IDF would have helped itself immensely during Operation Cast Lead had it arranged controlled access to the civilian theater of war for credible local and foreign journalists. Better yet, before the conflict began, the IDF should have given journalists as much information as security considerations would allow into enemy battle tactics - the use of schools and mosques, the fighting out of uniform - so that the realities of the battle would be better understood as it unfolded. Those kinds of advance insights will be crucial as Israel seeks to win greater understanding in future conflicts.

The IDF would help itself immeasurably, furthermore, if, along with its own internal investigations of possible abuses, it enabled independent, transparent, domestic investigation of particularly grave allegations of misuse of force. An organization that honorably investigates its own alleged abuses can ardently claim that justice is being done, but it cannot expect automatic acceptance of this assertion.

The IDF would help itself, too, if it internalized that, along with documenting our own fatalities, it must document casualties on the other side, however outrageous that may sound: In Gaza, the Hamas health apparatus held a near monopoly on information regarding how many Palestinians were dying and whether or not they were combatants. Subsequent IDF reports documenting that this "civilian" was actually an Izzadin Kassam operative, and that "medic" was actually a gunman found posing proudly with automatic weapon in hand on the pages of innumerable Hamas Web sites, came far too late to have any impact.

THIRTY-SIX years after the Yom Kippur War, the enemy has changed. The dangers are less predictable and the skills needed to meet them are more diverse. Israel no longer fights primarily on the conventional battlefield. Our enemies have placed our civilians, and theirs, on the front line. Deterrence is more critical than ever. Enemies do not surrender; for the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, mere survival is "victory," no matter how great the suffering they cause to the people they purport to represent.

No amount of explanation, articulation and insight will enlighten those, like the Goldstone panel and the UN body that dispatched it, who are willfully blind to these and other realities. But an intensified focus on persuading the international community of the legitimacy of Israel's cause, and the tools employed to safeguard it, is vital. It could help render the biases of those who seek to delegitimize Israel more visible and undermine those who seek to deny us our right to self-defense.

Where the enemies of 1973 sensed a debilitating Israeli over-confidence on the conventional battlefield, the enemies of 2009 realize that Israel is hard-pressed to explain the intricacies and moralities of the civilian theater of war they have imposed upon us. And if there's one thing that hasn't changed in 36 years, it is that when our enemies identify Israeli hesitation, disarray and weakness, they will relentlessly seek to exploit it.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1253804297832&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 29, 2009, 07:47:30 AM

Where the enemies of 1973 sensed a debilitating Israeli over-confidence on the conventional battlefield, the enemies of 2009 realize that Israel is hard-pressed to explain the intricacies and moralities of the civilian theater of war they have imposed upon us. And if there's one thing that hasn't changed in 36 years, it is that when our enemies identify Israeli hesitation, disarray and weakness, they will relentlessly seek to exploit it.

And now they do the same with the American leadership.

Our morality and kindness hurts us.

Years ago coutries had no problem leveling cities and towns of enemies without regard to "civilians".
Now we are so worried about hurting an innocent and having it shown on cable around the world we actually screw ourselves.
And our enemies rather than receiving our kindness with cooperation and peace receive as weakness and fight even harder with more contempt.

Title: UN: Judge, Jury, and Executioner
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on September 30, 2009, 10:51:54 AM

Goldstone, Are You God?
Richard Goldstone’s “fact-finding mission” found what it wanted to find.

By Brett Joshpe

‘Are you God?” is an appropriate question to ask someone who takes on the role of judge, jury, and executioner. That is exactly what South African jurist Richard Goldstone — who was chief prosecutor for the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda — did in leading an “independent fact-finding mission” to investigate the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas last December and January.

Goldstone is formally presenting his blistering 575-page critique of Israel to the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva this week. The UNHRC — the successor body to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which orchestrated the infamously anti-Israel Durban Conference in 2001 — has sought to demonize Israel from the start. The Goldstone mission’s original mandate was to investigate only crimes committed by the “occupying power, Israel” (although that mandate was later broadened to include crimes committed by Hamas). One person chosen to serve on the mission, Prof. Christine Chinkin, had earlier co-signed an open letter condemning Israel’s “war crimes.” But other members of the mission, particularly Goldstone himself, continue to insist that the report was objective and that its conclusions were not pre-determined.

Goldstone is an accomplished and respected legal practitioner. As such, he is very familiar with the difference between conclusions of fact and conclusions of law. The UNHRC’s mandate to the Goldstone mission was to engage in fact finding. In a court of law, that’s what a jury does. Instead, Goldstone decided to become jury, judge, and executioner.

His report repeatedly takes alleged “facts” — which were gleaned from highly unreliable third-party sources — and then draws legal conclusions. Not only was this beyond the mission’s mandate, but the report consistently misstates legal standards on the basis of insufficient factual evidence.

For instance, the report states that “the Mission believes that Israel has violated its obligation to allow free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital objects, food and clothing (Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).” However, the report fails to explain that the obligation to allow humanitarian aid under Article 23 is “subject to the condition that . . . there are no serious reasons for fearing: (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination, (b) that the control may not be effective, or (c) that a definitive advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy. . . . ”

Given that Hamas repeatedly stole humanitarian aid intended for civilians, the obligation on Israel to continue allowing such aid was mitigated. Nonetheless, Israel still facilitated significantly increased humanitarian assistance. The Goldstone mission also accuses Israel of targeting civilians and violating the principle of distinction, when in fact the “civilians” in question were part of the armed “police” wing of Hamas.

Furthermore, the fact finding was to pertain to Operation Cast Lead (as the Israeli attack on Hamas rocket-launching installations was codenamed). Instead, the mission engages in a rambling analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally (omitting the crucial context of terrorism) and discusses the legalities of “Israeli occupation” and the Israeli wall, all items well beyond the stated scope of the mission.

Finally, Goldstone felt compelled to issue a verdict — that Israelis are guilty and should be prosecuted — which was based on the mission’s most misguided conclusion of all: that Israel is incapable of conducting fair and honest investigations internally. The mission recommended that the Security Council, the International Criminal Court, or a state that exercises universal jurisdiction, such as Australia or Belgium, take up the matter.

There are simply no honest grounds for concluding that Israel is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute its own soldiers or officials. Israel is currently prosecuting a former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, for corruption. Why would it have any problem prosecuting military personnel? History shows that it does not. From 2002 through 2008, Israeli authorities opened 1,467 criminal investigations of alleged soldier misconduct, issued 140 indictments, and convicted 103 defendants. These decisions are subject to review at the highest level of the Israeli judicial system. That isn’t the case even in the United States.

In an op-ed last week in the Jerusalem Post, Richard Goldstone wrote: “The mission’s mandate . . . could have been used by Israel to encourage the U.N. and especially the Human Rights Council to move in a new direction beneficial to the interests of Israel.” The implications of that statement say a great deal. The mission was engaged not in fact finding but in political manipulation. Had Israel chosen to play along, maybe the “facts” in the final report would have looked different. When you’re playing God, you can make the facts look however you like.

— Brett Joshpe is an attorney and author in New York City.
 
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWRjZWFkY2VmZDY1MzQ5OGU0OGMxZWZmZTQ1OTEwZTM=

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on September 30, 2009, 12:16:30 PM

What did you expect- Its's the U.N.  Which is making itself increasingly inconsequential in recent years. I think the only reason they are still in New York is so that we can keep an eye on them.

Israel has increasingly moved to a more reactive instead of proactive stance.  Maybe It thinks the last attempt to be proactive in Lebanon was to expensive politically? Israel is always hitting missile launch sites and safe houses, Hamas/ Hezbollah hit city busses and supermarkets.  I think the ethics of each side are pretty clear in their target choices.  Israel has yet to say "Jerusalem is closed to Moslems and Christians" like the Moslem world has done several times. (pre and post crusades, for Christians and Jews).

Title: Glick
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 02, 2009, 06:19:30 AM

Friday Feature /Can Syria Pass 'Israel Test'?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAROLINE GLICK, JewishJournal.com (9/30/09): There has been much talk in
recent months about the prospect of Syria bolting the Iranian axis and
becoming magically transformed into an ally of the West.
Although Syria's President-for-life Bashar Assad's daily demonstrations of
fealty to his murderous friends has exposed this talk as nothing more than
fantasy, it continues to dominate the international discourse on Syria.

In the meantime, Syria's ongoing real transformation, from a more or less
functioning state into an impoverished wasteland, has been ignored.

Today, the country faces the greatest economic catastrophe in its history.
The crisis is causing massive malnutrition and displacement for hundreds
of thousands of Syrians. These Syrians - some 250,000 mainly Kurdish
farmers - have been forced off their farms over the past two years because
their lands were reclaimed by the desert.

Today shantytowns have sprung up around major cities such as Damascus.
They are filled with internally displaced refugees. Through a cataclysmic
combination of irrational agricultural policies embraced by the Ba'athist
Assad dynasty for the past 45 years that have eroded the soil, and massive
digging of some 420,000 unauthorized wells that have dried out the
groundwater aquifers (Reuters is reporting that half the wells were dug
illegally), Syria's regime has done everything in its power to dry up the
country. The effects of these demented policies have been exacerbated in
recent years by Turkey's diversion of Syria's main water source, the
Euphrates River, through the construction of dams upstream, and by two
years of unrelenting drought. Today, much of Syria's previously fertile
farmland has become wasteland. Former farmers are now destitute day
laborers with few prospects for economic recovery.

Imagine if in his country's moment of peril, instead of clinging to his
alliance with Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas, Assad were to turn to
Israel to help him out of this crisis?

Israel is a world leader in water desalination and recycling. The largest
desalination plant in the world is located in Ashkelon. Israeli technology
and engineers could help Syria rebuild its water supply.

Israel could also help Syria use whatever water it still has, or is able
to produce through desalination and recycling more wisely through drip
irrigation - which was invented in Israel. Israel today supplies 50
percent of the international market for drip irrigation. In places like
Syria and southern Iraq that are now being dried out by the Turkish dams,
irrigation is primitive - often involving nothing more than water trucks
pumping water out of the Euphrates and driving it over to fields that are
often less than a kilometer away.

Then there are Syria's dwindling oil reserves. No doubt, Israeli engineers
and seismologists would be able to increase the efficiency and
productivity of existing wells and so increase their output. It is
certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Israeli scientists and
engineers could even discover new, untapped oil reserves.

But, of course, Syria isn't interested in Israel's help. Syria wants to
have its enemy and eat it too. . . .

. . . . The Palestinians and the Syrians are not alone. From Egypt to
Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and Indonesia, the Arab and Muslim world has
preferred poverty and economic backwardness to the prosperity that would
come from engaging Israel. They prefer their staunch rejection of Israel
and hatred of Jews and the economic stagnation this involves to the
prosperity and political freedom and stability that would come from an
acceptance of Israel.

As American economic and technology guru George Gilder puts it in his new
book "The Israel Test," "The test of a culture is what it accomplishes in
advancing the human cause - what it creates rather than what it claims."

Gilder's book is a unique and necessary contribution to the current
international debate about the Middle East. Rather than concentrate solely
on Arab claims from Israel as most writers do, Gilder turns his attention
to what the nations of the region create. Specifically, he shows that only
Israel creates wealth through creativity and innovation and that today
Israel is contributing more to the human cause through its scientific,
technological and financial advances than any other country in the world
except the United States.

"The Israel Test" describes in riveting detail both the massive
contributions of mainly Diaspora Jews to the U.S. victories in World War
II and the Cold War and to the scientific revolutions of the 20th century
that set the foundations for the computer age, and the massive
contributions of Israeli Jews to the digital revolution that defines and
shapes our economic realities today.

But before Gilder begins to describe these great Jewish contributions to
the global economy and the general well being of people around the world,
he asserts that the future of the world will be determined by its
treatment of Israel. As he puts it, "The central issue in international
politics, dividing the world into two fractious armies, is the tiny state
of Israel."

In his view, "Israel defines a line of demarcation," between those who
pass and those who fail what he refers to as "the Israel Test."

Gilder poses the test to his readers by asking them a few questions: "What
is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or
in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you
seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do
you impugn it and seek to tear it down?"

By his telling, the future of civilization will be determined by how the
nations of the world - and particularly, how the American people - answer
these questions.

Gilder's book is valuable on its own accord. I personally learned an
enormous amount about Israel's pioneering role in the information economy.
Beyond that, it provides a stunning rebuttal to the central arguments of
the other major book that has been written about Israel and the Arabs in
the US in recent years.

Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy" (Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2007) has two central arguments.
First, they argue that Israel has little value as an ally to the United
States. Second, they assert that given Israel's worthlessness to the
United States, the only reasonable explanation of why Americans
overwhelmingly support Israel is that they have been manipulated by a
conspiracy of Jewish organizations and Jewish-owned and controlled media
and financial outlets. In their view, the nefarious Jewish-controlled
forces have bamboozled the American people into believing that Israel is
important to them and even a kindred nation to the United States.

Gilder blows both arguments out of the water without even directly
engaging them or noting Israel's singular contributions to U.S.
intelligence and military prowess. Instead, he demonstrates that Israel is
an indispensable motor for the U.S. economy, which in turn is the
principal driver of U.S. power globally. Much of Silicon Valley's economic
prowess is founded on technologies made in Israel. Everything from the
microchip to the cellphone has either been made in Israel or by Israelis
in Silicon Valley.

It is Gilder's own admiration for Israel's exceptional achievements that
puts paid Walt and Mearsheimer's second argument. There is something
distinctively American in his enthusiasm for Israel's innovative genius.
From America's earliest beginnings, the American character has been imbued
with an admiration for achievement. As a nation, Americans have always
passed Gilder's Israel Test.

Taken together with the other reasons for American support for Israel -
particularly religious affinity for the people of the Bible - Gilder's
book shows that the American and Israeli people are indeed natural friends
and allies bound together by their exceptionalism that motivates them to
strive for excellence and progress to the benefit of all mankind.

Americans recently commemorated the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11
attacks. Those attacks were the greatest confrontation to date between
American exceptionalism and Islamist nihilism. Gilder's book serves as a
reminder of what makes the United States and its exceptional ally Israel
worth defending at all costs. "The Israel Test" also teaches us that so
long as we keep faith with ourselves, we will not be alone in our fight
against barbarism and hatred, and inevitably, we will emerge the victors
in this bitter fight.

Read on:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/can_syria_pass_israel_test_20090930/

Title: The Unsecret
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 03, 2009, 07:39:45 AM

Oy vey.

EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret Rate this story

By Eli Lake

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.

"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document]."

The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear program, said the accord amounts to "the United States passively accepting Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon."

There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."

Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell."

The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel's arsenal.

Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that "it appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding. It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner in Israel's policy of nuclear opacity."

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.

The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration's goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could impinge on U.S. efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that U.S. administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past. They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for weapons.

A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, "What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program. However, it calls into question virtually every part of the president's nonproliferation agenda.The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get out of jail free card."

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the step was less injurious to U.S. policy.

"I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings between their governments on this issue," he said.

However Mr. Kimball added, "I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Netanyahu. President Obama's speech and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret understandings between the U.S. and Israel. A world without nuclear weapons is consistent with Israel's stated goal of achieving a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama's message is that the same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to all states and not just a few."

Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as "the long corridor." Under it, Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an existential guarantee in a hostile environment.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not concede too much to Israel.

"One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone," he said. "Otherwise, the Obama administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of nuclear weapons."

Title: Our man in Iraq, currently in Jordan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 03, 2009, 11:27:49 AM

So as you know I am at the Dead Sea.  The Jordanian side.  While I would like to visit the Israeli side the reality is that it is much easier for me to travel to/from Jordan.  It's a no hassle arrangement getting there to/from Baghdad.
 
So my initial limo driver is Palestinian.  Been in Jordan since 1967.  He believes that Obama will bring peace to the region.  That Obama is different than Bush.  And of course he is, however, when I pointed out that under Obama the USA is sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and effecting more Predator strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan, he seemed stunned.  He was simply unaware of this reality.  But then he quickly says to me, words to the effect of, "Well good.  That's where all those crazy Muslims are...the ones that need to be killed."
 
A little while ago I spent time chatting with the Palestinian service manager at one of the outside bars at the hotel I am at.  The very fly, 5 star Kempinski Dead Sea I might add.  He spent time pointing out Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Hebron, etc. across the water.  He said he is from Bethlehem.  He also said that he believed Obama would bring peace to the region.  When I asked him why specifically, like what hasd Obama done to make him believe that, he said that the efforts of the last week by Obama made him believe so.  I asked him whether he was aware that Clinton and Carter and who knows else had spent a lot of time on the same subject, and he said generally yes.  So I asked him what was different about this time.  Specifically different minus the same old words we have heard for decades.  He could not provide anything specific.  Just his feeling.
 
He said the Intifadah was dead.  I asked why.  He said because of the wall.  You know, the wall that the world has condemned Israel for building?  Yup, he said that has pretty much ended the Intifadah.
 
During the conversation he told me that he knows from watching TV that there were no Jews killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center.  That they had been warned in advance, by Israel of course,  not to go to work that day (we have all heard that lunatic conspiracy theory).  I told him that was utter bullshit.  That all sorts of people were killed that day.  Muslims, Jews, and Christians.  Blacks, whites and browns.  He seemed stunned to hear that.  Despite the fact that he is in Jordan and his English is okay, he gets all his news from Arabic TV.  And that's what they are handing out on Arabic TV.

Title: Israel Outs Rooskie Nuke Scientists
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 03, 2009, 05:06:57 PM

October 4, 2009
Israel names Russians helping Iran build nuclear bomb
Uzi Mahanimi in Tel Aviv, Mark Franchetti and Jon Swain

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has handed the Kremlin a list of Russian scientists believed by the Israelis to be helping Iran to develop a nuclear warhead. He is said to have delivered the list during a mysterious visit to Moscow.

Netanyahu flew to the Russian capital with Uzi Arad, his national security adviser, last month in a private jet.

His office claimed he was in Israel, visiting a secret military establishment at the time. It later emerged that he was holding talks with Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, and President Dmitry Medvedev.

“We have heard that Netanyahu came with a list and concrete evidence showing that Russians are helping the Iranians to develop a bomb,” said a source close to the Russian defence minister last week.

“That is why it was kept secret. The point is not to embarrass Moscow, rather to spur it into action.”

Israeli sources said it was a short, tense meeting at which Netanyahu named the Russian experts said to be assisting Iran in its nuclear programme.

In western capitals the latest claims were treated with caution. American and British officials argued that the involvement of freelance Russian scientists belonged to the past.

American officials said concern about Russian experts acting without official approval, had been raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a report more than a year ago.

“There has been Russian help. It is not the government, it is individuals, at least one helping Iran on weaponisation activities and it is worrisome,” said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

However, Israeli officials insist that any Russian scientists working in Iran could do so only with official approval.

Robert Einhorn, the special adviser for non-proliferation and arms control to Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, is understood to believe that Russian companies have also supplied material that has been used by Iran in the production of ballistic missiles.

The disclosures came as Iran agreed at talks in Geneva to submit to IAEA inspections of its newly disclosed enrichment plant, which is being built under a mountain on a military base at Qom. Iran revealed the plant to the IAEA to pre-empt being caught out by an imminent announcement from western governments, which had discovered its existence.

The West says the plant is tailor-made for a secret weapons programme and proves Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended only for peaceful purposes is a lie. The plant is designed to hold 3,000 centrifuges — enough to produce the material needed for one bomb a year.

Iran’s conduct over the next few weeks will determine whether the West continues its new dialogue or is compelled to increase pressure with tougher United Nations and other sanctions.

Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defence minister, warned that time was running out for action to stop the programme. “If no crippling sanctions are introduced by Christmas, Israel will strike,” he said. “If we are left alone, we will act alone.”

A key test for the West will be whether Iran allows IAEA inspectors unfettered access to the Qom plant. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, was in Tehran this weekend to discuss this and Iran’s agreement, in principle, to ship most of its current stocks of low-enriched uranium to Russia so it can be used in medical research. President Barack Obama has told Iran he wants to see concrete results within two weeks.

While there is consensus in the West that Iran is trying to acquire the capability to build a weapon, the progress of its weaponisation programme is a matter of fierce debate among intelligence agencies.

The Americans believe secret work to develop a nuclear warhead stopped in 2003. British, French and German intelligence believe it was either continuing or has restarted. The Israelis believe the Iranians have “cold-tested” a nuclear warhead, without fissile material, for its Shahab-3B and Sejjil-2 rockets at Parchin, a top-secret military complex southeast of Tehran.

The vast site is officially dedicated to the research, development and production of ammunition, rockets and explosives. Satellite imagery as early as 2003 has shown Parchin to be suitable for research into the development of a nuclear weapon, say western experts.

The Shahab-3B, which the Iranians test-fired last Monday, is capable of carrying a 2,200lb warhead. Its 1,250-mile range puts parts of Europe, Israel and US bases in the Middle East within its reach.

According to the Israelis, Russian scientists may have been responsible for the nuclear warhead design. But western experts have also pointed the finger at North Korea.

Additional reporting:

Michael Smith, Christina Lamb

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6860161.ece

Title: Israeli foreign minister: No chance for peace deal
Post by: captainccs on October 08, 2009, 05:24:19 AM

Israeli foreign minister: No chance for peace deal

By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 44 mins ago

JERUSALEM – Israel's powerful foreign minister declared Thursday that there is no chance of reaching a final accord with the Palestinians any time soon, casting a pall over the U.S. Mideast envoy's latest effort to get peace talks moving again.

Peacemaking policy in Israel is decided by the prime minister's office, and not the foreign ministry. But Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman carries significant weight in Israeli decision-making, and his is a sentiment common among confidants of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

President Barack Obama brought Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas together in New York last month in an effort to jumpstart talks that broke down months ago. So far, no breakthroughs have been announced.

Since the New York summit, U.S. envoy George Mitchell met with representatives of Netanyahu and Abbas in the United States, and returned to the region this week. He was to meet with Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday and has sitdowns planned with Netanyahu and Abbas for Friday.

Israeli media reported that a Mitchell aide told local journalists Wednesday that the envoy's visit was not likely to conclude with an announcement on talks resuming.

"We're going to continue with our efforts to achieve an early relaunch of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, because we believe that's an essential step toward achieving the comprehensive (Mideast) peace to which I earlier referred," Mitchell told reporters as he entered a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres on Thursday.

Lieberman told Israel Radio on Thursday that anyone who thinks the two sides can soon reach a deal ending their decades-old conflict "doesn't understand the situation and is spreading delusions."

What the two sides should do, he said, was to come up with a long-term interim arrangement that would ensure prosperity, security and stability, and leave the tough issues "to a much later stage."

This approach runs counter to U.S. efforts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal quickly. Obama has declared that establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel is a vital U.S. interest. Also, Israel would not find a Palestinian partner for putting off a resolution to the conflict indefinitely.

Lieberman's view does not bode well for U.S. attempts to restart negotiations.

Mitchell has been laboring for months to pressure Israel to curb settlement construction. Israel has agreed to limited and temporary restrictions on building in the West Bank, but has resisted a total freeze. It has rejected any limitations on construction in east Jerusalem.

The Palestinians want the West Bank and east Jerusalem for part of their future state, along with the Gaza Strip, now ruled by Islamic Hamas militants.

Abbas has said repeatedly that he wouldn't go back to the negotiating table without a freeze. He also demands that talks begin where they broke off, with a promise from Israel that all issues will be on the table. Netanyahu has said he wouldn't be bound by the previous Israeli government's actions.

Abbas could be hard-pressed to back down now that he's dropped efforts to bring Israel before a war crimes tribunal in connection with its winter war in the Gaza Strip.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 10, 2009, 08:26:50 AM

By CHARLES LEVINSON
BET EL MILITARY BASE, West Bank -- Israel's military, taking a page from the Pentagon's counterinsurgency playbook, has changed tactics in the West Bank by emphasizing improvements in Palestinian living conditions, rather than focusing solely on killing and capturing militants.

The shift, however, is threatened by personnel changes: Three generals who were instrumental in planning it are on the way out.

Israeli soldiers take part in urban-warfare training in southern Israel. In the West Bank, Israeli commanders are shifting to a focus on surgical strikes.

Under their guidance, the Israeli Defense Force, which has occupied and administered the West Bank since its capture in 1967, has pulled back its soldiers from the enclave's cities, turned over security responsibilities to Palestinians, and lifted many of the checkpoints and roadblocks that had shackled the economy.

Israeli forces are refraining from airstrikes or shelling, tactics they once used frequently to attack suspected militants. Instead of daytime raids with large battalions, commanders have turned to more surgical strikes by commandoes, which are less disruptive to the civilian population.

"Part of our philosophy is to fight the terrorists with M-16 [rifles], not F-16 [jets]," said Brig. Gen. Noam Tivon, one of the leaders of the shift.

Gen. Tivon ended his tour as commander of Israeli forces in the West Bank this week. Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni, head of Israel's Central Command, is changing jobs in the coming weeks, and the Department of Defense's Civil Administration commander Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai is due to finish up within the next year.

Some officers have voiced concern about the continuity of the trio's policies. One incoming general has little experience in the West Bank and came up through the ranks as a tank commander; some military analysts say that background means he could be the wrong person to oversee a strategy that calls for using less force and keeping a lower profile.

 .The change in tactics in the West Bank came after these top Israeli generals took to heart lessons learned by American commanders in Iraq, officials from both sides said.

The strategy, coupled with recent success by U.S.-trained Palestinian security forces, is being credited with curbing West Bank violence and boosting the local economy. Israeli military operations last year, before the new strategy, led to 78 civilian casualties; 12 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year.

Previously, soldiers would shut down whole neighborhoods for days at a time while conducting less-discriminating sweeps when looking for suspected militants.

"Now they only arrest Palestinians during the night," said Sattar Kassem, a Palestinian political-science professor in Nablus who is a longtime resident of the West Bank. "The occupation continues and this is what matters most, but there is less friction for now."

After the Islamist group Hamas violently overran the Gaza Strip in 2007, Israeli generals decided they needed a strategic rethink if they wanted to keep Hamas at bay in the West Bank, which is governed by the more moderate Fatah party.

The re-evaluation coincided with the arrival to Israel of a handful of U.S. generals with the task of bolstering peace efforts.

"The Americans brought to this region a lot of new ideas," Gen. Tivon said.

At the time, America's top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, was having success with a classic counterinsurgency strategy called the "ink blot." The strategy calls for focusing resources on a single neighborhood or village. As conditions improve, the efforts are slowly expanded, like an ink blot seeping across a sheet of paper.

"The U.S. military had just had its own bruising internal debate about how to fight an insurgency," said a former adviser to retired U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones, who at the time had the task of strengthening security for Israelis and Palestinians. "It was clear to us that Israel needed to have a similar debate of its own if there was any hope for making progress here," the adviser said.

Protests in Jerusalem
View Slideshow

Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images
 
An Israeli policeman ran after a Palestinian stone thrower in the Arab east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ras al-Amud Friday.
.More photos and interactive graphics
.Gen. Jones, now President Barack Obama's national security adviser, declined to comment for this article.

"The thing that Jones did was change the Israeli thinking from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency," said a U.S. official in Tel Aviv.

U.S. advisers preached that capturing and killing the bad guys -- counterterrorism's methods -- hadn't been enough in Iraq and probably wouldn't be enough in the West Bank, either, according to Israeli and U.S. officials. To instill lasting peace, they promoted economic engagement and reliance on local security forces.

At the time, militants and criminals controlled the West Bank's lawless cities. Some Israeli officials feared Hamas, fresh from seizing Gaza, was gaining strength and preparing a similar offensive in the West Bank.

The Israeli army had Palestinian cities and villages locked down with a rigorous checkpoint regime, part of a response to suicide-bomb attacks that followed the outbreak of the second Intifada, or Palestinian uprising, in 2000. Frequent "cordon and sweep" operations shut down Palestinian cities for days at a time.

The northern West Bank city of Jenin became a test case. In 2002, at the height of the second Intifada, Jenin was a militant hub where suicide bombers plotted and launched attacks against Israel. It was the first town Israeli targeted in its military offensive to reoccupy West Bank towns.

But in 2008, Israel agreed to pull back its soldiers, turn over security responsibilities to Palestinians, and lift many of the checkpoints and roadblocks that surrounded the city.

"Jones brought the idea for the Jenin project, which came directly from Petraeus in Iraq," Gen. Tivon said.

Israeli generals had to overcome the skepticism of the country's political leadership and other officers who were reluctant to trust the Palestinians with handling security.

"For years officers had been told not to trust the Palestinians, and then suddenly we're being ordered to pull back and call them before we want to conduct a raid," said another Israeli army officer serving in the West Bank.

Today, Jenin's streets are quiet, militants have turned in their guns, and crime is down. Uniformed police hand out traffic fines. In June, a $5 million home store opened its doors, offering Palestinians imported espresso machines and plasma-screen TV sets.

"I think we can say today that the Jenin project is a success," Gen. Tivon said.

Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com

Title: US-Israel war "games"
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2009, 08:47:50 AM

A few coordinated tests of a missle system is hardly a sign the US is gearing up to attack Iran with Israel.  What I find more interesting is the anti-semitic comments after the news article.  Oh so it is a crime for Rabbis to encourage procreation.  First isn't that what Catholics do?
Second if I am correct Palestinians have the highest birth rate in the world.
So should these groups be criticized?

****Israel, US war games due off California
Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:52:09 GMT
IAF's Arrow II
Israel plans military exercises at a US naval facility using its Arrow interceptor missiles in a series of drills that also deploys American missile systems.

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) will ship the required hardware for the exercise to a Pacific Ocean range off the California coast later this summer, according to Reuters, quoting the head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly.

"They are having a flight test soon this summer," O'Reilly said Tuesday, referring to Joint US-Israeli effort.

The ballistic missile system is jointly funded by Tel Aviv and Washington. The Israeli marksmen recently conducted a 17th test involving the apparatus.

The American THAAD and Aegis anti-missile gear would also be re-examined during the military exercise.

The general stated that Tel Aviv picked the Pacific location since it allowed hitting targets at much farther ranges. "They (Israelis) are limited to the range of the missiles they can test in the eastern Mediterranean," he said.

O'Reilly added that the Arrows were to fly a range of more than 620 miles (1,000 km) this time.

The agency quoted a US defense official as saying this would be Israel's third Arrow test in the United States.

Washington injects USD 2 billion worth of armaments into Tel Aviv's military industry and is to provide the IAF with USD 30 billion in military aid over the next decade.

The views expressed and the links provided on our comment pages are the personal views of individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Press TV:

Zionist conspiracy against Palestinians!
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:14:36 GMT
Jewish Rabbis are encouraging Jewish women to have 12 children each in order to form MAJORITY and populate all Palestine. Muslims should marry healthy Western women and have as many children as possible in order to form Muslim majority in the West. No Suicide Bomber. No Terrorism attacks needed. I have done my part and have already 9 Western Muslim children from a Western woman
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:40:07 GMT
these parasites are sapping the worlds resources for premeditated bloodshed. Murdering Thieves.
Observer
Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:07:33 GMT
They print the money. Exhausting the priviledge of having the world reserve currency!!!
Owain
Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:53:04 GMT
$3billion a year over the next decade for weapons, I thought the US was in severe financial trouble but clearly I was wrong?****
 

Title: Netanyahu: No war crimes trials for Israelis
Post by: captainccs on October 12, 2009, 06:37:45 PM

Somebody had to tell the idiots at the U.N. to go to hell! Well done Bibi!


Netanyahu: No war crimes trials for Israelis

AP – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks, during the opening of the winter session at the Knesset, …

By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 33 mins ago

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday vowed never to allow Israeli leaders or soldiers to stand trial on war crimes charges over their actions during last winter's military offensive in the Gaza Strip, furiously denouncing a U.N. report in a keynote address to parliament.

Netanyahu's fiery rhetoric — and his decision to open the high-profile speech with remarks on the report — reflected the deep distress felt among Israeli leaders after a U.N. commission accused Israel of intentionally harming civilians when it launched a massive attack in Gaza to stop years of rocket fire.

"This distorted report, written by this distorted committee, undermines Israel's right to defend itself. This report encourages terrorism and threatens peace," Netanyahu said in his address at the opening of parliament's winter session. "Israel will not take risks for peace if it can't defend itself."

The U.N. report, compiled by a team led by former war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. It specifically accused Israel of using disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure, and using people as human shields. It accused Hamas of deliberately targeting civilians and trying to spread terror through its rocket attacks.

Israeli officials across the board have condemned the report, saying their country had little choice but to take harsh action against militants who were terrorizing southern Israel. They also blame Hamas for civilian casualties, saying the Islamic militant group took cover in residential areas during the fighting. However, Goldstone's strong credentials as a respected South African jurist, his Jewish faith and past support for Israeli causes have made it hard for Israel to dismiss the claims.

Netanyahu angrily noted the report's portrayal of Israeli leaders as war criminals. "The truth is exactly the opposite. Israel's leaders and its army are those who defended the citizens of Israel from war criminals," he said, before vowing to defend the country's wartime leaders.

"We will not allow Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, who sent our sons to war, to arrive at the international court in the Hague," he said.

While Netanyahu has repeatedly lashed out at the U.N. report, Monday's comments appeared to be a direct response to a new Palestinian push for a vote on the report in the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. If the vote takes place, the matter could be referred to higher U.N. bodies that could theoretically push for war-crimes prosecution.

Earlier this month, Abbas' government had agreed to delay the vote for six months. That decision, which came under heavy U.S. pressure, sparked sharp criticism and protests across Palestinian society, particularly from the rival Hamas government in the Gaza Strip.

U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Monday that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke with Abbas on Sunday about the matter and said he would support Abbas' proposal to reopen discussion of the Goldstone report at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

In contrast to predecessors who have used parliamentary addresses to speak of bold visions of peace, Netanyahu spoke in far bleaker terms. He focused on past Jewish suffering and criticized the futility of previous peace efforts, blaming Arab adversaries for their failure.

"The right to a Jewish state and the right to self-defense are two of the existential rights of our people," he said. "These basic rights of the Jewish people have been under greatly increasing attack. ... Our prime mission is to stave off this attack."

President Barack Obama has been trying to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to restart peace talks, which broke down late last year. Even after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he faces a daunting challenge in just getting the sides to talk, let alone in solving one of the world's longest lasting and most intractable conflicts.

The Palestinians say they will not resume negotiations until Israel freezes all construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas they claim as parts of a future independent state.

Netanyahu says some settlement construction must continue to accommodate growth in the Jewish populations. He also says all of Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands, although Israel's annexation of the eastern part of the city and its sensitive holy sites has never been internationally recognized.

Netanyahu, for his part, has demanded the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state — a demand the Palestinians criticize as upping the ante from previous negotiations. The Palestinians say it would discriminate against Israel's Arab minority and deprive Palestinian refugees of their rights to lost properties in what is now Israel.

"For 62 years, the Palestinians have been saying 'No' to the Jewish state. I am once again calling upon our Palestinian neighbors; say 'Yes' to the Jewish state." he said. "Without recognition of Israel as the state of the Jews we shall not be able to attain peace."

(This version CORRECTS name to Human Rights Council).)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2009, 10:20:51 PM

An Independent Israeli Foreign Policy?
ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER EHUD BARAK was set to travel to Poland and the Czech Republic on the evening of Oct. 12 for meetings with the Polish and Czech prime ministers and defense ministers, as well as with other high-level officials. Barak was scheduled to attend events on human rights and the Holocaust, but his trip comes at a time of enormous international tension over Iran — an issue deeply interwoven with U.S.-Russian relations involving Central Europe. An Israeli media report stated that Barak would discuss “Iran’s nuclear program as well as military industries” with his Polish and Czech counterparts.

The United States has begun negotiations with Iran over its compliance with international nuclear laws. For the U.S. position to have any bite, Washington has held up the threat of severe sanctions against Iran. But the American position is compromised by Russia’s ability to blast a hole through the prospective sanctions regime. The United States therefore must make promises to Russia that it will back away from the former Soviet sphere of influence, or face Russian intransigence in dealing with Tehran. So far, the United States has not offered much for the Russians to sink their teeth into (backing down on ballistic missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic was not enough — and regardless, the Russians question U.S. sincerity). Discussions with Iran are under way, yet without a resolution to the U.S.-Russian situation there can be no enforcement against Iran.

This leaves Israel in a highly uncomfortable position, at a time when its patience is already running thin.

“Yet the fact that Israel has depended so heavily upon the United States in the past sixty years does not mean it is without leverage of its own.”
To understand this, we look to Israel’s geopolitics. The Israeli core is situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River and Jordanian desert to the east, the Sinai and Negev deserts to the south, and the hilly areas of Galilee in the north. Throughout history, this area has been relatively advantageous to defend — assuming Israel is internally unified. Attackers from the west, south or east would need to stretch their forces across the sea or inhospitable deserts.

Historically, Israel has faced only two serious threats. The first is Syria, to the northeast, which in times of strength potentially can penetrate Israeli territory north of the Sea of Galilee. But the Israelis are generally well prepared to defeat today’s Syrians alone.

The second threat is the graver of the two. This is when a great foreign empire from farther away attempts to grab Israel’s advantageous coastal strip, whether through Syria or by harnessing the resources to overcome Israel’s natural buffers. The Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Ottomans at various points in history staked a claim to this land, forcing the Israelis to accommodate them or bear their yoke.

Under the reign of the Persian Empire, the Israelites were able to arrive at a compromise that left them subordinate but intact. This is their preferred stance during eras in which they cannot enjoy their ideal isolation. Similarly, in its modern incarnation since 1948, Israel has rendered itself inoffensive to American interests. It recognized the United States as the global hegemon and, during the Cold War, the guarantor of Israel’s security against another potential invading empire, the Soviet Union, which had proxies in Syria (as mentioned, Israel’s most threatening neighbors) and Iraq (the modern version of ancient Israel’s Babylonian conquerors).

Yet the fact that Israel has depended so heavily upon the United States in the past sixty years does not mean it is without leverage of its own. Israeli leaders long have entertained the possibility that the country could develop a more self-determining foreign policy — with Israel acting as a power in its own right. This would be necessary in the event that the United States abandons Israel to the winds — which is deemed possible should American interests shift. In the post-Cold War period, the United States has remained close to the Israelis because of U.S. interests in the Middle East, especially since the Sept. 11 attacks. But both the Americans and the Israelis can at least conceive of a time when their paths begin to diverge, necessitating contingency plans for Israel.

This is why the timing of Barak’s trip to Central Europe is important. By visiting Poland and the Czech Republic to discuss “military industries” — perhaps arms deals — the Israelis have taken Moscow by surprise, and the Kremlin will not be happy. Israel acting boldly in a region outside its own is an anomaly. There are two possible explanations.

First, the move might have been coordinated along with the United States, in order to stick it to the Russians at a time when they are threatening to destroy a united international front against Iran. The Russians long have seen U.S. and Israeli meddling in their periphery as one and the same, and the United States is needling the Russians in similar ways at present (for instance, with plans for Vice President Joe Biden to visit Warsaw, Prague and Bucharest later this month).

The other possibility is that the Israelis have acted alone, directly reminding the Russians that they have leverage in Central Europe — such as the ability to provide intelligence or military assistance to the Poles or the Czechs. This could be a way of directly warning the Russians to back away from supporting Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

If this was the case — and the Americans were not consulted about Barak’s visit — it follows that Israel has begun to view America as an unreliable ally. The current U.S. administration has irked the Israelis by letting deadline after deadline on Iran slip by. And the Israelis are not willing to tolerate a reincarnation of the Persian Empire, or a Persian proxy of a revived Russian Empire, armed with a nuclear-tipped missiles. Therefore, Monday’s move might be Israel’s first step in developing a foreign policy for itself — in a world where the Israelis believe they must act alone to distract and encumber great powers beyond its region.

After all, such powers traditionally have posed the greatest strategic threat to Israel.

Title: WSJ: Israel's secret war on Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 16, 2009, 04:04:20 AM

By RONEN BERGMAN
On Monday, a secret Hezbollah munitions bunker in South Lebanon blew up under mysterious circumstances, injuring a senior official in the organization. This is the second such incident in recent months. The first occurred on July 14, when an explosion destroyed a major Hezbollah munitions dump in the South Lebanese village of Hirbet Salim. Hezbollah immediately pointed fingers at the Mossad. Whether or not Israel was to blame, the explosion caused Hezbollah considerable discomfort by proving that it was in flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which forbids stockpiling weapons south of the Litani River.

The U.N. issued a strongly worded rebuke and sent representatives to investigate. But their efforts were thwarted by Hezbollah fighters, who, with the assistance of Lebanese troops, prevented the foreigners from examining the site. This caused further embarrassment to Lebanon, as it exposed the army's lack of neutrality and the active aid that it extends to Hezbollah.

The episode also led to heightened tensions on the Israel-Lebanon border. The specter of renewed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah looms as large today as it has at any time since the end of the Lebanon war in August 2006. Yet senior military officers in Israel's Northern Command are confident that the embarrassing outcome of the last round will not be repeated.

"By all means, let the Hezbollah try," one officer told me two weeks ago when I asked if he was concerned about the possibility of warfare. "The welcome party that we are preparing for them is one that they will remember for a very long time." That sentiment is shared by many of his colleagues.

The recent explosions have highlighted the weakened geopolitical status of Hezbollah, a diminishment which no one could have foreseen at the end of the last war. In 2006, on both sides of the border—and elsewhere in the Middle East—Hezbollah was seen as having triumphed. Not only was it able to withstand the vastly superior invading Israeli force, but it also inflicted heavy military casualties and brought civilian life in northern Israel to a standstill with its rockets. At the end of the war, a commission of inquiry was set up in Israel to investigate the military and political failure. A number of senior army officers resigned, and Israel's deterrence power was seen as having sustained a severe blow.

If the 2006 war underlined the military might of Hezbollah—a repeat, in a sense, of Hezbollah's success in driving out the Israeli occupying forces from South Lebanon in May 2000—it also forced Israel to include Hezbollah in any assessment of possible responses to an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear installations.

As part of its combat doctrine, which eschews reliance on reinforcements and resupply, Hezbollah has stockpiled its weapons throughout Lebanon, but particularly near the Israeli border. According to current Israeli intelligence estimates, Hezbollah has an arsenal of 40,000 rockets, including Iranian-made Zelzal, Fajr-3, Fajr-5, and 122 mm rockets (some of which have cluster warheads) and Syrian-made 302 mm rockets. Some of its rockets can reach greater Tel Aviv. Hezbollah also has a number of highly advanced weapons systems, including antiaircraft missiles, that constitute a threat to Israeli combat aircraft.

But all is not rosy for Hezbollah. After the war, considerable dissatisfaction with the organization was voiced inside Lebanon. Many blamed its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, for Israel's retaliatory bombardments that caused widespread damage. Nasrallah stated that had he known Israel would respond as forcefully as it did, he would have thought twice before ordering the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers—the act that sparked the conflict.

Harsh criticism of Hezbollah also came from an unexpected source: Tehran. The Iranian strategy calls for Hezbollah to play two roles. One is to instigate minor border provocations. The other is to launch, on Tehran's command, a full-scale retaliatory attack should Israel target Iran's nuclear facilities. The 2006 war met neither criterion, and, as the Iranians complained, merely served to reveal the extent of Hezbollah's military capabilities.

Then, in February 2008, Imad Mughniyeh, the organization's military commander and Nasrallah's close associate, was killed in a car bomb in Damascus. The assassination of the man who topped the FBI's most-wanted list prior to Osama bin Laden was a severe blow to morale, as well as to Hezbollah's strategic capabilities. Nasrallah was convinced that the Mossad was responsible, and vowed to take revenge "outside of the Israel-Lebanon arena."

The Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, which is also responsible for protecting the country's legations abroad, has been on high alert ever since. But as of today, Hezbollah has not exacted its revenge. This fact was a topic of discussions at a high-level secret forum of Israel's intelligence services that took place from late July to early September.

Israeli officials raised four possible reasons for Hezbollah's failure to act, all of which reflect its current weakness.

First, no replacement has been found for Mughniyeh, whose strategic brilliance, originality and powers of execution are sorely missed by Hezbollah.

Second, Israel's intelligence coverage of Iran and Hezbollah is far superior today to what it was in the past. Planned attacks, including one targeting the Israeli Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, have all been foiled. The Israeli security services have warned Israeli businessmen abroad of possible abduction attempts by Hezbollah. They also shared information with Egyptian authorities that led to the arrest of members of a Hezbollah network who intended to kill Israeli tourists in Sinai. The arrest of these operatives resulted in sharp public exchanges between Egypt, Hezbollah and its Iranian masters, when Nasrallah admitted that these, in fact, were his men.

Third, Nasrallah cannot afford to be viewed domestically as the cause of yet another retaliation against Lebanon. Any act of revenge that he contemplates needs to be carefully calibrated. On the one hand, it needs to hurt the enemy and be spectacular enough to stoke Hezbollah pride. On the other hand, it cannot be so murderous as to cause Israel to respond with force. To complicate matters further, Israel has made it clear that because Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, despite the fact that the party that it backed lost in the recent election, any Hezbollah action against Israel would be viewed as an action taken by the Lebanese government. Thus Israel would regard Lebanese infrastructure as a legitimate target for a military response.

Finally, there are the Iranians. Their primary focus is on proceeding with their nuclear program without unnecessary distractions. Tehran's main concern is that a terror attack that can be linked to Iran would result in the arrest of its agents overseas, who are currently procuring equipment for its uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Tehran has avoided direct involvement in foreign terrorism ever since 1996, when a group of Iranians were convicted in Germany of murdering political opponents of the Iranian regime. And unlike in the past (as, for instance, in the case of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in retaliation for the assassination of Nasrallah's predecessor), it is now reluctant to place intelligence resources at Hezbollah's disposal. This is a serious blow to Hezbollah, which is not yet able to function as a full-fledged independent operational organization internationally.

Hezbollah is also clearly aware of the severe blow in terms of power and prestige that the Iranian mullahs suffered as a result of the massive protests following June's presidential election. Automatic support from Tehran is no longer a certainty. For now, at least, the Iranian hardliners have troubles of their own.

In short, despite the fact that Hezbollah today is substantially stronger in purely military terms than it was three years ago, its political stature and its autonomy have been significantly reduced. It is clear that Nasrallah is cautious and he will weigh his options very carefully before embarking on any course of action that might lead to all-out war with Israel. There are some experts in Israel who believe that even Hezbollah's retaliatory role in the Iranian game plan is currently in question.

Whether or not this is the case, all of this is being considered in Jerusalem as part of Israel's calculations about whether to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mr. Bergman, a correspondent for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, is the author of the "The Secret War With Iran" (Free Press, 2008).

Title: Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast
Post by: rachelg on October 20, 2009, 06:29:09 PM

I just read this in the NYT aboutHuman Rights Watch. I'm afraid to blink

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?ref=opinion
October 20, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: captainccs on October 21, 2009, 12:30:27 AM

Rachel, just amazing. And high time too.

Thanks!

Title: US Support for Israel strong
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 26, 2009, 09:14:16 PM

Survey: US support for Israel strong
Oct. 26, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

The American people's strong support for Israel remains constant and their support for action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power has substantially increased, according to a new nationwide survey released by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on Monday.

The survey's findings demonstrate that Americans recognize Israel as a strong and loyal US ally, are skeptical about "peace dividends" that would be realized by Israel stopping all settlement construction and believe that a Palestinian state must not be established until the Palestinians demonstrate a commitment to end violence and accept Israel's legitimacy.

The 2009 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, The Palestinians and Prospects for Peace in the Middle East, a national telephone survey of 1,200 American adults, was conducted September 26-October 4, 2009 by Marttila Communications of Washington, D.C. and Boston.

"This latest survey of the American people, coming at a time of a full range of challenging issues facing Israel and the region demonstrates anew the breadth and depth of American public support for Israel from a variety of perspectives," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Americans see Israel as a loyal ally to the US, as being very serious about wanting to achieve peace with the Palestinians and as deserving the sympathy of the American people in the conflict with the Palestinians."

Foxman also noted a changing dynamic regarding Iran and the nuclear issue. "The significant increase in Americans viewing Iran as a threat and supporting, if nothing else works, US or Israeli military options against Iran, reflect a new and needed sense of urgency about the issue in light of Iran's oppressive policies and the discovery of a secret Iranian nuclear plant," he said. "This is the first time a majority of Americans - 54 percent - support such an option for the US"

Some two thirds of Americans consider Israel a strong and loyal US ally, as previous surveys showed. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 64% believe that Israel is serious about achieving peace with the Palestinians, with three-to-one respondents expressing more sympathy with Israel than the Palestinians, when asked to choose a side. Support for US involvement in the peace process rose by nine percentage points to 39% since 2007, but 48% believe the two sides must ultimately solve their own problems.

With recent US efforts to freeze Israeli settlement activity, 53% of those questioned believe that even if Israel halts all construction Arab leaders will continue to refuse Israel's right to exist. Some 61% believe that the conflict will continue for years with 51% claiming that Palestinian divisions are an obstacle to peace and 56% saying no Palestinian state should be established until Palestinians cease violence and accept Israel's legitimacy.

Concerning the question of the Iranian threat, 63% of the respondents consider Iran an immediate or short-term security threat to the Middle East compared to 50% in 2007. There has also been significant gain in those who would support either Israel or the US using military action to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, with 57% of Americans supporting an Israeli hit, up from 42% in 2007, and 54% supporting a US campaign, up from 47% in 2007.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on October 30, 2009, 05:23:47 AM

Ouch, that stings.   When the founder of an organization writes an open letter chopping it off at the knees, that organization becomes pretty ineffective.  I wonder if the staffers at human rights watch know about that letter?

Title: WSJ: Existential Dread
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2009, 08:35:26 AM

By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
Jerusalem

The postcard from the Home Front Command that recently arrived in my mailbox looks like an ad from the Ministry of Tourism. A map of Israel is divided by color into six regions, each symbolized by an upbeat drawing: a smiling camel in the Negev desert, a skier in the Golan Heights. In fact, each region signifies the amount of time residents will have to seek shelter from an impending missile attack. If you live along the Gaza border, you have 15 seconds after the siren sounds. Jerusalemites get a full three minutes. But as the regions move farther north, the time drops again, until finally, along the Lebanese and Syrian borders, the color red designates "immediate entry into a shelter." In other words, if you're not already inside a shelter don't bother looking for one.

The invisible but all-pervasive presence on that cheerful map of existential dread is Iran. If Israel were to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, Tehran's two terrorist allies on our borders—Hezbollah and Hamas—would almost certainly renew attacks against the Israeli home front. And Tel Aviv would be hit by Iranian long-range missiles.

View Full Image

David Gothard
 .On the other hand, if Israel refrains from attacking Iran and international efforts to stop its nuclearization fail, the results along our border would likely be even more catastrophic. Hezbollah and Hamas would be emboldened politically and psychologically. The threat of a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would become a permanent part of Israeli reality. This would do incalculable damage to Israel's sense of security.

Given these dreadful options, one might assume that the Israeli public would respond with relief to reports that Iran is now considering the International Atomic Energy Agency's proposal to transfer 70% of its known, low-enriched uranium to Russia for treatment that would seriously reduce its potential for military application. In fact, Israelis from the right and the left have reacted with heightened anxiety. "Kosher Uranium," read the mocking headline of Israel's largest daily, Yediot Aharonot. Media commentators noted that easing world pressure on Iran will simply enable it to cheat more easily. If Iranian leaders are prepared to sign an agreement, Israelis argue, that's because they know something the rest of us don't.

In the last few years, Israelis have been asking themselves two questions with increasing urgency: Should we attack Iran if all other options fail? And can we inflict sufficient damage to justify the consequences?

As sanctions efforts faltered, most Israelis came to answer the first question affirmatively. A key moment in coalescing that resolve occurred in December 2006, when the Iranian regime sponsored an "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust," a two day meeting of Holocaust deniers. For Israelis, that event ended the debate over whether a nuclear Iran could be deterred by the threat of counter-force. A regime that assembles the world's crackpots to deny the most documented atrocity in history—at the very moment it is trying to fend off sanctions and convince the international community of its sanity—may well be immune to rational self-interest.

Opinion here has been divided about the ability of an Israeli strike to significantly delay Iran's nuclear program. But Israelis have dealt with their doubts by resurrecting a phrase from the country's early years: Ein breira, there's no choice. Besides, as one leading Israeli security official who has been involved in the Iranian issue for many years put it to me, "Technical problems have technical solutions." Israelis tend to trust their strategic planners to find those solutions.

In the past few months, Israelis have begun asking themselves a new question: Has the Obama administration's engagement with Iran effectively ended the possibility of a military strike?

Few Israelis took seriously the recent call by former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to shoot down Israeli planes if they take off for Iran. But American attempts to reassure the Israeli public of its commitment to Israel's security have largely backfired. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent threat to "obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack against Israel only reinforced Israeli fears that the U.S. would prefer to contain a nuclear Iran rather than pre-empt it militarily.

On the face of it, this is not May 1967. There is not the same sense of impending catastrophe that held the Israeli public in the weeks before the Six Day War. Israelis are preoccupied with the fate of Gilad Shalit (the kidnapped Israeli soldier held by Hamas), with the country's faltering relations with Turkey, with the U.N.'s denial of Israel's right to defend itself, and with an unprecedented rise in violent crime.

But the Iranian threat has seeped into daily life as a constant, if barely conscious anxiety. It emerges at unexpected moments, as black humor or an incongruous aside in casual conversation. "I think we're going to attack soon," a friend said to me over Sabbath dinner, as we talked about our children going off to the army and to India.

Now, with the possibility of a deal with Iran, Israelis realize that a military confrontation will almost certainly be deferred. Still, the threat remains.

A recent cartoon in the newspaper Ma'ariv showed a drawing of a sukkah, the booth covered with palm branches that Jews build for the autumn festival of Tabernacles. A voice from inside the booth asked, "Will these palm branches protect us from Iranian missiles?"

Israelis still believe in their ability to protect themselves—and many believe too in the divine protection that is said to hover over the fragile booths. Both are expressions of faith from a people that fear they may once again face the unthinkable alone.

Mr. Klein Halevi is a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a contributing editor to the New Republic.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on October 31, 2009, 02:37:14 AM

I lived with that kind of constant "undertone of stress" During the 1st gulf war.  I feel for the Israelis and understand their issues all to well.  The problem is that the MSM is to busy pandering to PC to actually do a human interest story, or even allow one to be shown, that describes the "cold war era" stress that Israel is currently living under.   I do not think the any American wou8ld find this tolerable for long, and I truly admire the restraint that we see Israel using when they have to go into the DMZ's on their borders to deal with the terrorist missile launchers.

I do not know how many other folks see the situation over there as that clean cut thought, since they do not have the necessary information to get to the conclusion.  Israel has a siege mentality for a good reason- they are under constant siege.

Title: Netanyahu: Iran's shipment of arms to Hezbollah - a war crime plus videos
Post by: rachelg on November 05, 2009, 06:24:41 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126172.html
Netanyahu: Iran's shipment of arms to Hezbollah - a war crime
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that the ship carrying hundreds of tons of weapons believed to have originated in Iran and meant for Hezbollah, which Israel intercepted early Wednesday, constituted a war crime that should be reviewed by United Nations bodies.

"This was a ship carrying a massive amount of weapons which the Iranian regime tried to ship to Syria, and from there to Hezbollah," the prime minister said during a press conference he convened at the Tel Aviv defense headquarters. "The bulk of the shipment included rockets whose aim is to hurt our citizens and kill as many civilians as possible. This constitutes a war crime."

"The UN General Assembly should have investigated and condemned this crime and the UN Security Council should have convened a special session to debate this incident," Netanyahu continued.
   Advertisement

"This is a war crime which Iran intends to commit again in the future. The international community should be focusing on this, but instead, the world condemns Israel and the Israel Defense Forces and undermines our right to self defense," he said, referring to Wednesday's UN General Assembly debate over the Goldstone report, which accuses Israel of having committed war crimes in Gaza last winter.

"It is time that the international community, at least the more responsible countries, recognize the reality and refrain from promoting a lie," Netanyahu went on to say.

The Iran-backed Hezbollah denied that the arms were bound for them.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Navy Commander Eliezer Marom lauded the commandos who carried out the operation which culminated in the seizure of some 300 tons of weapons.

Military Intelligence Director Amos Yadlin said that the arms ship serves as evidence of what he termed the activity of the Iranian octopus. "This isn't just about weapons, but also about money used to fund terror and weapons and the training of Hamas and Hezbollah operatives in Iran," he said.

Israel instructs its diplomats: Harness arms ship seizure to direct pressure toward Iran

The Foreign Ministry issued a document to Israeli embassies and consulates around the world on Wednesday, instructing diplomats to utilize Israel's seizure of the ship to direct international pressure toward Iran.

Israeli diplomats were instructed to stress Iran's violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions forbidding it from supplying weapons to Syria or Hezbollah.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem instructed diplomats to emphasize in interviews and conferences the fact that the ship that was seized en route to Syria, with a planned stop in Beirut. The diplomats were further asked to explain that the Israeli navy's actions, including diverting the ship to Ashdod, were all executed with the crew's cooperation.

Israel will use this event to put Iran in the limelight. The Foreign Ministry argues that this arms shipment is a blatant violation of UNSC resolution 1747 which forbids Iran from exporting weapons and ammunition. "Since these weapons are meant for the northern terror front, this is also a blatant violation of UN resolution 1701," the memo read.

The Foreign Ministry also asked embassies and consulates to issue a statement saying "Iran is continuing to smuggle weapons to terror organizations under the guise of legitimate international trade, and thus turns the Mediterranean Sea into a base for illegal activity."

It was further emphasized that "Iran is challenging the UN Security Council and poses a strategic threat to the stability and peace of the world."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that anyone who was still skeptical over Iran's continuous supply of weapons to terror organizations, was given conclusive proof when the Francop's cargo was exposed.

"Iran is shipping weapons to terror organizations in order to attack Israeli cities and kill its citizens. It is time that the international community applied real pressure on Iran to stop these criminal actions, and support Israel in its battle against terrorists and their patrons," Netanyahu said.

---

Reporter Michael Tobin shows viewers the weapons on display in the port of Ashdod.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=11298701&referralPlaylistId=undefined

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXDCDPPeN_Q[/youtube]

Title: Seized arms evidence of Iran's investment of Israel's borders
Post by: rachelg on November 06, 2009, 04:59:07 AM

Analysis: Seized arms evidence of Iran's investment of Israel's borders
Nov. 5, 2009
JONATHAN SPYER , THE JERUSALEM POST

The seizure by Israeli forces of an Iranian-commissioned arms smuggling ship on its way to Syria and/or Hizbullah in Lebanon offers a further glimpse into the daily, silent war under way between Israel and the Iranian-led regional bloc.

It is evidence of Iran's ongoing strategy of arming its Islamist clients to Israel's north and south.

The strength of these forces on the ground constitutes an important asset for the Iranian regime. Iranian aid and weaponry is not doled out for its recipients to use at will. Iran's investment is likely to be called in at a moment of the Iranian regime's choosing - most likely in the event of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran makes use of all its regional assets and allies in its effort to supply arms to Hamas and Hizbullah. These two organizations play a vital role in Iran's strategy for regional hegemony.

They currently maintain the two "hot" fronts in the Israeli-Arab conflict (which might today more accurately be referred to as the "Israel-Islamist" conflict). So maintaining the smooth flow of supplies is a strategic priority of the first order for Teheran.

In January, an Israeli bombing of an arms convoy in Sudan laid bare an arms trail leading from Iran to Sudan, across Egypt, across Sinai, and finishing in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The Sudan-Sinai-Gaza part of the trail was created and administered by Hizbullah men, acting on behalf of their Iranian patron. In April, an unidentified warship sank an Iranian vessel carrying arms to the Gaza Strip, as it sought to dock in Sudan.

This latest seizure of the arms ship bound for Syria lays bare a similar collective effort by Iran's allies to supply the parallel northern front - apparently along a similar route. The latest indications are that the ship docked first in Yemen, then in Sudan, before making its way to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

But the destination of the arms ship - either a Syrian or a Lebanese port, according to sources - points to one of the essential differences in the two fronts maintained by Iran against Israel.

Hamas in Gaza is boxed in and lacks strategic depth. Egypt to its south is aligned with the pro-western bloc in the region, and as such is a partner (sometimes even an energetic partner) in Israeli efforts to stem the flow of weaponry to Gaza.

Syria, however, is a card-carrying member of the pro-Iranian regional bloc. The porousness of Lebanon's eastern border with Syria is a vital asset for Hizbullah. And the Shi'ite Islamist movement has complete freedom of operation on Lebanese soil.

UN Resolution 1701 tasks UN forces in Lebanon with preventing the Syrian supply of arms across the border to Hizbullah. But no serious effort has been made to implement this clause.

Journalists working in Lebanon are aware that the crossings at the eastern border are off limits, and few attempt to report events there. Even UN investigators themselves concur that since August 2006, a steady supply of Iranian and Syrian arms has been making its way across Lebanon's eastern border to the Hizbullah forces in the south of the country.

It may be assumed that this was the intended final destination for the arms found Tuesday night on the ship bearing the Antiguan flag.

The events of the last 18 months in Lebanon have indicated that Hizbullah is the de facto ruler of that country - in the simple sense of being the force that can impose its will on matters it considers vital without consulting with other elements.

Six months after the much-vaunted election victory of the pro-western March 14 movement, Lebanon still has no government in sight. In the meantime, the parallel pro-Iranian Hizbullah state pursues its policies unhindered.

If the ship turns out to have been bound for a Lebanese port - this will offer the latest indication of just how free Hizbullah's hand in Lebanon now is.

The apprehending of the arms ship represents a propaganda coup for Israel, which may help it draw attention to the reality of an ongoing Iranian effort to amass powerful proxy military forces to Israel's south and north.

However, it us unlikely to put a major dent in Iranian efforts to rearm Hizbullah. The evidence suggests that the process of replenishing the large-scale destruction suffered by Hizbullah in 2006 has been mostly trouble-free and has largely been completed. Hizbullah is thought by Israel to now possess around 80,000 rockets and missiles directed at the Jewish state.

The frenetic armament efforts undertaken by Iran and its clients do not mean that conflict is necessarily imminent. The Iranians were displeased at Hizbullah's provocation that led to the war of 2006. The war destroyed costly resources and undid intensive Iranian efforts.

Rather, weaponry is making its way to south Lebanon and Gaza, via Syria, Sinai and the Mediterranean, to place the Israeli population within the range of Iranian-directed short and medium range missiles. The implicit threat is that these assets would be activated should Israel (or anyone else) dare to move against the Iranian nuclear program.

Israelis may take justified pride in its navy's significant achievement in stopping the arms ship bound for Syria. But the result of the larger contest of which the ship was a part, however, still lies ahead.

The writer is senior research fellow at Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799095878&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 09, 2009, 08:38:59 PM

11/3


Stratfor
---------------------------

 

A U.S.-ISRAELI CONVERGENCE

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SHIFTED ITS POSITION on Israeli settlements. U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered this statement Monday from Morocco at a
meeting with Arab foreign ministers: "For 40 years, successive American
administrations of both parties have opposed Israel's settlement policy. That is
absolutely a fact. And the Obama administration's position on settlements is clear,
unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the president has said on many occasions,
the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
Now, the Israelis have responded to the call from the United States, the
Palestinians and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a
willingness to restrain settlement activity. They will build no new settlements,
expropriate no land, allow no new construction or approvals. And let me just say
this offer falls far short of what we would characterize as our position, or what
our preference would be. But if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented
restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on
restraining their growth."
 
This statement is worth quoting in its entirety, as it is a masterpiece of hiding
complexity in simplicity. The Obama administration first demanded that Israel halt
all settlement construction. The Israeli government refused, insisting that
construction already approved on land already expropriated would continue. The
administration has agreed to that. The key is in how Israel acts on this: that no
new approvals for settlement construction will be given. However, the approval of
such construction is an internal Israeli bureaucratic matter. Whether approval is
given depends on the Israeli interpretation of what has been approved at this point.
That is sufficient ambiguity to give the Israelis a great deal of latitude.
 
"The Obama administration has been running a dual-track policy toward Israel.. The
United States has now aligned with Israel on both tracks."

Just as interesting as the language is the reason for the shift. Recalling the
firmness with which Obama announced his position, the decision to shift carries with
it substantial costs. The Arabs are -- in general -- outraged. The outrage is to be
expected and was discounted by the United States. It does not change the ultimate
position of Egypt on either its peace treaty with Israel or its relations with the
United States. No one is going to switch sides. However, the decision does place
increased pressure on Fatah in its competition with Hamas. The U.S. position has
been to isolate Hamas, and this does not contribute to it. Therefore, the decision
should be seen not only as a concession to Israel, but as a willingness to
strengthen Hamas somewhat in its internal battles. That requires explanation.
 
We note the extensive ballistic missile defense exercises under way in Israel with
U.S. forces right now, called Juniper Cobra. Though this is a regular exercise, the
2009 iteration is of unprecedented scale and scope, attempting to integrate the
latest U.S. and Israeli systems. The exercise is clearly intended to test joint
capabilities and ensure mutually supportive interoperability in defending Israel
from ballistic missile attacks -- the obvious attacker being Iran or its surrogates
in Lebanon. It is also a political signal to Tehran that should air strikes be
ordered against Iran, the United States is capable and willing to join in protecting
Israel from air attack.
 
Juniper Cobra started a week late (odd for what are usually carefully prepared
international war games). It has lasted two weeks and is set to end this Thursday.
We assume that after the exercises, U.S. assets will be withdrawn, but that remains
to be seen. The exercise sends the signal that not only can the United States deploy
defensive forces to Israel, they are already deployed there. The deployment has to
be read by Iran as preparation for conflict, regardless of U.S. intentions. Iran has
to calculate for a worst-case scenario.
 
With Iran refusing to accept demands concerning its nuclear program, and with the
United States repeatedly saying that patience is running out, Washington needs to
send threats to Tehran. Juniper Cobra does that. But it also, therefore, is not a
time for serious rifts between Israel and the United States. The Obama
administration has been running a dual-track policy toward Israel, with the
Israeli-Palestinian talks on one track and U.S.-Israeli security cooperation on
another. The United States has now aligned with Israel on both tracks.
 
Israel has asserted that the United States has promised significant action in the
event that this round of talks with Iran fails. With sanctions not a serious
prospect at the moment, Iran is looking to see whether the U.S. position on Israel
will track with the settlements dispute or with Israel's Iran position. By shutting
down the dispute over settlements while Juniper Cobra is under way, Iran has been
given its answer.

Now -- and this is the interesting part -- whether the plan is to attack or the plan
is to bluff an attack, the actions would look identical. We cannot tell from this
what the Obama administration is planning on Iran, but it is clear to us what they
are signaling. Now the question is whether Iran takes this as a threat or a bluff.
Tensions will now ratchet up either way.

Copyright 2009 Stratfor.

Title: Obama's press on Gilo shows a continued misread of Israel/Gilo residents angered
Post by: rachelg on November 19, 2009, 07:46:46 PM

Analysis: Obama's press on Gilo shows a continued misread of Israel
Nov. 19, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent man surrounded by equally intelligent advisers, many of whom have years of experience dealing with the Middle East. His continued misreading and misunderstanding of the Israeli public is, therefore, somewhat baffling.

This misread was evident again in the past few days by the US objection to the Jerusalem Municipal Planning Committee's approval of a plan to build some 900 new units in Gilo - not in a far-flung settlement overlooking Nablus, nor even in one of the settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, nor even a Jewish complex in one of the Arab neighborhoods of the capital, but in Gilo, one of the large new neighborhoods built in the city following the Six Day War. If Israel cannot build in Gilo without US approval, than it cannot build in Ramot Eshkol, French Hill, Ramot, Neveh Yaakov, Pisgat Ze'ev, East Talpiot or Har Homa.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Tuesday expressed "dismay" at the decision. The dismay, however, cuts both ways, with many Israelis clearly dismayed that the US - like Europe - now seems to be considering as settlements the post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The EU, clearly following Gibbs's lead and then taking it one step further, released a statement on Wednesday saying, "The European Union is dismayed by the recent decision on the expansion of the settlement of Gilo."

Truth be told, this is not the first indication of US policy on this matter. Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice seemed to be giving the new neighborhoods settlement status in 2007 when she opposed a new project in Har Homa. She didn't clarify, however, whether other Jerusalem neighborhoods over the Green Line, such as Gilo and Ramot, were settlements in the eyes of the United States.

However, the Obama team's call for a complete settlement halt also included a halt to new construction in east Jerusalem, something Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu refused to accept.

By continuing to press the issue, Obama - who recently showed nascent signs of wanting to engage the Israeli public out of an understanding that if you want to get Israel to make concessions, Israel will need to trust the US president - risks further alienating the Israeli public. According to a Jerusalem Post poll conducted in August, only four percent if Israelis consider him to be pro-Israel.

When Obama came to power in January, he apparently did so with two basic assumptions regarding Israel.
The first was that the Israeli public so cherishes its relationship with the US that it would not tolerate any daylight between Jerusalem and Washington, and that if its government was responsible for that daylight, then it would replace that government with another in order to preserve the special relationship with Washington.

The second assumption was that the Israeli public hated the settlements.
Based on those two assumptions, Obama immediately upon taking office pressed Israel hard on the settlement issue, calling for an unprecedented complete halt to all settlement construction, including in Jerusalem.

The administration's working premise seemed to be that since the Israeli public was not enamored of the settlements in any event, if Obama pushed hard on that issue, the Israeli public would pressure its own government to give rather than risk a fissure with the Obama administration.

But the assumptions were mistaken. The Israeli public does not hate the settlements. Granted, it does not like the illegal settlement outposts, or what it sees as the extremists among the ideological settlements, but the public makes a distinction between those settlements outposts and those extremists and the large settlement blocs, such as Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, which are well within the Israeli consensus. And the public certainly doesn't view the neighborhoods of Jerusalem, as the Europeans said in their statement, as "settlements."

Pressing a construction freeze in those areas was widely viewed by the public as an unreasonable demand, especially when it was not accompanied by any demands on the Arabs or Palestinians.

Rather than rallying around Obama, Israelis have - according to polls that shows Netanyahu's popularity rising - rallied around Netanyahu. And no issue will make them rally even further around the prime minister than Jerusalem.

Netanyahu understands this, which is why his office was behind a leak during the summer about Obama's objections to Jewish building at the Shepherd's Hotel site in Sheikh Jarrah, and was also likely behind the leak this week of US objections to the Gilo plan. In the summer, the objection to the Shepherd's Hotel plan made the administration's demands seem unreasonable to the Israeli public, as the Gilo objections have done now.

The irony is that this has come at a time when it looked as if Obama understood that his much touted outreach to the Arab and Muslim world had to be accompanied by some kind of dialogue with Israel; that he needed to talk with the Israelis and the Jews. Thus he addressed the public in a video welcome aired at last month's conference in Jerusalem put on by President Shimon Peres; thus he addressed by video a rally at Kikar Rabin earlier this month on the anniversary of the Rabin assassination; and thus he had planned to address the Jewish Federation's General Assembly in Washington last week.

That address was cancelled at the last minute, however, when Obama needed to fly to Texas to participate in a memorial ceremony for the 13 servicemen killed there by Maj. Nidal Hasan. And any attempt to get off on a better footing with Netanyahu was foiled by the hesitant dance surrounding whether or not there would be a meeting, and then the clandestine manner in which that meeting took place. What looked like an attempt by the administration to positively engage Israel sputtered. And now, with the Gilo issue, these efforts risk faltering altogether.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566462450&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

---

Gilo residents angered by US criticism of building plans
Nov. 19, 2009
Abe Selig , THE JERUSALEM POST
Residents of Gilo on Wednesday reacted with surprise and anger to news that the US administration was dismayed by a government decision to approve 900 new homes in their neighborhood, questioning the relevance of the criticism while denouncing it unequivocally.

"It's just so ridiculous," said Silva, as she walked outside her home on the neighborhood's Rehov Shabtai Hanegbi.
"Anyone who is opposed to us building in Gilo obviously doesn't know the neighborhood very well. There are more than 40,000 people living here - it could very well be a city within itself. I never even thought that Gilo was up for discussion."

Others reacted with similar surprise, but also frustration at what they said was misguided American policy in an area considered by a wide consensus of Israelis to be just another Jerusalem neighborhood.

"Since when is anyone thinking about giving Gilo away?" asked an elderly man as he waited at a bus stop. "And if we're not giving it away, why on earth can't we build here? Obama is sitting all the way over there in the White House making demands, and really, what does he know about anything?"

Ron, a grocery store owner on Rehov Zecharia, labeled the American criticism "stupid," and said he was shocked to see the question of building rights in his neighborhood thrust into the headlines.

"When I picked up the newspaper today I couldn't believe it," he said. "The location they want to build in isn't even close to any Arab homes, and it has nothing to do with peace negotiations.

"Since when was Gilo on the table?" he asked. "To be honest with you, it's all very upsetting."
"When I first saw the news I was extremely surprised," Gilo Community Council Chairman Moshe Ben-Shushan told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday evening.

"I think we need to invite President Obama to come here and see that Gilo is not two caravans on a hilltop."
Ben-Shushan also said that even left-wing residents of the neighborhood had approached him on Wednesday and expressed anger over the American sentiments.

"They told me that it made them feel as if nothing was off the table; that at this rate, there's going to be nothing left of the Land of Israel," he said.

Ben-Shushan also said that he was satisfied with the government's stance on the matter thus far, but added, "If they were to agree to freezing construction here in Gilo, oy va voy!

"Young people have nowhere to live in Jerusalem," Ben-Shushan added. "They're leaving for the center or for the coastal plain, and frankly, we have to build here immediately, or I'm afraid the housing crisis in the capital will get even worse."

It isn't clear, however, that young people were the ones being targeted by the builders of these planned homes.
Ron, the grocery owner, said he had initially been interested in purchasing one of the apartments, but decided against it - not because of American criticism, but after hearing their price.

"They want NIS 1.86 million for a 5-room apartment," he said. "Who has money for that?"
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566462435&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: Third Lebanon War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2009, 03:39:57 PM

In a development I predicted when the Israeli failed to follow through the last time , , ,  :cry:

 A Third Lebanon War Could Be Much Worse than the Second

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...e-second-15291


Michael J. Totten

Hezbollah's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah recently announced that he could hit any and every place in Israel with long-range missiles. That would mean that, unlike in 2006, Hezbollah could strike not only the northern cities of Kiryat Shmona and Haifa but also Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion International Airport, and the Dimona nuclear-power plant.
I dismissed his claim as a wild boast last week, but Israeli army commander Major General Gabi Ashkenazi confirmed it this week. So while we've all been worried about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been quietly arming his chief terrorist proxy with more advanced conventional weapons.
To read the rest of this COMMENTARY Web Exclusive, click here.
A Third Lebanon War could make the Second Lebanon War in 2006 look like a minor kerfuffle. And the Second Lebanon War was anything but. When Noah Pollak and I covered it from the Israeli side, we found the whole northern swath of the country emptied of people and cars like it was the end of the world. The city of Tiberias looked like a zombie movie set. Kiryat Shmona is so close to the border that the air raid sirens often didn't start wailing until after Hezbollah's incoming Katyusha rockets had already exploded.
Meanwhile, pitched battles between the Israel Defense Forces and Hezbollah seriously chewed up South Lebanon. The centers of entire towns were pulverized by Israeli air and artillery strikes. More than a thousand people were killed, many of them civilians used by Hezbollah as human shields.
Hezbollah is much more dangerous than any terrorist group that has ever been fielded from the West Bank or Gaza. It managed to create hundreds of thousands of refugees inside Israel, and it did so with fewer and shorter range rockets than it has now. And while the "Party of God" may think it's terrific that it can do what Hamas in Gaza only fantasizes about, its arsenal indirectly threatens Lebanon just as much if not more than it threatens Israel. Nasrallah can unleash a great deal of destruction, but it's still no match for what the IDF can dish out while fighting back.
If Israel's nuclear power plant comes under fire, if Tel Aviv skyscrapers explode from missile attacks, if Hezbollah manages to turn all of Israel into a kill zone where there is no place to run, Israelis will panic like they haven't since the 1973 Yom Kippur War when it briefly appeared the Egyptian army might overrun the whole country. I wouldn't want to be anywhere in Lebanon while Israelis are actively fending off that kind of assault. No country can afford to be restrained while fighting for its survival.
The last Lebanon caught almost everyone by surprise, although it should not have. The next one might start much the same way because few seem to be taking its likelihood or its potential magnitude seriously.
It's possible that a "balance of terror" on each side of the border will prevent anyone from doing anything stupid, but I wouldn't count on it. Hezbollah's rhetoric is more belligerent this year than ever. Not only does Nasrallah threaten to avenge the assassination of his military commander Imad Mugniyeh, he and the rest of the leadership fantasize in public about nuclear war.
Christopher Hitchens went to a commemoration for Mugniyeh in the suburbs south of Beirut earlier this year and saw a huge poster of a nuclear mushroom cloud next to the stage. "OH ZIONISTS," read the inscription below, "IF YOU WANT THIS TYPE OF WAR THEN SO BE IT!”
This, I'm certain, really is bombast – at least for now. Nasrallah doesn't have nuclear weapons. Apocalyptic imagery and rhetoric, though, tells us something important about Hezbollah's psyche.
Just ask yourself how you would have felt during the Cold War if Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev said "SO BE IT" to nuclear war. I would have wanted to hide in my basement or go off-planet entirely. And I have a hard time imagining an American or Russian crowd roaring with applause and pumping its fists in the air in response to that sort of thing. That's just not how Americans or Russians thought about a nuclear holocaust. Israelis don't think about nuclear war that way either, nor do Hezbollah's opponents in Lebanon. The same is almost certainly true of the millions of Iranian citizens who brave beatings, arrest, and worse to yell "death to the dictator" in the streets of Tehran.
Hezbollah's mindset is different. If you expect moderation, reasonableness, and restraint from that crowd, you are far more optimistic than I am
__________________
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies" -- Groucho Marx

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. --John Adams

Title: In defense of Barack Obama
Post by: rachelg on December 01, 2009, 05:36:52 PM

In defense of Barack Obama
Nov. 30, 2009
Lenny Ben-David , THE JERUSALEM POST
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243045268&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This week a senior respected Israeli analyst asked me to look back and decide, "Are we seeing the worst crisis in US-Israel relations? Is this the worst ever administration from Israel's perspective?" Also this week an Israeli minister termed President Obama's administration "awful," and an Israeli political activist was quoted in Israel's largest circulation paper as saying, "The Obama regime is anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic."

To all, I respond with the strongest possible retorts: balderdash, tripe, silliness and stupidity! There are other serious ideological problems with this US administration which results in rock-bottom popularity for the US president in Israel but the labels of "anti-Semitic" or "the worst" are just bum raps.

Just look at the history.

IN 1957, the Eisenhower administration threatened to come down hard on the fledgling Israel, including removing UJA's tax-exempt status, as a way of pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.

In 1970, Richard Nixon threatened to cut the supply of 50 F-4 Phantoms to Israel because of insults hurled at French Premier Georges Pompidou by Jewish-American activists in New York. The demonstrations led the notoriously anti-Israel columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak to bray, "More than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Nixon has shown a tough realism in trying to stake out the correct US policy in the inflamed Middle East without kowtowing to the large and highly influential Jewish vote." [Note Evans and Novak beat by more than 35 years professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of the 2007 The Israel Lobby a distinctly unoriginal diatribe against Jewish influence on foreign policy. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same.)]

Observers feared the worst in US-Israel relations in 1975 when the Ford Administration weighed a "reassessment" of American policy in the Middle East, including cutting aid to Israel.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan earned a place in history as one of Israel's strongest friends, but his administration included strong critics of Israel such as vice president George H.W. Bush and defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. The sale of AWACS, just the tip of a massive arms sale and a realignment of US policy to embrace Saudi Arabia, took place under Reagan's watch, and the political war cry of "Reagan or Begin" was broadcast to suggest American Jews' dual loyalties. Arms to Israel were embargoed and delayed after the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing and the 1982 Lebanon War. And the Pollard affair pulled the US-Israel relationship to new lows.

Could relations have been worse than when George Bush Sr. went on national TV to challenge 1000 Jewish lobbyists to block $10 billion in housing loan guarantees over the issue of settlements at a time when hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews were flowing into Israel? Actually, yes, they worsened when his secretary of state, James Baker, was quoted as saying, "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."

YOU GET the point: Anti-Semitism and crises in the US-Israel relationship have existed in the past, and there is simply nothing like it in the current US administration. Arms embargos and aid cut-offs then truly endangered Israel's security and gave Arab states tangible proof that American support for Israel was assailable. There is no such talk of cuts today. In fact, the strong support given to Israel by Congress and the unprecedented joint anti-missile exercise carried out by US and Israeli armed forces last month should put to rest the canard of an anti-Israel America.

So why the pervasive malaise about the Obama administration - a distrust so deep that Obama's popularity in Israel is equal to the margin of error? Well, Obama's failure to visit Israel doesn't improve his popularity, nor does his repeated cold-shouldering of Israel's prime minister.

Even the appointments of prominent Jews, Rahm Emanuel (chief of staff), David Axelrod (senior advisor), Mara Rudman (NSC/Mitchell's team), Hannah Rosenthal (envoy to monitor anti-Semitism), etc. don't make a difference. They arranged the first ever Seder in the White House, and sent the president to visit a concentration camp. How can anyone accuse these individuals of being "self-hating Jews," when they are members of synagogues, observe Jewish holidays, have relatives in Israel and send their children to Jewish Day Schools?

Because they are "Newest Testament" Jews; Jews who have embraced the new American Jewish religion of tikkun olam [fix the world] liberalism. Tikkun olam is the new overarching mitzva that guides them, even though it was never one of the 613 precepts of the Torah. The founding of Israel and the creation of Palestinian refugees may not have been the Original Sin in their theology as it is to others on the Left, but the settling of the West Bank following Israel's victory in 1967 is definitely viewed by them as Israel's Golden Calf

The translation of Newest Testament universalism into action can be seen in the words and policies of the modern day shaliach tzibbur [leader of the service], J Street.

The policies of J Street - the self-proclaimed "blocking back for Obama" - hold open the option of negotiations with Hamas, oppose Iran sanctions, and embrace the Saudi Plan, now called the Arab Peace Initiative, which demands a return to the 1967 lines, dividing Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

"There will be no peace if the settlements remain in place," wrote one of the Newest Testament prophets, MJ Rosenberg. "Pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact it was pretty wonderful," he also wrote. "The secular areas [of Jerusalem] are charming but much of the rest is Jewish Taliban country... No humor, no aesthetics, just lunatics in black."

The Obama administration certainly has committed its share of questionable activities, such as ignoring George W. Bush's assurances on Israeli population centers in the West Bank, being over-confident in the ability of Palestinian security forces, attempting to appointment Chas Freeman to a high intelligence post, and abysmally executing its campaign against Israeli settlements and building in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of all, however, was the advice given by Obama advisors that the rules of tikkun olam have a place in the compassionless Middle East.

The diplomatic failures led the New York Times editorial board to conclude on November 28, "We don't know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers - specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel - than of his Mideast specialists."

Misguided, perhaps. But to declare the Obama administration to be anti-Semitic is just wrong. Let's keep the debate in the area of policy. Unfortunately, there'll be no shortage of topics to discuss.

The writer served as a senior diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington and a member of AIPAC's staff in Washington and Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997. Today he is a public affairs consultant. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 01, 2009, 06:13:51 PM

Twenty years at the feet of his Farrakhan loving "them jews" pastor, we'll just see what Barry does when Israel moves against Iran's nukes.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors: "Balderdash"
Post by: DougMacG on December 01, 2009, 08:33:23 PM

Ronald Reagan "...The sale of AWACS, just the tip of a massive arms sale and a realignment of US policy to embrace Saudi Arabia, took place under Reagan's watch..."

   - True.  I'm not aware of how Israel was harmed by that.

"Arms to Israel were embargoed and delayed after the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing..."

    - For the complicated web we weave, the US supported Israel on that one with its silence and its UN Security Council veto while the entire rest of the world demanded condemnation for the preemptive attack if I recall correctly.

"... the Pollard affair pulled the US-Israel relationship to new lows."

    - Pollard was a spy stealing national secrets and caught red-handed.  Separately there is a process for allies sharing secrets.  What was Reagan supposed to do?

"[relations]...worsened when his secretary of state, James Baker, was quoted as saying, "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."

    - He uses the quotation marks but omits the source, context or link.  (Sometimes insiders try hard to sell books.) If true (is there a youtube?), it sounds like back room, private, inappropriate, profane, political banter of standing up to interest groups, not likely to be said aloud if the hatred was real or the intent was to harm Israel.

The whole recap reminds me of a famous American who found nothing to like about America before Barack.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 02, 2009, 10:24:44 AM

      "Anti-Semitism and crises in the US-Israel relationship have existed in the past, and there is simply nothing like it in the current      US    administration"

Simply nothing like it in the current administration?

What??

As for the prominant Jews in the administration - they love and worship their own power more than Israel.

    "How can anyone accuse these individuals of being "self-hating Jews,"

Completely wrong.  These Jews who veiw anything Repubublican is worse than Nazism LOVE themselves.  I, a Jew who leans right detests them.  They are frauds, phoneys, hypocrits in my mind.
There are other Jews I relate to more.  I am proud of my fellow Jews but not these fraudulent "liberals".  If they want do good for the poor that is wonderful.  I applaud anyone who wants to help others.  Where I part ways is they want to tell the rest of us what to do.  They want to take our freedoms and give it to THEIR causes, and advance their socialistic agenda.  As for me they can do what they want with their lives, their money, but stop telling the rest of America what we ought or should be doing and how the rest of us MUST live, spend our money, how much taxes we should pay and all the rest.

    "So why the pervasive malaise about the Obama administration - a distrust so deep that Obama's popularity in Israel is equal to the margin of error?"

Baloney.  Most Israelis know Bush was a far greater friend to Israel than Obama.

   "The diplomatic failures led the New York Times editorial board to conclude on November 28, "We don't know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers - specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel - than of his Mideast specialists."

We are seeing a pattern constantly popping up in the MSM.  As Obama's policies become more obviously a failure - blame someone else and give cover to Obama.  Oh I get it.  Obama was just listening to his advisors who were trying to do a mitzvah.  I would laugh outloud if this wasn't such a blatant lie.  Obama, the most radical, leftist Presedent we have ever had, whose father was a Muslim, as was he early in his life, and then converted to Christianity and sat in a Church for a quarter century run by a guy who is an obvious anti-semite.  NOw we are supposed to believe Obama was just getting wrong advice from his advisors.
The excuse business is going to be gargantuan over the next couple years.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on December 07, 2009, 01:49:10 PM

GM,
I don't think Obama will be worse than Regan on the nuclear issue ( a pretty low standard  )  because I don't think congress will let him.  We will see.   

Doug,

Maybe I'm wrong about the way discussions should work.   However,  the article published by a reliable source  made a statement of historical fact  on James Baker.  If you wanted more support you could Google it.  It exists.   I feel  If you disagree with a fact  published by a reliable source it is your responsibility  to  research and provide the counter argument.

Are you saying that is not on you tube it didn't happen?   It was a private conversation but it still doesn't reflect well on James Baker.

This article really isn't  intended  to be an  ungrateful attack on past supporters of Israel. It is a critique of those with short memories  or  who are uniformed about the history of the middle east.  Obama has  personally made very bad policy decisions on Israel (recapped in the article)  and unfortunately will probably continue to make bad policy decisions on Israel. However, he is  not an anti-semite .  Calling Obama an anti-semite  hurts rather then help Israel because  it look unreasonable   like you are  more interested  in trashing Obama or liberals than  in the truth or in supporting Israel.


The point of the article is if you care about Israel concentrate on issues not unsubstantiated  ad hominem attacks on Obama.

Title: War zone 2.0
Post by: rachelg on December 07, 2009, 01:55:13 PM

'm not sure it will helps people's views on Israel are often more Rorschach blot  than  an unbiased view of the facts but  better to light a candle than to curse the darkness .


War zone 2.0
Dec. 3, 2009
GWEN ACKERMAN / bloomberg , THE JERUSALEM POST

A new IDF unit formed to help fight the nation's public-relations war is recruiting and training soldiers for the virtual battlefields of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

"The Internet, and especially social networks, Web 2.0 and bloggers, are an increasingly important and powerful way to disseminate information," said Sgt. Aliza Landes, who heads the unit, which was formed in September.

"Facebook has the same number of subscribers as the entire population of the US and provides a new opportunity for us to reach audiences we wouldn't reach otherwise," she said.

Israel first began seriously using the Internet as a publicrelations tool during Operation Cast Lead. The army launched a YouTube channel in December 2008 and broadcast footage of IAF attacks on Gaza targets, including one of a missile aborted once officers realized civilians were in the area.

Individual video views on the army's YouTube channel have reached more than 8.5 million people, Landes said. On Twitter, the army has 1,485 followers. It recently also started a blog and will soon launch an official presence on Facebook.

"There was awareness before Cast Lead that this was an area where the Israeli army spokesman's office should get involved and the Gaza operation galvanized the effort," Landes said in a telephone interview. "What we are doing right now is a starting point."

The UN General Assembly on November 5 voted 114 to 18, with 44 abstentions, to adopt a non-binding resolution calling for Israeli and Palestinian authorities to launch independent investigations of the fighting within three months.

The new unit "will be beneficial" to the Israeli public relations campaign abroad, said Jonathan Spyer, a political scientist at Israel's Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.

"Whether or not it will make a massive difference at the end of the day in how Israel will be perceived, that I am more skeptical about," he said.

The most recent action for the army's Internet social network unit came during last month's naval interception of a ship heading for Syria. Israel said it seized an unprecedented 500-ton haul of weapons from Iran intended for Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Landes and her soldiers made sure bloggers, whom she calls "a very critical and key element" of her work, were getting the same information the traditional media received.

"I want to make sure they can write with the same sort of authority," she said.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called the arms shipment a war crime and urged the UN to address the smuggled weapons and not the Goldstone Report on Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip.

"This is not just about addressing misinformation, although that is an important aspect," said Maj. Erik Snider, an army spokesman. "This is also a way to engage a target audience and have a dialogue with people around the world."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243068823&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: Meir Dagan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2009, 12:28:52 PM

Newspeak is often quite a Pravda, even in this article there are whiffs of it, but the article seems interesting to me nonetheless.

====================

Iran’s Worst Enemy
Israel's top spymaster will stop at nothing to prevent a nuclear Iran. Even at the expense of other threats.
By Ronen Bergman | NEWSWEEK 

Published Dec 12, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Dec 21, 2009

Even among Israel's tough security chiefs, Meir Dagan has always been known for his raw nerve. As a military trainee he would wander around the base during his off hours flinging a knife at trees and telephone poles like a circus entertainer, one fellow soldier recalls. He earned one of his first decorations as a young commando in Gaza, for snatching a live grenade from the hands of an enemy fighter. Long-haired and confident, Dagan would sometimes bring his pet Doberman, Paco, along on raids. His propensity for solving problems by force continued even after he retired from the military. He was leading a task force on terrorist financing in 2001 when his men told him they had discovered a European bank being used to channel money from Iran to Hamas. "We have the address, no?" Dagan asked his intel officers, according to a participant in the meeting, who asked not to be named for fear of angering Dagan. "Burn it down!" The horrified intelligence officers stalked out of the room in protest. (Dagan declined any comment for this story.)

Soon afterward Dagan was brought in to rejuvenate the Mossad, Israel's storied foreign intelligence serv-ice. Eight years later, after a string of covert successes attributed to the agency, he has become the country's longest-serving and most influential spy chief. His men revere him (an affection that does not extend to all their bosses, according to a recent internal survey cited by Mossad sources); even Israel's civilian leaders heed his strategic advice. But critics say his influence has been achieved at a cost: Dagan, 64, has systematically reoriented the Mossad to focus almost exclusively on what he (and most Israelis) see as the dominant threat to the country—Iran. He views almost all of Israel's national-security challenges through that prism.

 
The Israeli government's single-minded focus on Tehran has caused friction with the Obama administration, which is seeking to engage Iran and to promote a deal with the Palestinians. Publicly there is no rift: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he supports efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program diplomatically, as long as harsh sanctions are imposed if no progress is shown. But the threat of a unilateral Israeli attack remains on the table—and while that threat may give the Americans leverage in talks with Tehran, an actual attack might well invite Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.

Dagan is not arguing for a quick strike. In fact, he recently pushed back to 2014 his estimate of the date when the Islamic Republic might have the means to build and launch nuclear weapons. But his uncompromising focus on Iran at the least reinforces Netanyahu's hawkish bent. One French intelligence officer, who didn't want to be identified discussing internal Israeli politics, describes Dagan as a "tailwind" carrying Netanyahu toward military action.

As the Iranian threat has grown and Israel's political leaders have been damaged by scandal and the 2006 war with Hizbullah in Lebanon, Dagan has become one of the most powerful figures in the country. He was appointed by then–prime minister Ariel Sharon after a period of retrenchment for the Mossad, and has done much to restore the agency's reputation for ruthless efficiency. His men are considered responsible for two of the Jewish state's highest-profile recent successes: the assassination of the notorious Hizbullah mastermind Imad Mugniyah in Damascus last year, and the discovery of a key piece of intelligence that led to the bombing of a Syrian nuclear reactor that fall. When news leaked out this September that intel agencies had discovered a previously unknown uranium--enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Qum, Dagan's men quietly got the credit, although it was the Americans who made the announcement. Netanyahu occasionally travels to Dagan's office for briefings, rather than the other way around. (A Netanyahu spokesman also declined to comment.)

That kind of favoritism has irked rivals in Israel's intel establishment. They argue that his focus on Iran has led to a diversion of resources from more immediate threats. "Why is Iran more dangerous than Syria?" asks one Military Intelligence officer, who did not want to be identified criticizing Dagan. "[Syria] has an enormous army on Israel's border, and chemical weapons that could destroy this country." Some Israeli strategists argue that Damascus should be more aggressively courted, in an effort to encourage President Bashar al-Assad to sever his ties to Tehran. Dagan, on the other hand, holds that peace talks with Assad's regime are a waste of time as long as Iran remains Syria's dominant partner.

Dagan's powerful persona may be overcompensation for an early life marked by danger and deprivation. He was born in 1945 on the floor of a freezing freight car making its way from Siberia to Poland. His family, whose name was originally Huberman, fled to Israel when he was 5, on a ship that nearly sank in a storm. Meir stood on the deck wearing a life vest and gripping an orange, convinced that he was not long for this world.

Dagan dropped out of high school to try out for the Israeli military's prestigious commando unit, Sayeret Matkal, but didn't make the cut. (At Military Intelligence headquarters they complain that Dagan still nurses resentment over the slight.) Dagan eventually enlisted in an armor unit, where his sense of the existential dangers to his country only grew. "We suddenly found ourselves in a constant series of wars," he recalled to a journalist in 1999.

In 1970 Sharon, then head of the Israeli military's Southern Command, tapped the 25-year-old Dagan to command a unit of elite special-forces troops operating in the Gaza Strip. On one occasion, according to Israeli press accounts, Dagan and some of his men dressed as Palestinians, entered Gaza on a fishing boat, met with a group of PLO fighters, and killed them all. The unorthodox commando methods of the unit, called Sayeret Rimon, helped reduce terrorist attacks inside Israel significantly, but some of Dagan's men later recounted tales of atrocities: shooting Palestinians in the back and then claiming that they had tried to escape, according to one allegation. Dagan was never charged, however, and he defended himself to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in 1999, insisting that the Rimon years were not a "Wild West period … We never believed that killing women and children was permissible." Still, he added, "orders to open fire were different then. There were fewer restrictions."

At the time, the Mossad was entering its heyday. American spies found the agency's help indispensable during the Cold War. (CIA operatives were astounded when the Israelis managed to procure a Soviet MiG-21 for inspection in the mid-1960s.) By the early 1970s, when Palestinian terrorist organizations became the Mossad's biggest challenge, the agency had acquired a reputation for deadly proficiency; its operatives eliminated PLO fighters around the world, including several of those responsible for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

But the agency's influence declined in the 1980s and 1990s as violence flared inside the occupied territories (which are the responsibility of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic-security service, and the military). When then–Mossad chief Danny Yatom ordered an assassination attempt in 1997—sending operatives to Amman to inject a lethal poison into the ear of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal—the plot went badly awry and the director was forced to resign. Yatom's successor, Efraim Halevy, tolerated few risks. European and American spies began complaining that the Israelis no longer had much to offer on the international intel exchange. Although the agency's budget is a state secret, a source in the Finance Ministry says funding in the Halevy years fell by about 25 percent.

Dagan brought his flamethrower approach to the Mossad in 2001, shortly after the second intifada erupted. Dagan had worked on Sharon's campaign the previous year, but the prime minister wasn't just showing gratitude: he wanted an antidote to the timid directors of the 1990s. Dagan had plenty of military experience but had never served in the Mossad, making it easier to shake the place up. He quickly upended the organization internally and began tangling with Israel's other intelligence agencies.

His approach earned him enemies. In the intelligence world the first and toughest fight is always the battle over budgets. Dagan competes for scarce resources and influence with Israel's Military Intelligence and Shin Bet, among others. In a brazen power grab, the Mossad director began ordering his subordinates to stonewall the other agencies. Dagan appointed an enforcer code-named "Mr. A," whose job was to frustrate rivals in MI. According to Mossad and MI sources who did not want to be identified discussing interagency frictions, the tension grew so unbearable that MI officers began avoiding Mossad headquarters. They taunted Mr. A by calling him by his real name.

Dagan was also making enemies inside the Mossad. He became known for inspecting field stations without notice and shouting at the agents, "What have you done for me lately?" His tantrums sparked waves of resignations. "Let them go," the director once scoffed, according to a source who spoke to him. "We can start from the beginning." Dagan slashed the Mossad's list of targets, announcing that the agency would dedicate most of its resources to only two threats: Iran and terrorism from abroad—meaning primarily the Iranian-backed groups Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. "The list must be short," he said. "If we continue pretending we can do everything, in the end we won't do anything."

Dagan's single-minded focus quickly began to show results. American and Israeli agents discovered in late 2002 that Iran had been working with Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan to build an enrichment facility in Natanz. The information was leaked to an Iranian opposition group called the National Council of Resistance, which released it in 2003, causing an international furor. Later, unexplained accidents began plaguing the Iranian nuclear project, delaying the enrichment process. Scientists started disappearing, labs caught on fire, and aircraft connected to the effort mysteriously fell from the sky. Intelligence sources, who declined to be identified discussing covert operations, say Mossad had a hand in several of these incidents. As Dagan's successes multiplied, so did his budget. Now, "whatever we want, we get," says one senior Mossad officer who recently retired but prefers not to speak publicly about the agency.

Yet as Dagan's power base has expanded, some Israelis have begun to worry that the Mossad director has acquired too much political influence. Dagan developed close ties to neoconservative policymakers in the United States during the Bush-Cheney years, and Dagan's critics charge that the Mossad's intelligence estimates are being tailored to fit the director's personal views, just as Bush advisers were accused of "stovepiping" evidence to suit their agenda. In particular, Dagan's hardline position on Syria echoes the warnings of Bush-era neocons that Assad's regime is hopelessly devoted to Tehran. A European intelligence officer who was stationed in Israel several years ago recalls the Mossad boss trashing colleagues who argued for engaging Damascus. "I was under the impression that he felt like he reflected White House policy," the intelligence officer says.

That said, Dagan's dark view of the Iran threat is widely shared. German, French, and British intelligence agencies all sided with him when he disputed the CIA's 2007 National Intelligence Estimate downplaying Tehran's nuclear program. And in Israel, where political influence has always been tied up with military valor, it's not surprising that his voice would be heeded in the circles of power. He was appointed to make the Mossad more aggressive, and has succeeded. What remains to be seen is whether in the long run his aggression will be more dangerous to Israel or to its enemies.

Bergman, senior political and military analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, is the author ofThe Secret War With Iran.

Title: Missing boy found unharmed near Jerusalem
Post by: rachelg on December 17, 2009, 05:02:05 PM

Missing boy found unharmed near J'lem
Dec. 17, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

After almost ten hours of searches, an eight-year-old boy who went missing during a family outing in the Burma forest on the outskirts of Jerusalem on Wednesday afternoon was found unharmed in the Sha'ar Hagai area.

The boy, Ofra resident Nitzan Cohen, was hiking with his family. At one point, the children ran up ahead, and when the parents called them back Nitzan did not respond.

"He disappeared within a fraction of a second, the whole thing took less that half a minute," Channel 2 quoted Nitzan's worried father as saying. Because the boy is autistic, police decided to call in large forces to the area, according to the report.

In addition to police forces and firefighting teams, more than 1,500 people volunteered to take part in the search efforts.

The search party was diverse, and included Arab Israelis, haredi Jews, West Bank settlers and residents of nearby kibbutzim and moshavim, Israel Radio reported.

Several minutes after midnight, one of the search teams found Cohen near the Sha'ar Hagai Farm, several kilometers away from the spot where he was last seen in the afternoon.

A medical team examined the boy and found that he was healthy and unharmed.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930884667&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: Editor's Notes: A nation held hostage
Post by: rachelg on December 27, 2009, 07:40:51 AM

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Editor's Notes: A nation held hostage
Dec. 24, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Gilad Schalit has become our nation's child - and now the symbol, potentially, of either our heroic, vital humanity or of our essential, self-preserving clear-headedness

"Among the most important policies which must be adopted in the face of terrorism is the refusal to release convicted terrorists from prisons. This is a mistake that Israel, once the leader in anti-terror techniques, has made over and over again. Release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives. But its utility is momentary at best.

"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the kind of terrorist blackmail which they are supposed to defuse...

"In the case of a prolonged and sustained [terrorist] campaign lasting months or years, the natural disgust of the public with the terrorist's message begins to break down and is often replaced by a willingness to accommodate terrorist demands. By preparing terrorism-education campaigns... the government can inoculate the population against the impulse to give in when faced with protracted terrorist pressure...

"And once the terrorists know that virtually the entire population will stand behind the government's decision never to negotiate with them, the possibility of actually extracting political concessions will begin to look exceedingly remote to them...

"Terrorism has the unfortunate quality of expanding to fill the vacuum left to it by passivity or weakness. And it shrinks accordingly when confronted with resolute and decisive action. Terrorists may test this resolution a number of times before they draw back, and a government has to be prepared to sustain its anti-terror policies through shrill criticism, anxious calls to give in to terrorists' demands, and even responses of panic. But it is a certainty that there is no way to fight terrorism - other than to fight it."

- From the concluding chapter of the 1995 book "Fighting Terrorism," by Binyamin Netanyahu.

RE-READING THE above argument amid the current national anguish over the Gilad Schalit prisoner exchange, one is struck by the dispassion of its tone.

Netanyahu is right, of course. He was then and he is now. Giving in to terrorism only emboldens it. And Israel has been giving in, more and more disproportionately, further emboldening terrorism, for years.

But Netanyahu wasn't prime minister when he wrote those words in 1995. He could afford the luxury of writing without passion, without emotional connection.

Gilad Schalit was a little boy in 1995. Now he's our nation's blameless heart-wrencher, wasting away in some hellhole in Gaza because, as of this writing, Netanyahu's government hasn't given in to all of Hamas's outrageous demands.

Netanyahu's government has indicated it will likely give in to most of them, even though the prime minister knows "this is a mistake that Israel, once the leader in anti-terror techniques, has made over and over again." He knows and he's trying to mitigate the damage. He's cast around for alternatives. But his security chiefs could not provide a rescue option. And to date he's chosen to eschew the renewal of previously attempted routes of direct pressure such as arrests of Hamas politicians and targeted strikes on key figures. So he's trying to drive a better bargain.

This isn't the book-writing world of 1995. The terrorist challenge comes not from a small, non-state organization but from a government on our southern doorstep, a terrorist government with religious motivation that fully intends to take over the leadership of Palestine. How, in this impossibly complex reality, is the prime minister to bring home Schalit without crowning Hamas and causing strategic damage to Israel? Or, alternatively, how is he not to bring home Schalit without causing strategic damage in a nation of watching mothers and fathers who send their children out to protect it?

Perhaps Israeli Arabs will be left off the final list - averting at least that debilitating deferral of Israeli sovereignty to the Islamists.

Perhaps some of the bloodiest killers will be sent into exile. The 13 Palestinian gunmen dispatched to Europe after the 2002 siege in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity are all understood to still be overseas, seven years later. But which law-abiding nation would play host to the worst of the convicted murderers? And what benefit would there be in exiling them to parts of this region where they would be free to plot more bloodshed?

Perhaps Netanyahu will yet manage to keep the most dangerous terrorists behind Israeli bars after all - the plotter of the Netanya Park Hotel Pessah massacre, the overseer of tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi's assassination. Perhaps. Perhaps.

IT'S DIFFERENT when you're prime minister. All the theories suddenly get overwhelmed by the realities.

The Schalits, who raised their child for national service and now rightfully insist that you bring him home, are outside your front door. And they are wonderful people. Loving. Determined. Heroic, even.

For Aviva, Gilad's mother, to decline to criticize ministers who have opposed the terms of the deal by saying this week that "it isn't a question of right or wrong," and that "I can understand the difficulty the ministers are facing," was remarkable. But she also said: "He can still be brought back alive."

Indeed, he can. But at what price?

IT'S DIFFERENT for Netanyahu when theory comes up against reality, and it's different for the entire nation. We go back and forth, circling and re-evaluating and arguing with ourselves, longing for clarity, sometimes convincing ourselves that there is clarity. What there is, is blackmail; they snatched a soldier and they want us to free murderers and potential murderers to get him back.

The nation is with the Schalits - engaged by their dignity, their helplessness, their iron will. And families nationwide imagine themselves facing the same plight, with their child - one moment safely within Israel, protecting our border; the next dragged away into Gaza - kept tantalizingly just out of reach by murderous extortionists. Pay the ransom, we urge from our gut.

Over hundreds and hundreds of obsessively documented days, Gilad has become our nation's child - and now the symbol, potentially, of either our heroic, vital humanity or of our essential, self-preserving clear-headedness.

The nation is not thinking clearly, but then nor is it required to. It sees a choice between failing the families of the already bereaved by setting free the terrorists who killed their loved ones, or failing the family of Gilad Schalit, whose loved one still lives and breathes. And however fraught, that dilemma is clearly solved: Save what can still be saved.

But is that really the equation? Isn't the choice between the Schalits and the families who have yet to be bereaved, the families as yet unnamed whose lives will be torn asunder when proven Palestinian killers are set free again to hatch new schemes?

Back and forth we go, because, actually, it's not that black and white. Maybe the IDF, the same IDF that gave Gilad Schalit his uniform and whose top commander is adamantly prepared to take the risk of combating a new wave of terrorism for the sake of bringing him home, will frustrate those freed terrorists' next attempts at kidnapping and murder.

"The resistance, which has succeeded in capturing Gilad Schalit," Hamas's Khaled Mashaal boasted two months ago, "is capable of capturing another Schalit and another Schalit and another Schalit, until not a single prisoner will remain in the enemy's jails." Well, maybe not. The IDF frustrated Hamas's carefully laid plans to kidnap soldiers in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. Aware of the dangers, it can do more to forestall them.

Maybe the IDF, the Shin Bet et al will prevent others dying at the hands of the terrorists; look at the success in radically reducing attacks from the hellish proportions of the suicide-bomber onslaught six and seven years ago. Maybe they can prevent further loss of soldiers' and civilians' lives even if we are forced to wage another war on terror. Gilad is alive and we can get him back. That is fact and the rest is speculation. This young man is a son of Israel, and the extraordinary lengths we go for our children is why this country is different. It's why we're different from those brutal regimes around us. It's why we love this country. It's why we send our children to fight to protect it.

BUT THEN again, back and forth, isn't this argument just a case of emotion sweeping us away? Isn't cold fact against us?

In years past, we might have invoked the claim of mere "speculation" to douse the contention that releasing terrorists for hostages will surely mean more of our loved ones will die. But nowadays, there's bitter, bloody evidence out there.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a report last year, quoted an estimate by the security services that some 50 percent of the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners released by Israel since 1985 had returned to terrorism, "either as a perpetrator, planner or accomplice," killing hundreds of Israelis. In the case of the 1985 "Jibril deal" for the return of three soldiers captured in Lebanon, the report states, "the Israel Defense Ministry determined that 114 out of the 238 [convicted terrorists] who were released returned to terrorism."

A single example from a more recent "exchange": Matsab Hashalmon, jailed in 2003 for membership in a terrorist organization and freed in the January 2004 deal with Hizbullah that saw the release of Elhanan Tenenbaum, promptly recruited the two suicide bombers who blew up two buses in Beersheba just seven months later, killing 16 civilians. Sixteen. One freed killer. Sixteen devastated families.

But that was in the bad days of the suicide bomber onslaught? Doesn't the recent calm marginalize those statistics?

Well, there is more.

WE HAVE reached no peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, but he insists he seeks a viable accommodation alongside us, and speaks out, even this week, in Arabic, about his opposition to a third intifada, to a revival of armed struggle against Israel. Hamas's Mashaal, visiting Teheran last week, by contrast, made explicit that "resistance is the strategic option of Hamas, resistance groups and the Palestinian people, and we will never surrender to political and military pressures."

Won't an ill-considered exchange merely feed the beast? Won't it make an absolute mockery of Israel's controversial effort to reduce support for Hamas by maintaining a blockade on Gaza? We punish the ordinary people but capitulate to their extortionist leadership?

There are few who dispute the immense boost Hamas would gain from a mass prisoner release, secured by extorting Israel over Schalit. Hamas is already preparing its victory celebrations. Hamas is already poised to celebrate this exposure of Israeli impotence - the mighty Israel of Entebbe and Osirak, incapable of extracting a soldier from the patch of land next door - this destruction of Israeli deterrence, this triumphant rebound from the demonstration of Israeli military power in Operation Cast Lead.

Hamas is already contemplating the momentum this vindication of its strategy will provide for its supporters in the West Bank - and the momentum this will give to Hizbullah in Lebanon and to their would-be nuclear state sponsor, Iran. Hamas is already anticipating the blow to the credibility of relative moderates such as Abbas. Hamas is already gauging how far forward this will take it toward the full dominance of the Palestinian polity, en route to the full dominance of Palestine.

DEEP, DEEP down, many Israelis know all of this. We are not stupid people.

We know that, even as the inner cabinet was weighing the terms of the deal on Monday, another family was being torn apart. Mor Cohen was killed in a training accident, shot dead through what ought to have been an impermeable wall during an exercise on the Golan Heights. "I always feared he would be kidnapped," said his mother, Ricky. "And now he has been; now he has been snatched from me."

Stoically, astoundingly, she added that she did not blame the army for his death. The family mourned; Mor's father collapsed. The nation watched in horror. And then the nation moved on.

But Schalit is different. Don't "lay all the problems of the Middle East onto our son's narrow shoulders," Aviva and Noam Shalit pleaded in a letter to the prime minister this week. How can the heart not be moved by such a plea? How right and just it is. Why should Gilad have found himself at this nexus? What did he do to deserve this? Get him out...

Mor Cohen is dead. It is tragic. But there is nothing we can do now to bring him back. Gilad Schalit is alive. We can save him.

We don't want to think about how the life of the nation might be affected by another of what the Winograd Commission on the Second Lebanon War branded these "crazy deals," in this case empowering a movement strategically committed to our destruction. And, again, finally, that's understandable and it is legitimate. We're allowed to be moved by our emotions, our sympathies, our humanity. We, the people, are allowed not to have to think about the wider implications for our own well-being.

And in a country that requires national conscription, a country where mothers and fathers nationwide have sons and daughters in uniform today and are preparing to send sons and daughters to fight for our defense tomorrow - a country where all those families are watching what their government now does to save a single, hapless soldier - it's not quite so simple to say "We don't do deals with terrorists."

The theories so expertly articulated by Netanyahu the 1995 prime ministerial candidate have come smack up against the realities confronting Netanyahu the 2009 prime minister. Can he, dare he, strike a deal with Hamas? Can he, dare he, fail to strike one?

There's no simple decision, but there is a right one. And it's not for the people of this nation, held hostage by Hamas, to take.

That's why we have leadership.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364499273&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]

Title: Rorschach Test
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 03, 2010, 09:37:38 AM

George Gilder's Israel Test: Who Passes? Who Fails?

By Ron Lipsman
In his remarkably philo-Semitic book The Israel Test, George Gilder poses a short series of moral questions to both individuals and nations, the answers to which determine on which side the respondent falls in the ongoing struggle for the political, economic, and cultural soul of the world's people. Mr. Gilder's dramatic thesis is stated forcefully and clearly in the opening paragraphs of his book, which I quote in part:

The central issue in international politics ... is the tiny state of Israel. The prime issue is not a global war of civilizations between the West and Islam ...The real issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous "fairness," between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment of it.

Israel defines a line of demarcation. On one side...are those who see capitalism as a zero-sum game in which success comes at the expense of the poor...On the other side are those who see the genius and good fortune of some as a source of wealth and opportunity for all.

The test can be summarized by a few questions: What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down? Caroline Glick ... sums it up: "Some people admire success; some people envy it. The enviers hate Israel."

Today tiny Israel ... stands behind only the United States in technological contributions. In per-capita innovation, Israel dwarfs all nations.

As if the anti-Semites of the world needed another reason to hate the Jews. Gilder has not only highlighted two of the most historic causes of Jew-hatred, but he has wrapped them in a brilliantly colored package, which on the one hand explains much of the vilification of Israel that occurs today, and on the other, will surely attract more hatred in their direction. To explain, let me quickly recall a (probably incomplete) list of seven main reasons for anti-Semitism. The first four of the following are couched in terms an anti-Semite might use.

1. The arrogance of the "chosen people." That this tiny, in some ways wretched band of people would declare themselves chosen by God, entrusted with His mission of redeeming humanity, and then flaunt their arrogance by holding themselves above all mankind in their perverted pursuit of that goal is insulting, contemptible, and incendiary. Small wonder that their haughtiness has earned them the enmity of most of humanity.

2. Ethical monotheism. As inventors of a demanding morality (embodied in the Ten Commandments), and by their continued promulgation of their God's moral law, they render uncomfortable many who would prefer not to be bound by the standards of the Jewish God's dictates.

3. Refusal to accept Christ. They spurned the true Messiah when he appeared on Earth and their continued existence is an affront to the Christian religion, which superseded the original mandate the Jews received from God.

4. Infidels. They rejected Mohammed and they epitomize the infidels of the world who stand in the way of a worldwide caliphate and the global reign of Islam.

5. Generally obnoxious. I am not engaging in self-hatred here, yet I think that it is not incorrect to assert that no other ethnic group has a leg up on the Jews in the category of "behaving obnoxiously."

6. Money-grubbers. With their seemingly natural affinity for commerce, the Jews of the world, in their roles as bankers, investors, entrepreneurs, accountants, and businessmen, have proven repeatedly that their ability to accumulate wealth -- sometimes deemed at the expense of others -- far exceeds that of their neighbors, thereby engendering the envy and resentment of Gentiles.

7. Unnatural success. Envy and resentment of the Jews is not restricted to their role in commerce. In the arts, sciences, technology, politics, law, and even war (at times), the achievements of this tiny tribe is so far above the median that it causes wonder and amazement. The ensuing reaction of many is more than envy and resentment. It encompasses a belief that the Jews must be lying, cheating, and stealing from the Gentiles -- behavior that merits punishment and retribution.

It is the last two reasons that Gilder has highlighted and conjoined. How? Well, in the last two decades, Israel has performed a sharp about-face in regard to its fundamental economic philosophy. Its founders a century ago were hardcore socialists, and the Labor Party that unilaterally ruled the nation (from pre-State days until thirty years ago) represented that mentality. From Labor's fall in 1977, it took more than fifteen years for the nation to overcome its economic blindness. But beginning in the last decade of the 20th century, Israel finally unleashed the entrepreneurial power of its highly educated and creative citizenry. The Zionists became capitalists.

The long delay in the arrival of that transformation is ironic. As Gilder points out,

The great irony of Israel is that for much of its short history it has failed the Israel test. It has been a reactionary force, upholding the same philosophy of victimization and Socialist redistribution that has been a leading enemy and obstacle for Jewish accomplishment throughout the ages. As a Jewish country, Israel should have arisen rapidly after the war as a center of Jewish achievement. Instead, its leftist assumptions actually inclined it toward the Soviet model...Until the 1990s, Jews could succeed far more readily in the United States than in Israel. The Israel test gauges the freedom and equality of opportunity in a country by the success of Jews there. By this Israel test, the United States was far freer and more favorable to creativity and excellence, and thus to Jewish achievement, than the state of Israel itself.

But the Jews of Israel have more than made up for the lost time, as the closing paragraph of the opening quote from Gilder makes clear. (The actual statistics are on page 109 in his book.) To reiterate, in terms of technological innovation, Israel ranks ahead of all the nations of Western Europe, ahead of all the Asian tigers, and behind only the U.S. And that is only in absolute terms; per capita, Israel's entrepreneurial productivity dwarfs that of any other country. "Wonder and amazement!"

Thus, it is clear how Gilder has folded together items 6 and 7. The Jews are not only "guilty" of an abnormal ability to handle money and of achievements way beyond the norm -- but the two come together in an explosion of capitalistic entrepreneurship in the small desert nation. Swell! The Jewish nation is now a model of free-market capitalism. One of the prime reasons that too many of the world's people lustily despise the United States is its grand success as the greatest capitalistic nation in the history of the world. Israel now joins the U.S. as a second exemplar of democratic capitalism. As I said, the world did not have enough reasons to hate Israel. Now it has a "new one." But note: The first four reasons for anti-Semitism that I cited are special to the Jewish people. (Some would say, "So is the fifth.") On the other hand, the amalgam of 6 and 7 that Gilder has identified is now intimately tied to the United States.

According to Gilder, all those who hate Israel -- and the U.S., for that matter -- because of their economic success are flunking the Israel test. Incapable of celebrating the exceptional achievements of a small nation, they seethe at Israel's accomplishments. Rather than imitate Israel's methods, they impugn Israel's motives and seek to blame the poverty of Israel's Arab neighbors on the Jewish nation's economic prowess. They hurl the epithet "Nazi" at Israel, even if they are aware of the obscenity that such an accusation represents.

But make no mistake: The hatred of Israel extends to an equally virulent hatred of America. In the words of Iran's mullahs, the USA is the "Great Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan." Both must be eradicated. Well, the mullahs are certainly among the Israel-haters referred to above. Who are the others? Let us examine who has passed the Israel test and who has failed it. First, I'll discuss those who receive a passing grade -- a pathetically short list, actually. It includes the United States, a few other nations in the Western Hemisphere, a small group of European countries, and a very limited number of Asian and South Pacific states. I have purposefully not identified the specific countries that pass the Israel test (beside the U.S.) because it is a highly subjective exercise, and I venture that the list's contents would depend heavily on who is compiling it. For example, Canada is on the list, but is Mexico? Poland makes the cut; sadly, Britain probably does not; and what about Germany? Regardless of who compiles the list, it is guaranteed to be short.

Fifty years ago, the list was much longer. However, the Israel test was also much easier to pass back then. Israel was a socialist country, the world was restrained by the shame of the recent Holocaust, and the tiny Jewish nation was still cast as the underdog in its battle to survive in the Middle East. But the Six-Day War in 1967 removed the underdog status, the check that the memory of the Holocaust exerts has weakened substantially, and Israel has cashed in socialism for capitalism. The list of those who pass the test has shrunk dramatically. Former friends like France vanished from it long ago. Other Western European and South American nations have followed suit in recent years.

Now who has failed the test? Above all, the Muslim world has. With the exception of Turkey -- and it seems to be reassessing its stand lately -- the unremitting hostility toward Israel from the Muslim world is nearly universal, not to mention fierce and grotesque. The next group of failures includes all the left-leaning socialist and semi-socialist countries of the world. Outside the Soviet bloc, that group was relatively small and declining during and after the Reagan era. But in recent times, it has noticeably expanded, and all those who have fallen into the leftist mode are now earning failing grades on the Israel test. Then there are the third- and fourth-world basket-cases throughout Africa and Asia. The fact that they extort foreign aid from the U.S. and Israel does not prevent them from falling in line behind the previous two groups in their condemnations of Israel. That doesn't leave many countries on the map. In summary, aside from the U.S. and a few other friendly countries, the vast majority of the world's nations earn failing grades on the Israel test.

Here is a really sad postscript to the previous observations. Even within the countries that pass the test, there are substantial segments of the population that fail individually (or in groups). This is true of even the United States. For heaven's sake, the President of the United States gets a resounding failing mark on the test. And finally, painful as it is to admit, one must acknowledge that a not insignificant part of the Israeli public -- largely left over from the halcyon days of Labor rule -- flunks the test as well.

If Western Europe continues to decay, and if the U.S. succumbs to the socialists who are currently running our country, then it is legitimate to ask what comes next. Who will be the world's top dog? China? Russia? India? An Islamic caliphate? The answer to that question is only partly clear. Russia and the Muslim world flunk the Israel test, hands down. If Gilder is right, neither will be top dog of anything. What about China or India? In some sense, both are still sitting for the test. Their fates -- and ours -- await the outcome.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/george_gilders_israel_test_who.html at January 03, 2010 - 12:34:28 PM EST

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 12, 2010, 06:58:05 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html

Op-Ed ColumnistThe Tel Aviv Cluster

Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates.

Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.

In his book, “The Golden Age of Jewish Achievement,” Steven L. Pease lists some of the explanations people have given for this record of achievement. The Jewish faith encourages a belief in progress and personal accountability. It is learning-based, not rite-based.

Most Jews gave up or were forced to give up farming in the Middle Ages; their descendants have been living off of their wits ever since. They have often migrated, with a migrant’s ambition and drive. They have congregated around global crossroads and have benefited from the creative tension endemic in such places.

Title: Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2010, 09:27:06 AM

Israel plans to ask Germany to sell a sixth discounted Dolphin-class diesel submarine when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visit Berlin on Jan. 18, Reuters reported Jan. 14, citing officials. While Dolphins cost $700 million, the ones currently in Israel’s fleet were sold at a deep discount.

Turkey has accepted Israel’s apology in the diplomatic friction between Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon and Turkish Ambassador Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, a resolution in which Israeli President Shimon Peres played a large part, Ynet reported Jan. 14, citing Turkish Foreign Ministry sources. One source called Peres the wisest man in the Middle East, a reference to his appeal to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to secure an apology.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Lebanon this week that Israel could be planning an attack, Haaretz reported Jan. 14, citing a report in the London-based Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat. The daily, citing Lebanese sources, reported that Erdogan warned Lebanese leaders about a potential Israeli attack on Lebanon.


Stratfor

Title: Haiti: Woman gives birth in IDF emergency field hospital
Post by: rachelg on January 17, 2010, 06:24:47 PM

Haiti: Woman gives birth in IDF emergency field hospital
Jan. 18, 2010
E. B. SOLOMONT, jpost correspondent in PORT-AU-PRINCE , THE JERUSALEM POST
The IDF's field hospital in the Haitian capital worked at full capacity throughout Sunday, treating a relentless stream of victims from what a senior IDF medical officer described as "the war outside."

Overnight Saturday, in what staff described as one of the most fulfilling moments of their work, the Israeli doctors delivered a baby boy, whose mother, Gubilande Jean Michel, promptly declared would be named "Israel."

Meanwhile, the IDF's rescue teams continued to play their vital role in the international race against time to find survivors from last Tuesday's quake. Team members saved the life of a customs clerk who had been trapped in his office by debris, and then sent him for treatment in the field hospital.

Israeli officials noted that, from their experience, it is reasonable to believe survivors can yet be located and extricated five or six days after a disaster of this kind, but very rarely beyond that time period.

With most medical facilities here out of commission, the Israeli hospital has drawn a constant throng of locals needing urgent medical care.

More than 100 survivors have been treated, with three in 10 in serious condition and 50 percent moderately injured. Children comprise more than half of the injured, most with limb injuries and bone fractures. Nearly a dozen lifesaving operations have been performed.

Set up in an industrial park, and staffed with 40 doctors, 40 nurses and medics, the hospital has been constantly treating patients since Saturday.

"There is no hospital around, so the ambulances started bringing patients here," said Col. Carmi Bar-Tal, the deputy head of the IDF emergency and medical unit. "There is a war outside," he said, gesturing to the compound's gates where a crowd was awaiting help.

Inside, the army tents house orthopedic, emergency and surgical units. Doctors are equipped to handle pediatric and adult emergency care. There are two operating beds, X-ray facilities and a laboratory. "We know that what we are giving them is the only thing they have," Bar-Tal said. "We discharge patients but don't know what awaits them afterwards. At least we gave them a chance to live."

Newly born Israel's mother Gubilande, who is 24, arrived by ambulance on Saturday night, accompanied by a cousin. She had left her three other children with her parents. Her husband has been missing since the quake.

Bar-Tal noted that the IDF's participation in 10 previous relief missions in catastrophic situations had given it vital experience for coping in this environment. "We have the capacity to help," he said. "We know how to bring medicine to the field."

Virgine Géré, 36, was brought in with a gunshot wound in her right shoulder.

Her boss accidentally shot her and the bullet penetrated her chest. On Sunday, she lay in a cot with tubes running straight from her chest. "For now, she is stable," said Dr. Noam Zeller Lion.

Besides the urgent need for medical care in Port-au-Prince, Haitians are desperate for water and food. Communication is spotty and fuel supplies are depleting. Some Haitians are crossing to the Dominican Republic to purchase supplies.

In Port-au-Prince, throngs of people lined up at gas stations to buy gasoline at $10 per gallon.

Throughout Sunday, crews worked to clear rubble from the streets. People picked through collapsed homes searching for victims. Nearly everyone here is living outside, since few structures are safe. The sprawling tent cities reek of desperation.

The Israeli rescuers have been well received by the Haitians. TV cameramen photographed survivors applauding and singing next to an IDF search and rescue team after they pulled someone out of a collapsed building. "Good job, Israel," the crowds sang over and over.

IsraAID has sent a medical team to the Port-au-Prince hospital, while ZAKA International has continued to search for survivors.

"The scenes in the hospitals were horrendous. Everywhere on the floors of the building and outside, there are people with amputations and bone-deep wounds, hundreds of them," said Sheve Cohen, a nurse from the Negev.

"The size of the catastrophe is unbelievable. All of
the injured were being treated, until we came by, by one local doctor. We were the first foreign backup team to operate in the hospital."

IsraAID is trying to expand its operation and additional teams will be sent next week.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147915036&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Title: The Gaza quagmire
Post by: rachelg on January 19, 2010, 06:14:34 PM

The Gaza quagmire
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147922949&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
Jan. 18, 2010
, THE JERUSALEM POST
Since Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, and violently seized power in Gaza a year later, Israel has been seeking to expedite the Islamist group's demise without resorting to an all-out effort at military victory. The hope is that Hamas will continue to be denied international legitimacy and will gradually lose its capacity to run Gaza, and that an organization overtly committed to Israel's destruction will be replaced by more moderate leadership.

Hence the Israeli government chose not to order the IDF to oust Hamas from Gaza during Operation Cast Lead a year ago, and is instead maintaining an economic blockade on the Strip.

Now, on its side of the border, Egypt is tightening its siege on Hamas, constructing an underground barrier that aims to cut off the arms- and goods-smuggling tunnels that serve as a lifeline for the Hamas quasi-state.

Plainly, Hamas is worried by the potential impact on its capacity to proceed with its campaign of jihad against Israel, and its capacity to meet the needs of the Gaza populace. It orchestrated violent protests at the border earlier this month, including a gunfight in which an Egyptian soldier was killed, betraying the depth of its concern.

But despite protests against the Egyptian barrier elsewhere in the region too, Egypt has remained unmoved. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a perennial threat to the Mubarak government, and Cairo has evidently decided that Hamas's smuggling activities and the threat of increased Hamas influence in the Sinai Peninsula represent a challenge to Egyptian sovereignty.

At this point, there are few signs that the Hamas regime in Gaza is truly shaking. Indeed, Hamas proved all-too capable of restoring its rule even in the aftermath of the devastating impact of Cast Lead.

But were Hamas to begin to lose its grip, it is far from clear that the joint Israeli and Egyptian hope, of the return of secular Fatah rule to Gaza, enabling a new stability, is well-founded.

AMONG THE alternative Gaza succession scenarios, indeed, is the prospect of the flourishing of the Al-Qaida-inspired global jihadi camp.

This camp has been trying to establish a foothold in Gaza for years, so far with only limited success. It learned the hard way last year that its presence may be tolerated by Hamas only if it does not pose an open challenge.

Thus, when Sheikh Abdel-Latif Moussa used a Friday afternoon sermon at his Rafah mosque last August to declare southern Gaza to be an Islamic emirate - a first step in the process toward the al-Qaida goal of an Islamic caliphate - the Hamas response was brutal. Hundreds of Hamas gunmen stormed the mosque, firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at the building, killing or injuring nearly everyone inside.

Global jihadis in Gaza have been licking their wounds ever since, trying to rebuild their forces without aggravating Hamas again.

According to one recent study, they have also attempted to solicit the support and recognition of the "official" al-Qaida network of Osama bin Laden.

The study, carried out by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and co-authored by former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) deputy director-general Yoram Cohen, said al-Qaida is proving reluctant to provide the would-be holy warriors in Gaza with its seal of approval… for the time being.

Although al-Qaida has long chastised Hamas for failing to look beyond Israel and link up with bin Laden's global war, it is also skeptical over the survivability and ideological commitment of global jihadis in Gaza, the study said. The jihadis remain hopeful, however, and claim to be plotting large-scale attacks in a bid to earn al-Qaida's approval.

Al-Qaida has proven its ability to move into the vacuum left behind by failed states, and convert territories with no sovereignty into bases for global jihad. For now, Hamas retains a firm grip on Gaza, and the prospect of its replacement by an even more radical entity, made up of a coalition of al-Qaida-affiliated organizations dedicated to bin Laden's global war, is remote.

But the ambition is certainly there. And the existence of so dark a scenario only underlines the escalated complexity of attempting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when the Palestinian people are divided into two distinct, mutually hostile, geographic and political entities.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147922949&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2010

Title: WaPo: Hezbollah's rocket relocations
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2010, 09:13:12 AM

Hezbollah's relocation of rocket sites to Lebanon's interior poses wider threat
 
 
By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 23, 2010
BEIRUT -- Hezbollah has dispersed its long-range-rocket sites deep into northern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, a move that analysts say threatens to broaden any future conflict between the Islamist movement and Israel into a war between the two countries.

More than 10,000 U.N. troops now patrol traditional Hezbollah territory in southern Lebanon along the Israeli border, and several thousand Lebanese armed forces personnel also have moved into the area. A cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerrillas in summer 2006 triggered a month-long war that prompted the United Nations to deploy its force as part of a cease-fire.
The United Nations is confident that the dense presence of its troops in the comparatively small area is helping lower the risk of conflict and minimizing Hezbollah's ability to move weapons across southern Lebanon, but analysts in Lebanon and Israel say the U.N. mission is almost beside the point.

Hezbollah's redeployment and rearmament indicate that its next clash with Israel is unlikely to focus on the border, instead moving farther into Lebanon and challenging both the military and the government. The situation is important for U.S. efforts in the region, whether aimed at curbing the influence of Hezbollah's patrons in Iran or at persuading Syria to moderate its stance toward Israel and its neighbors.

Hezbollah "learned their lesson" in 2006, when vital intelligence enabled the Israel Defense Forces to destroy the group's long-range launch sites in the first days of the conflict, said reserve Gen. Aharon Zeevi Farkash, a former head of IDF intelligence. In effect, he said, "the 'border' is now the Litani River," with Hezbollah's rocket sites possibly extending north of Beirut.

In a December briefing, Brig. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, the IDF head of operations, said some Hezbollah rockets now have a range of more than 150 miles -- making Tel Aviv reachable from as far away as Beirut. The Islamist group has talked openly of its efforts to rebuild, and Israel estimates that Hezbollah has about 40,000 projectiles, most of them shorter-range rockets and mortar shells.

The group "has been fortifying lots of different areas," said Judith Palmer Harik, a Hezbollah scholar in Beirut. With U.N. and Lebanese forces "packed along the border," she said, "we are looking at a much more expanded battle in all senses of the word."

Just a matter of time?


The border has been relatively quiet since the 2006 war, a fact that officials with the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon attribute at least partly to the 400 or so patrols they send out each day to search for weapons stores and prevent border violations.

Armored U.N. vehicles sit at the entrance to southern Lebanon, alongside Lebanese army and intelligence checkpoints; blue-flagged U.N. troops occupy mountaintop posts that Hezbollah used as firing sites in 2006.

"We are covering every square inch," said Maj. S.K. Misra, a spokesman for the battalion of India's 3/11 Gurkha Rifles corps that patrols southeastern Lebanon. "It's impossible for anything to move."

At the same time, debate is raging in political and military circles between those who argue that the damage to each side in 2006 has created a sort of respectful deterrence between Israel and Hezbollah and those who say it is only a matter of time before violence erupts again.

Hezbollah lost hundreds of fighters in the conflict and was put on the defensive in Lebanon, where some questioned whether the group's vow to continue "resistance" against Israel was worth letting an unregulated paramilitary organization effectively make decisions about war and peace.

==========

With Iran backing and supplying Hezbollah and the United States backing and supplying Israel, "the battlefield is Lebanon," said Marwan Hamadeh, a Lebanese member of parliament and supporter of a government coalition that is trying to curb Hezbollah's arms and limit Syrian and Iranian influence in the country. "This is where the Iranian missiles sit, and this is where the Israeli air force can reach."


Israel, meanwhile, lost more than 100 troops and uncharacteristically large numbers of tanks, helicopters and other equipment -- prompting it to rewrite its war doctrine and adjust its perception of Hezbollah's militia. Military analysts now see Hezbollah not as primarily a guerrilla force but as an organization that practices "hybrid war," mixing classic guerrilla tactics with the strategy, equipment and capability of a standing army.

In a 2008 report for the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, analysts Stephen D. Biddle and Jeffrey A. Friedman concluded that Hezbollah had performed more effectively in 2006 than any of the Arab armies from Egypt, Syria or Jordan that had fought conventional wars with Israel over the years, and better in some ways than the Iraqi army in its two wars with the United States.

In Beirut, politicians and analysts agree that the group has only grown stronger since 2006. As they hear Hezbollah's secretary general, Hasan Nasrallah, speak of a conflict that will "change the face of the region," many assume that the IDF will not allow the organization to rearm, recruit and train much longer before striking.

In Israel, Hezbollah is seen as part of a wider struggle for regional influence between Iran and U.S.-allied moderate Arab states, given the group's ties to Iran and Syria and arms supplies assumed to run through both countries.

There is no reason the current calm cannot continue, said retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser who is now a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. But if a conflict does break out, "Israel will not contain that war against Hezbollah," Eiland said. "We cannot."  Given Hezbollah's capabilities, he said, "the only way to deter the other side and prevent the next round -- or if it happens, to win -- is to have a military confrontation with the state of Lebanon."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204494.html

Title: From Crete with hate
Post by: rachelg on January 26, 2010, 07:33:00 PM

(http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=137334)
Fom Crete with hate

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=166767
By JERUSALEM POST EDITORIAL
25/01/2010    
Anti-Israelism has given our foes a pretext to obfuscate their motives.
 

The Etz Hayim Synagogue on Crete was struck by arsonists on January 5 and again - more devastatingly- on January 16. Over the weekend, Greek police arrested four men described as bouncers and waiters for perpetrating the attacks, saying they were motivated by a dislike of Jews.

Attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions are up throughout Europe, attributable, say experts, to fury by extremist rightists, leftists and Muslims over last year's war against Hamas in Gaza.

As the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism - which comprises Israeli government offices, the Jewish Agency and Diaspora organizations - reported, the uptick in attacks reflects a further blurring of boundaries between Israel, Zionism and Judaism.

The BBC's Malcolm Brabant cited Etz Hayim's director, listed elsewhere as Nikolas Stavroulakis, as saying the attackers had not done their homework: The synagogue is a multi-faith institution which includes Muslim and Christian members and "many of the Jews who worship there are opposed to Israel's settler program and frequent incursions into Gaza."

Stavroulakis has devoted himself to memorializing Jewish life on the island, which dates back to biblical days. Today about 10 Jews live there. Yet Stavroulakis's comments reveal a certain naiveté - as if dissociating from Israeli policies, or embracing non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist positions, would inoculate a Jewish person or institution against anti-Semitic battering.

WITH President Shimon Peres scheduled to address the German parliament Wednesday for International Holocaust Memorial Day, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu concurrently in Poland to mark the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, this is a good time to consider the distinctions between those who revile Jews; those who oppose the right of Jews to self-determination by denying Jewish peoplehood; and those who oppose particular Israeli policies.

In the West, vulgar Jew-hatred and Holocaust-denial meet with strong censure in the public square. No reputable voices would condone attacks on synagogues or holding Jews to standards gentiles are not expected to meet.

On the other hand, urbane anti-Israelism is all-too often treated as justifiable - even chic. While some of Israel's foes in academia, diplomacy and the punditocracy put their cards on the table, others hypocritically hide behind abstract assertions of support for Israel's right to exist and to self-defense based on preposterously impractical criteria. Thus anti-Israelism flirts with anti-Semitism when the Jewish state is held to a yardstick no other country is expected to meet on the grounds that "after all, you call yourselves the 'chosen people.'"

No one questions whether right-wing louts who burn Jewish houses of worship, beat up people who "look Jewish" or desecrate Holocaust memorials are anti-Semites. But those who reject the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, or who deny that Jews are a people, engage in a more subtle form of contempt. That some practitioners of anti-Israelism are themselves of Jewish ancestry matters not a whit. Anti-Israelism is further characterized by calls to boycott the Jewish state (aping the Arab League-instigated embargo which began decades before the first West Bank settlement was erected) and by the cynical manipulation of symbols and semantics - such as "apartheid," "genocide," and "Nazi" - to delegitimize Israel.

In these endeavors, ostensibly progressives are the strange bedfellows of fanatics and reactionaries - Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

WHAT ABOUT those who simply object to particular Israeli policies?

The late US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said famously that he could not define "hard-core pornography" but "I know it when I see it."

Similarly, Israelis have a knack for distinguishing between genuine friends who earnestly oppose this or that policy, and others who profess closeness yet whose counsel, if heeded, would place the country in mortal jeopardy.

Israelis engage in strident debates over settlements, religion and socioeconomic issues. We hardly expect outsiders - whether Jewish or not - to unthinkingly embrace government policies as a sign of fidelity. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.

FROM the first pogrom in 38 BCE to the liberation of Auschwitz, haters have as a rule been candid about their motivations. In the 21st century, however, anti-Israelism has given our foes a pretext to obfuscate their motives. But we Israelis see them for what they are - morally no better than the hooligans who set the Etz Haim Synagogue ablaze.

Title: The ‘Goldstoning’ of Israel
Post by: rachelg on February 02, 2010, 06:23:59 PM

(http://The ‘Goldstoning’ of Israel)
Photo by: AP
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=167530
The ‘Goldstoning’ of Israel
BY JERUSALEM POST EDITORIAL STAFF
02/02/2010   
Report was born in bias and matured into a full-fledged miscarriage of justice.
 
On Friday, Jerusalem presented UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with its initial rebuttal of Judge Richard Goldstone’s bill of particulars on the way Israel fought in Gaza between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009.

A more comprehensive, point-by-point refutation is in the works.

“Gaza Operation Investigations: An Update” acknowledges that Israeli shells unintentionally hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City’s Tel al-Hawa neighborhood while gunning for Hamas forces positioned alongside the facility.

The update revealed that the IDF had disciplined a brigadier-general and a colonel for exceeding their authority, because they employed white phosphorus shells in a comparatively confined area where civilians could be jeopardized. In fact, three innocent people were wounded.

Compiled by the Foreign Ministry, the update also debunks a number of scurrilous war crimes charges leveled by Goldstone, saying:

• Israel did not purposefully bomb wells in Jabalya to deprive the people there of fresh drinking water. In fact, the wells were situated within a Hamas compound.

• Israel did not deliberately attack the wastewater treatment plant in Gaza City. But there is a good chance the plant was damaged by Hamas to hamper the movement of IDF soldiers.

• Israel did not blow up the Bader flour factory to create a bread shortage in Gaza. But the site was a strategic high point in a Hamas-fortified zone. It was not the IDF that set the plant ablaze.

• The destroyed Abu Askar family house was used to store Grad rockets. The family was telephoned and urged to leave before the house was shelled.

These are just some of the findings in the Foreign Ministry report, which says that the army has investigated or is currently investigating more than 150 separate incidents – not easy considering that the forensic scene is in enemy hands.

So far, 36 files have been referred to the Military Advocate-General Corps for criminal investigation.

We do not assert that our army made no tragic mistakes; what we do emphatically reiterate – based on Israel’s initial submission to the UN – is that no army engaged on multiple fronts against irregular forces, embedded among a supportive enemy population, is more ethical or takes greater care to avoid harming innocents than the IDF.

THE Goldstone Report was born in bias and matured into a full-fledged miscarriage of justice. So the inclination of mainstream Israelis is to dismiss its author as man who, perhaps not unwittingly, allowed his Jewish ancestry to serve as a cloak for a UN body predisposed to besmirch Israel. Israelis further resent the report’s dammed-if-you-do-dammed-if-you-don’t stipulation for an Israeli commission to examine IDF behavior during the Gaza war: If Israel refuses, Goldstone threatens further “lawfare” at the International Court of Justice in The Hague; if Israel does establish an inquiry commission it might imply Goldstone’s complaints have validity.

One option being weighed is to impanel a judicial review board that would examine how well the army has done in policing itself. Alternatively, the government could establish a formal investigative body. Or, lastly, a commission of inquiry could be established headed perhaps by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak.

We worry that the latter two approaches could undermine army morale and inhibit split-second tactical decision-making necessary to protect Israel’s home front and citizen army. Our preference is that the Foreign Ministry’s forthcoming comprehensive rebuttal serve as Israel’s official – “case closed” – response to the Goldstone Report.

If Goldstone’s parameters for fighting terrorism are affirmed by the civilized world, other democracies would also be severely constrained in defending themselves against terrorist organizations specializing in anti-civilian warfare. Quarantining enemy territory; imprisoning captured terrorists; using sophisticated weapons against a less well-armed terror infrastructure; and bringing non-lethal pressure to bear on non-military targets to hasten the end of a conflict would all be considered “war crimes.”

As is Goldstone provides Hamas and Hizbullah with a legal alibi to fight from behind civilian populations.

WHILE Israel has been forced to justify what should be its inalienable right to stop Hamas from hurling thousands of flying bombs into its territory and traumatizing its civilian population, no UN-body has called to investigate the Palestinian leadership for culpability in the murders of 1,184 Israelis and the wounding of 8,000 others since September 2000.

Strange that.

Title: Children's Cartoons From Hamas
Post by: rachelg on February 03, 2010, 06:22:04 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-2-2010/story-hole---children-s-cartoons-from-hamas

Title: JP: War by assassination
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2010, 05:46:57 PM

 
Photo by: Ariel Jerozolimski 'Israel waging war of assassinations'
BY JPOST.COM STAFF
13/02/2010 19:25


UK paper: Israel targets Hamas, Hizbullah men all across the Middle East.
Talkbacks (49)   
Israel is conducting a “secret war,” assassinating top officials in Hamas and Hizbullah in order to hamper the terror groups’ communications with their backer Iran, the London-based Times reported Saturday.

“There has been growing co-operation between Gaza and Iran. Israel can read the writing on the wall and they know that with the help of Iran, the Hamas government in Gaza will become stronger and will fight better. But Israel is overstepping their boundaries. Other countries don’t want to become a killing field for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the paper quotes an unnamed Palestinian official in Ramallah as saying.

The official was referring to the assassination of Mahmoud el Mabhouh, a senior Hamas official who was liquidated in a Dubai hotel last month. Hamas has accused Israel of killing him.

The paper also cites an incident where a bus carrying Iranian officials and Hamas members exploded near Damascus, an attack on a meeting between Hizbullah and Hamas officials in the Hizbullah-controlled Dahiya district of Beirut and the killing of Hizbullah mastermind Imad Mughniyeh in February 2008.

The Times quotes Arab diplomats saying they are aware that covert Israeli operations had increased. “We watch their comings and goings; we are aware that there is more activity both on our ground and other countries in the region,” an Egyptian diplomat told the paper. “They are trying to embroil us all in their conflict.”


 The incidents are often attributed to the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, which has seen a surge in reputation since Meir Dagan was appointed to lead the agency in 2002 by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon.

Israeli officials never admitted that the Mossad was involved in any of the killings.

Dagan’s tenure has been extended twice by Sharon’s successor Ehud Olmert and again by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Dagan received praise recently from an unexpected source when he was described in an opinion piece in a leading Egyptian daily paper as "the Superman of Israel."

Title: Irish hit on Hamas?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2010, 02:56:52 PM

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 9:29 PM on 15th February 2010


Claims that British and Irish passport holders are among an alleged 11-man hit squad wanted in Dubai for the apparent assassination of a Hamas commander are tonight being investigated by London and Dublin.

Dubai police say the main suspect is Peter Elvinger, 49, who holds a French passport. He was the gang’s logistical co-ordinator and the one who booked room 237 in Al Bustan Rotana, down the corridor from the victim’s room – 230.

The other suspects were identified as Irish nationals Gail Folliard, Kevin Daveron and Evan Dennings; British nationals Paul John Keely, Stephen Daniel Hodes, Melvyn Adam Mildiner, Jonathan Louis Graham, James Leonard Clarke and Michael Lawrence Barney. Also wanted is Michael Bodenheimer, a German national.

The hit squad was responsible for killing Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in his hotel room last month in a slaying that has brought vows of revenge from the Palestinian militant group, Dubai's police chief said.

The details given by Lt Gen Dhahi Khalfan Tamim are the most comprehensive accusations by Dubai authorities since the body of al-Mabhouh was found on January 20 in his luxury hotel room near Dubai's international airport.

Tamim told reporters the alleged assassination team was made up of six British passport holders, three Irish and one each from France and Germany.

But he did not directly implicate Israel - as Hamas has done. The group has accused Israel's Mossad secret service of carrying out the killing and has pledged to strike back.

Tamim said it was possible that ‘leaders of certain countries gave orders to their intelligence agents to kill’ al-Mabhouh, one of the founders of Hamas' military wing. Israeli officials have accused him of helping smuggle rockets into Gaza.

He said forensic tests indicate al-Mabhouh died of suffocation, but lab analyses are still under way to pinpoint possible other factors in his death.

Top Hamas figures have denied reports that al-Mabhouh was en route to Iran, which is a major Hamas backer. But the group has not given clear reasons for his presence in Dubai.

Tamim sketched out a highly organized operation in the hours before the killing.

He showed a news conference surveillance video of the alleged assassination team arriving on separate flights to Dubai the day before al-Mabhouh was found dead. The suspects checked into separate hotels.

They paid for all expenses in cash and used different mobile phone cards to avoid traces, he added.

At least two suspected members of the hit squad watched al-Mabhouh check in at his hotel and later booked a room across from the Hamas commander, Tamim said.

He added that there was ‘serious penetration into al-Mabhouh's security prior to his arrival’ in Dubai, but that it appeared al-Mabhouh was travelling alone.

‘Hamas did not tell us who he was. He was walking around alone,’ said Tamim. ‘If he was such an important leader, why didn't he have people escorting him?’

Tamim said there was at least one unsuccessful attempt to break into al-Mabhouh's hotel room. It was unclear whether he opened the door to his killers or if the room was forcibly entered.

The killing took place about five hours after al-Mabhouh arrived at the hotel and all 11 suspects were out of the United Arab Emirates within 19 hours of their arrivals, he added.

Tamim said the suspects left some evidence, but he declined to elaborate. He urged the countries linked to the alleged killers to co- operate with the investigation.

Earlier this month, Hamas said it launched floating explosives into the Mediterranean Sea to drift toward Israeli beaches to avenge al-Mabhouh's death.

Israeli authorities discovered at least two explosives-rigged barrels and carried out an intensive search for other bombs, closing miles of beaches and deploying robotic bomb squads.

A Hamas statement last month acknowledged al-Mabhouh was involved in the kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1989 and said he was still playing a ‘continuous role in supporting his brothers in the resistance inside the occupied homeland’ at the time of his death.

More than 2,000 mourners attended al-Mabhouh's funeral and burial at the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk, near Damascus, Syria.

Britain's Foreign Office declined to comment today on the allegations while officials seek more information on the case and the individuals named by Tamim.

Hamas initially claimed al-Mabhouh was poisoned and electrocuted. But Mohammed Nazzal, a Hamas leader, has given a somewhat different account, saying al-Mabhouh was ambushed by Mossad agents who were waiting for him in his hotel room.

Nazzal said earlier this month that no poison was involved. But he gave no evidence to back up his charge of Mossad involvement.

Top Hamas figures have denied reports that al-Mabhouh was en route to Iran, which is a major Hamas backer. But the group has not given clear reasons for his presence in Dubai.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ce-chief.html#

Title: Many little oddities
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2010, 11:53:51 AM

Many little oddities here , , ,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518481.stm

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on February 17, 2010, 02:49:47 AM

Looks like some country's covert action acted.  I wonder if the "lesser known" contact for the deal have dissappeared?  If that is the case I would be a very nervous weapons dealer/ producer.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 14, 2010, 01:30:58 PM

   
While stuck in NE traffic today Aaron Klein (sp?) had on his radio show Mr Yousef.  He worked as a spy for Israel because he wanted to save not just Jewish lives but Palestinian lives.  This is the key for him:

 “The problem is not Hamas, the problem is not people. The root of the problem is Islam itself as an idea,” he added. He said he saw no chance for Israel and the PA to make peace."

He converted to Christianity because he feels the God of Islam is the root cause of the problems with the Muslims.  He quotes from the Koran how it is a command from their God that all infidels, Jews, Christains, and others should be sought out and killed.  He states this is a false God.  Those that have this in their heart can never make peace, they will never let go with their hatred, and will end up killing themselves as well as others.  He also could not accept how Hamas would torture and murder anyone it suspected of "collaborating" with Israel.  He came to the conclusion that torture at the hands of Hamas is as bad as torture at the hands of Israeli soldiers or anyone else for that matter.  He also agrees his father would have to wnat him killed in order to restore his honor.
It was an amazing interview.

Are you listening Barack Hussain Obama?

 **** Published: 02/24/10, 5:33 PM / Last Update: 02/24/10, 6:06 PM
Son of Hamas Leader was Top Spy for Israel
 
by Gil Ronen
Follow Israel news on  and .


(IsraelNN.com) Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of jailed Hamas terrorist leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, operated undercover in the service of Israel's intelligence agency for a decade. Yousef reveals this information in an upcoming book, and in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz to be published this weekend.

According to the newspaper, the intelligence Yousef supplied led to the arrests of several high-ranking terrorists including Ibrahim Hamid, a Hamas terror commander in Judea and Samaria, as well as Fatah strongman Marwan Barghouti and Hamas bomb-maker Abdullah Barghouti.

Mosab Hassan Yousef converted to Christianity and moved to the U.S. in 2007, where the book he co-wrote, Son of Hamas, is due to be published shortly. He said that after he converted to Christianity, he decided he had to escape and "live my life away from violence, because I couldn't coexist with that situation as a Christian."

"He provided very important information [as did] hundreds of others fighting against terror," MK Gideon Ezra (Kadima), formerly deputy chief of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), told BBC World Service.

Haaretz said that Yousef “was considered Shin Bet's most reliable source in the Hamas leadership.”

"The amazing thing is that none of his actions were done for money," said his ISA handler, who is named in the book as "Captain Loai.”

Yousef's father, who has great influence within Hamas, was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006 from his prison cell.

Appalled by Torture
Yousef has said that from an early age he was appalled by the brutality of the Hamas movement. "Hamas, they are using civilians' lives, they are using children, they are using the suffering of people every day to achieve their goals. And this is what I hate," he said.

In an interview with Fox News in 2008, Yousef said that when he was 18 years old, he was arrested and placed in an Israeli jail. “Hamas had control of its members inside the jail and I saw their torture; [they were] torturing people in a very, very bad way... Hamas leaders that we see on TV now, and big leaders, [were] responsible for torturing their own members. They didn't torture me, but that was a shock for me, to see them torturing people: putting needles under their nails, burning their bodies. And they killed lots of them... I was a witness for about a year for this torture. So that was a huge change in my life.”

"Islam is the Problem"
“The problem is not Hamas, the problem is not people. The root of the problem is Islam itself as an idea,” he added. He said he saw no chance for Israel and the PA to make peace.****

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 16, 2010, 07:54:42 AM

I remember the uproar from the American Jewish "community when James Baker came out with some remarks that hinted at subtle anti-semitic tone.  Now the phoney one is doing it many Jews are silent.  Indeed we have Time Magazine's Tom Friedman on cable criticizing Israel.  As I've said many liberal Jews are more interested in the Dem party.  The settlement thing is now being exaggerated into a "crises" and I believe it is an excuse to start Bama's real plan to withdraw support for Israel.  I recall the picture of him at the Western Wall, yamukah on.  It appeared he was not comfortable playing Jew.  And of course the Americal lib Jews were so fast to point to this as evidence of his commitment to Israel.  What a joke.  This guy sat in an anti semite's church for a quarter of a century and to no one's knowledge ever spoke up about it.

He uses Jews to further his political career. And we have Farrakan claiming it is the White Right and the Jews who are going to try to make him a one term Pres.  Why, without a doubt, if it where not for the support and help ful strategizing by Jews who supported the phoney one - he would never have ever become President.  How ironic.  He treats Israel (do as I say or else) like he treats Americans.

****Obama runs out of patience with Israel

Settlement issue provokes 'biggest crisis in relations for 35 years'

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem and Hugh MacLeod in Doha


Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Share  Close
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Print Email Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large

REUTERS

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addresses the Knesset in Jerusalem yesterday. He rejected a total freeze on the building of Israeli settlements

 enlarge

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday strongly defended Jewish settlement construction in East Jerusalem in the face of US pressure and what one of his own top diplomats described as the worst crisis in relations with Washington for more than three decades.


A defiant Mr Netanyahu appeared to be digging in despite clear indications that the Obama administration is now demanding the scrapping of plans for 1,600 new Jewish homes, whose announcement overshadowed last week's visit to Israel by the US Vice-President Joe Biden. Mr Netanyahu's stance appeared to guarantee, after a highly charged week, the protraction of a stand-off in which a full-scale diplomatic row blew up at the start of Mr Biden's visit and appeared to abate at the end of it. But it was then reignited by demands from Hillary Clinton and an angry White House that Israel make amends for the "insulting" announcement just as indirect negotiations with the Palestinians had finally been arranged.

The US is now said to be demanding substantive concessions from Israel after a warning by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would not take part in talks if the plan to expand the mainly ultra-orthodox Ramat Shlomo settlement went ahead. The row has appeared finally to bring to a head the year-long tensions between the two governments since Barack Obama tried in vain to persuade the Israeli Prime Minister to agree to a total settlement freeze. He was thwarted by Mr Netanyahu who agreed only to a partial 10-month freeze, which did not include East Jerusalem.

Related articles
Rupert Cornwell: There's no sign that Obama will punish his ally
Search the news archive for more stories
The Israeli Prime Minister insisted yesterday that construction would continue "in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years". He added: "The building of those Jewish neighbourhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."

But a prominent Fatah figure and former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, told The Independent that the prospect of talks resuming had been sabotaged by Israel's action. Speaking in Qatar yesterday ahead of reconciliation talks with Hamas, which governs Gaza, he added: "The speed at which Jerusalem is being Judaised and de-Arabised has surpassed any period in the history of the peace process and is so alarming that we cannot possibly continue giving cover to Mr Netanyahu that we are still negotiating while he is doing this."

Mr Netanyahu avoided direct reference to the plans at the heart of the row for expanding the Ramat Shlomo settlement. But the Prime Minister, who has apologised for the timing of last week's announcement, showed no sign of abandoning it altogether.

There was no official confirmation of reports in the Israeli press that the US was also demanding other measures, including an early release of Palestinian prisoners and a clear Israeli promise that talks, if and when they begin, would genuinely deal with the core issues between the two sides: borders, Palestinian refugees, and the future of Jerusalem. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Israeli Army Radio reported meanwhile that in a conference call with Israeli consuls across the US on Saturday night, Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to Washington, said that the crisis was one of "historic proportions". Summoned to the State Department on Friday, he reportedly urged the consuls, on instructions "from the highest level", to lobby Congress, Jewish community groups and the media to make Israel's case. Mr Oren, a historian, apparently recalled a previous stand-off in 1975 between Henry Kissinger and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin over US demands in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war for a partial withdrawal from the Sinai.

One explanation canvassed in Israel for Washington's tough stance is that pressure is being exerted by the US military for early progress in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as means of reducing Muslim hostility to the US. During the height of the row last week, Mr Biden was reported by Yedhiot Ahronot to have told Mr Netanyahu: "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."

Asked on Sunday whether Israeli "intransigence" was putting US "troops' lives at risk", David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr Obama, said "that region and that issue is a flare point throughout the region so I'm not going to put it in those terms". But he then added that it "was absolutely imperative" not only for "the security of Israel and the Palestinian people2 but "for our own security that ... we resolve this very difficult issue".

Mr Netanyahu can at least expect a warm reception in Washington when next week he addresses the annual conference of AIPAC, the staunchly right-of-centre pro-Israel lobby group which is trying to mobilise opposition to the stance taken by Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama.

Jerusalem remained tense yesterday, with hundreds of police deployed around the Old City for a fourth day in case of Palestinian unrest, including a possible protest against the rededication of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter destroyed in the 1948 war. A closure of the West Bank to prevent most Palestinians reaching the city was also still in force.

Dozens of young men burned tyres and threw stones at Israeli forces at the Qalandiya checkpoint north of Jerusalem. Palestinian medics said one Palestinian youth was shot in the jaw and another in the chest as troops dispersed protesters.*****

Title: Groups to White House: What about Palestinian incitement?
Post by: rachelg on March 16, 2010, 08:06:35 PM

Groups to White House: What about Palestinian incitement?
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/16/1011133/groups-to-white-house-what-about-palestinian-incitement

By Ami Eden · March 16, 2010

NEW YORK (JTA) -- In response to the Obama administration’s stepped-up criticism of Israeli building plans in Jerusalem, Jewish groups are slamming the White House for failing to speak out more against Palestinian incitement.

Particularly galling, several Jewish organizational leaders said, is that the administration has ratcheted up its criticism of Israel while failing to utter a word about the decision of the Palestinian Authority to go through with plans to name a public square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist who led a 1978 bus hijacking in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were killed.

In the middle of last week, pro-Israel organizations, including the watchdog group Palestinian Media Watch, pointed out that the official naming ceremony -- timed to coincide with the anniversary of the terrorist attack -- was set to take place March 11, during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories. It was quickly announced that the ceremony would be canceled, but a scaled-down version of the event did end up taking place that day, with the youth division of Fatah, the faction of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, playing a lead role.

The White House and left-wing Jewish groups say they are as concerned with Palestinian actions that undermine the peace process, especially the issue of anti-Israel incitement, as they are with Israeli settlement policies. But several centrist and right-wing pro-Israel groups have pointed out that U.S. criticism in recent days has been focused exclusively on Israel.

“This monstrous spectacle” -- the ceremony for Mughrabi -- “took place while Vice President Biden was visiting the region,” said the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, David Harris, in a statement echoing the sentiments of several Jewish organizations, including the Zionist Organization of America, the Orthodox Union and the National Council of Young Israel. “Unfortunately, we have not heard a single word of condemnation from the U.S. administration.

"While the administration has focused its ire on Israel for clearly misguided steps taken by the Ministry of the Interior, and later apologized for by Prime Minister Netanyahu, the glorification of this terrorist sends a clear signal that Fatah, conventionally regarded as a moderate party, has no serious commitment to securing a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

J Street, which supports the Obama administration's recent criticisms of Israel, also issued a statement condemning the decision to memorialize Mughrabi.

In addition to the flurry of statements from Jewish groups, the Israeli government also is promising to launch an official effort to monitor Palestinian incitement. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly briefed the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee about his plans, promising regular reports on the issue.

"We will set parameters by which to measure the level of incitement," Netanyahu told the committee, according to Haaretz. "People must know exactly what is happening on this issue because for a peace agreement, education toward peace and acceptance of Israel are needed."

The issue has taken on added urgency in recent days, and not just because of the unrelenting U.S. criticism of Israeli building plans in Jerusalem.

On Tuesday, Palestinians rioted in Jerusalem as part of a "day of rage" declared by Hamas, in part to protest the rededication Monday night of the ancient Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. But the Israeli decision to rededicate the synagogue also was seized on by PA officials with ties to Fatah, who attempted to portray it as part of a plot against Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount.

Khatem Abd el-Kader, the Fatah official responsible for Jerusalem, encouraged Palestinians to “converge on al Aksa to save it” from “Israeli attempts to destroy the mosque and replace it with the [Jewish] temple.” He called the synagogue rededication a “provocation,” cautioning that Israel is “playing with fire.”

The unfinished Hurva Synagogue, whose name means ruins, was destroyed in an Arab riot in 1721. It was rebuilt in the 1860s, but destroyed again after Jordan took control of the area in the 1948 war.

“At this very moment, 3,000 Israeli security officials are protecting Jerusalem because extremist Arabs are using the re-dedication of the Hurva Synagogue as an excuse to incite violence,” Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president of The Israel Project, said in a statement. “Not once did we hear Biden ‘condemn’ the fact that Palestinians were planning -- during his trip there -- to honor a terrorist by dedicating a town square in her name.”

On Monday, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley did use part of his daily media briefing to criticize Palestinian leaders over their comments regarding the Hurva Synagogue.

"We’re deeply disturbed by statements made by several Palestinian officials mischaracterizing the event in question, which can only serve to heighten the tensions that we see. And we call upon Palestinian officials to put an end to such incitement," Crowley said, without prompting.

In answer to a subsequent question, he said the concerns had been conveyed to Palestinian officials but declined to offer more details.

The briefing appeared to validate at least one administration lament -- that its efforts to focus attention on perceived Palestinian misdeeds are often ignored by the media. Reporters appeared to have trouble comprehending that the State Department's concerns related to the Palestinian reactions, not the Israeli decision to rededicate the synagogue.

When it finally became clear that this is what Crowley was saying, reporters went back to asking about U.S. upset with Israel, but only after one accused Crowley of trying to head off criticism of the Obama administration by balancing out things with a complaint about the Palestinians.

Crowley brushed off questions about whether Israeli or Palestinian actions were most problematic.

"We’re not trying to achieve any kind of comparability here," he said. "Anytime we have concerns about actions being taken on either side, we will not hesitate to say so."

Title: Analysis: Settlements or us
Post by: rachelg on March 16, 2010, 08:24:59 PM

Analysis: Settlements or us
By DAVID HOROVITZ
15/03/2010   
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171007
The US sees an opportunity in the Ramat Shlomo crisis to convey to the unloved Netanyahu the fateful, urgent choice he faces.
 
Binyamin Netanyahu had thought that the crisis was over.

The prime minister had apologized. He had sworn that the bureaucratic approval for 1,600 new homes at Ramat Shlomo last Tuesday had not been deliberately timed to humiliate visiting Vice President Joe Biden. He had vowed to institute an oversight process so that the same kind of discomfiting incident could not recur. He had assured Biden that the new construction at Ramat Shlomo – an area of Jerusalem over the Green Line, but certain to remain under Israeli control in any accommodation with the Palestinians – would not start for years.

And the vice president had indicated that he was largely mollified.

Biden’s comments in his visit’s main speech, at Tel Aviv University, reiterated his condemnation of the decision to build more homes, but also included his appreciation of Netanyahu’s subsequent steps to defuse the issue. He also restated that powerful assertion that “there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security.”

Speaking to Reuters on his plane on Friday, Biden even went so far as to vouch for Netanyahu’s peacemaking intentions. Asked whether he thought the prime minister was sincere about negotiating peace with the Palestinians, he replied, “Yes, I do.”

And there the matter might have rested. There, Jerusalem believed, the matter would rest.

But then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu. She called, for three-quarters of an hour on Friday, to “berate,” “rebuke,” “warn” and “condemn” Israel – depending on your newspaper of choice – for the “insult to the United States,” and for sending, in the words of her spokesman, “a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship.”

If Washington’s decision to escalate the dispute was shocking to the prime minister, then the bitter thrust of the secretary’s language was even more so. She was choosing to blame Israel not merely for words and deeds that the US deems counterproductive to Israel’s interests, but for conduct unbecoming of an ally, for harming the relationship with America and, by extension, harming America and its interests as well.

Even with the fullest cognizance of the Obama administration’s strategic effort to remake its relations with the Arab world, and its frustrations with Netanyahu for failing to fully share its optimism about the “willing partners” Biden referenced on the Palestinian side, this is strikingly harsh and heavy stuff.

The United States has, for so long and so often, been Israel’s chief defender against concerted international diplomatic attack. Its unstinting moral and practical support has been central, too, to Israel’s deterrent capability in this most hostile and ruthless of regions.

It knows full well the impact its secretary of state’s words will have in these contexts – liberating Israel’s critics to drastically escalate their diplomatic, legal and economic assaults, and potentially emboldening military enemies. Words in this neck of the woods have consequences – real, life-and-death consequences.

“You shouldn’t think that President Obama is your enemy, and I hope to goodness you know that Hillary is not,” former president Bill Clinton told the Saban Forum in Jerusalem four months ago. And yet she escalated a crisis that Biden, her superior in the administration hierarchy, had indicated was resolved.

It was self-evident that Netanyahu’s “stupidity not malice” explanation for Ramat Shlomo was accurate. Just days earlier, he had moved effectively to shut down Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat’s incendiary plan to demolish dozens of Arab homes in Silwan.

And yet, acting doubtless on the orders of her president, she resorted to what the ADL – no hysterical critic of the Obama administration – termed “gross overreaction.”

As Israel well knows, the US does not support
building for Jews over the Green Line – even within the boundaries of Israeli-claimed sovereign Jerusalem. Plainly the administration was enraged not only by the timing of the construction announcement, but by its essence – a maintenance of an Israeli policy that defies the US government’s assessment of where both Israeli and American interests lie.

But perhaps, too, the Obama administration has recognized an opportunity in the Ramat Shlomo crisis, an opportunity that required deepening rather than defusing the dispute – an opportunity to convey to the unloved Netanyahu, more starkly than ever before, the fateful choice he faces and the urgency of making it.

Does he want to expand home-building for Jews in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, maintain the support of the domestic political Right, offer less than the Americans would wish him to offer at the peace table should direct talks ever resume, and watch Israel’s ties to the United States falter even as Iran closes in on the bomb?

Or is he prepared to halt such building, marginalize the local hardliners, work to create a climate conducive to negotiated progress with the Palestinians, and bolster the partnership with the US, the better to ensure an effective response to the Iranian threat?

Washington may well bet that Netanyahu, being Netanyahu, will even now try desperately to please everyone – somehow bidding to square circles via a mixture of half-steps and articulacy, in order to keep the local hawks on board and at once try to heal the fractures with Washington.

But it may also be aiming to make that task unfeasible. Likud hard-liner Danny Danon asserted on Sunday that Israel is “not a client state” of the US and needs to follow its own policies as it sees fit.

But many Israelis think differently, and regard Israel, especially amid the current global battle against Iranian-spearheaded Islamic extremism, indeed to be a client state – to be existentially dependent on its relationship with the United States. Many Israelis, Washington may also gauge, would rather reconsider their prime minister than their ties to the US.

With Labor starting to mutter about deadlines for diplomatic progress, and with the Israeli public perceived to be deeply invested in the best possible relationship with the US, Clinton, and more pertinently, her president, may believe they have Netanyahu cornered: Settlements or us.

How can one reconcile the bitter, accusatory, public dressing-down – which will be seized upon so delightedly and exploited so effectively not merely by those who oppose Netanyahu, but by those who seek to damage Israel – with the insistent assurances, from Obama on down, including Biden last week, that the US commitment to Israel is unbreakable, that the partnership is unshakable, that the relationship, as Biden put it, is “impervious to any shifts in either country and either country’s partisan politics. No matter what challenges we face, this bond will endure”?

How do you reconcile that, even if you accept that the Obama White House is convinced that Israel, through its building beyond the Green Line, is badly harming itself, undermining the battle to thwart Iran, and damaging America’s interests in the region?

It’s not easy. It’s not easy, no matter how persuasively it can be argued that Netanyahu brought this on himself.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on March 17, 2010, 03:44:50 AM

Israel is relying the David vs. Goliath myth to the point of making it a bit thread bare?  I understood Osiriak, and Lebanon and the tit for tat with the missile launches/ helo strikes.   That is basically the status quo, but when an ally starts showing disrespect by violating a treaty negotiation point on the eve of some brokered talks?  That is crap Iran an acknowledge foe pulls, isn't it?  The berating was earned, but I do agree that Israel needs to be maintained from a Modern Secular State standpoint that also happens to be a democracy.  It is an example and dampener of a lot of totalitarian abuse that we would otherwise be seeing witgout its presence and example.

Turkey and Egypt are in similar positions geopolitically, I hope both can remain modern if not entirely free.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on March 17, 2010, 04:39:22 AM

At no point did Israel agree not to build in Jerusalem.   There was a 10 month temporary freeze on settlement building  not including Jerusalem. This was not what the US wanted but what Israel agreed to.   What eve of negotiations? There was not going to be any negotiations. The Palestians were not going to come to the table. You don't find this a little distracting from the actual problem of a Nuclear Iran.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 17, 2010, 08:25:21 AM

"The US sees an opportunity in the Ramat Shlomo crisis to convey to the unloved Netanyahu the fateful, urgent choice he faces."

This echoes my thought:

"The settlement thing is now being exaggerated into a "crises" and I believe it is an excuse to start Bama's real plan to withdraw support for Israel."

The WH is jumping all over this building of 1200 homes as an excuse to stick it to Netanyahu.

It is clear the US will not be there militarily for Israel when push comes to shove.  It is decided that miliatry force will not be used under any circumstances.  If Israel is going to attack Iran they will have to do it alone.

As an American I am not sure I could argue that it is really in the interests of the US to start a war with Iran to a degree worth the risks and consequences.  The benefits are far more for Israel then to us.  Even with claims of a nuclear Iran is a menace to the world acknowledged and agreed to by me.

As a Jew it is also clear Iran means what it says when the Mullahs have plans to murder all the Jews into the ocean.

And therefore as a Jew it is a fight for our lives.

Shame on American Jews who have turned their backs on their bretheren for political idealogy - and support of a person who has an obvious agenda that is NOT in Israel's best interests.  I don't know if the liberal Jews who STILL support the phoney one are in denial, or are still duped, or simply prefer to put American interests including their radical liberal agenda ahead of Israel.  I guess it is a combination.  How can they believe the Phoney One is really commited to protecting Israel?  Or are they duped into thinking a policy of containment  can work here?

I have not heard any credible threats on our part pointed directly to the Mullahs that if they use nucs on Israel We will respond in kind but 100 fold.  THAT is the concept of "mutually assured destruction" that worked in the US-Soviet cold war.

Vague mentions that "no opiton(s)" are taken off the table are not clear and definitive as a threat to Iran.

If the phone ONE was clear about his intention of protecting Israel, that is the least he could do.  Send a clear message to the Persians that if you use any weapons of mass destruction on Israel they will pay dearly with many lives.

But alas he is only playing the American Jews for their votes.

Title: Ham Fisted Machinations?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 17, 2010, 02:36:51 PM

The Crisis: Was Obama's confrontation with Israel premeditated?
The New Republic ^ | 3/16/2010 | Yossi Klein Halevi

The Crisis
Was Obama's confrontation with Israel premeditated?

JERUSALEM—Suddenly, my city feels again like a war zone. Since the suicide bombings ended in 2005, life in Jerusalem has been for the most part relatively calm. The worst disruptions have been the traffic jams resulting from construction of a light rail, just like in a normal city. But now, again, there are clusters of helmeted border police near the gates of the Old City, black smoke from burning tires in the Arab village across from my porch, young men marching with green Islamist flags toward my neighborhood, ambulances parked at strategic places ready for this city's ultimate nightmare.

The return of menace to Jerusalem is not because a mid-level bureaucrat announced stage four of a seven-stage process in the eventual construction of 1,600 apartments in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. Such announcements and building projects have become so routine over the years that Palestinians have scarcely responded, let alone violently. In negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, the permanence of Ramat Shlomo, and other Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, has been a given. Ramat Shlomo, located between the Jewish neighborhoods of French Hill and Ramot, will remain within the boundaries of Israeli Jerusalem according to every peace plan. Unlike the small Jewish enclaves inserted into Arab neighborhoods, on which Israelis are strongly divided, building in the established Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem defines the national consensus.

Why, then, the outbreak of violence now? Why Hamas's "day of rage" over Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority's call to gather on the Temple Mount to "save" the Dome of the Rock from non-existent plans to build the Third Temple? Why the sudden outrage over rebuilding a synagogue, destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, in the Old City's Jewish Quarter, when dozens of synagogues and yeshivas have been built in the quarter without incident?

The answer lies not in Jerusalem but in Washington. By placing the issue of building in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem at the center of the peace process, President Obama has inadvertently challenged the Palestinians to do no less.

Astonishingly, Obama is repeating the key tactical mistake of his failed efforts to restart Middle East peace talks over the last year. Though Obama's insistence on a settlement freeze to help restart negotiations was legitimate, he went a step too far by including building in East Jerusalem. Every Israeli government over the last four decades has built in the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem; no government, let alone one headed by the Likud, could possibly agree to a freeze there. Obama made resumption of negotiations hostage to a demand that could not be met. The result was that Palestinian leaders were forced to adjust their demands accordingly.

Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama's demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.

Finally, after intensive efforts, the administration produced the pathetic achievement of "proximity talks"—setting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations back a generation, to the time when Palestinian leaders refused to sit at the same table with Israelis.

That Obama could be guilty of such amateurishness was perhaps forgivable because he was, after all, an amateur. But he has now taken his failed policy and intensified it. By demanding that Israel stop building in Ramat Shlomo and elsewhere in East Jerusalem—and placing that demand at the center of American-Israeli relations—he's ensured that the Palestinians won't show up even to proximity talks. This is no longer amateurishness; it is pique disguised as policy.



Initially, when the announcement about building in Ramat Shlomo was made, Israelis shared Vice President Biden's humiliation and were outraged at their government's incompetence. The widespread sense here was that Netanyahu deserved the administration's condemnation, not because of what he did but because of what he didn't do: He failed to convey to all parts of his government the need for caution during Biden's visit, symptomatic of his chaotic style of governing generally.

But not even the opposition accused Netanyahu of a deliberate provocation. These are not the days of Yitzhak Shamir, the former Israeli prime minister who used to greet a visit from Secretary of State James Baker with an announcement of the creation of another West Bank settlement. Netanyahu has placed the need for strategic cooperation with the U.S. on the Iranian threat ahead of the right-wing political agenda. That's why he included the Labor Party into his coalition, and why he accepted a two-state solution—an historic achievement that set the Likud, however reluctantly, within the mainstream consensus supporting Palestinian statehood. The last thing Netanyahu wanted was to embarrass Biden during his goodwill visit and trigger a clash with Obama over an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood.

Nor is it likely that there was a deliberate provocation from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which runs the interior ministry that oversees building procedures. Shas, which supports peace talks and territorial compromise, is not a nationalist party. Its interest is providing housing for its constituents, like the future residents of Ramat Shlomo; provoking international incidents is not its style.

Finally, the very ordinariness of the building procedure—the fact that construction in Jewish East Jerusalem is considered by Israelis routine—is perhaps the best proof that there was no intentional ambush of Biden. Apparently no one in the interior ministry could imagine that a long-term plan over Ramat Shlomo would sabotage a state visit.

In turning an incident into a crisis, Obama has convinced many Israelis that he was merely seeking a pretext to pick a fight with Israel. Netanyahu was inadvertently shabby; Obama, deliberately so.

According to a banner headline in the newspaper Ma'ariv, senior Likud officials believe that Obama's goal is to topple the Netanyahu government, by encouraging those in the Labor Party who want to quit the coalition.

The popular assumption is that Obama is seeking to prove his resolve as a leader by getting tough with Israel. Given his ineffectiveness against Iran and his tendency to violate his own self-imposed deadlines for sanctions, the Israeli public is not likely to be impressed. Indeed, Israelis' initial anger at Netanyahu has turned to anger against Obama. According to an Israel Radio poll on March 16, 62 percent of Israelis blame the Obama administration for the crisis, while 20 percent blame Netanyahu. (Another 17 percent blame Shas leader Eli Yishai.)

In the last year, the administration has not once publicly condemned the Palestinians for lack of good faith—even though the Palestinian Authority media has, for example, been waging a months-long campaign denying the Jews' historic roots in Jerusalem. Just after Biden left Ramallah, Palestinian officials held a ceremony naming a square in the city after a terrorist responsible for the massacre of 38 Israeli civilians. (To its credit, yesterday, the administration did condemn the Palestinian Authority for inciting violence in Jerusalem.)

Obama's one-sided public pressure against Israel could intensify the atmosphere of "open season" against Israel internationally. Indeed, the European Union has reaffirmed it is linking improved economic relations with Israel to the resumption of the peace process—as if it's Israel rather than the Palestinians that has refused to come to the table.





If the administration's main tactical error in Middle East negotiating was emphasizing building in Jerusalem, its main strategic error was assuming that a two-state solution was within easy reach. Shortly after Obama took office, Rahm Emanuel was quoted in the Israeli press insisting that a Palestinian state would be created within Obama's first term. Instead, a year later, we are in the era of suspended proximity talks. Now the administration is demanding that Israel negotiate over final status issues in proximity talks as a way of convincing the Palestinians to agree to those talks--as if Israelis would agree to discuss the future of Jerusalem when Palestinian leaders refuse to even sit with them.

To insist on the imminent possibility of a two-state solution requires amnesia. Biden's plea to Israelis to consider a withdrawal to an approximation of the 1967 borders in exchange for peace ignored the fact that Israel made that offer twice in the last decade: first, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted the Clinton Proposals of December 2000, and then more recently when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert renewed the offer to Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas, says Olmert, never replied.

The reason for Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution is because a deal would require Palestinians to confine the return of the descendants of the 1948 refugees to Palestine rather than to Israel. That would prevent a two-state solution from devolving into a bi-national, one-state solution. Israel's insistence on survival remains the obstacle to peace.

To achieve eventual peace, the international community needs to pressure Palestinian leaders to forgo their claim to Haifa and Jaffa and confine their people's right of return to a future Palestinian state—just as the Jews will need to forgo their claim to Hebron and Bethlehem and confine their people's right of return to the state of Israel. That is the only possible deal: conceding my right of return to Greater Israel in exchange for your right of return to Greater Palestine. A majority of Israelis—along with the political system—has accepted that principle. On the Palestinian side, the political system has rejected it.

In the absence of Palestinian willingness to compromise on the right of return, negotiations should not focus on a two-state solution but on more limited goals.

There have been positive signs of change on the Palestinian side in the last few years. The rise of Hamas has created panic within Fatah, and the result is, for the first time, genuine security cooperation with Israel. Also, the emergence of Salam Fayyad as Palestinian prime minister marks a shift from ideological to pragmatic leadership (though Fayyad still lacks a power base). Finally, the West Bank economy is growing, thanks in part to Israel's removal of dozens of roadblocks. The goal of negotiations at this point in the conflict should be to encourage those trends.

But by focusing on building in Jerusalem, Obama has undermined that possibility too. To the fictitious notion of a peace process, Obama has now added the fiction of an intransigent Israel blocking the peace process.

The administration, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Yedito Aharonot, is making an even more insidious accusation against Israel. During his visit, wrote Yediot Aharanot, Biden told Israeli leaders that their policies are endangering American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report has been denied in the White House. Whether or not the remark was made, what is clear today in Jerusalem is that Obama's recklessness is endangering Israeli--and Palestinian--lives. As I listen to police sirens outside my window, Obama's political intifada against Netanyahu seems to be turning into a third intifada over Jerusalem.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a senior fellow of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a contributing editor of The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-crisis

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on March 18, 2010, 02:15:17 AM

"obama will use this as an excuse to withdraw support from Israel"

THAT is something I hope is false, because that will cause SO many strategic problems for the USA across the board............

No, I have not lost sight of the Nukes, I mentioned Osiriack didn't I.  If Israel did something similar, I would sit still for it if I was in the hot seat.  All I was saying is Israel needs to get less disingenuous when it come to obvious "tension raisers" when it comes to discussion times.  I think the palestinians blew it years ago when they turned down that deal during the early Clinton administration.  If they had taken that, their negotiation for the final bits would have ben massively more favorable.  Now they are looking more like a bunch of "tribe oriented on personage" than any real government able to take care of its people.

That does NOT mean that Israel should be continuing with these games that make negotiations meaningless (or looking meaningless)

Title: Editor's Notes: Crime and punishment
Post by: rachelg on March 21, 2010, 05:19:29 AM

  Editor's Notes: Crime and punishment
By DAVID HOROVITZ
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171365
By deliberately inflating the Ramat Shlomo issue into a public crisis of faith in its ally, the Obama administration has given encouragement to Israel’s enemies, turned more of Israel’s dwindling ranks of friends against us, and potentially put every Israeli’s life in a little more danger.   :cry:

The original Ramat Shlomo sin was Binyamin Netanyahu’s. And it was serious.
Not the “sin” of pursuing an Israeli government policy to build in Jerusalem. Agree with it or not, assert that it is Israel’s sovereign imperative or foolishly antagonistic, but either way it’s Israel’s decision.

No, the sin lay in announcing that you’re expanding a Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhood on the very day that one of your very best friends in the problematic administration of your most important strategic ally is in town for a goodwill visit. The sin lay in announcing the move when you know it runs counter to American policy, announcing it without warning, having assured the administration that you won’t surprise it with controversial actions as it struggles to mediate a resumption of the negotiations you seek with the Palestinians. And the sin was exacerbated because you’d already made exactly the same blunder before – releasing plans for the expansion of Gilo immediately after meeting with the president four months ago – and when you’d promised the president, after that screw-up, that you’d taken steps to prevent a recurrence.

Only those who lack so much as a passing familiarity with the running of the current Israeli government would question the authenticity of the embarrassed prime minister’s apology to Joe Biden, and his pleading assurance that he’d had no idea, ahead of time, that the Interior Ministry’s local planning committee was formally approving the construction of 1,600 homes in Ramat Shlomo at the very height of the Biden visit. Only those who lack so much as that passing familiarity find it impossible to believe that Eli Yishai, the interior minister, was not routinely alerted to such sensitive decisions in advance, and that Netanyahu had himself failed to put the appropriate warning systems into place, even after the November precedent. Of course such foolish incompetence is plausible. It can happen in some of the most efficient and best-run hierarchies, and few would describe the Israeli government as one of those.

Only those who insistently think the worst of Netanyahu, furthermore, could so much as contemplate that he would have done this deliberately. The last thing he would have wanted to do is embarrass Biden.

The last thing he would have wanted to do is provoke a major controversy over construction in east Jerusalem, having resisted US pressure to halt all building there, and being thoroughly aware of the incendiary nature of the issue. He’s not a pyromaniac. Only days before, he had telephoned Nir Barkat to quash the mayor’s plans for a controversial redevelopment plan in Silwan, just outside the Old City, that would have involved the demolition of dozens of illegally built Arab homes: “Drop it, Nir, it’s the last thing we need right now,” he essentially told the mayor in a telephone call shortly before Barkat was to address a press conference announcing the project.

The last thing he would have wanted to do was draw presidential and international attention to Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood founded by the would-be peacemaking Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 that hardly anyone outside Israel had even heard of before last week, where 20,000 Israeli Jews had made their homes, hitherto headline-free.

All previous prime ministers in recent decades have built in east Jerusalem, Netanyahu noted accurately in the Knesset earlier this week, in a plaintive attempt at defense that amounted to an inadvertent admission of incompetence: Yes, all previous prime ministers had built in east Jerusalem – without incurring the incandescent fury of Israel’s best ally, without bringing the roof down. And you, Mr. Netanyahu, who merely wanted to add more homes to an existing, large, thriving neighborhood – in an area of the city, between French Hill and Ramot, that Mahmoud Abbas would never have contemplated coming under Palestinian control – managed through spectacular ineptitude to bring that long-term enterprise to a juddering halt.

There are those who are calling on Netanyahu to fire Yishai, the interior minister under whose watch this happened, an ultra-Orthodox political leader, but one who claims to have the wider interests of Israel at heart and who used Shas’s electoral weight to ensure he was also named a deputy prime minister. Go to Shas’s spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, explain the situation, and facilitate a dignified reshuffle, some are urging. In so doing, you send a message to that highly aggrieved Washington that you have internalized the seriousness of the fiasco.

But dismissing Yishai wouldn’t actually be fair. For principal blame for the initial Ramat Shlomo dispute rests not with Yishai’s lower-level committee and not even with the minister himself. It lies with Netanyahu. And nobody expects the prime minister to fire himself.

SO MUCH, however, for the original sin. For all its gravity, it is the reaction, the staggering overreaction, of the Obama administration, and most certainly and centrally of the president himself, that is the more shocking, counterproductive and potentially dangerous aspect of this crisis.

Biden was furious when he heard about Ramat Shlomo, condemned the decision in coordination with Obama, investigated and clarified and demanded answers... and moved on. He and his team rewrote his Tel Aviv University speech, in which he repeated his condemnation. But he went on to note that he appreciated the prime minister’s subsequent response. He said he was gratified to learn that new building in the neighborhood was potentially years away, which would hopefully give time for negotiations to supersede marginal decisions on where to build by resolving Jerusalem’s status altogether. And he got back to his visit’s primary purpose: reassuring Israel, and making plain to the Palestinians, the Arab world and the international community, that the United States stood firmly with the Jewish state.

And there the matter could have rested. Except that the president evidently decided that it should and could not. Hence Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute telephone call to Netanyahu last Friday, with its accusations that Israel had insulted America, threatened to undermine the very essence of the bilateral relationship, and needed to demonstrate afresh its commitment to that relationship. Hence senior White House adviser David Axelrod’s salvoes against Israel on America’s Sunday political talk shows.

THE US was angry. Israel gets it. Netanyahu didn’t want to freeze building in Jerusalem last year, and he doesn’t want to this year, and Washington saw an opportunity to now force him to do so.

The US is impatient. We get that too. While many, perhaps most Israelis, truly believe that prime ministers Rabin, Barak and Olmert traveled a great deal more than half way down the road in their efforts to reach a viable peaceful accommodation with the Palestinians, and that those efforts foundered, to the misfortune of all sides, on the rock of abiding Palestinian rejection of our very legitimacy here, the Obama presidency evidently feels differently. It is wrong and it ought to know better, but this administration apparently still believes that Israel had the capacity to go further, to offer even more than Olmert’s spurned West Bank-relinquishing, Jerusalem-dividing terms, and to win the Palestinians over.

The US, and most notably its president, do not trust Netanyahu. We can certainly understand that, in the light of the one-two Gilo and Ramat Shlomo public disputes, which probably merely confirmed warnings the Clinton administration had provided about the difficulties of dealing with him.

The US is not convinced that Netanyahu is serious about peacemaking, about the two-state solution he has publicly endorsed. Plenty of Israelis share precisely those concerns. Plenty of Israelis doubt that Netanyahu has chosen to truly commit himself to dramatic territorial compromise in the cause of an accommodation, at the expense of alienating the traditional Right, at the expense of his own settlement-championing ideology. Plenty of Israelis see him as a prime minister impossibly trying to keep everybody on whom he thinks he depends happy or at least happy-ish – the hawks, the settlers, the Labor Party, the Americans. Plenty of Israelis wonder whether he is capable of prioritizing properly – whether he has internalized that, if Iran is the key strategic threat to Israel’s very existence and a strong relationship with Washington is central to grappling with that threat, then he needs to ensure that nothing, but nothing, he does or allows to be done undermines that relationship.

And the US cannot afford to be humiliated by its allies. That, too, we appreciate. It cannot allow itself to be exposed as soft and incapable of imposing its will. How seriously can its enemies take an America that allows even tiny, dependent Israel to run rings around it?

ALL OF this we understand. And none of it merits the deliberate, disproportionate escalation by the Obama presidency of the Ramat Shlomo dispute, after Biden had left our country, and its counterproductive consequences for all – consequences that can, at best, only be partly and temporarily alleviated by the disingenuous “no crisis” tone adopted by the president and the administration in the last few days.

For one thing, the public bitterness of the American response shoves Abbas all the way back up his maximalist tree again. If America has turned on Israel, and is making demands on Israel that impact on core issues like Jerusalem, why would he volunteer compromise?

For another, it emboldens Palestinian and wider Arab extremism. If America publicly brands Israel worthy of such bitter condemnation, then the worst of the extremists can confidently expect their violence against Israel to be granted still more indulgence internationally than it already, terribly enjoys. Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran could well figure that Israel may not even get backing from the United States when it moves to try and control the next bloody onslaught, the seeds of which were already sprouting this week in Gaza, the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Old City.

Furthermore, when professions of absolute, “no space,” shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity – as expressed by Biden in his Tel Aviv speech – are rapidly followed by a public avalanche of criticism and allegations of disloyalty to the US interest, as expressed by the White House and State Department, how much weight can Israel henceforth afford to attach to such warm rhetorical assurances? If, on Tuesday, America stands side-by-side with Israel, Ramat Shlomo fiasco notwithstanding, how is it that by the weekend, when nothing substantive has changed, Israel can find itself buried under a global welter of headline accusations of near-betrayal, including talk of American soldiers’ lives at risk? And how comforted is Israel expected to be by the backtracking of a few days later, and the revived insistence that the bilateral bonds are unbreakable and unshakeable?

The issue of American soldiers’ well-being is among the most problematic aspect of the entire dreadful affair. Testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US Central Command, stated: “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Centcom’s Area Of Responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizbullah and Hamas.”

Petraeus delivered a careful, soldierly assessment. But if part of the Obama administration’s fury with Israel stems from a hugely problematic interpretation of that kind of assessment, then the strategic relationship between Israel and at least this American leadership is in more trouble than most of us had previously considered possible.

Yes, indeed, Israel’s refusal to curl up and disappear – its refusal to allow itself to be defeated in conventional warfare, or by strategic terrorist onslaught, or via missile attacks on its civilian population, or through untenably dangerous territorial, demographic and security concessions at the negotiating table – rankles with the Arab world. Even the moderate Arab states, even those that have formally made peace with Israel, would much rather we were not here.

Israel’s insistence on defending itself is most certainly an irritant. It most certainly pushes ruthless regimes and proxy armies and terrorist organizations into devising new and more callous methods to try to harm us. And those who are hostile to Israel relentlessly seek to undermine the partnership Israel enjoys with its principal defender, the United States.

But it is precisely because Washington has understood that Israel – with its historic rights, its moral legitimacy, its determined upholding of democracy, its shared values and interests with the freedom-furthering West – must not be abandoned in the face of relentless military and diplomatic attack, that the US has for so long dependably stood by Israel against its enemies, even when other so-called friends have cut off military assistance and abandoned diplomatic solidarity in moments of real crisis.

It is because of America’s heroic international commitment to upholding and protecting free world values that US troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while Europe, in its weak, short-term misjudgment of self-interest, is too often prepared to capitulate to rapacious Islamic fundamentalism, America has thought and acted differently in those war zones and where Israel is concerned. America has recognized that Israel is on the front line of the free world’s battle against the bleak, murderous, tyrannical forces of Islamic extremism. And yes, in defense of its own interests, America has been ready to stand firm alongside Israel’s battling soldiers and embattled civilians.

Siding with Israel has galvanized anger and violence against the US, in our region and beyond. Well of course it has. But siding with Israel is siding with the values that are the essence of America. And abandoning Israel is abandoning those values.

Incidentally, nobody should have any delusions: Murderous Islamist hostility to the West in general and the US in particular would not be defused by the elimination of Israel. The purported imperative to destroy the Zionist enterprise is a convenient pretext for galvanizing the masses. If Israel were brought down, however, the fundamentalists would simply move onto the next spurious example of ostensible Western decadence to justify the assault.

THE RAMAT Shlomo affair was an extremely unfortunate but eminently containable dispute – indeed, it had been contained.

By inflating that issue into a public crisis of faith in its ally, the administration has given encouragement to Israel’s adversaries and turned more of Israel’s dwindling ranks of friends against us – another lost slice of the international community and, significantly, a potentially sizable chunk of the American public, notably including a proportion of the overwhelmingly Democratic-voting American Jewish public.

This is not a case of a frustrated administration helping Israel toward what it regards as necessary compromise via tough love. And its repercussions have gone far beyond teaching the mistrusted Netanyahu a lesson in correct behavior toward crucial allies.

It was a crisis, a coldly reignited crisis, and it remains a crisis even as it is being downplayed. It has emboldened our enemies and thus risked putting each and every Israeli citizen in more danger than they were a few days ago. It has rendered our country more vulnerable to those plentiful forces – forces antithetical to Israeli and to American values and interests – that want to see us wiped out.

Israel’s dysfunctional government slapped Joe Biden and the American government in the face. What the administration has done in return is far more sinister.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 21, 2010, 12:00:55 PM

THE US was angry. Israel gets it. Netanyahu didn’t want to freeze building in Jerusalem last year, and he doesn’t want to this year, and Washington saw an opportunity to now force him to do so."

This is what I think.  This was an opportunity for Bama to stick it to Israel.  Someone was on Zakaria today opposing Mort Zuckerman and complaining that Netanyahu is not serious about peace with the Palestinians and is putting the Iranian threat ahead of peace.   Really?  Well I can't think of a single reason why he might do that if true?  Can anyone think of why he might consider Iran a bigger threat at this time? 

And like he does every week Zakaria thanks everyone for coming on his show and essentially, as always comes down as supporting the Bama'a decidedly biased anti-Israel's slant.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 28, 2010, 09:41:08 AM

Quote from: G M on November 07, 2008, 08:28:47 AM

Some Americans will. I do.

As goes Israel, so goes the free world.  I'm not sure Israel will survive Obama's tenure as president.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/267486

Hostility to Israel Plays out
Jennifer Rubin - 03.28.2010 - 8:00 AM
Given the Obami’s assault on Israel’s building in its eternal capital, this should come as no surprise:

The chief of the Arab League warned Saturday that Israel’s actions could bring about a final end to the Middle East peace process. Amr Moussa urged an Arab leadership summit in Libya on Saturday to forge a new strategy to pressure Israel, saying the peace process could not be “an open ended process.”

“We must prepare for the possibility that the peace process will be a complete failure,” Moussa said. “This is the time to stand up to Israel. We must find alternative options, because the situation appears to have reached a turning point.”

Speaking at the event, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said there would be no peace agreement without ending the occupation of Palestinian land, first and foremost east Jerusalem. He accused Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu’s government of trying to create a de facto situation in Jerusalem that would torpedo any future peace settlement.

Then the increasingly Islamic-tilting Turkish government gets into the act:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a guest at the summit, said in his speech that the Israeli “violation” of peace in Jerusalem and Muslim holy sites was unacceptable. Erdogan said that the Israeli position defining the whole of Jerusalem as its united capital was “madness.” Israeli construction in east Jerusalem was completely unjustified, he said

The UN, of course, can’t be left out of the Israel bash-a-thon. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pipes up:

Ban called for the lifting of the blockade on the Gaza Strip which has created an “unacceptable and unsustainable” situation on the ground.Ban reiterated his condemnation of settlement activity in east Jerusalem, describing the settlements as “illegal.” “Like all of you, I was deeply dismayed when Israel advanced planning to build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem. There are several other recent unilateral actions as well,” Ban said noting Israel’’s recent announcement of plans to construct another 20 dwellings and tensions surrounding the Al-Aqsa mosque, among others.

This is not only predictable; it is frankly by design — the Obami’s bully-boy pressure tactics encourage others to pile on. Obama thereby endears (he supposes) the U.S. administration to the “international community” — which, of course, seeks not a secure and peaceful Israel but a hamstrung and delegitimized (if not entirely eradicated) one.

As Bill Kristol explains, the Obami’s anti-Israel bent is no accident but part of his larger approach, which seeks realignment in Middle East policy as Obama becomes not the leader of a single nation or even of the alliance of democracies but the wise mediator for all humanity:

And there’s no better way to be a leader of humanity than to show disapproval of the Jewish state. Sure, Obama’s turn against Israel will make it less likely that Palestinians will negotiate seriously with her. Sure, it will embolden radical Arabs and Muslims against those who would like their nations to take a different, more responsible, course. Sure, it’s a distraction from the real challenge of Iran. But the turn against Israel is ultimately a key part of what Obamaism is all about. That’s why there’s been so little attempt by the administration to reassure friends of Israel that Obama has been acting more in sorrow than in anger. Obama’s proud of his anger at the stiff-necked Jewish state. It puts him in sync with the rest of the world.

In this, we see the intersection of Obama’s multilateralism, his aversion to American exceptionalism, his fetish with his own international popularity, his obsession with engaging despots, his disinterest in promoting human rights, and his hostility toward the Jewish state. They are interlocking pieces in the greater Obama vision — each reenforces the other and makes more precarious the security of not only Israel but also the United States. Obama may suppose he is making America more popular or reducing conflict with rogue states, but instead, he is fueling the ambitions of aggressive despots and frittering away America’s moral standing. We are abetting an international free-for-all as the world’s bullies look for openings to assert themselves and to show just how dangerous it is to be a small democratic ally of the U.S.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2010, 04:21:22 PM

I agree.

Title: Editor's Notes: At the root of the rift
Post by: rachelg on March 28, 2010, 05:32:45 PM

Editor's Notes: At the root of the rift
By DAVID HOROVITZ
26/03/2010

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171862   
One of the few areas of continuity the Obama administration has with its predecessor is the belief that an accord with the PA beckons. For the Israeli leadership this is unfathomable
 
WASHINGTON – “Last June at Bar-Ilan University, Prime Minister Netanyahu put his country on the path to peace,” Hillary Clinton declared at AIPAC’s annual policy conference on Monday. “President Abbas has put the Palestinians on that path as well.”

For all its honey coating, the secretary of state’s speech was replete with advice and demands that rang awkwardly, and worse, in the Israeli prime minister’s circle. She lectured on the untenability of the status quo, as though this was news to Israel. She urged Israelis, like their ancestors leaving Egypt, to take risks and seek new avenues to peace, as though Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert had not sought compromise and been rebuffed. She disingenuously misidentified Hamas, rather than Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah, as the prime force behind the honoring of the perpetrator of the Coastal Road massacre with a square in al-Bireh.

But it was the two sentences on those ostensibly shared Netanyahu and Abbas “paths” that fell flattest of all.

If only, was the bitter response to the top American diplomat’s assertion that Abbas had placed the Palestinians firmly on that peaceful route. In Binyamin Netanyahu’s view, underlined by his public comments during this fraught visit to the US, the Palestinians haven’t shown the slightest readiness to progress.

The Israel-US dispute may have exploded over 1,600 homes in Ramat Shlomo, it may be rumbling on viciously around the incendiary wider issue of any and all Israeli building in east Jerusalem, but it is essentially rooted in this stark difference of perception between Jerusalem and Washington as to the Palestinian Authority’s peace-making readiness and intentions.

Succinctly put, the thrust of Clinton’s speech, and of the succession of Netanyahu’s meetings with the secretary, with Vice President Joe Biden and, most crucially and problematically with President Barack Obama, reflected Washington’s contention that Abbas wants a deal, that he is ready to make the compromises necessary to forge one, and that Israel’s vital interests mandate that it does all that it possibly can to ensure the deal is done. Ironically, for an administration so starkly hostile to most everything it inherited from the Bush administration, one of the very few channels of continuity is the insistent belief that an accord with the Palestinian Authority beckons.

For the Israeli leadership – encompassing not just Netanyahu but Defense Minister Ehud Barak as well – this assessment is unfathomable.

In Washington’s eyes, Abbas can be forgiven for spurning Olmert’s “take it all” offer because the outgoing prime minister was a lame duck, and who knew whether a successor Israeli government would honor any hurriedly signed principles of an accord? In the contrary view of the now-very-tight Netanyahu-Barak partnership, an Abbas who truly wanted a deal would have been begging for the opportunity to put his name alongside Olmert’s, desperate to sign on to the unprecedented territorial offer, ready to challenge the next Israel coalition to honor the terms, and poised to run to the international community in injured protest if such a successor tried to evade the prior commitments.

Before the Obama-Netanyahu meetings on Tuesday night, signs were that both sides were making some efforts to acknowledge and try to find a way to move on from their Jerusalem arguments and their conflicting assessments over Abbas’s viability as a peace partner. Netanyahu planned his trip to AIPAC without knowing for certain that he would be meeting with Clinton, Biden or Obama, and wound up spending extensive time, separately, with all of them.

And yet Netanyahu headed home Thursday the near-ostracized victim of what he regards as the Obama administration’s wrongheadedness, and more deeply aware than ever of the extent of the rift. He left behind an administration, and most especially a president, angry and frustrated by what it regards as his stubbornness and misplaced priorities.

In a strikingly critical piece in The Washington Post on Thursday, Jackson Diehl, the paper’s former Jerusalem correspondent, accused Obama of adding “more poison to a US-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow nonofficial photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length.”

The divide seems almost impossible to bridge: For all the current Israeli political hysteria, and for all Netanyahu’s deep dismay over the administration’s treatment of him, he is not about to dump the more hawkish wing of his coalition, and try to draw in Kadima, in order to meet American demands he both opposes ideologically and regards as counter-productive in practice.

And with that yawning US-Israel divide comes the exacerbation of Israel’s international pariah status, an accompanying boost to Israel’s enemies and reinforcement for the cooling of ties by former friends. Would Britain have responded quite so publicly to its ostensible evidence of Israeli passport fakery, would other affected countries be investigating quite so assiduously, if it were publicly clear that the US and Israel stood shoulder-to-shoulder today as they did in the recent past?

The Israeli government blames the administration’s overreach – its centerpiece demand for a halt to all building for Jews in east Jerusalem – for the failure to start proximity talks, much less resume direct negotiations with Abbas. The Palestinian leader, they say, has no need to come and bargain at the negotiating table when the US is doing his bargaining for him. The administration, in turn, regards Israel’s provocative expansion of Jewish building over the Green Line as the prime obstacle to rapid progress.

While the Americans and the Israelis intensified their dialogue of the deaf, 2009 came and went without any direct Israeli-Palestinian talks – the first such barren year in 17, as an Israeli veteran of past peacemaking dialogues with the Palestinians observed here this week. At the rate we’re all going, he went on, 2010, at the very best, will be no more productive.

In fact, it looks certain to be a whole lot worse than that.

***

The 7,800-strong turnout for AIPAC’s Gala Dinner on Monday night represented a record. It also constituted a security nightmare.

The stringent checks necessitated by the presence of Netanyahu, other Israeli leaders, hundreds of members of Congress, ambassadors et al, produced huge lines at the entrance to the main hall of the Washington Convention Center. Senators and other dignitaries had to be rescued from the largely well-behaved, but very slow-moving melee. Painstaking and thorough was clearly the security order of the day.

And yet, as Netanyahu gathered momentum in his address, it became plain that security had been breached. A protester jumped onto a table perhaps 40 yards from the prime minister’s podium, unfurled a pink banner protesting his settlement policies and screamed at him to “lift the siege of Gaza.”

As it happened, the heckler struck just as the prime minister was reaching the section of his speech where he highlighted the baseless abuse hurled at the Jews over the centuries – slanders against the Jewish people, he said, that had “always preceded the physical assaults against them and were used to justify them.”

***

Netanyahu’s remarks, or at least a good part of them, sounded like a calculated riposte, and a fairly blunt one at that, to some of Clinton’s.

The secretary had urged Israel to “take risks, even a leap of faith,” for peace. The prime minister said dryly that Israel was “prepared to take risks for peace, but we will not be reckless with the lives of our people and the life of the one and only Jewish state.”

The secretary had asserted that Abbas was a potential peace partner. The prime minister wondered, by way of derisive retort, “What has the Palestinian Authority done for peace? Well, they have placed preconditions on peace talks, waged a relentless international campaign to undermine Israel’s legitimacy, and promoted the notorious Goldstone Report that falsely accuses Israel of war crimes.”

The secretary had warned that “new construction in east Jerusalem” undermined mutual trust, endangered the proximity talks, exposed daylight between Israel and the United States “that others in the region could hope to exploit” and undermined America’s unique ability to play an essential role in the peace process. Netanyahu slammed back that “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital... Today, nearly a quarter of a million Jews, almost half the city’s Jewish population, live in neighborhoods that are just beyond the 1949 armistice lines. All these neighborhoods are within a five-minute drive from the Knesset. They are an integral and inextricable part of modern Jerusalem. Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement. Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.”

Signing his dramatic health care reform bill the next day, Obama declared triumphantly that America is a country “that shapes our own destiny.”

Netanyahu was saying much the same thing.

Yet the prime minister’s ripostes paled by comparison to the ferocious defense of Israel mounted earlier that same evening by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham from South Carolina. A colonel in the US Air Force Reserves who has served briefly in noncombat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fiery Graham garnered arguably the night’s loudest applause with a rhetorical salvo that began with a shouted “Israel... Congress has your back. We won’t let you down!”

He continued with, “Republicans and Democrats... It’s good to be here to celebrate something we all agree on: Our best friend in the world, the State of Israel!”

That was followed with a wry overture to Abbas so different from Clinton’s tone: “To the Palestinians I say, I share your hopes and dreams. All I ask is that you recognize Israel has a place on the planet.”

Next, he directly challenged the administration. “Friends disagree,” he allowed. But, he urged, “disagree quietly – so that those who wish you ill, who do not have your interests at heart, are not empowered.”

Turning to the matter of Iran, he asserted, “It is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time. I hope and pray that other options will work...”

And for his big finish, voice resonating through the vast hall, he recalled that when people would query Ronald Reagan as to how the Cold War would end, Reagan would reply: “We win. They lose.”

Asked Graham: “How does the war on terror end? We win. They lose! And by ‘we,’ I mean moderate Muslims, Jews, agnostics, Buddhists, vegetarians...”

And then he was gone, the applause ringing in his ears. Netanyahu was a pussycat by comparison.

Title: Will Barack Obama Ignite the Third Intifada?
Post by: rachelg on March 28, 2010, 05:33:53 PM

Will Barack Obama Ignite the Third Intifada?
A Jerusalem Post Column
March 26, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End has recently received a 2009 National Jewish Book Award. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Mar. 26, 2010
DANIEL GORDIS , THE JERUSALEM POST
As I was departing the United States following a brief visit last week, the news being broadcast in the airport was preoccupied with Prime Minister Binyamin's Netanyahu's recent and apparently inadvertent snub of Vice President Joe Biden. Some 11 hours later, when I'd landed in Tel Aviv and was listening to the radio in the taxi on the way to Jerusalem, the news was of rioting in Jerusalem, the numbers of police officers injured, and the number of protesters detained during Hamas's "Day of Rage." On the American news, Hillary Clinton was calling for more than an apology, demanding "concrete steps" towards peace on Israel's part. And in Israel, the fluent-Hebrew-speaking Arab protester interviewed on the radio was calling for armed resistance to Israel's "assault on Jerusalem," insisting that the time for a third intifada had now arrived.

The radical difference between the broadcasts is an apt metaphor for the wholly different ways in which the current crisis in Israeli-American relations is perceived on the two sides of the ocean. The Americans are quite right to be incensed at the way Biden was treated. Whether Netanyahu was sandbagged by Interior Minister Eli Yishai, or whether this was simply another example of Israeli bureaucratic incompetence is not yet entirely clear. But it should never have happened.

Having said that, however, it is also clear that in the context of a generally positive relationship, Israel's insult to Biden would have been unfortunate, but it would have blown over almost immediately. The snub has had such massive repercussions because the relationship between the American and Israeli administrations is frayed, and wholly devoid of trust. The important question is why that is the case.

WHILE ISRAEL has obviously made some serious gaffes since Obama entered office, the real cause for this nadir in Washington-Jerusalem relations is the fact that Barack Obama seems to have little comprehension of the region on which he seeks to impose peace. The president's ignorance of the world in which he is operating is apparent on at least three levels. He seems unaware of how profoundly troubled Israelis are by his indiscriminate use of the word "settlement," he appears to have little comprehension of the history of Palestinian recalcitrance, and he has apparently learned little from decades of American involvement in the Middle East peace process.

First, there is the issue of the word "settlements." To the Israeli ear, anyone who would use the same noun for both a small city with tens of thousands of inhabitants and for a tiny hilltop outpost consisting of a trailer and a portable generator simply does not understand the terrain. Gilo, to Israelis, is not a settlement. It is a huge neighborhood of Jerusalem, a part of the capital city. When Obama called Gilo a settlement after Israel announced new housing units there in November, Israelis drew the conclusion that the president of the United States is wholly out of his element.

Similarly, Obama's demands for an absolute freeze on settlement construction strike Israelis as either foolish or unfair. Why, they ask, did all construction have to cease? Israelis who had planned to add a bedroom to their home for recently married children, who had already poured a foundation and ripped out the back wall of their home, were now told that nothing could proceed. When the president, who does not seem to know a city from an outpost, insists that houses remain open to the elements during the cold Israeli winter because of his desire to appease the very Palestinians who have never been serious about peace efforts, he does not win friends.

Nor, Israelis have noted, did Obama demand any similarly concrete concessions from the Palestinians or their puppet-president. That, too, has served Obama poorly in this country. And despite all this, Israelis believe the world has forgotten, Netanyahu acceded to Obama's demands for a freeze, at no small political cost.

Thus, when the Americans decided to make the undeniably ill-timed announcement of the Ramat Shlomo housing plans into a cause célèbre, Israelis were hard-pressed to feel contrite about anything beyond the personal hurt caused to Biden. Ramat Shlomo is an enormous neighborhood that is already home to some 20,000 people, and which is situated between the even larger neighborhoods of Ramot and Sanhedria. Ramat Shlomo is Jerusalem, period. Building there may be wise or unwise for a whole array of reasons, but for the Americans to seize on this as a "settlement construction" issue only further confirmed Israeli suspicions that Obama couldn't locate the neighborhood on a map.

THE SECOND major element that Obama appears not to understand is that the Palestinians' current refusal to conduct face-to-face negotiations has a long history; their recalcitrance has nothing at all to do with the settlements. The settlements, like the refugee problem (on which Israel will never compromise), and the division of Jerusalem (where some accommodation will almost certainly be forced on Israel), will be addressed when the Israelis and Palestinians sit down for face-to-face negotiations.

But Abbas has agreed only to mediated talks because he is unwilling to countenance the concessions that direct talks might ultimately require of him. The Palestinians have balked at every attempt to sign a substantive agreement with Israel. There remains virtually no Israeli political Left, not because of the Israeli Right, but because Yasser Arafat unleashed the Second Intifada when Ehud Barak called his bluff and offered him just about everything he could have expected, proving beyond any doubt that the Palestinian leadership had no interest in "land for peace."

For the Obama administration to suggest that the Palestinians cannot negotiate now because of settlement construction strikes Israelis as either hopelessly naïve, or worse, fundamentally hostile to the Jewish state.

And finally, despite his appreciable intellectual capacities, Barack Obama seems to have no appreciation of what America can and cannot do in the Middle East. He believes so deeply in the power of his own rhetoric that he imagines that he can evoke the passions of Grant Park on Election Day, or the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, in a Muslim world that has disdain for the very democratic values that brought him to power. This is hubris at its most dangerous. Obama's Cairo speech was rhetorically brilliant, but the president has been snubbed. Iran has yet to grasp Obama's outstretched hand, and instead, proceeds apace in its quest for a nuclear weapon. The Palestinians have not budged. Yet Obama continues to believe that his eloquence will win the day.

Does Obama really not understand that this conflict has a long and consistent history? The Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947, and refused a treaty at the end of Israel's War of Independence in 1949. After their defeat in June 1967, they gathered in Khartoum and declared "no peace, no recognition and no negotiations." Arafat said "no" at Camp David in 2000, and Abbas continues in that tradition. Why the American administration cannot or will not acknowledge that is one of the great wonders of this most recent train wreck.

WITH HIS laser focus on the settlements, Obama is ignoring the fact that Abbas wouldn't negotiate even if not a single settlement existed. In so doing, Obama has not only not moved the process forward, but he has afforded Abbas a refuge from responsibility, and he has given those who would like to ignite a third intifada an empty but symbolically powerful excuse for doing just that. A third intifada remains unlikely at present (though, it's worth noting, the IAF attacked Gaza targets this week and the IDF killed a Palestinian teenager during a scuffle - precisely the sort of innocuous events that could one day be seen as the first events of the third intifada), but should it happen, it will be, first and foremost, the product of Washington's naïveté.

Obama would be well-served to recognize that the history of this region is clear. Peace emerges when the two primary sides do the work themselves, with the United States entering late in the process to iron out stubborn details. Sadat went to Jerusalem without American urging, and though Jimmy Carter ultimately brought the two sides together to conclude the deal, the bulk of the work had been done by Sadat and Begin long before Carter entered the picture. The Nobel Committee, which once exercised much more subtle judgment, essentially acknowledged that fact by having Sadat and Begin split the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, without including Carter.

The same was true with Rabin and Hussein, who worked on the Israeli-Jordanian peace deal. Clinton orchestrated the ceremony; but the principals had done most of the work without him.

And history suggests that only Israeli right-wingers can forge a deal. Israelis do not trust the Left to be security-conscious, and a left-wing government always has a right-wing flank blocking it. Obama may bristle at Netanyahu's hawkish rhetoric, but the more Obama weakens this prime minister, the less likely a deal will become. The US cannot wish democracy on Iraq, or peace on the Middle East. There will be a settlement of this conflict when the Palestinians are ready, not when Barack Obama decides to impose one.

SO, WHERE do we go from here? To begin to pull out of the present nose-dive, each of the parties will need to shift gears.

The Palestinians have to decide if they will take risks for peace, and if they can elect a president who is more than a figurehead. Last week's "Day of Rage," it should be noted, was called by Hamas - yet it unfolded not in Hamas' Gaza, but in Fatah's Jerusalem. Fatah needs a genuine leader, perhaps someone like Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is now saying that the Palestinians should first build the trappings of statehood, and only then declare independence down the road. It is no surprise that Shimon Peres recently compared Fayyad to David Ben-Gurion, the creator of the modern State of Israel.

The Israelis need to learn to play in the major leagues. When the American vice president visits, you need to have your act together. If Israeli leaders continue to act as if they run a banana republic, they will deservedly be so treated. But much more significantly, Netanyahu needs to apprise Israelis of his vision. Does he favor a two-state solution? What are his plans for Jerusalem? For the settlements? Let him tell us, and then we can decide. If we approve, he'll stay in office. And if we don't, he'll be gone. But we deserve to know what our prime minister has in mind.

In some respects, though, Barack Obama has the hardest job, at least in the short term. When he took office, there was no love lost between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Gaza was still smoldering from the recently concluded Operation Cast Lead. But there was reasonable quiet on the West Bank and in Jerusalem, and a renewed Intifada was nowhere on our radar screen. Obama's blunderings have now restored the region's previous tinderbox qualities.

The president needs to back down from his relentless and fruitless focus on settlements, and concentrate more on what he doesn't yet know than on the power of his rhetoric. Should another intifada erupt, it will have had its seeds in a Washington more interested in the magic of its words than in the painful lessons of a century of history.

 
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CAN BE POSTED HERE:
 http://danielgordis.org/2010/03/26/obama-intifada/
 
 
THE JERUSALEM POST'S SITE URL IS HERE:
http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=171770

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 29, 2010, 06:23:18 AM

"In some respects, though, Barack Obama has the hardest job, at least in the short term. When he took office, there was no love lost between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Gaza was still smoldering from the recently concluded Operation Cast Lead. But there was reasonable quiet on the West Bank and in Jerusalem, and a renewed Intifada was nowhere on our radar screen. Obama's blunderings have now restored the region's previous tinderbox qualities."

**It's not a blunder by Obama. It's his intentional act.**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 30, 2010, 12:36:58 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-obama-intifada-begins-in-israel/?singlepage=true

The ‘Obama Intifada’ Begins in Israel
This Passover season the struggle for Jewish survival persists as a modern-day Pharaoh, with a hardened heart, sits in the White House. (Also read Phyllis Chesler: A Passover Greeting)

 
March 29, 2010 - by Abraham H. Miller This Passover, as in every previous Passover, the struggle for Jewish survival continues.

We now face an administration that has turned a bureaucratic flap over an incomplete building permit into a diplomatic crisis with Israel.

Ramat Shlomo is a Jewish neighborhood. The Arabs never protested building there because the Arabs never envisioned that Ramat Shlomo would be turned over to them in a final peace accord.

Twelve years ago, major construction began in Ramat Shlomo without a stone being thrown.

Today, a fourth stage of a seven-stage building permit and the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s central synagogue, malevolently and illegally destroyed under the Jordanian occupation, creates an Intifada, the Obama Intafada.

Obama has created negotiation positions for the Palestinians they themselves knew were unrealistic. But no Palestinian leader can afford to demand less for the Palestinians than the Americans are willing to demand for them.

First there was the demand for a settlement freeze as a prelude to negotiations. But negotiations took place all the time while settlements were being built. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas never asked for a freeze as a precondition, but once Obama carved out that position, Abbas had to fall into line. Can the Palestinian president be more accommodating to the Israelis than the Americans are?

Then, of course, the Obama administration put the building freeze in Jerusalem on the table. Abbas never asked for a freeze in Jerusalem until after the administration took the lead. Does the Obama administration believe they can make Jerusalem Judenrein (“Jew free”)?

Building in Ramat Shlomo, and the reopening of the central synagogue, the Huvra, transformed into rallying cries for a new Intifada, about which the administration remains mute. Whenever Jews choose to return to where they lived before the Jordanians evicted them, they are met with outcries from the international community. This is the same international community that chose to be blind and mute about Jews being evicted from their homes and cut off from their holy places during the Jordanian occupation.

Obama wants to be the American president who created a Palestinian state, and his vision is clear: Israel returns to the ‘67 boundaries and large segments of Jewish Jerusalem are given over to the Palestinians for a capital.

There are two problems with that offer. First, it has been rejected by two Palestinian leaders, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Second, the refugee problem now overshadows the issue of territory.  No Palestinian leader has ever said that the return of the territories is a sufficient or even a necessary condition for peace. Yet all forays into the “peace process” behave as if territory will solve everything.

This is the view of the vacuous liberal elements of the Jewish community, who seem to suffer from a terminal case of battered wife syndrome: Just give them more land and they won’t blow themselves up. They are really nice people when they are not teaching their children jihad or celebrating the deaths of their “martyrs.”

The Palestinians want three generations of Jew-hating refugees settled within Israel’s borders, a demand designed to topple the Jewish state. That is not going to happen, but there are options in terms of compensation, if only the Palestinians were serious about negotiations.

To date, the Obama administration has exceeded the demands of the Palestinians. The administration’s public face has hyped the proximity talks, a throwback to 1992 before there were direct negotiations, and the administration has refrained from making a single demand on the Palestinians for concessions, not even for direct negotiations.

We already know what a Palestinian state will bring Israel. Gaza is the laboratory for that. The Israelis withdrew from Gaza.  Jewish philanthropists bought the settlers’ greenhouses and donated them to the Palestinians, hoping to give the Palestinians an economic livelihood. Instead, the Palestinians vandalized the greenhouses, tearing them apart for the value of their scrap copper and tubing. This was followed by an escalation of Kassam rockets and subsequently  by Iranian-supplied Grad missiles. Gaza became a launching pad for attacks on Israel.

And so, too, will become the Judean Hills above Ben Gurion Airport. The airport will become the next Sderot.

What my liberal Jewish friends forget is that the Palestinians do not even have to fight the next war; all they have to do is position themselves so as to make life in Israel miserable, so that those Israelis who can leave will leave.

The Palestinians have repeatedly shown that they are interested in pseudo negotiations about a “peace process,” but they never have shown any real interest in peace through deeds.  No Palestinian leader has ever suggested that the return to the 1967 boundaries, what Abba Eban called “the Auschwitz  borders,” will lead to peace.

What our liberal American Jewish community has done and continues to do is to mindlessly embrace this administration and project the community’s own values on to the Palestinians. We are engaged in mirror imaging and are playing recklessly with the lives of over six million Israeli Jews.

The real chance for peace will come from strength, as Ronald Reagan showed with regard to the Soviets. Only by defeating this administration at the polls will there be a prospect for peace. To follow this administration blindly into the Palestinian abyss by weakening Israel means the end of the Jewish state.

This Passover season the struggle for Jewish survival persists as a modern-day Pharaoh, with a hardened heart, sits in the White House, deluded by his own narcissism and worshiped by liberal Jews who slavishly follow him.

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on March 30, 2010, 04:22:27 AM

Ohhh! purple prose.  These are always interesting, Israel is THE ONLY really free country in the area.  These family quarrels can be very entertaining, as long as Obama doesn't go overboard and expose himself for what he is.........A closet authoritarian.

Title: Double Standard Watch: The conflict between the US and Israel must end now!
Post by: rachelg on April 01, 2010, 08:08:47 PM

GM,

Israel certainly needs all the friends it can get but comparing Obama to Pharaoh just makes Obama look good.  Last time I checked he was  not using Jewish babies as mortar and bricking them into walls.   That kind of extremist speech doesn't help Israel.   

Would  and Marc like to make a bet on Israel  still existing  January 20,2013?   I can think of some great charities  that could use the help when you are forced to eat your words.

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/the_conflict_between_the_us


The apparently escalating conflict between the US and Israel did not have to occur. It must be resolved now, before it does irreparable harm to prospects for peace. 

The conflict was largely contrived by people with agendas. The initial impetus for the brouhaha was an ill-timed announcement that permits had been issued for building 1,600 additional residences in a part of Jerusalem that had been captured by Israel in the 1967 war. The Netanyahu government had been praised by President Obama for agreeing to a freeze on building permits on the West Bank, despite the fact that the freeze did not extend to any part of Jerusalem. Thus the announcement of new building permits did not violate any agreement by Israel. Nonetheless, the timing of the announcement embarrassed Vice President Joe Biden, who was in Israel at the time.

The timing was neither an accident nor was it purposely done by Prime Minister Netanyahu to embarrass Biden. Many believe that the announcement was purposely timed by opponents of the peace process in order to embarrass Netanyahu. Whatever the motivation, the announcement deserved a rebuke from Vice President Biden. It also warranted an apology and explanation from the Israeli government, and Netanyahu immediately issued one. That should have ended the contretemps. But some in the Obama administration apparently decided that they too had an agenda beyond responding to the ill-timed announcement, and decided to take advantage of Israel's gaffe. They began to pile on - and on, and on. Instead of it being a one-day story, the controversy continues to escalate and harden positions on all sides to this day, and perhaps beyond. The real victim is the peace process, and the winners are those - like Iran, Hamas and extremist Israelis - who oppose the two-state solution.

The building permits themselves were for residences not in east Jerusalem, but rather in north Jerusalem, and not in an Arab section, but rather in an entirely Jewish neighborhood. This neighborhood, Ramat Shlomo, is part of the area that everybody acknowledges should and will remain part of Israel even if an agreement for a two-state solution and the division of Jerusalem is eventually reached. In that respect, it is much like the ancient Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, which was illegally captured from the Jewish residents by the Jordanian army in the 1948 war. The Jordanians then desecrated Jewish holy places during its illegal occupation, and the Israelis legally recaptured it during the defensive war of 1967. No one in their right mind believes that Israel has any obligation to give up the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site in the world, despite the fact that it was recaptured during the 1967 war. 

Because the Palestinians understand and acknowledge that these entirely Jewish areas of Jerusalem will remain part of the Jewish state even after an agreement, the ill-timed announcement of building permits during the Biden visit generated a relatively mild and routine complaint, rather than a bellicose response, from the Palestinian Authority leadership. The bellicose response came from the American leadership, which refused to let the issue go. Once this piling-on occurred, the Palestinian leadership had no choice but to join the chorus of condemnation, lest they be perceived as being less pro-Palestinian than the Obama administration. 

Now positions have hardened on both sides, due largely to the public and persistent nature of the American condemnation. This rebuke culminated in the very public dissing of Prime Minister Netanyahu by President Obama during their recent White House meeting. Obama treated Netanyahu far worse than he treated Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is corrupt to the core and who had invited Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver an anti-American tirade inside Afghanistan's presidential palace. According to a high-ranking Afghan source, Karzai "invited Ahmadinejad to spite the Americans." Nonetheless, President Obama flew to Afghanistan and had a very public dinner with Karzai, according him the red carpet treatment, thus granting him legitimacy following his fraudulent re-election. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, has been treated with disrespect in what many Israelis see as an effort to delegitimize him in the eyes of Israeli voters who know how important the US-Israeli relationship is in the Jewish state. 

The shabby treatment accorded Israel's duly elected leader has also stimulated an ugly campaign by some of Israel's enemies to delegitimize the US-Israeli strategic relationship, and indeed the Jewish nation itself, in the eyes of American voters. The newest, and most dangerous, argument being offered by those who seek to damage the US-Israel alliance is that Israeli actions, such as issuing building permits in Jerusalem, endanger the lives of American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

This phony argument - originally attributed to Vice President Biden and General David Petraeus but categorically denied by both of them - has now taken on a life of its own in the media. A CNN headline on the Rick Sanchez Show blared: "Israel a danger to US Troops." Other headlines conveyed a similar message: "US Tells Israel: 'You're undermining America, endangering troops.'" Variations on this dangerous and false argument have been picked up by commentators such as Joe Klein in Time Magazine, Roger Cohen in The New York Times, DeWayne Wickham in USA Today and, not surprisingly, Patrick Buchanan and Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. 

It is a dangerous and false argument. It is dangerous because its goal is to reduce support for Israel among mainstream Americans who understandably worry about our troops fighting abroad. This is ironic since the major pillar of Israel's policy with regard to US troops is that Israel never wants to endanger our troops. That's why it has never asked US soldiers to fight for Israel, as other allies have asked our soldiers to fight for them.  By seeking to scapegoat Israel for the death of American troops at the hands of Islamic terrorists, this argument blames those who love America for deaths caused by those who hate America. 

Most of all, it is an entirely false argument. There is absolutely no correlation between Israeli actions and the safety of American troops - none.

No one has ever shown any relationship between what Israel does and the rate of American casualties, because there is no such relationship - none 

Consider two significant time periods. The first is the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, when Israel offered the Palestinians virtually everything they could have wanted: a state on 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 97% of the West Bank, a capital in a divided Jerusalem and a $35 billion reparation package for refugees. Virtually the entire Arab world urged Arafat to accept this generous offer, but he declined it. During the very months that Israel was doing everything possible to promote peace with the Palestinians, al-Qaida was planning its devastating attack on the World Trade Center. No correlation between Israeli actions and American casualties. 

Then consider the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 when Israel was engaged in Operation Cast Lead, which caused significant Palestinian casualties. During that difficult period, there was no increase in American casualties. Again, no correlation. 

Those offering up this phony empirical argument have an obligation to present evidence in support of this fallacious correlation, or else to stop making this bigoted argument. 

The reason there is no correlation is because extremist Muslims who kill American troops are not outraged at what Israel does, but rather at what Israel is - a secular Jewish, democratic state. As long as Israel exists, there will be Islamic extremists who regard that fact as a provocation. The same is true of the United States: as long we continue to exist as a secular democracy with equal rights for women, Christians and Jews, the Osama Bin Ladens of the world will seek our destruction. Certainly as long as American troops remain in any part of the Arab world - whether it be Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Afghanistan - Muslim fanatics will try to kill our soldiers. Blame for the murder of American troops should be placed on those who kill them, rather than on those who stand for the same values of democracy and equality as America does. 

In considering the relationship between the United States and Israel, several points must be kept in mind. First and foremost, the US and Israel are on the same side in the continuing struggle against Islamic extremists who endanger the lives of American troops and American civilians. Second, Israel is one of America's most important strategic allies, providing us with essential intelligence, research and development and other important assets. Third, there is nothing that Israel or the United States can do that will turn these extremist enemies into friends. It is what we are, rather than what we do, that enrages those who wish to turn the entire world into an Islamic caliphate and subject us all to Islamic sharia law. Fourth, any weakening of the alliance between the United States and Israel will make it far less likely that Israelis - who get to vote on these matters - will take significant risks for peace. Fifth, the Obama administration's public attacks on Israel will harden Palestinian demand and make it less likely that they will accept a compromise peace. Sixth, if Israel's enemies were to lay down their arms and stop terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel, there would be peace. Seventh, if Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide. And eighth, when the Palestinian leadership and population want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution.

It is in the best interest of the United States, of the peace process and of Israel for disagreements between allies to be resolved quietly and constructively, so that progress can be made toward achieving a two-state solution that assures Israel's security and Palestinian statehood.   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2010, 04:18:20 AM

Hi Rachel:

"Would  and Marc like to make a bet on Israel  still existing  January 20,2013?   I can think of some great charities  that could use the help when you are forced to eat your words."

Well, GM can ably speak for himself, so I limit my question to me:

What words would I be eating?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on April 02, 2010, 05:40:53 AM

Marc,

It is possible II misunderstood you. .   You didn't provide quotes to what I agree
GM
"Some Americans will. I do.

As goes Israel, so goes the free world.  I'm not sure Israel will survive Obama's tenure as president."

This was followed by an article that I wouldn't have posted or  written I agree after but  I wouldn't have argued with it.   

Crafty_Dog "I agree."

Hi Marc,

Were you agreeing  with the  article or the idea that Israel wouldn't survive Obama's tenure of President?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2010, 06:41:56 AM

The article, though I also note that the quote in question ("not sure that") does not state an absolute prediction-- though it seems you are predicting that His Glibness will lose in 2012 (Yaweh be praised!).  OTOH if His Glibness gets to continue on his merry way with us until 2016, then Israel's odds deteriorate even further.

To be perfectly clear, I think Israel will probably survive, but the odds of its destruction are far from insiginificant.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on April 02, 2010, 06:52:39 AM

I am seriously hoping that does not happen, I do not want the 2012 prediction to be an armmageddon one.  Maybe a major change, but not of the nature that creates a bunch of radioactive holes in the middle east.  (If I was being targeted like Israel at least one of my nukes would be aimed at the Kabbah.  If the center of my religion was going to go, I would make sure the center of my opponent religion went as well.........)   What a bloody mess, I would only hope the conflict would stay regional..........

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on April 02, 2010, 11:34:54 AM

"...Israel  still existing  January 20,2013?"

Placing my bet on Israel.  In some ways better able to defend itself if they don't feel they need to clear their actions with their (former) ally.  We may gain from what they may need to do for themselves in this crisis.  Unlike most places receiving US aid over the previous decades, I don't think they squandered theirs. I imagine their intelligence, planning and strike capabilities are in pretty good shape, with high readiness.  Opponents may have warheads but I question their accuracy.

I am pleased to read that Obamas will leave after one term. :-)  At first it looked like they would stay 16 years, but I doubt Michelle will run if he is still eligible.

9% of Israeli Jews see Obama as pro-Israel.  Is that just the margin of error or what is wrong with those people? http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171849

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 02, 2010, 09:28:36 PM

Rachel,

Are you shocked to find out that the Obama I warned you was immersed in leftist ant-semitism has turned out to be hostile to Israel? I don't be on things I don't want to be true, and if there is a smoking sheet of radioactive glass where Tel Aviv used to be, a wager is the last thing that'll be on any of our minds.

How's that outstretched hand to Iran working out? Compare and contrast to the clenched fist Israel is getting.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 03, 2010, 12:02:44 PM

March 29, 2010
Obama's Treatment of Israel is Shocking
By Ed Koch

President Obama's abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, "Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president's meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to."

I have not heard or read statements criticizing the president by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand or many other supporters of Israel for his blatantly hostile attitude toward Israel and his discourtesy displayed at the White House. President Obama orchestrated the hostile statements of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, voiced by Biden in Israel and by Clinton in a 43-minute telephone call to Bibi Netanyahu, and then invited the latter to the White House to further berate him. He then left Prime Minister Netanyahu to have dinner at the White House with his family, conveying he would only be available to meet again if Netanyahu had further information - read concessions - to impart.


It is unimaginable that the President would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion. That there are policy differences between the U.S. and the Netanyahu government is no excuse. Allies often disagree, but remain respectful.

In portraying Israel as the cause of the lack of progress in the peace process, President Obama ignores the numerous offers and concessions that Israel has made over the years for the sake of peace, and the Palestinians' repeated rejections of those offers. Not only have Israel's peace proposals, which include ceding virtually the entire West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, been rejected, but each Israeli concession has been met with even greater demands, no reciprocity, and frequently horrific violence directed at Israeli civilians. Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu's agreement to suspend construction on the West Bank - a move heralded by Secretary of State Clinton as unprecedented by an Israeli government - has now led to a demand that Israel also halt all construction in East Jerusalem, which is part of Israel's capital. Meanwhile, Palestinians are upping the ante, with violent protests in Jerusalem and elsewhere. And the Obama administration's request that our Arab allies make some conciliatory gesture towards Israel has fallen on deaf ears.

Prior American presidents, beginning with Truman who recognized the State of Israel in 1948, have valued Israel as a close ally and have often come to its rescue. For example, it was Richard Nixon during the 1973 war, who resupplied Israel with arms, making it possible for it to snatch victory from a potentially devastating defeat at the hands of a coalition of Arab countries including Egypt and Syria.

President George W. Bush made it a point of protecting Israel at the United Nations and the Security Council wielding the U.S. veto against the unfair actions and sanctions that Arab countries sought to impose to cripple and, if possible, destroy, the one Jewish nation in the world. Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did - protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist.

To its credit, Congress, according to the Daily News, has acted differently towards Prime Minister Netanyahu than President Obama. Reporter Richard Sisk wrote on March 24th, "Congress put on a rare show of bipartisanship for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday - a sharp contrast to his chilly reception at the White House. ‘We in Congress stand by Israel,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a beaming Netanyahu, who has refused to budge on White House and State Department demands to freeze settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank."

But Congress does not make foreign policy. It can prevent military arms from going to Israel, but cannot send them. Congress has no role in determining U.S. policy at the U.N. Security Council. The President of the United States determines our foreign policy - nearly unilaterally - under our Constitution. So those Congressional bipartisan wishes of support, while welcome, will not protect Israel in these areas, only the President can do that. Based on his actions to date, I have serious doubts.

In the 1930s, the Jewish community and its leadership, with few exceptions, were silent when their coreligionists were being attacked, hunted down, incarcerated and slaughtered. Ultimately 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The feeling in the U.S. apparently was that Jews who criticized our country's actions and inactions that endangered the lives of other Jews would be considered disloyal, unpatriotic and displaying dual loyalty, so many Jews stayed mute. Never again should we allow that to occur. We have every right to be concerned about the fate of the only Jewish nation in the world, which if it had existed during the 1930s and thereafter, would have given sanctuary to any Jew escaping the Nazi holocaust and taken whatever military action it could to save Jews not yet in the clutches of the Nazis. We who have learned the lessons of silence, Jews and Christians alike, must speak up now before it is too late.

So I ask again, where are our Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand? And, where are the voices, not only of the 31 members of the House and 14 Senators who are Jewish, but the Christian members of the House and Senate who support the State of Israel? Where are the peoples' voices? Remember the words of Pastor Niemoller, so familiar that I will not recite them, except for the last line, "Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up."

Supporters of Israel who gave their votes to candidate Obama - 78 percent of the Jewish community did - believing he would provide the same support as John McCain, this is the time to speak out and tell the President of your disappointment in him. It seems to me particularly appropriate to do so on the eve of the Passover. It is one thing to disagree with certain policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to treat Israel and its prime minister as pariahs, which only emboldens Israel's enemies and makes the prospect of peace even more remote.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/29/never_again_will_we_be_silent_104961.html at April 02, 2010 - 06:57:20 AM PDT

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 03, 2010, 08:07:10 PM

April 3, 2010
Obama Accepts a Nuclear Iran
By Greg Sheridan

US President Barack Obama has decided to abandon any serious effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He is determined instead to live with a nuclear Iran, by containment and, if possible, negotiation.

This is the shifting tectonic plate in the Middle East.

This is the giant story of the past few weeks which the world has largely missed, distracted by the theatre of the absurd of Obama's contrived and mock confrontation with Israel over 1600 apartments to be built in three years' time in a Jewish suburb in East Jerusalem.

Iran is the only semi-intelligible explanation for Obama's bizarre over-reaction against the Israelis.

In the Middle East, today, Iran is the story. It is the consideration behind all other considerations.

Obama has not explicitly announced his new position and he and his cabinet secretaries still make speeches saying they will try to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. But if you look at the statements closely you see a steady weakening of resolve, a steady removal of any threat of any consequence for Iran. Similarly, if you look at the actions of the administration, the sombre conclusion is inescapable.

Iran's missile program, which has no conceivable military use except to carry nuclear weapons, and which can now reach Europe and in due course will have a longer range, the fundamental change in US policy has global security consequences.

It has global security consequences in other ways, as well. It profoundly undermines American strategic credibility, which is the bedrock of whatever global order this troubled planet enjoys.

The troubling realisation that the Americans have given up, or are in the process of giving up, the fight to prevent Iran going nuclear is backed by the best informed security sources in Washington, London, Jerusalem and Canberra.

The bust-up between Washington and Israel only makes sense in this context. Last week, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Obama in the White House, and also met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the State Department. On both occasions, all photographers and all TV cameras were banned. This was a studied humiliation of Netanyahu and all, ostensibly, because Israel announced that in three years' time 1600 apartments would be built in a Jewish neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. Yet the 10-month moratorium on new residential building in the West Bank which Netanyahu had announced in October to effusive US praise had specifically exempted East Jerusalem.

It is inconceivable that Obama would have treated any Arab or Muslim leader with the same considered contempt that he showed to Netanyahu. I speculated last week that Obama engaged in his furious over-reaction in order to pursue personal popularity in the Muslim world, and perhaps to force Israel to make so many concessions that the Palestinians would come back to negotiations. Although these negotiations would not produce a comprehensive peace deal, at least Obama could claim the talks themselves as a victory of sorts.

I still think these were important considerations but there was a much bigger strategic purpose, as well. In 2008, Israel told Washington it was planning to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Washington talked Jerusalem out of the move, not least by showing its own determination to stop the Iranians.

In those days, senior Americans from then-president George W. Bush down, often said that "all options are on the table" in their determination to stop Iran acquiring nukes. All options explicitly included an American military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. When Obama spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2008, he said he would use "all elements of American power to pressure Iran".

He won a tumultuous standing ovation by using a repetition of a key word to emphasise his determination. He said: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything." That was Obama's equivalent to Bush's "all options".

Obama doesn't talk anything like that any more. In his message to Iran on the Iranian new year a few weeks ago, he reiterated his determination not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs and said the nuclear matter should still be negotiated.

Clinton, in her address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, spoke only briefly about Iran, repeating a pro-forma US determination to stop it going nuclear. But there was no mention of all options, everything the US could do, or all aspects of US power. Instead, she said that while sanctions were taking a long time to work out at the UN, it was time well spent, and they would show Iran that its actions had consequences.

But the bulk of her speech was all about the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Presidential and Secretary of State speeches on subjects like this are given a level of attention that wouldn't be out of place in the preparation of a papal encyclical. The sub-text of Obama and Clinton's recent speeches can only be that they have decided that the battle against a nuclear-armed Iran is over.

One thing they are determined to do is to stop Israel from taking its own unilateral military action to stop or retard Iran's nuclear program. Israel has taken this type of action twice before. In 1981, it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. And in 2007, it bombed into obliteration a North Korean-supplied secret nuclear reactor in Syria.

It is impossible to know with absolute certainty what Israel's intentions were, or are, for the Iranian nuclear program. But for several years the most senior US officials would agree that a nuclear-armed Iran represented an existential threat to Israel. Iran's rulers, after all, not only deny the Holocaust but have made militant anti-Americanism, confrontation with Israel and even anti-Semitism, defining ideologies of the Iranian state. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Most analysts believe that for all their extremism, the Iranian rulers are rational actors and would not actually use nuclear weapons. But this is a slender analytical thread to ask Israelis to hang their very lives on. And the danger of Iran proliferating some element of nuclear material or technology to terrorists is much more plausible.

This is where the Obama-Israel dust-up comes in. By so isolating Israel, by irresponsibly unleashing a global wave of anti-Israel sentiment, especially in nations which normally support Israel, Obama has made the possibility of Israel considering unilateral action against Iran much more unlikely. The Israelis would weigh such action very carefully. There are many pluses and minuses. By creating the impression of Israel as a besieged, isolated and reckless nation, which the wildly disproportionate reaction to the East Jerusalem apartments accomplished, Obama has made the potential cost to Israel of action against Iran much greater.

Is it fair to conclude definitively that Obama has decided to give up, except for symbolic and meaningless actions, the fight against a nuclear-armed Iran?

Obama might still change his mind - he is nothing, after all, if not flexible - but that is the inescapable conclusion of his actions so far.

He has set so many deadlines for Iran. Each of them has passed and nothing ever happens. There are never bad consequences for the US's enemies in Obama world, it seems, only for its friends.

Remember, initially, that the Obama administration wanted to wait for the Iranian election in the middle of last year before it exhausted dialogue or went down the sanctions road? Remember then the deadline was September? Remember the proposal for Iran's uranium to go to Russia for enrichment? Remember the revelation of Iran's secret nuclear facility at Qom? Remember Iran's announcement that it intended to enrich uranium up to 20 per cent, a vast leap on the technological road to weapons? Did you notice a couple of weeks ago Iran's announcement that it would build new nuclear facilities?

And where are we today? Now it is April and Obama is still talking in his feckless way about possible UN sanctions. Anything that is passed by China and Russia at the UN Security Council will be weak and ineffective. A serious US administration would have built a critical mass of like-minded countries to impose crippling sanctions on Iran outside the Security Council.

The only explanation that fits with all the facts is that the US administration is no longer serious about stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, writing in this month's Foreign Affairs, declare that: "If Iran's nuclear program continues to progress at its current rate, Tehran could have the nuclear material needed to build a bomb before US President Barack Obama's current term in office expires." The Foreign Affairs article, After Iran Gets the Bomb, is important in another way. It demonstrates the drift in the serious discussion in the US. It is no longer a discussion of how to stop Iran getting the bomb, but how to cope with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Here's something else you should know about Iran. US General David Petraeus, in written testimony to congress, has revealed that Iran is co-operating with al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, facilitating the movement of its leaders. The Sunday Times of London recently carried interviews with Taliban leaders who were trained in Iran.

There is no chance Obama will produce a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace deal in his first term in office, which is how he would like to be remembered by history. There is every chance history will remember him for something altogether different, as the American president on whose watch Iran became a nuclear-weapons state.


Greg Sheridan is the Foreign Editor of the Australian.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/04/03/obama_accepts_a_nuclear_iran_98899.html at April 03, 2010 - 10:06:02 PM CDT

Title: No kidding. Silence from the MSM as usual
Post by: ccp on April 04, 2010, 11:16:31 AM

"Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Most analysts believe that for all their extremism, the Iranian rulers are rational actors and would not actually use nuclear weapons"

Oh really?  And which analysts might this be - would Fareed Zakaria be one?

Do they mean the same Iran who sent literally tens (or was it hundreds) of thousands of its OWN children to their deaths when they  marched them across a no - man's land towards Saddam's troops in the early 1980's.  Saddam's soldiers who themselves were horrified as they had to mow them down in a senseless slaughter except for the purpose of clearing a minefield.

So the analysts can tell Israel not to worry when Ahmadinejad says the Zionists time is coming, they are going to be driven into the sea and has his military clearly on a course for developing nuclear missles.  They spent decades building gigantic hardened underground bunkers and obtaining nuclear materials and know how while their citizens are in economic turmoil and "most analysts" think they are NOT serious about what they say?

It ain't the phoney one's skinny little ass on the line.

Title: Freedom and identity
Post by: rachelg on April 06, 2010, 07:52:44 PM

 
This has some religious themes. 
Freedom and identity

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=172404
By DAVID BRINN
04/04/2010   
An exclusive interview with JA head and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky.
 
Opposite the office of Jewish Agency chairman Natan Sharansky, at the entrance to the organization’s conference room in its cavernous Jerusalem headquarters, are two oversized portraits – one featuring the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and the other the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann. But the photo Sharansky sees from the chair behind his tidy desk, which he’s inhabited since taking over the chairmanship of the agency last June from Zeev Bielski, is one of Andrei Sakharov, the late founder of the human rights and dissident movement in the Soviet Union.

All three figures played prominent roles in molding Sharansky’s character and spiraling the young Russian computer scientist into the poster child of the struggle for Soviet Jewry and its ultimate victory over the dark powers of the Soviet authorities, with Herzl and Weizmann representing the quest for Jewish statehood – the ultimate realization of Jewish identity – and Sharansky’s mentor Sakharov representing the struggle for freedom.

And it’s the same solid foundation that the 62-year-old Sharansky has brought with him to the Jewish Agency, the latest stop for the celebrated immigrant who arrived in Israel an instant folk hero in 1986, and who went on to establish his own political party, Yisrael Ba’aliya, and serve as minister in three governments.

But it’s here, as the one responsible for Israel’s relationship with the Jewish world, that Sharansky finally feels most at ease – and most focused.

“I made a choice to leave government, and I chose to come here,” said the affable Sharansky, in a conversation with The Jerusalem Post ahead of Pessah.

“I feel that here is a very logical continuation of the subjects I’ve been dealing with all my life – Jewish identity, and the connection between struggles for our own interests and making the world a better place. I feel that from here, I can better influence the course of Jewish history.”

At a Jewish Agency Board of Governors meeting in Jerusalem in February, Sharansky ruffled some feathers when he said, “It can’t be our goal [just] to bring more Jewish people [to Israel].” Before aliya must come a strong Jewish identity, and with steely resolve, Sharansky set out to determine how to best invoke and strengthen a sense of Jewish identity where it’s been dormant.

It is a daunting task, but Sharansky has faced worse obstacles. Sitting across from the him, it’s easy to forget that the mild-mannered, plainly dressed, stocky figure endured severe hardships in a Soviet prison on trumped-up charges of treason and espionage for eight years, until an international campaign waged by his wife, Avital, culminated in his 1986 release. He arrived in Israel that same night.

In his final statement to the court in 1978 before his imprisonment, Sharansky concluded his appeal with the words: “For more that two thousand years the Jewish people, my people, have been dispersed. But wherever they are, wherever Jews are found, every year they have repeated, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’ Now, when I am farther than ever from my people, from Avital, facing many arduous years of imprisonment, I say, turning to my people, my Avital, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’”

Who better – on this holiday of freedom – to put into perspective the concepts of peoplehood and identity than the person who, in our generation, was able to say “This year we are slaves, next year may we be free men” and have it come true?

A hundred years ago there was a commonly acknowledged unified Jewish community worldwide. Do you think that’s still true today?

I’m not sure if there was ever a common unified Jewish people. It may just look that way looking back on it. One hundred years ago, Theodor Herzl was discovering for himself the idea of Jewish community. Just as he discovered the need for Zionism and the need for saving Jews, he discovered the idea of Jewish community. He was an assimilated Jew; he didn’t feel himself belonging to any Jewish community.

I think the idea of Jewish community has meant different things to different Jews. At that point in time, in Russia, there were big struggles between the early Zionists and Bundists (secular Jewish socialists), and they all had a different understanding of what Jewish community was.

The American Jewish community felt that Palestine had nothing to do with them and nothing to do with their Jewish identity. In my last book, Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy, I included text from the Pittsburgh Platform [the pivotal 19th-century document on the history of the American Reform Movement adopted in 1885], and how the Reform Movement terminology changed over the years. You can see how the very principles of Jewish identity were changing – from American citizens of Jewish faith not interested in emphasizing Zionist ideals, to Jews true to American principles of democracy for whom Israel is the base of their identity.

Two things happened with the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt – people who were slaves became free, and they became a people.

This connection between identity and freedom – which of course is my special interest over the last 20 years – was expressed so deeply and meaningfully in the Exodus from Egypt.

In fact, until this day, if you look historically on what basis people were coming back to the Jewish community or leaving the Jewish community, it was all about the debate over whether there is a connection between freedom and identity – whether one could live by the great Jewish universal ideals of equality, justice, tikkun olam.

I think, exactly as it was at the time of the biblical Exodus, those same conflicts were evident in the Soviet Union in the 1970s – the deep connection between the struggle for freedom and identity. And it remains true today.

Doesn’t teaching about Jewish identity differ depending on the country you’re talking to – whether it be the US, France, Russia, or even Israel?

Yes. In different countries, the way in which Jews got to the point they are at is very different. In Russia, it was absolute, total forced assimilation. As a result, the way to come back is to reconnect them to a basic knowledge of Judaism.

On the other hand, in America, the best way to fuel their Jewish identity is programs like Birthright or Masa or Lapid (the university and high-school study-in-Israel programs), or any other type of Israel experience.

In France, it’s strengthening the system of Zionist Jewish education, and so on.

But what is important that runs through every community is that strengthening Jewish identity is practically impossible without putting Israel in the center.

And no doubt, there is a big need to strengthen
Jewish identity in Israel. It’s interesting that Israelis who are involved in Partnership 2000 – the programs led by the Jewish Agency in which communities from abroad, mostly America, partner with Israeli communities – discover for themselves, for the first time, their Jewish dimensions which had been dormant for a long time. They didn’t even suspect that it was there; and these include the leaders of the programs.

They thought that to be Israeli is to be above being Jewish. A Jew was something that we were for thousands of years; now we are Israelis. We built the Jewish state, we defended the Jewish state, we are speaking Hebrew, we are living here – you can’t be more Jewish than that. But they’ve discovered what Jewish community means.

It’s one of the challenges and part of the new strategic plan of the Jewish Agency to develop courses for Israeli schools in the Jewish Diaspora. It’s a very high priority, and we currently have very good partners in the Education Ministry, with minister Gideon Sa’ar and director-general Shimshon Shoshani.

We’re also discussing the next steps, after programs like Masa and Birthright, in bringing together mutual groups of Israeli and Diaspora Jews, who through common experience will strengthen their mutual identity.

What are the changing priorities of the Jewish Agency – is it shifting away from aliya? At the same time, there have been some major changes in staffing with key positions being filled by people you’ve handpicked. Where does the Agency go now?

We’re in the process of holding strategic meetings to discuss what the priorities of the Jewish Agency should be – involving all 120 members of the board of governors.

In June, at the assembly, proposals will be brought to the table and hopefully approved, and in October, at our next meeting, the budget will be approved; and by 2011, we will be operating under the new priorities.

Of course, we are devoted to aliya, as we are devoted to education and to democracy. What you might call “aliya by choice” all depends on strengthening Jewish identity.

It’s a challenge for the Jews of the Diaspora who are facing assimilation, and Israelis who are embroiled in a struggle for legitimacy over the existence of the Jewish state, but the key to everything is developing, broadening, strengthening and defending this feeling of belonging to the Jewish family. That’s the moat around which we have all our discussions – what it means in terms of practical progress; how to translate these general ideas into programs and into budgets.

I reject the notion of the Agency shifting away from aliya. Aliya is the highest expression of strengthening Jewish identity. The aim of aliya and ingathering of exiles is still there. But what I’m saying is that the focus is shifting from escaping enemy countries or attempts to save hundreds of thousands of Jews to an aliya of choice.

I was speaking just a few days ago to a group of Americans, all religious, who made aliya in the last year. They asked me, how is it that you, who made such a difficult aliya and fought to come for so many years, are now shifting from a focus on aliya to Jewish identity.

I told them, “You know what, you know that the Kadosh baruch hu [God] gave the order – ‘lech lecha [Go].’” If there are Jews who don’t want to hear the voice of God, do you think that they will hear a shaliah [emissary] from the Jewish Agency telling them to make aliya?

It’s impossible to force our emissaries to compete with God and try to shout even louder than Him to make the message heard. You can’t be louder than God.

So what we have to do is help the Jews hear the voice of God. And how do we do that? By strengthening their feeling of Jewish connection, of Jewish pride and tradition, and their connection to Israel. That’s our function. Our function is not to impose on them what God doesn’t succeed in imposing, but to make them hear the voice.

What can you tell us about Jews in distress from countries around the world?

Each Jew who’s brought from Yemen is due to great cooperation with world Jewry. I don’t want to close any gates by mentioning some other countries. We have to be very careful. We’re watching the situations and we’re trying to think in advance about every Jew who can potentially find themselves in danger. We’re making a lot of effort to make sure we won’t be late.

Iranian Jews might be in the toughest spot right now. If I was one, I would think very seriously about why I’m still there. I don’t want to mention other countries because it makes it more difficult to help these Jews.

An essential part of the Jewish Agency’s work is like the army’s – to be ready, even if there is no war. We have to be ready to save Jews, even though these Jews aren’t even thinking yet about saving themselves. There’s spending for saving and spending for being ready for saving. There are many efforts that are far from public attention.

What kind of message would you like to give to the readers of the ‘Post’ on Pessah?

We’re increasing in a dramatic way our role in American camps and universities. People might say, “Why are we spending so much effort and money there?” I discovered a number of years ago that that’s a major battlefield of where the Jewish people is defined. And it goes back to what I started with.

The challenge for Jews for thousands of years was how to connect your desire to be free and those universal ideas of justice with your Jewishness and loyalty to your tribe. Usually, when Jews are convinced that they have to choose this or that, they always choose universal ways.

When I was spokesman of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group in the Soviet Union, with Sakharov, there were people that said you can’t be both – you have to choose.

I felt very strongly that I don’t want to choose; I cannot choose. Because all the strength to fight for freedom comes from my Jewish identity. Without it, it makes no sense to fight for those other things.

Today the battle which takes place on the campuses is one in which our enemies try to convince Jewish students that in order to be part of the world of justice and freedom, you have to disengage yourself from Israel and from your own identity. These attacks and double standards and slander result in the fact that many young Jews don’t want to have anything to do with their Jewish identity.

Our history, whether talking about 2,000 years ago, or the struggle of Soviet Jewry, or where it is today, you find this again and again. It’s something that we have to bring to every young Jew. If you want to be part of the world of freedom and justice and tikkun olam, your identity is your source of strength to fight for those things – your identity, which is based on your history, on your traditions and of course on your connection to Israel.

Was there something from the Pessah Seder that helped sustain you in prison?

I remember my first Seder in my life, when I was 25. It was in Moscow with Avital, who in a few months became my wife.

We were a big group of students studying Hebrew. We had three teachers who brought their pupils there. None of the teachers could read the whole Haggada, so each of them read a third.

There were a few songs that we learned, like “Dayenu.” And I remember that the phrase in the Seder, “This year we are slaves, next year may we be free men” was very moving to us.

Some years later, I was in a punishment cell on Seder night, and I was lonely. I decided that with bread, salt and hot water, I would have my own Seder. There was nothing else – salt was my maror [bitter herbs] and hot water was my haroset.

I tried to repeat the Haggada, but I couldn’t remember most of it. But that one phrase – “This year we are slaves, next year may we be free men” – was enough for me.

And I recalled the line, “In every generation, each individual should feel as if he or she had actually gone out from Egypt.” It was so easy to feel that’s true – that I am one of those in this generation that is keeping this torch of freedom. It was easy to feel yourself as part of this great, historical struggle, and that gave me a lot of strength.

Title: Smart Power!
Post by: G M on April 07, 2010, 07:09:01 AM

http://www.aolnews.com/story/iran-ridicules-obamas-nuclear-strategy/797895

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama on Wednesday, depicting him as an ineffective leader influenced by Israel to target Iran more aggressively.
"American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys," Ahmadinejad said in a speech before a crowd of several thousand in northwestern Iran.

"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.
Ahmadinejad said Obama "is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists" and vowed Iran would not be pushed around. "(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," he said, addressing Obama.

The United States and its allies accuse Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge denied by Iran, which says its nuclear program is intended only to generate electricity.
Washington is heading a push for the United Nations to impose new sanction on Iran over its refusal to suspect uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a warhead. Iran says it has a right to enrichment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 07, 2010, 09:04:40 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/07/obama-to-impose-peace-plan-on-israel/

"But he wore a kippah at AIPAC".

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on April 09, 2010, 06:05:00 AM

Catholic is catholic regardless of what country he is in, I hope the Jewish develop a similar sense.  I think most Jews in America are jewish in the same sense.  If I thought it would happen I would gladly welcome the entire population of Israel over here, they've earned their freedom and should not have to live with the fear they have to everyday.  There are huge and multiple hurdles to cross tho' if that were ever to happen. I suspect we would get neighborhoods much like during the 1900 transitional Era with during the industrial revolution.  There is land out there tho' the Dakotas are working the old homestead laws and there are lots of spaces in other states..........

I am wondering if they will do a modern trek or go down like the Carthaginians..........

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 09, 2010, 08:51:10 AM

"or go down like the Carthaginians.........."

Perhaps a slightly different comparison is go down like the 300 Spartans.

And the Phoney Jew hating Obama is the local herder who led the Persians to the pass behind them that led to their fall and deaths.

What I can't believe is all these liberal Jews who still work for and support the One.  What did any Jew expect this guy would do - who sat in Wright's pews for a quarter century?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on April 10, 2010, 02:38:52 AM

The carthaginians caused the Romans plenty of grief on their way out, but they are gone nonetheless.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 10, 2010, 07:30:24 AM

True.
And there are those who believe it is simply a matter of time the Israelis get "wiped out".

Certainly this President has helped rally world opinion against them.

Yet I see everyday liberal American Jews defending this President everyday.  Why?  Because he is a Democrat.  No other reason.  If he were a Republican they would be screaming about his anti-semitism.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on April 10, 2010, 09:49:28 PM

Which is why I believe the current 2 party system developed over the industrial revolution is now broken.  The republicans have become a different variety of power broker as well.  It is going to get interesting.   I am wondering if Iran/ Hezbollah is waiting for america to get distracted domestically, so they can move.   If I was working their side of the street, I would have been rotating people thru the war zone for real world training.  With that cadre you can build a pretty capable force..........

Then again every Israeli has been trained to shoot, and a nice chunk have military training...........

Title: Some Jews are finally wisening up
Post by: ccp on April 14, 2010, 09:35:45 AM

Unfortunately, it seems more based on seniors concern about their health care benefits but not the socialist agenda or the 'one's' throwing Netenyahu under the bus (the latter which I must say is astounding to me).

When push comes to shove though most Jews will still vote the Dem party line.  Look at "Toojay country" in Fla. wherein a demcorat won by huge margins in Wexler's old fraudulent seat.  For God's sake Wexler didn't even live in the community he was representing.  He was using a front address.  And what do my fellow Jews do.  Vote the next in line liberal crat right back in.  Again to liberal Jews, Republicans are worse then Nazis.  I had one Jewish patient complain to me the other day that Fox news was on the cable TV in the office waiting room.  I didn't know it was on.  I come in through the back door and never had any input to what station is on.  Another patient must have put it on I guess.  I share the office with another group.  He used the opportunity to go after Bush, state that the health care bill was needed etc. If we didn't go into Iraq we would have plenty of cash to pay for health care etc etc.

I avoided confrontation and rarely discuss politics with patients.  Occasionally pts do bring up topics I agree with and only then will say I do agree.  We are surely a divided country - it seems to be getting worse not better.

****Obama struggling with Jews, but not on Israel
By Ron Kampeas · April 12, 2010

Photos  1 out of 1
Other Media
This question, in the American Jewish Committee's new survey, asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of the Iran nuclear issue?" (AJC) Related LinksSenate letter urging tensions tamp-down gets 76 signatures WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A new survey shows President Obama struggling with American Jews -- but not on Israel-related matters.

The American Jewish Committee poll of U.S. Jews found that Obama's approval rating is at 57 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That's down from the stratospheric 79 percent approval rating among Jews that Obama enjoyed about a year ago, in May 2009. The AJC poll was conducted March 2-23 and surveyed 800 self-identifying Jewish respondents selected from a consumer mail panel.

Obama's advantage among Jews versus the rest of the population appears to be eroding. The latest Gallup polling shows Obama with a national approval rating of 48, nine points below Jewish polling. Last May, general polling earned him 63 percent approval, 16 points below Jewish polling.

Despite the drop -- and weeks of tensions with the Netanyahu government -- Obama still polls solidly on foreign policy, with a steady majority backing his handling of U.S.-Israel relations, according to the AJC poll.

It is on domestic issues that the president appears to be facing more unhappiness.

Jewish voters are statistically split on how Obama has handled health care reform, with 50 percent approving and 48 disapproving. On the economy he fares slightly better. Jewish voters who favor his policies stand at 55 percent, while 42 percent disapprove.

The last AJC poll on the views of American Jews, released last September, did not address domestic issues, so there's no measure to assess any change in support on the specific issues of health and the economy. Indeed, this is the first poll in at least 10 years in which the AJC has attempted to assess views on the economy and health care. However, Jewish voters in solid majorities describe themselves as Democrats and as liberal to moderate in their views, and traditionally list the economy and health care as their two top concerns in the voting booth.

Matt Brooks, who directs the Republican Jewish Coalition, said the relatively low score on domestic issues underscored what he said was a steady decline in Democratic support among Jewish voters.

"This indicates a serious erosion of support," he said. "It's a huge drop. There's no silver lining" for Democrats.

Ira Forman, the director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, countered that the poll did not account for Jewish voters who might be disappointed with

Obama from a more liberal perspective -- for instance, over his dropping from the reform bill of the so-called public option, which would have allowed for government-run health care.

Additionally, much of the AJC polling took place before Obama's come-from-behind victory on March 21, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed health care reform, Forman said. Since then, Democrats have said they see a turnaround in the president's political fortunes. "The narrative was the president was in the tank," Forman said. "This was when it was thought his initiative was dead."

Obama fares strongly with Jews on homeland security, with 62 percent approving and 33 percent disapproving -- a sign that Republican attempts to cast Obama as weak on protecting the nation have had little impact in the Jewish community.

He also scores 55 percent approval on how he handles U.S.-Israel relations, which is virtually unchanged since last September, when his handling of the relationship scored 54 percent approval. At that juncture, the tensions between Washington and Jerusalem were kept at a low bubble and were confined to U.S. insistence on a total freeze of Israeli settlement, and the Netanyahu administration's reluctance to concede.

The latest questions, however, coincided almost exactly with the period when U.S. officials accused the Netanyahu government of "insulting" the United States by announcing a new building start in eastern Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, and when the president refused to make public gestures of friendship during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's subsequent visit to Washington.

A question on Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear capability showed a statistical dead heat on the approval side between last September -- 49 percent -- and now, at 47 percent. However, disapproval ratings rose moderately, apparently borrowing from the "uncertain" column: Back in September 35 percent disapproved; now 42 percent give a thumbs down.

The marks compared favorably, however, with Bush administration figures. Bush scored 33 percent approval ratings on Iran in 2006, the most recent year that AJC asked the question.

Support for U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran to keep it from making a nuclear bomb appeared to drop slightly. Asked about a U.S. strike, 53 percent said they would support one, and 42 percent were opposed, as opposed to 56 percent and 36 percent last September. On an Israeli strike, 62 percent supported and 33 percent opposed, as opposed to 66 and 28 percent in September.

The only other question in the most recent survey directly addressing Obama's foreign policy also showed strong support for the president: 62 percent of respondents agreed with Obama's decision to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. This contrasts with the consistently negative Jewish assessments of Bush's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, except in the period immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Approval of Obama's foreign policies contrasts with increasing uneasiness in the Jewish establishment with the administration’s approach. Several influential pro-Israel organizations have spent months, to little avail, pleading with the administration to confine its disagreements to back rooms.

A handful of prominent Jewish backers of candidate Obama also appear to have had second thoughts. Most pointedly, in a New York Daily News column Monday, Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor and a supporter of Obama during the 2008 general election, said he was "weeping" because the president had "abandoned" Israel.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most influential member of the Senate's Jewish caucus, on Sunday pointedly avoided answering a question on ABC's "This Week" about whether he agreed with a Netanyahu confidante who said Obama was a "strategic disaster" for Israel.
Brooks predicted a tide of defections. "You'll have a number of candidates" in areas with a strong Jewish presence "asking him not to campaign for them," he said.

David Harris, AJC's executive director, cautioned that low approval ratings did not necessarily translate into electoral losses.

Brooks said that he would advise GOP candidates to hammer Democrats hard on foreign policy, particularly in tight races in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida, where Jewish voters trended less liberal than on the coasts. "If Republican candidates are smart, they will make Democratic candidates in these races answerable to whether they support Obama's policies of pressuring Israel," the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition said.

Jewish Democrats are already preparing a response strategy of arguing that the relationship remains close on defense cooperation and other matters, despite heightened rhetoric on settlement differences.

Harris suggested that the polling showed that the American Jewish public would prefer to imagine a closeness rather than deal with tensions. Obama and Netanyahu scored similar solid majorities -- 55 percent and 57 percent, respectively -- on how they handled the relationship.

American Jews "don't want to be forced to choose," Harris said. "They would rather say a blessing on both your houses than a pox on both your houses."

According to the survey, 64 percent of Jews think Israel should, as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians, be willing to remove at least some of the settlements in the West Bank. But 61 percent rejected the idea that Israel should be willing to "compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction."

The poll had a margin of error of plus/minus 3 percentage points. Interviews were conducted by the firm Synovate, formerly Market Facts.****

Title: Avram Grant, manager and metaphor
Post by: rachelg on April 16, 2010, 05:10:50 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=173304
Avram Grant, manager and metaphor
By DAVID HOROVITZ
16/04/2010   
The vindication of Portsmouth’s Israeli boss resonates for our country.
 
He’s only a soccer coach, of course. But there’s something in the improbable vindication of Portsmouth’s Israeli boss that resonates for our much-maligned country as we turn 62.

With his hangdog features and bags beneath the eyes, Avram Grant can cut an uninspiring figure.

Even in victory, he sometimes manages to look solitary. After his cobbled-together team had defied all soccer logic to defeat Tottenham Hotspur on Sunday and secure a place in England’s FA Cup Final, for instance, Portsmouth manager Grant raised his hands to the sky in a heartfelt display of relief and delight at one of the most extraordinary achievements of his career. He embraced the opposing manager, Harry Redknapp, and several of his delirious players. But he then, somehow, quickly contrived to find himself alone on the Wembley turf.

His players had rushed to celebrate with the tens of thousands of jubilant Portsmouth supporters on the terraces. Shaking hands with one or two characters who happened to cross his path, Grant ambled a little uncertainly this way and that on the pitch – the man who should have been the center of attention looking a touch lost as the pandemonium played out nearby – before belatedly making his way over to the fans to enjoy their applause.

In defeat, and he has known plenty of it, Grant looks far worse. Two years ago, he led one of England’s elite teams, Chelsea, to the brink of success in three competitions, only to fail at the final hurdle in each. In the last, and most mortifying of these failures, his club captain John Terry slipped as he was taking the game’s critical penalty kick, miscued and so cost Chelsea the most prestigious of European club soccer titles, the Champions League.

As the rain poured down in Moscow’s Luzhniki Stadium on that dark night in May 2008, Grant did his best to comfort his demoralized players, providing an avuncular shoulder for the miserable Terry in particular, and got himself soaked in the process. The forlorn Grant was a study in despair, strands of hair plastered to his pate, clothes dripping and wet through.

After four years in various coaching and managerial positions in England, Grant’s command of the language is still far from perfect. He almost visibly searches for words during press conferences, and none of his players has sought to describe him as an electrifying rhetorician, a manager whose articulacy and knack for the perfect motivational phrase has transformed the dressing-room.

That England career has also been bedeviled by media criticism. The near-constant assertion was that Grant was a foreign import incapable of doing the work he was being given, and that his very appointments, indeed, were a function of his behind-the-scenes friendships with powerful club owners, including Chelsea’s Russian billionaire backer Roman Abramovich. There was a whiff of anti-Semitism to some of the critiques, hints that some kind of Jewish conspiracy lay behind Grant’s otherwise ostensibly inexplicable capacity to obtain jobs for which his detractors argued he was unqualified. This misrepresentation became conventional wisdom even though Grant had been an extremely successful manager in Israel, taking the national team to the brink of the World Cup in 2006, when it was undefeated in a qualifying group led by France and Switzerland.

Making matters still worse for Grant in England was his embroilment in a minor scandal earlier this season, concerning his presence at an establishment of somewhat ill-repute.

And yet the purportedly inadequate Avram Grant has this week become one of the most popular soccer figures in England – indeed, one of the most popular figures in England, period, after that Sunday victory over Tottenham. Because, through it all, Grant retained his poise, his self-respect and his self-confidence. Because he battled on and never gave up, in the most unpromising of circumstances. But most of all because, ultimately, he won.

TO PORTSMOUTH’S fans, “Uncle Avram” is now veritably beloved as the manager who made the very best of the limited resources at his disposal, and prevailed – steering his team, against all odds, into next month’s cup final.

To Portsmouth’s financial administrator, trying to extricate the club from tens of millions of pounds of debts racked up by previous incompetent owners and management, Grant is central to the south coast club’s prospects of finding a new buyer.

To observers across soccer and beyond, he has suddenly been revealed as a figure of resilience – having stayed with the club even as its financial plight led to its inevitable relegation from English soccer’s Premier League. He is suddenly acknowledged as a reservoir of tenacity, wisdom and even inspiration – having given a much-depleted team, patently outmatched on paper by Tottenham’s superstars, both the self-belief and the practical strategy to outmaneuver its rival. He is recognized as a manager misjudged – the hitherto underestimated boss who, were it not for Terry’s penalty miss, would have led that Chelsea team two years ago to the European title it has still never captured.

Most touchingly, he is newly respected as a beacon of decency and quiet dignity. All of a sudden, Grant is a role model – the family man and the bereaved, respectful dignitary who in 2008 spoke at the March of the Living in memory of his Polish father Meir’s murdered parents, sisters and brothers; the good son who flew home to be with his father when he died here last October; the man with the Jewish soul who wore a black Holocaust Remembrance Day armband for Sunday’s game and flew promptly away from Portsmouth’s celebrations this week to again participate in the March of the Living. An honorable individual with a sense of perspective, a sense of what really matters in life.

In short, Avram Grant, the hapless import whom English soccer sneered at and despised, is now vindicated. Working at bankrupt Portsmouth, he became that most supported of English characters, the underdog. Sticking with pitiable Portsmouth, through months when wages weren’t paid and players were sold to keep the creditors at bay, he boosted his standing further. Winning with battered, unfancied Portsmouth, he has transformed himself into a veritable hero.

Even the fact that he’s an Israeli – in an England where, let’s simply say, that’s far from advantageous – hasn’t dented the new halo.

ISRAEL TURNS 62 this week. Its crises relate in large part to those very factors, that personal family background of suffering, that helped shape Avram Grant into the man of decency and perspective he is now more widely recognized to be. And though he’s only a soccer coach, of course, and his fortunes can quickly be reversed, there’s something in the improbable vindication of Portsmouth’s Israeli boss that resonates for our much-maligned country on its birthday.

As the former chief of staff and now Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon sadly asserts in a Yom Ha’atzmaut interview that will appear with Monday’s Jerusalem Post, the nation that was belatedly relegitimized in the wake of the Holocaust is still, more than six decades later, fighting its war of independence – battling for acceptance in a region abidingly and overwhelmingly unreconciled to the fact and legitimacy of our Jewish sovereign presence here.

The Israel turning 62 is widely disliked, underappreciated, unfairly criticized, misrepresented.

We have been trying to offer the hand of peace to our neighbors. We have attempted concessions and unilateralism and, though spurned, may do so again.

We have sought to act morally when facing ruthless enemy forces that cynically put their own civilians in harm’s way. When compelled to fight, we go to extraordinary lengths to fight fair, and engage in serious self-examination when the fighting is over.

Asked to explain our actions, we have often been ineffectual and inarticulate. Even our closest ally, the United States, no longer understands us as well as it did: It thinks it is pushing us to do what is best for both of us, where the Palestinians are concerned; we think it is undermining some of its own interests and ours, where both the Palestinians and Iran are concerned.

We have, certainly since 1982, been denied our justified underdog status – the status that, in many parts of the free world, would garner greater understanding and sympathy. From independence and through the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, we were regarded as brave, outnumbered, insistently democratic Israel, struggling valiantly to survive in a sea of Arab hostility. Israel as David. Since our invasion of Lebanon, our first truly self-initiated conflict, we have come to be viewed as a regional bully, the mighty Goliath pounding and suppressing our enemies. Insufficient account is taken of our enemies’ fundamental intolerance of our very presence, and of the malevolent skill with which those enemies have rendered our military strength less relevant through the adoption of terrorism and missile warfare against civilians. And next-to-no account is taken of the fact that, by any geographical and territorial assessment, we are indeed the David to the Arab Goliath.

Sneered and literally sniped at, unloved, our peccadilloes exaggerated and our admirable features minimized, we nonetheless continue to do our best to act decently and to make the most of our assets. We survive economically by maximizing the prime resources we have at our disposal – our own ingenuity and determination. We help others where we can, with Haiti only the most recent dramatic example. We strive for internal equality and insist on a free press, determinedly shouldering all the handicaps this presents in a region like ours.

Like Grant, we are not always lovely and we are not perfect. But our heart is emphatically in the right place. And we battle on. We have no alternative.

IN OUR 63rd year, we deserve to have our qualities more widely appreciated. And we don’t just deserve, but rather require, more practical support. The unfairly maligned, belatedly appreciated Avram Grant has been leading an embattled soccer club, seeking success on the field of play. We are an embattled nation, seeking survival.

But as the Grant saga exemplifies, the capacity to act honorably is not enough to reverse misperceptions. The ability to show resilience is not sufficient to woo new friends and regain old ones. In a world that is superficial, unfair, quick to oversimplify, misjudge, distort and misassign blame, what you have to do, ultimately, is to act honorably, to show resilience... and to win

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 17, 2010, 07:30:35 AM

Well no President in my lifetime has done more to hurt the image of Israel then the present guy.

Yes I remember a few anti semitic remarks from the likes of James Baker etc. He certainly is an anti-semite.

 But it was never like this where the US policy gives the world an even greater opportunity to pour its disdain and dislike for the Jews of Israel.

There is simply no getting around it.

Israel is facing the threat of extermination now more than ever and Bama has done all he can to put the blame of lack of peace in the Middle East squarely on the Israelis.

Are you or anyone saying the Jews brought this on themselves because of some housing starts in some disputed lands??

Well that is what the Phoney one is saying.

Title: Sanctions for Settlements
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 18, 2010, 08:50:45 AM

The title of this piece suggests that the author thinks that sanctions against Iran can be/will be meaningful i.e. actually effective in getting Iran to change course on its mission to get nukes.

I think this a profoundly foolish notion.  I agree with an analysis that I read from Stratfor (probably posted here on the Iran thread or the Nuke War thread) that the purpose of sanctions is to pretend to do something and to leash Israel from actually acting.

That said, I think there is much intelligent commentary and analysis in this article:

================
By BRET STEPHENS
This article initially appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine.

When Joe Biden touched down in Tel Aviv on March 8, there was no indication that his visit would set off the most serious crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations in decades. The U.S. vice president arrived carrying the text of an effusively pro-Israel speech that was meant to assure skittish Israelis that the Obama administration would remain as committed as any of its predecessors to their security. Such an assurance, the administration evidently believed, was essential if the United States was to persuade the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remove settlements from the West Bank in order to make way for a Palestinian state.

But Biden's plans were soon upended. On March 9, a mid-level official in Israel's Interior Ministry announced the approval of the fourth stage in a seven-part approval process for the construction of 1,600 residential units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo. Geographically, Ramat Shlomo is in north Jerusalem, within the city's municipal boundaries, and successive Israeli governments have insisted that they would never relinquish these areas in any final settlement with the Palestinians. But because the neighborhood lies across the Green Line (which separates pre-1967 Israel from those territories captured in the Six-Day War), it is widely seen by non-Israelis as being part of East Jerusalem, the side of the city envisioned as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Biden wasted no time in condemning the announcement, although he was also quick to accept Netanyahu's apology for its timing.

Less forgiving, however, were Biden's principal counterparts in the administration. On March 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu "to make clear the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship," according to Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley. And the president himself reportedly gave Netanyahu the chilliest of receptions when they met in the White House the following week.

Sundry pundits and policy experts are cheering this turn of events, saying the administration's tough stance is good for America's interests in the region, good for its standing in the Muslim world, and good for Israel's long-term interests, too. But those now cheering may soon find themselves disappointed by what the Obama administration's approach actually achieves. Why? Because it flies in the face of three hard political realities: Israeli, Arab, and American.

The Israeli reality is that the maximum Israelis are prepared to offer is less than the minimum Palestinians are prepared to accept. The Arab reality (which goes far to account for the Israeli reality) is that Islamism has broadly supplanted secular and nationalist politics, at least at the level of public sentiment. The American reality is that there are limits to what Washington can or is likely to do to reshape Arab or Israeli views in a way that would favor a settlement of the conflict.

Consider each of these realities from the perspectives of the players themselves.

First, imagine yourself as a quintessential middle Israeli -- barely religious, by no means enthralled by visions of Greater Israel, a self-described pragmatist who is only keen to be nobody's fool. For 20 years, you have voted with the winner in every parliamentary election, from Yitzhak Rabin's Labor Party in 1992 to Netanyahu's Likud in 2009. You had high expectations for the Oslo accords and supported the withdrawal from Gaza, but you also cheered Ariel Sharon's invasion of the West Bank in 2002 and Ehud Olmert's wars with Hezbollah and Hamas.

If you are that Israeli -- which is to say, the constant plurality of the country's recent past -- what conclusions are you likely to draw about the country's peace-making efforts? The first conclusion is that peace with this generation of Palestinian leaders is unlikely. Correctly or not, Israelis overwhelmingly believe that Ehud Barak made a generous offer to Yasir Arafat at the 2000 Camp David talks and wasn't even met with a counteroffer. The same goes for Ehud Olmert's even more generous offer (again, in Israeli eyes) to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008.

The second conclusion is that although separation from the Palestinians is desirable in theory, it is very risky in practice. Israel withdrew from its "security corridor" in south Lebanon in 2000 but wound up having to go to war against a well-armed Hezbollah a few years later. Ditto for what happened after Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. You have come to believe that even if Israel were to withdraw from the last millimeter of the West Bank, Palestinians would still find a reason to gin up claims against you, probably through continued insistence on the so-called right of return.

The third conclusion is that trends in Palestinian politics bode ill for a long-term settlement. Hamas handily won the 2006 parliamentary elections and easily evicted Fatah from power in Gaza the next year. Last year, the Fatah powerbroker Mohammed Dahlan insisted that the party would not urge Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist and, moreover, that Fatah itself (as opposed to the PLO) had "never recognized Israel's right to exist."

The fourth conclusion is that the Obama administration's apparent hostility to Israel makes this a particularly inauspicious time to enter final-status negotiations. As the Israeli commentator Ehud Yaari -- a classic "middle Israeli," albeit a uniquely astute one -- told Foreign Affairs in a recent interview, "It is very difficult for any Israeli prime minister to sit [at] . . . the negotiating table with the Palestinians when he is not fully coordinated with the U.S. president."

Finally, although you are perfectly capable of seeing that Israel has a demographic time bomb on its hands if it continues to contain a growing Palestinian population within its borders, that danger seems remote and abstract for now. Israel, you think, relieved itself of much of the demographic problem when it withdrew from Gaza, which is now effectively a self-governing entity. Palestinians in the West Bank are also self-governing, even if their cities and towns lack geographic contiguity. And, thanks to the success of the separation fence in dramatically reducing the incidence of suicide terror, the people of Ramallah, Nablus, or Jenin rarely impinge on your daily life.

Besides, Israel has a more urgent time bomb to contend with: the centrifuges spinning in Iran. By contrast, the Palestinian problem can wait a few years.

Now turn to the Arab reality, this time by imagining yourself as Mahmoud Abbas.

In most personal respects, you are the opposite of your charismatic if erratic predecessor, which makes you popular in the West. In the Arab world, however, and particularly among Palestinians, you are mainly seen as a political placeholder living (or at least governing) on borrowed time. This hardly gives you the kind of personal authority needed to forge a peace with Israel over the objections of your more radical constituents.

You also lack democratic legitimacy. You have been ruling by decree since shortly after Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006, and your term of elected office ended over a year ago. You have a competent and internationally respected prime minister in Salam Fayyad, but he competes for legitimacy with Hamas' Ismail Haniyeh, the man elected to the job. Your country has been divided into geographically distinct political camps for nearly three years, since Fatah was militarily trounced by Hamas in a civil war.

Then there is the issue of your persona. Put simply, you're an anachronism. You remain a believer in the Oslo accords while Palestinians are souring on the two-state solution. Your own negotiator, Saeb Erekat, recently urged that the accords be declared "null and void." You are a committed secularist and nationalist, a product of Soviet education, in an era in which Islamist movements -- which disdain secularism and suspect nationalism -- are on the march throughout the Arab world. You knew Anwar Sadat and always remember his assassination at the hands of Islamic radicals avenging Egypt's peace with Israel.

So you find yourself chasing the goal of a Palestinian state even as the idea of that state disintegrates all around you. Of course it helps that the Middle East Quartet has now offered March 2012 as a date certain for the end of "the occupation which began in 1967." But even if that comes to pass, what is the likelihood that you or your successor can guarantee what the Quartet also expects – namely, "the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors"? Without the consent of Hamas, such a state will not be democratic or viable; with Hamas, it will not live for very long in peace and security with Israel.

Could Hamas change? As its leader Khaled Mashal flatly declared in 2006, "Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong."

Finally, imagine yourself as the proverbial senior administration official.

The president has signaled a decidedly new tone toward Israel, and now it is up to you to give that tone its substance. But how far, really, can Obama lean on Israel? Consider your options. Military aid is guaranteed by the 1978 Camp David agreement: Is the president prepared to rescind it? Voting for one of the U.N.'s typically lopsided resolutions would be a domestic political debacle, and not just on account of the so-called Israel Lobby: America remains an instinctively pro-Israel country. And a unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood, in the absence of a final settlement agreement with Israel, would destroy the U.S.-Israel relationship.

One thing you could conceivably do is apply enough pressure on the Netanyahu government that it switches coalition partners or loses office altogether. But, as Yaari told Foreign Affairs, "It's impossible for any Israeli prime minister to say that he is going to forego Jerusalem before a final status negotiation with the Palestinians for end of conflict, end of claims."

Indeed, by turning up the heat as he did, the president may have accomplished the opposite of what he intended. Israelis are now increasingly convinced that the administration is hostile not just to Netanyahu but Israel itself. At the same time, Palestinians now have reason to hold out for concessions on Jerusalem that they never previously expected to get and which no Israeli government is ever likely to grant.

Perhaps, then, the experience of recent weeks leads you to conclude that it is unwise for the United States to seek the trust of one party to the conflict by playing it against the other. That was the lesson of the Egyptian-Israeli experience, which allowed both Israel and Egypt to claim victory and the United States to keep a friend and gain a strategic partner. A similar approach could work with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of seeking a new balance between the two sides, the administration could find ways to bond with them.

Hectoring the parties about their "best interests" won't work, particularly for an administration that has promised to lecture less and listen more. Making unrealistic promises, like Palestinian statehood by 2012, is a recipe for Palestinian frustration and disenchantment. Nor will it help to threaten the loss of American friendship. As Obama is now learning with Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- who responded to a recent White House snub by inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kabul -- even governments far more dependent on U.S. help than Israel can exercise options that contradict U.S. interests.

It is time for something different. The president is now considering putting forward his own peace plan, perhaps on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. But this approach poses considerable political and strategic risks to the administration. What happens, for example, if one of the parties just says no? How would that affect the president's prestige or limit his flexibility? Is the United States prepared to impose "consequences" on the naysayer? And what would those consequences be?

There is a more plausible option available to the administration. As much as the Israelis resist withdrawing from the West Bank, they care far more about stopping Iran's nuclear bid. Unlike even a relatively hostile Palestinian state, a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to the Jewish state not only directly but also through its proxies on Israel's borders.

So why not make a deal? The United States pledges that it will not permit Iran to go nuclear, period. And Israel pledges that it will unilaterally dismantle its settlements on the West Bank, period. (Jerusalem would have to be dealt with separately, but the deal at least offers Palestinians the contiguity they have long claimed to seek.) There would, of course, be the question of who goes first. But the plan could just as easily be conceived as a step-by-step, confidence-building process of trading settlements for sanctions and other anti-Iranian steps.

Is this fantasy? Perhaps. It certainly demands nearly as much of the United States as Washington demands of Israel. But at least it reflects the only kind of approach that might spur progress between Israel and its neighbors. In sum, Washington needs to get off the pressure track and get on the inducement track. Otherwise, it can look forward to years of wasted diplomatic toil, along with rivers of Israeli and Palestinian tears.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 19, 2010, 10:01:46 AM

Never Again Should We Be Silent

By Ed Koch

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | President Obama's abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, "Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president's meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to."

I have not heard or read statements criticizing the president by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand or many other supporters of Israel for his blatantly hostile attitude toward Israel and his discourtesy displayed at the White House. President Obama orchestrated the hostile statements of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, voiced by Biden in Israel and by Clinton in a 43-minute telephone call to Bibi Netanyahu, and then invited the latter to the White House to further berate him. He then left Prime Minister Netanyahu to have dinner at the White House with his family, conveying he would only be available to meet again if Netanyahu had further information — read concessions — to impart.

It is unimaginable that the President would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion. That there are policy differences between the U.S. and the Netanyahu government is no excuse. Allies often disagree, but remain respectful.

In portraying Israel as the cause of the lack of progress in the peace process, President Obama ignores the numerous offers and concessions that Israel has made over the years for the sake of peace, and the Palestinians' repeated rejections of those offers. Not only have Israel's peace proposals, which include ceding virtually the entire West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, been rejected, but each Israeli concession has been met with even greater demands, no reciprocity, and frequently horrific violence directed at Israeli civilians. Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu's agreement to suspend construction on the West Bank — a move heralded by Secretary of State Clinton as unprecedented by an Israeli government — has now led to a demand that Israel also halt all construction in East Jerusalem, which is part of Israel's capital. Meanwhile, Palestinians are upping the ante, with violent protests in Jerusalem and elsewhere. And the Obama administration's request that our Arab allies make some conciliatory gesture towards Israel has fallen on deaf ears.

Prior American presidents, beginning with Truman who recognized the State of Israel in 1948, have valued Israel as a close ally and have often come to its rescue. For example, it was Richard Nixon during the 1973 war, who resupplied Israel with arms, making it possible for it to snatch victory from a potentially devastating defeat at the hands of a coalition of Arab countries including Egypt and Syria.

President George W. Bush made it a point of protecting Israel at the United Nations and the Security Council wielding the U.S. veto against the unfair actions and sanctions that Arab countries sought to impose to cripple and, if possible, destroy, the one Jewish nation in the world. Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did — protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist.

To its credit, Congress, according to the Daily News, has acted differently towards Prime Minister Netanyahu than President Obama. Reporter Richard Sisk wrote on March 24th, "Congress put on a rare show of bipartisanship for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday — a sharp contrast to his chilly reception at the White House. 'We in Congress stand by Israel,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a beaming Netanyahu, who has refused to budge on White House and State Department demands to freeze settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank."

But Congress does not make foreign policy. It can prevent military arms from going to Israel, but cannot send them. Congress has no role in determining U.S. policy at the U.N. Security Council. The President of the United States determines our foreign policy — nearly unilaterally — under our Constitution. So those Congressional bipartisan wishes of support, while welcome, will not protect Israel in these areas, only the President can do that. Based on his actions to date, I have serious doubts.

In the 1930s, the Jewish community and its leadership, with few exceptions, were silent when their coreligionists were being attacked, hunted down, incarcerated and slaughtered. Ultimately 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The feeling in the U.S. apparently was that Jews who criticized our country's actions and inactions that endangered the lives of other Jews would be considered disloyal, unpatriotic and displaying dual loyalty, so many Jews stayed mute. Never again should we allow that to occur. We have every right to be concerned about the fate of the only Jewish nation in the world, which if it had existed during the 1930s and thereafter, would have given sanctuary to any Jew escaping the Nazi holocaust and taken whatever military action it could to save Jews not yet in the clutches of the Nazis. We who have learned the lessons of silence, Jews and Christians alike, must speak up now before it is too late.

So I ask again, where are our Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand? And, where are the voices, not only of the 31 members of the House and 14 Senators who are Jewish, but the Christian members of the House and Senate who support the State of Israel? Where are the peoples' voices? Remember the words of Pastor Niemoller, so familiar that I will not recite them, except for the last line, "Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up."

Supporters of Israel who gave their votes to candidate Obama — 78 percent of the Jewish community did — believing he would provide the same support as John McCain, this is the time to speak out and tell the President of your disappointment in him. It seems to me particularly appropriate to do so on the eve of the Passover. It is one thing to disagree with certain policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to treat Israel and its prime minister as pariahs, which only emboldens Israel's enemies and makes the prospect of peace even more remote.

Title: Waiving the rules on the Syrian-Lebanese border
Post by: rachelg on April 21, 2010, 06:38:03 PM

Waiving the rules on the Syrian-Lebanese border


http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173569
By JONATHAN SPYER
21/04/2010   
The West should use resolution 1701 to roll back Hizbullah's effective take-over of the Lebanese gov't.
 
The summoning by the United States of Syrian Deputy Chief of Mission Zouheir Jabbour for a review of Syrian arms transfers to Hizbullah is the latest evidence of the serious basis to the recent tensions in the north.

Syria has continued to deny recent reports suggesting that it permitted the transfer of Scud-D ballistic missiles to Hizbullah.

But the issue of the Scuds is only a significant detail within a larger picture, which has been emerging into clear view since August 2006. This is the reality in which UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006, has been turned into a dead letter by the “resistance bloc” of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.

It is worth recalling that Resolution 1701 was hailed as a significant achievement for diplomacy at the time. The resolution was supposed to strengthen the basis for the renewed Lebanese sovereignty that seemed possible after Syrian withdrawal in 2005.

Its provisions are quite clear. The resolution calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state.” It also explicitly prohibits “sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.”

Hizbullah and its backers calculated, correctly, that neither the government of Lebanon, nor the United Nations, nor the “international community” would be able or willing to enforce these clauses.

The UN has itself admitted the severe inadequacy of arrangements along the Syrian-Lebanese border. Two UN border assessments have been carried out since 2006 – in June 2007 and August 2008.

The second report found, in the dry language employed by such documents, that “even taking into account the difficult political situation in Lebanon during the past year,” progress toward achieving the goals laid out in Resolution 1701 had been “insufficient.”

The “difficult political situation” of 2008 is a reference to the fact that the elected Lebanese government’s single attempt at enforcing its sovereignty over the allies of Syria and Iran in the country ended in May 2008 with the violent rout of the government.

Hizbullah and its allies simply made clear that any attempt to interfere with their military arrangements would be met with blunt force, and no further attempt was made.

The result has been that over the past three-and-a-half years, under the indifferent eyes of the world, the roads between Syria and Lebanon have hummed to the sound of arms trucks and suppliers bringing Syrian and Iranian weaponry to Lebanon.

The response of Israel has been to observe the situation, and to make clear that the crossing of certain red lines in terms of the type and caliber of the weaponry being made available to Hizbullah would constitute a casus belli.

The recent heightening of tensions has come because of emerging evidence that these red lines are being flouted with impunity.

This did not begin with the reports of the Scuds. Evidence has emerged into the public sphere over the last months of weaponry suggesting a Syrian and Iranian desire to transform Hizbullah into a bona fide strategic threat to Israel.

The weaponry supplied to Hizbullah include M-600 surface-to-surface missiles, the man-portable Igla-S surface-to-air missile system, which would threaten Israeli fighter aircraft monitoring the skies of Lebanon, and now the Scud-D ballistic missile system.

If the reports regarding such weaponry are correct, they would make Hizbullah by far the best-armed non-state paramilitary group in the world.

These reports do not mean that war is necessarily imminent.

Israel appears in no hurry to punish Hizbullah and Syria for the flouting of red lines. Unlike its enemies, the Israeli government is publicly accountable, and would find it difficult to justify a preemptive strike – which might well result in renewed war – to the Israeli public.

Hizbullah and Syria also seem in no rush to initiate hostilities. They have merely internalized the fact that nothing serious appears to stand in the way of their activities across the eastern border of Lebanon, and are hence proceeding apace.

The clearest lesson of the latest events is the fictional status of international guarantees and resolutions if these are not backed by a real willingness to enforce them.

The Western failure to underwrite the elected government of Lebanon has led to the effective Hizbullah takeover of that country. The failure to insist on the implementation of Resolution 1701 has allowed the apparent strategic transformation of Hizbullah over the last three and a half years.

While the “resistance bloc” does not necessarily seek imminent conflict, there is also no sign whatsoever that its appetite has been satiated by its recent gains. Laws, elections and agreements do not stand in its way. It operates, rather, according to the dictum of a certain 20th-century German leader, who said, “You stand there with your law, and I’ll stand here with my bayonets, and we’ll see which one prevails.”

The real question, of course, being how long the intended victim of such an approach is prepared to allow it to continue.

The writer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzl

Title: A Point of View: Israel's wow factor
Post by: rachelg on April 21, 2010, 06:42:25 PM

A Point of View: Israel's wow factor

Posted by Abraham Foxman
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/foxman/entry/israel_s_wow_factor_posted

I recently met an old friend who had just returned from an extended stay in Israel. "How is the mood," I asked him, expecting the worst. "Fantastic," he exclaimed, "the cafes, the people, the exciting business opportunities. I even test drove the new electric car. Life in Israel is great."   

I was struck by my friend's exuberant and cheerful report. I had expected him to tell of a dark mood in Israel, of Israelis worried about US-Israel relations, Iran's nuclear weapons development, the stalled peace process, the campaign to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State, and of the usual despair over crime, traffic, social problems, religious conflicts and the political crisis de jour.

As someone who is deeply engaged in Israeli affairs - professionally and personally - my focus is generally on day-to-day issues. On any given day at ADL, we grapple with countering resolutions presented at international bodies blaming Israel for the world's ills, educating the misinformed about Israeli policies, combating initiatives to promote university or church divestment from Israel or to boycott Israeli products at US or European supermarkets, even correcting maps in directories which mark every country in the Middle East but conveniently forget to label the State of Israel. Journalists call me for a perspective on what a breaking news event might portend for relations between Washington and Jerusalem. 

I am not alone. When I give speeches around the United States, the worry for Israel's present and future is often palpable. After all, pick up any major newspaper in the US or abroad and turn on any cable news broadcast, and the coverage of Israel is generally gloom and doom. Straight news pieces highlight the problems confronting Israel. More skewed commentary blames Israel's policies, approach and sometimes even being.  Has any other country in the world warranted such a magazine cover story: "Will Israel Live to 100"?   

But as my friend's enthusiasm reminds me, these (very legitimate) worries and concerns should never eclipse appreciation and celebration of what Israel is. For someone who has been visiting Israel regularly since the 1950s, just seeing the transformation of the country into what it is today makes me stop every trip to say, "Wow!" Israel's major metropolitan cities have transformed from proverbial dusty backwaters to world-class centers. In just over six short decades, Israelis have built a cutting-edge modern democratic state, with an exciting cultural and social scene, and whose innovations in science, medicine, agriculture, ecology and technology are the envy of the international community. And the people - diverse, divergent, complicated and never boring!

And so, on this Yom Haatzmaut, let all us pro-Israel advocates, news junkies and armchair analysts take a lesson from my friend. Let us commit to keeping active on Israel's challenges, but to never lose sight of all there is to cherish and enjoy about Israel. As we remember each Yom Hazikaron, Israel has sacrificed a lot to get to its 62nd year, but we also owe it to all who contributed to the building of this great state to ensure that Israel's assets, and not its problems, are what defines this fantastic country.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 24, 2010, 02:16:58 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/24/abbas-to-obama-impose-your-will-on-us/

How's that hopey-changey thing working out for Israel?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on April 26, 2010, 12:25:41 AM

Good googly moogly, if he wants to impose something- he is going to need force.  Where is that gonna come from? I suspect a serious number of the currently serving armed forces will decline renewal of their contracts, without them where are you going to get the troops?  I thought we wanted the troops home a years ago?  This is not getting the troops home, does this guy bother to think things thru at all?  I snap decision reaction would to reinstitute the draft, and that would be political suicide...............

The situation in Korea is heating up too,  I wonder if some people have read Tom Clancy and are deliberately going for a thinning out of our resources?

Title: Look who’s (almost) talking
Post by: rachelg on April 30, 2010, 12:50:44 PM

Editor's Notes: Look who’s (almost) talking
By DAVID HOROVITZ
30/04/2010 15:51
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=174344
The dispute over the modalities of peace negotiations was only the first, and the least, of the problems


With Mahmoud Abbas now seeking Arab League approval for the launch of indirect “proximity” talks with Israel, we are belatedly back to where things stood on the eve of Vice President Joe Biden’s unhappy visit to Israel seven weeks ago.

Biden’s was a long-planned trip intended to reassure Israel about the Obama administration’s oft-stated “unbreakable, unshakable” commitment to Israel. But it was also timed to coincide with the scheduled launch of the indirect talks.

While the Israeli announcement of planned new construction at Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem that was mainly populated without controversy during Yitzhak Rabin’s premiership, has been universally understood to have torpedoed many of the positive aims of the Biden visit, and the intended launch of the proximity talks, too, the truth, as so often, is rather more complicated.

The Ramat Shlomo announcement did indeed blight the visit. But Biden accepted Israel’s explanations and apologies for the embarrassing timing of a decision in an area of policy – the question of Israeli building in Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhoods – where the US and Israel have a longstanding fundamental disagreement. What has not hitherto been made known is that the Biden visit exposed a second crisis, regarding the modalities of the proximity talks.

Broadly speaking, three separate sources have confirmed in the past few days, Israel understood that it was agreeing to enter the shortest-possible sequence of indirect contacts, mediated by special envoy George Mitchell and his team, between Jerusalem and Ramallah, and that these would quickly be superseded by a resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on the core issues. By contrast, the Palestinian Authority understood that it was consenting to some four months of indirect talks, grappling substantively with core issues.

When each side realized that it had a very different impression of the “proximity” modalities, frustrations erupted among all three players, the scheduled launch of those talks was rendered impossible, and that intended crowning element of the Biden visit was scuppered.

The diplomacy of the past seven weeks has been concentrated on reconciling those conflicting impressions, to find parameters that both sides can live with, amid what the US delicately calls the two sides’ mutual doubts and suspicions. The guarded optimism of the last few days, including public comments by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas, indicates that a formula has been found.

My understanding is that, although Israel wanted direct talks as close to straight away as possible, the proximity talks may indeed last for several months, but that the US and Israel would certainly be pleased if it proves possible to move into the direct framework sooner. Moreover, while aspects of some final-status issues will be raised in the indirect framework, the knottiest matters of dispute will still necessarily be addressed in the direct-talk phase. As Jerusalem sees it, there’s not much point in debating matters of critical substance via a third party when Ramallah is a 20-minute drive away.

SO MUCH for the modalities.

As regards matters of substance, the plain, unfortunate fact remains that not only are Israel and the Palestinians deeply and predictably at odds, so too are Israel and the Obama administration.

The administration argues that since Israel regards an accommodation with the Palestinians as central to its capacity to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, the Netanyahu government should be doing whatever it can to create the climate for such an accommodation. It argues further that since the US is strategically committed to Israel’s Jewish and democratic well-being, its work to foster such an accommodation is emphatically an American strategic interest, and it wonders why it gets criticized for describing its efforts in those terms.

It may have accepted that Netanyahu’s publicly stated “red lines” mean he will not order a halt to building in Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhoods, it may have persuaded the Palestinians to enter proximity talks without such a declared halt, but it thinks Netanyahu’s position is unhelpful – unhelpful to Israel.

It claims, furthermore, not to quite understand what it is that Netanyahu is offering or planning to offer the Palestinians, and The Jerusalem Post’s report earlier this week that the government has no plans to dismantle so much as an unauthorized West Bank outpost in the foreseeable future won’t have helped. Noting that former prime minister Ehud Olmert failed to cut a deal with Abbas when, having left Gaza, Israel offered almost all of the West Bank, the division of Jerusalem and a readiness to resolve the Palestinian refugee issue without altering Israel’s demographic balance, the Americans wonder why Netanyahu thinks he might have more success when trying to drive what the prime minister has described as “a harder bargain.”

And where the latest ostensible bust-up between Netanyahu and Barack Obama in late March is concerned, some in the administration are asking why the prime minister so fervently sought the presidential ear when it turned out he had nothing particularly dramatic to convey.

The insistence from Washington is that the last thing this administration wants to do, contrary to certain reports, is to change the Israeli government. It believes Netanyahu has the ability and the credibility to achieve an agreement with Abbas. It just doesn’t know whether he wants to.

(In Jerusalem, incidentally, it is firmly asserted that Netanyahu did not seek that March White House meeting in the first place, but rather was invited by the president after it became clear that Obama was not going to be away in Indonesia as originally scheduled.)

Nonetheless, the administration does appreciate that Netanyahu was willing to sanction the 10-month settlement-home moratorium, and it has detected other shifts in his stance of late. One of these was his widely overlooked statement, in his Channel 2 interview last week, that the final status of Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem such as Abu Dis and Shuafat would need to be addressed in the final-status talks – a stance that is more in keeping with the long-time Labor position about Jews not having prayed to Shuafat during their centuries of exile, and rather less in tune with the traditional Likud opposition to any territorial concessions within post-1967 Israeli-claimed sovereign Jerusalem.

A second, again largely overlooked change in stance was Netanyahu’s declared readiness, in his late March speech to AIPAC, to “review security arrangements” if a peace deal with the Palestinians were to “prove its durability over time.”

The prime minister made this unprecedented concession after stating that, because of the missile and other military threats that an independent Palestine might pose, “a peace agreement with the Palestinians must include an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state.”

Essentially, therefore, Netanyahu was saying that Israeli security deployment in the Jordan Valley, and other Israeli security requirements, could be reconsidered, and need not be permanent, if peaceful reconciliation was palpably developing.

THE MOST profound difference between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu coalition, however, relates to the gauging of Abbas’s peacemaking intentions.

Although it concedes the possibility that Abbas is only entering the proximity talks in order to create a sense of momentum and then blame Israel for an inevitable breakdown, Washington believes Abbas is prepared to endorse viable terms for peace. Jerusalem does not.

In the Prime Minister’s Office, there is full awareness that the international community is growing ever more supportive of Palestinian statehood, with ever less empathy for Israel’s concerns and reservations.

Despite Abbas’s insistence this week that he was not seeking “unilateral solutions” and that his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, would not unilaterally declare statehood next year, the conviction among many in Netanyahu’s orbit is that the PA is aiming eventually to secure a new UN resolution for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, with a fudging of the refugee issue. Aiming, that is, to establish a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel, but to continue the conflict with Israel. (It is noted in these circles that Fayyad’s published program for his government from last August, “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,” mentions Israel overwhelmingly in negative contexts, and contains no direct, unambiguous reference to making peace with Israel.)

While the administration pays great heed to Abbas’s repeated restating of his support for a two-state solution, and gives serious weight to the representations of President Shimon Peres, no less, to the effect that Abbas does not intend to seek to flood Israel with refugees, those around Netanyahu do not share the sense that Abbas will make an historic reconciliation.

It is asserted, indeed, that not a single one of Israel’s key decision-makers consider that Abbas is ready for such a move. Different ministers might be prepared to offer more or less in the effort to change that rejectionist mindset, but their conclusion, for now, is unanimous and bleak. Netanyahu, incidentally, is said to sit in the relatively more optimistic camp – being given to wondering aloud in certain meetings whether the Palestinian leader might yet somehow rise to the occasion.

The word from within the coalition is that if Abbas is indeed prepared to take viable positions on the refugee issue, this welcome news has certainly not reached the government’s ear. If he stands by some of the demilitarization arrangements that Tzipi Livni and others have suggested he supports, again, this government has seen or heard nothing categorical to that effect.

And while it is acknowledged that making a speech abandoning the impossible demand for a “right of return” might be too much to ask from Abbas at the start of the new negotiating effort, then why can he not, it is asked in Jerusalem, at least publicly acknowledge the Jewish connection to this land?

The thinking around the prime minister is that the PA leader’s interview with The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl last May, smartly headlined “Abbas’s waiting game,” still represents the best guide to his thinking. Abbas explained then that he had not acceded to Olmert’s offer because “the gaps were wide,” and time was on the Palestinians’ side: “In the West Bank we have a good reality,” Abbas said contentedly. “The people are living a normal life.”

Interestingly, it is noted in Jerusalem, the Palestinians are these days talking a little differently about the Olmert offer. In last year’s narrative, as exemplified by the Diehl interview, it was the substance that was problematic – those insufficient terms, those gaps. In the newer narrative, Olmert was spurned because of the issue of “delivery” – the concern that a lame duck PM might not be able to come through on the deal.

In the American read, Abbas’s rejection of Olmert is regarded both as a function of Olmert’s weakness, and, as noted above, as proof that Netanyahu is unlikely to attain a deal offering any less. In Jerusalem, the counterargument is that if Abbas balked because of the substance of the offer, then any Netanyahu gambit will indeed fail. Only if it was a matter of delivery is there some faint hope for progress now with Netanyahu’s less generous terms. “Faint” being the operative term.

No, it is stressed, without elaboration, Netanyahu will not be offering Abbas everything he wants. But if Abbas’s problem was with a soon-to-depart Olmert who might not be able to make good on a very generous deal, then maybe he can be enticed by a less generous deal from a more credible prime minister.

But the overall assessment stressed by those around the prime minister is of an uncompromising Abbas, leaping on any American pressure on Israel, giving nothing, and holding to his own “absurd” demands.

Netanyahu, it is said, was ready to announce the 10-month settlement freeze late last summer, as part of a package of expected mutual goodwill measures in the aftermath of Obama’s Cairo Muslim-outreach speech, but he held back because the US could not secure any reciprocal gestures from the Palestinian and wider Arab side.

The view in Jerusalem is that Abbas was stringing the international community along in the last few months until it became clear, only recently, that the US was no longer coddling the Palestinians, that Obama was growing impatient with him, and that the PA really needed to enter the proximity talks.

And it is noted that Abbas has lately abandoned the former insistent assertion of the Palestinians’ right to determine their own fate and instead handed to the Arab League decision-making rights as to whether and how negotiations might proceed. This might have had advantages if the Arab League were supportive of genuine steps forward. Far more probable, though, was that it would make constructive progress even less likely.

AS REGARDS the ongoing US-Israel tensions, there is sorrow in Jerusalem that the building disputes that have fueled the most controversy with Washington are precisely those that should have been the least problematic.

Gilo is a robust Jewish neighborhood in the capital that Israel would never contemplate relinquishing. Much the same can be said for Ramat Shlomo. Yet because of the deeply inauspicious timing of the announcement of new building in both those neighborhoods, they triggered more bitter public recriminations from the US than have much more potentially controversial projects elsewhere beyond the Green Line.

The firm hope in Jerusalem is that future such disputes can be avoided, but where there are differences, that the American response be better calibrated.


There is also, finally, a slightly shamefaced, very off-the-record, admission here that the “east” Jerusalem building crises were somewhat exacerbated by the fact that certain unnamed senior Israelis aren’t always as knowledgeable as they should be regarding what actually constitutes “east” Jerusalem. That is, they’re not as familiar as they ought to be about which neighborhoods are located beyond the Green Line and which are not. They don’t always know which areas, even if they may accurately be described geographically as situated in “south” or “north” Jerusalem, are nonetheless politically located in the ultra-sensitive “east” of the city.

Implausible? Impossible? You’d think so. But evidently not.

I’ll leave it at that. We’ve all seen the consequenc

Title: Two Great Videos about Israel
Post by: rachelg on May 03, 2010, 07:35:21 PM

Israel- Defying the Odds.mp4

This is a few years old
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MhrcxK2PvQ&feature=player_embedded[/
youtube]


Rare color footage of pre-State Israel and after
http://www.buildyourfilmsite.com/monosson/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=5

Marc -- Thank you for sending me this it was awesome.


It really does make a difference to be able to see history in color instead of black and white.

Title: Jews: looking for another One.
Post by: ccp on May 10, 2010, 09:17:30 AM

The polls don't follow through and ask that if Jews would consider voting for someone else would they consider a Republican.  It is a big leap to expect "someone" else to be from another party.  I doubt most liberal  Jews would even dream of this.  I wonder if the Kagan nomination is a bone for the Jews to placate them.

****Poll: Obama has Lost Almost Half of his US Jewish Support
 
by Gil Ronen
Follow Israel news on  and .


United States President Barack Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews, a poll by the McLaughlin Group has shown.

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.   

In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Obama. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10. 

The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.

Among Orthodox/Hassidic voters, 69% marked 'someone else' vs. 17% who marked 're-elect.' Among Conservative-affiliated voters the proportion was 50% to 38%. Among Reform Jews, a slim majority of 52% still supported Obama while 36% indicated they would consider someone else. Among Jews with family in Israel and those who had been to Israel, about 50% said they would consider someone else, while 41%-42% supported Obama.

Fifty percent of the Jewish voters polled said they approved of the job Obama is doing handling US relations with Israel. Thirty-nine percent said they disapproved. “This rating is not good for a group of voters who are 59% Democratic to only 16% Republican,” the poll's analysis noted.

A majority of 52% said they disapproved of the idea of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within two years. 62% said that if given a state, “the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel.” Only 19% thought they would live peacefully with Israel.     

As Obama loses support among members of the influential Jewish voter bloc, possible Republican candidate Sarah Palin seems to be doing her best to woo them to her****

Title: Airing ‘dirty’ laundry
Post by: rachelg on May 11, 2010, 06:09:58 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?id=174876

Airing ‘dirty’ laundry
By DAVID BRINN
07/05/2010   
American stand-up comedian Joel Chasnoff on his year in the IDF and the tricky minefield of Jewish identity.
 
Joel Chasnoff jokes in his humor-filled memoir – The 188th Crybaby Brigade – about how scrawny he was when, at 24, he decided to leave Chicago and spend a year in an IDF combat unit.

But when the first-time author and full-time stand-up comedian walks into a Jerusalem coffee shop for our meeting, it’s clear he wasn’t joking. A decade later and Chasnoff’s still a little guy – almost see-through – and one can’t help wonder how he weathered the rigors of IDF basic training in the heralded 188th Armored Brigade specializing in Merkava tanks, never mind how he was named the outstanding soldier in his platoon.

But if his physical stature is less than daunting, his verbal and writing skills more than make up for it. A comic, Zionist, coming of age chronicle, The 188th Crybaby Brigade has been called “a great tale, a Jewish Jarhead... a funny, thoughtful, and poignant story.” But, as Chasnoff explains, the final manuscript – which encompasses issues of Jewish identity, the Ashkenazi-Sephardi cultural gap and the Orthodox stranglehold on issues of religion – wasn’t anything like the original narrative he had in mind.

“My initial concept was to just chronicle my year in the army for people who are interested in the IDF. But as I was writing and getting deeper into it, I realized it was about so much more,” says Chasnoff, who after his year in the IDF, married his Israeli girlfriend, moved to Chicago and eventually landed in Riverdale, New York, which serves as a base for his thriving stand-up career.

“The Jewish identity issue became so much more a part of it. And my editor, who’s not Jewish and has never been to Israel, forced me to ask myself these questions.

“‘You need to give the back story, explain why a kid who had been to Israel for a total of 14 months in his life, would up and join a foreign country’s army.’ Hearing her say it like that really did make it sound absurd,” adds Chasnoff with a laugh. “So it made me rethink, and go back to my experiences in day school and summer camp, and out of that came the idea of myth [of Israel and of the Israeli soldier] and how much that’s a part of it. Those were really not part of the original concept of the story, they came after. But I’m glad they’re in there, I think they make the story fuller.”

Fuller and unflinching, as Chasnoff takes a deep hard look at his own upbringing – where Israel and the IDF were put on idyllic pedestals – and at his experiences in the IDF, where those pedestals were swiftly slipped out from under him for a hard landing on the reality of kitchen duty, illogical commands and the maturity levels of the 18-year-old boys from all walks of Israeli life he found himself thrown in with.

And boys they are, swearing, bickering and complaining every step of the way as they’re dragged through basic training by boys only slightly older than they are – dealing with everything from feeble attempts to stand in shloshot to the more chilling army mentality fashlot of being sent to work in the kitchen during the lesson on how to throw a grenade, and then being told to throw a live one without any training.

A sublime passage in the book finds Chasnoff expressing his own maturity-challenged feelings about receiving his first leave in Tel Aviv and, for a brief moment, morphing into the mythical Adonis-like soldier that he longingly revered on his visits to Israel as a teen.

“Look at me. Do you see me? Do you see me in my olive-green uniform, beret and shiny black boots? Do you see the assault rifle slung across my chest? Finally! I am the badass Israeli soldier at the side of the road, in sunglasses, forearms like bricks. And honestly – have you ever seen anything quite like me?”

But as Chasnoff spends more time in the army, that superhero myth begins to strip away, revealing the contradictions, conflicts and humor of a bunch of confused, scared boys being groomed to defend their country. For Chasnoff, it created a bundle of different emotions that took years to unravel.

“I think the irony is I served in the army for a year, and it took three years to write the book,” says Chasnoff, who decided to join the army due to a combination of reasons ranging from childhood ambition to wanting to be closer to his Israeli girlfriend to frustrations over his inability to jump-start his comedy career in the US.

“There was a long gestation period. I think stories are always like that – it takes longer to really make sense of what the story is, and what the meaning is, and find the nuances.

“I kept a journal the whole time I was in the army, it’s something I’d done since high school. So I had these notes, and I made it a point to write at least one sentence every night, which I succeeded in doing. So I had that as a foundation, but in terms of seeing it as a story with meaning, it took a few years.”

That was partly due to the fact that his army experience was so intense, that he had no desire to immediately revisit it and relive all the minute details.

“I mean, when I first got out, it just felt good to be free from the army. There was no way I wanted to immerse myself in it again,” says Chasnoff. “Then a few years later, when I moved to New York from Chicago, I began to rethink it as sort of this central piece of identity in my own life. Between the conversion issue and the Israel identity, and I saw there was actually an arc to it.”

CHASNOFF’S CONVERSION issue turns out to play a prominent role in the book, and revolves around the Chief Rabbinate’s refusal to accept his application for a marriage license due to his mother having been converted in an Orthodox ceremony by a Conservative rabbi in the US decades before. At the end of the book, the reader is not sure if Chasnoff has given up on the country where he volunteered and fought Hizbullah in Lebanon, only to be told he wasn’t Jewish enough to get married there.

“I did leave Israel a little bitter. But I’ve been back many times since then, and I no longer harbor bad feelings,” says Chasnoff. “I think that whole issue and having to write about it later forced me to think about how I feel about Israel and about how complicated those feelings are.

“What does it mean to love the country, which I absolutely do, and at the same time, have deep reservations about some of the ways the country is run? In America, I struggle with this too, but because I don’t love America on the same level, it doesn’t bother me so much. I can live with a place where I don’t always adore the government and I don’t feel an attachment to the land like I do here. So, the book forced me to confront how complicated it was.”

Equally perplexing, especially for Chasnoff’s publisher, has been how to position the book for marketing purposes. Because the book slices across the spectrum of memoir, politics and humor, it hasn’t really fit into any of those categories. But Chasnoff is confident of who his target audience is – American Jews.

“I think it appeals to Jews with an attachment to Israel, Jews who have questions of their own about what it means to be identified,” he says. “It’s funny, in some book stores, it’s in Current Events, in other book stores it’s in Biography/Memoir. I think that for Biography, you need to be kind of famous of a certain level. It could be in the humor section – I haven’t seen it there yet, but that would be legit.”

Legit, perhaps, but while humor is Chasnoff’s natural reset button, he’s most proud of reactions he’s received from readers who told him they found something more in the book.

“The best reaction, that I’ve received consistently, is when people said, ‘I read it because I thought it might be funny, but I didn’t realize it would be so deep.’ That means a lot to me,” he says.


CHASNOFF HIMSELF is most proud of three chapters, which he says best exemplify the story he was trying to tell.

“In ‘Our Fathers,’ I try to give a portrait of the melting pot concept of the army, but I try to do it by mixing descriptions of who our fathers are and all our different fathers’ backgrounds, their jobs, ethnicity, and I mix it with a typical day of basic training, schedule-wise, and I really like how that turned out.

“The second is the chapter called ‘Buttons and Snaps’ – about camaraderie. There’s a very special camaraderie in the platoon and a love-hate relationship we had with each other. But the fighting would immediately stop when the pressure was off and become best friends again.

“The other section is ‘House of Mirrors,’ where I describe Lebanon and the strange ways that soldiers died there. So many times, I remember reading about soldiers who just got engaged and then they died the next weekend in Lebanon. It feels like this country, story after story, is like that. Maybe it’s because in America we don’t hear the personal stories behind the soldiers. But I like the fact that when a soldier dies, his story is in the newspaper and the country knows about it and values it.”

Because Chasnoff took off the kid gloves and portrayed the IDF and Israeli society with blemishes intact, he was ready for a backlash of criticism from idealistic Zionists who flinch when anything not exemplary is mentioned about Israel. But he says he’s been pleasantly surprised.

“Nobody’s called the book anti-Israel, but at some book readings I have been approached by people who engage me in a discussion on the issue,” says Chasnoff.

“There was one guy in particular in Minneapolis, whose theory was, ‘I’m not saying we don’t have issues, but we should keep them in the family.’ It’s our dirty laundry and we shouldn’t air it in public. And my response was I think the only way to make Israel stronger is to take these issues and be honest about them. I’m not lying or telling anything that isn’t true just to get a reaction. But I think that for many years, one of the problems is that Israel has kept too many of its issues only to itself. What does that do for us?”

Privy to inside IDF information, Chasnoff engaged in some self-censorship when making the final edits of the book, and was sensitive to not exposing any state secrets, even though he bypassed official military circles when publishing the book.

“I always kept in mind that I don’t want to write anything that’s going to hurt an Israeli soldier now, by putting them in danger. But there’s nothing in the book that Hizbullah doesn’t already know,” he says.

“Oddly enough, I never bothered to contact the IDF censor. I never bothered to ask. There haven’t been any repercussions – I’m sure this article will change that,” he laughs. “But at the very end, after all the proofs were done, and in the last draft before it went to print, there were a couple things I took out about Lebanon, about weapons that Israel uses that may or may not according to UN regulations be the most ideal weapons to use. And I just decided they didn’t add to the story.”


THE ODDEST responses to book that Chasnoff has received have been a handful of e-mails from young American males looking for direction in their lives and asking for advice about whether they too should join the IDF.

“Suddenly I’m in a position to help them?” he laughs. “I haven’t written them back yet, but when I do, it will be very careful advice, something like, ‘Think about this carefully. If you think you’ll go your whole life regretting not doing the army, then you should do it. But don’t think it will solve the riddle of who you are by any means.’”

If those seekers do follow through on their idea to join the IDF, Chasnoff has some concrete suggestions that he garnered during his service that may help ease their time in uniform.

“Give yourself completely over to the experience, and most importantly, don’t complain. There’s going to be a lot of stuff you’re going to find bothersome, the way the guard schedule is made. Your commander is going to have you do things that don’t make sense to you, but when you start complaining, you stand out in a platoon, you become a sore thumb. Go with the flow,” he says.

“Of course, if it’s dangerous, or if you’re getting orders you really feel are immoral, then you should speak up. But to be bitching about how little sleep you get or who’s guarding more, just go with it and don’t stick out. Because I think that’s what’s most resented in a platoon is the nudniks.”

Speaking of nudniks, Chasnoff excitedly recounts getting together with the main subjects of his book – his old friends from his IDF unit – earlier in the week in Tel Aviv. And instead of beating him to a pulp over what he wrote, they embraced him.

“Thanks to Facebook, we’ve been able to find each other – maybe 15 or 20 of us are in touch,” he says. “That’s been really nice and I’ve been able to watch them grow up, which has been very cool. Because they’re all five years younger than me. So they’re all getting married and having kids. It’s been fun to see them come of age.”

And what did they think about The 188th Crybaby Brigade?

“The one I called Dror Boy Genius read it and liked it a lot. Two other guys said they liked it too, and one said to me that he could see things the same way as me 95 percent, and 5% different. And I think being native Israelis, they must see their experiences differently,” says Chasnoff.

Chasnoff’s own experiences in the army, his natural-born humor and his insight into both the American Jewish and Israeli psyche have enabled him to enjoy a successful stand-up career. After returning to Chicago following his IDF stint, he took classes at the fabled Second City improv group and eventually began performing on his own with a stand-up routine.

“Between combination of luck and circumstances, I started performing for Jewish audiences. And thank God, Jews talk and the word started spreading,” he says.

“I sort of built up a nice following in the Jewish world doing Hillel houses at first, then moving onto federation events and shuls. The fact that I had a clean act that was smart and about Judaism, but not a Borscht Belt style, was a good selling point,” says Chasnoff, adding that he also performs a set at universities that’s without Jewish content.

“In the Jewish act, a good block of it is about Israel – some army experiences, but also being married to an Israeli and the challenges. And a lot of it goes back to the myth that we grow up with in the US that all Israelis are just like us. Then when you get to know an Israeli or marry one, you get know how different the Israeli mentality is. And, of course, humor ensues from the conflict.”

That’s why, with three children and an Israeli wife, Chasnoff is constantly laughing. And regularly thinking about possibly moving to Israel. “There is still a plan to come back here, and for that reason I’m glad I did the army because I wouldn’t want to live here without having done it,” he says. “But certain things have be done in my American life first, closing the book on that before I can come. It will require me developing a different attitude toward success, and I still have some of those old-school American ambitions.”

He’s not at all opposed to his three daughters (the oldest being eight-year-old twins) following in his footsteps and joining the IDF.

“It’s a long way off, but when we talk about life after high school, I always mention you can go to college, take a year off or go into the IDF,” says Chasnoff. “Those are my three options for them. I would love it if they serve in the army; I love the idea of people contributing. I think America is missing out on the idea of the people giving to the country.”

And would Chasnoff revisit his own IDF experience by joining the ranks for annual reserve duty?

“Sure, I like to go camping. What more could you want?”


Here is an example of Joel's stand up  there are more on Youtube

Bar Mitzvah

 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijh14j3X-g&NR=1[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 16, 2010, 10:12:25 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/16/rahm-we-screwed-up-the-messaging-on-israel/

Chickens come home to roost.

Title: Stratfor: A potential Turkish-Israeli crisis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2010, 05:53:28 AM

A Potential Turkish-Israeli Crisis and Its International Implications
AMINOR DEVELOPMENT WITH FAR-REACHING implications occurred Tuesday. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called on Israel to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip and allow a flotilla belonging to Insani Yardim Vakfi (Humanitarian Aid Association), a Turkish, religious non-governmental organization (NGO), to fulfill its mission of providing supplies to Palestinians. Earlier, the organization, which possibly has ties to Turkey’s ruling Justice & Development Party (AKP), had rejected Israel’s offer to have the supplies delivered via Israeli territory.

Turkey is in the process of trying to stage a comeback as a great power — a pursuit that has tremendous implications for the alliance it has had with Israel for more than six decades. In fact, Turkey on the path of resurgence means it has to take a critical stance toward Israel, because Ankara needs to re-establish itself as the hegemon in the Middle East and the leader of the wider Islamic world. This would explain Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s scathing and loud criticism of Israel at Davos after the last Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip, which led to a significant deterioration in Turkish-Israeli relations.

The Turks are apparently sensing an opportunity to try and push Israel into a difficult situation. At the same time, they are trying to take advantage of the Israeli offensive in Gaza. While the NGO may have ties to the ruling AKP, there is no evidence to suggest that the move to run the blockade is being organized by the government. The emerging scenario, however, makes for a potentially serious international scene with an outcome — whatever way — that could benefit Turkey.

If Israeli forces interdict the ship, Turkey can go on the diplomatic offensive against Israel and rally widespread condemnation against the nation. The rising tensions could get the United States involved. Given the United States’ dependence on Turkey, the Turks could force Washington to take sides, placing the United States in the difficult position of opposing Ankara. Alternatively, forcing the Israelis to allow the flotilla to complete its mission would be a major victory for the Turks. It would enhance Turkey’s international standing as a leader and a rising power.

“The Turks are apparently sensing an opportunity to try and push Israel into a difficult situation.”
While the emerging situation presents itself as a win-win situation for Turkey, it places Israel in an extremely difficult situation, regardless of how it deals with the flotilla. Should the Israelis decide to prevent the ship from making its delivery, they risk global criticism and further deterioration of relations with Turkey. They also risk further complicating matters with the United States at a time when U.S.-Israeli relations are going through a rough period, and when Washington needs Ankara to resolve multiple regional issues. On the other hand, if the Israelis decide to avoid the diplomatic fallout and allow the ship to sail to its destination, that is tantamount to going on the defensive vis-a-vis the nation’s security — something that Israel has never done.

At a time when Israel’s relations with the United States are already uneasy because of diverging regional interests between Iran and the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not want to have to engage in any further action that exacerbates its tensions with U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration. This desire notwithstanding, the Turkish ship, which has already set sail for the Gaza coast, is creating a situation where the Israelis don’t have the option of not doing anything. This scenario has taken on a life of its own — far beyond the original intent of the players involved.

Title: Strike may halt Iran's nuke program’
Post by: rachelg on May 30, 2010, 09:05:45 PM

‘Strike may halt Iran's nuke program’
By YAAKOV KATZ

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=176835
A military strike on Iranian military bases, airports, bridges, railroad stations and other key infrastructure could lead Iran to suspend its nuclear arms program, according to a paper that came out last week in a US Army publication.

Titled “Can a Nuclear-Armed Iran Be Deterred?” the article, which appeared in the current edition of Military Review, was written by American-Israeli sociologist and George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni.

Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities might not be effective, the Palmach veteran and Hebrew University alumnus writes, since, as opponents of such a strike argue, the location of key facilities may not be known, the facilities are well protected, and some are in heavily populated areas and bombing them would cause a great number of civilian casualties.

As a result, he calls for a “different military option.”

“The basic approach seeks not to degrade Iran’s nuclear capacities (the aim of bombing) but to compel the regime to change its behavior, by causing ever-higher levels of ‘pain,’” Etzioni writes.

Neither Israel nor the United States has ever publicly spoken about the targets that they would bomb if they decide to attack Iran. Most military thinkers have spoken about only targeting nuclear facilities and military sites that could be used by Teheran to retaliate.


Such a strike would come after Iran fails to live
up to its international obligations and open up its nuclear facilities to inspections. The next step, Etzioni recommends, would be to bomb non-nuclear military assets such as the headquarters and encampments of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as air defense installations, radar sites, missile sites and navy vessels that could be used to stop the flow of oil to the West.

If this campaign fails, Etzioni recommends bombing dual-use assets such as bridges and railroad stations. If a further tightening of screws is needed, then the attacker could declare Iran a no-fly zone like part of Iraq was even before Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched in 2003.

“This kind of military action is akin to sanctions – causing ‘pain’ in order to change behavior, albeit by much more powerful means,” the sociologist writes.

Etzioni shoots down those who say that any military action against Iran will help the regime in Iran suppress opposition and solidify its rule. “A weakening of the regime, following the military strikes, may provide an opening for the opposition,” he wrote.

Etzioni warns that time is running out and that “we cannot delay action much longer if we are to prevent Iran from crossing a threshold after which a military option will become much more dangerous to implement – for us and for them.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 31, 2010, 07:32:34 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2010, 05:53:28 AM

A Potential Turkish-Israeli Crisis and Its International Implications

At a time when Israel’s relations with the United States are already uneasy because of diverging regional interests between Iran and the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not want to have to engage in any further action that exacerbates its tensions with U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration. This desire notwithstanding, the Turkish ship, which has already set sail for the Gaza coast, is creating a situation where the Israelis don’t have the option of not doing anything. This scenario has taken on a life of its own — far beyond the original intent of the players involved.

Jerusalem - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to cut short his visit to Canada and the United States and return to Israel, following the Israel Navy's storming Monday morning of an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli leader will meet his Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, as planned, and will then leave for to Israel, Netanyahu's office said.
The premier's early return means he will not be meeting US President Barack Obama on Tuesday, as planned.
Some 10 people were killed when Israeli naval commandos stormed a six-ship flotilla bound for Gaza before dawn Monday, after the ships rejected a demand to either turn back, or make for the Israeli port of Ashdod, where their aid cargo would be unloaded and inspected before being transferred to the salient by land.
The Israeli assault set off waves of condemnation and protests around the world.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 31, 2010, 07:37:22 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Title: Commando soldier: 'It looked like the Ramallah lynch"
Post by: rachelg on May 31, 2010, 07:39:57 AM

GM,

Thanks for posting the footage.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177019
The IDF released footage of the Monday raid on the "Free Gaza" flotilla, which depicted passengers upon the ship attacking soldiers with various weapons, including a large metal pole and other metal objects.

In a brief interview with soldiers aboard the ships, one  soldier said that the attack "looked like the Ramallah lynch."




Earlier Monday armed Navy ships escorted boats from the Gaza protest flotilla to Ashdod, hours after IDF soldiers and activists clashed in a fatal raid.

International activists aboard the ships opened fire on IDF soldiers who boarded the ships to prevent them from breaking the Israeli-imposed sea blockade, the IDF said Monday.

According to the IDF, the international activists “prepared a lynch” for the soldiers who boarded the ships at about 2 a.m. Monday morning after the soldiers called on them to stop, or follow them to the Ashdod Port several hours earlier.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 31, 2010, 08:00:36 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/gaza-jihad-flotilla-participants-chanted-islamic-battle-cry-invoking-muhammads-massacre-of-jews.html

In islamic theology, being martyred at sea is even more rewarding than being a shaheed on land.

Title: Videos of the "Demonstrators" Attack
Post by: rachelg on May 31, 2010, 08:01:18 AM

You must be signed into youtube to view the first video

Demonstrators Use Violence Against Israeli Navy Soldiers Attempting to Board Ship

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&feature=player_embedded&has_verified=1[/youtube]
Footage from the Mavi Marmara Including Injured Soldiers and Items Found On Board

[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAMFnu8ZBwk[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 31, 2010, 08:33:30 AM

The United Nations Security Council will hold talks at 1 p.m. ET Monday on the incident.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday he was "shocked by reports of killing of people in boats carrying supplies to Gaza. I condemn the violence and Israel must explain."
The Spanish and French governments called the action "disproportionate." The Italian foreign minister asked the European Union to investigate, and several nations, including Greece and Sweden, were summoning their Israeli ambassadors.

While the video indicates the protestors on boat may have used a metal pole, a large metal object, a stun grenade, a slingshot, marbles, etc. Israeli soldiers did shoot and kill 10 protestors and wound others leading to the accusations of disproportionate force.  I think this is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided not to visit Washington and immediately return home from Canada.  The fallout is just beginning.

And as posted earlier (Crafty_) "The rising tensions could get the United States involved. Given the United States’ dependence on Turkey, the Turks could force Washington to take sides, placing the United States in the difficult position of opposing Ankara."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 31, 2010, 08:37:16 AM

The jihadists and the United Criminals want to condemn Israel? **Yawn**

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 31, 2010, 08:43:16 AM

I agree; "yawn" accurately sums it up.

However, what do you think the impact will be on US Turkish relations....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 31, 2010, 08:49:36 AM

Turkey is slowly cutting it's ties to the west/NATO and realigning with the global jihad. I'm sure Obama will apologize some more with the same ineffectiveness.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 31, 2010, 08:54:07 AM

However, for various reasons, aren't we dependent somewhat on Turkey?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 31, 2010, 09:06:15 AM

For what ?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 31, 2010, 09:34:40 AM

Turkey does/will have an impact on Iraq...

More important, the US wants a stable, secular, democratic Turkey as a base and a role model for the region.

We don't have many (any?) friends in the Muslim world; it would be nice....

According to Dr Sedat Laciner, director of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization, "We hope that Turkey will be a real strategic partner in the Obama term. There is no country like Turkey. It is Muslim, a NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] member and an EU [European Union] candidate ... It is an antidote to al-Qaeda extremism [and] the best place to make a call to the Muslim world for cooperation with the US."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 31, 2010, 10:00:36 AM

There is a thread dedicated to Turkey on this forum which has some Stratfor articles discussing what it perceives as changes in Turkey's geopolitics.

Rachel, GM:  Good finds and one's that I will put to good use.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 31, 2010, 01:32:15 PM

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion
May 31, 2010




By George Friedman

On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

The ‘Exodus’ Scenario
In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza
The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel
It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 31, 2010, 04:37:31 PM

I suggest Israel rename itself North Koranistan. It can then sink ships at will and suffer no consequences.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 01, 2010, 05:16:28 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terror-finance-flotilla

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That's because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings.  Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.  According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good.  This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. 

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).  In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.  French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

Title: Ottomans,Persians:"kill all Jews"
Post by: ccp on June 01, 2010, 08:16:39 AM

Isn't interesting how we hear that the new leadership of Turkey has dreams of a new Ottoman Empire.  It is the same as their other big competitor for dominance in of the Arab world - Iran with their dreams of a new Persian Empire.  Both want to be the central power broker in the Middle East.

And of course their *unifying theme - strategy* (as always seems to be with Arabs) is - kill all the F* Jews.  I think they wouldn't mind killing all Americans too and probably all Christians but since their are far fewer Jews they make for the age old easier target.

This strategy always seems to work too.  Now we have Egypt rallying to the cause and opening up "aid" to Gaza.

And the rest of the world too, as always, seems to be happy to get the F* Jews.

Bamster's heart is with the Arabs too.  Anyone who denies this, and those who love him are liars, denyers, or fools.
It will be interesting to see him try to weasel this one without offending Jews whom he has used for political support.  As I have pointed out on this board before this guy would NEVER have been President if it wasn't for the many Jews who helped him.  That is not to say he isn't smart or talented.  But all people getting to the Presidency have help.  And it is historical fact that there were/are many Jews around him who gave him much support, advise, money and the rest.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 01, 2010, 08:26:19 AM

Turkish (blood)bath

By RALPH PETERS

Last Updated: 12:43 AM, June 1, 2010

Posted: 12:21 AM, June 1, 2010

Yesterday's "aid convoy" incident off the coast of Gaza wasn't about bringing humanitarian supplies to the terrorist-ruled territory. It wasn't even about Israel.  It was about Turkey's determination to position itself as the leading Muslim state in the Middle East.

Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government -- led by Islamists these days -- sponsored the "aid" operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians.  And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react -- and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.  The lead vessel, the Mavi Marmara, just happened to have an al-Jazeera TV crew on board to film Israel's response. Ironically, the early videos would've been counterproductive, had world leaders and journalists not been programmed to blame everything on Israel.

Those videos showed Israeli commandos rappelling onto the ship with both hands on the rope (making it rather hard to use a weapon), yet activists claimed the Israelis opened fire as they descended.  Purely by coincidence, dozens of "peace activists" waited with sharpened iron bars, clubs, slingshots -- and rifles. Of course, the nine dead in the melee were all Israel's victims.

The first wave of Israeli commandos reportedly were armed only with paintball rounds for crowd control. Inspect those videos of maddened peaceniks assaulting the soldiers as they landed on deck. You don't see any Israelis pointing rifles -- they're fending off blows.

But the claims of pro-terrorist "peace advocates" are given instant credence.

The US government's initial response was restrained, but Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understandably canceled his meeting with President Obama, scheduled for today. Bibi's got an emergency on his hands back home, as well-organized protests sweep the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Europeans and UN bonzes rage at Israel with unseemly relish, but ignore the luxury lifestyles of Gaza's insider elite and the fact that no Palestinian's going hungry. The Israelis had even offered to transfer the aid aboard those ships to the Palestinians -- as long as they could inspect it.  But neither the activists nor the Turkish government wanted a negotiated outcome. This was a stunt from the start.

Now, as we wait to see if Hamas and Hezbollah up the ante, the world ignores Turkey's decisive role in this fiasco.

The US and the European Union cling to the fiction that Turkey's a "westernized Muslim democracy." But Turkey's moving to the east as fast as the Islamist leaders of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) can drag it there.  Turkish leaders visit the West and sing, "Democracy, democracy, democracy!" We coo and clap. Then they go east and cry, "Islam, Islam, Islam!" And we insist they don't mean it.

Then there's Turkey's unfortunate NATO membership. Since the rise of its Islamists, Turkey has been a Trojan horse, not an ally. What happens now if Ankara provokes a military confrontation? How would we respond, given NATO's mutual-defense agreements?

The madcap agenda of Turkey's current rulers is to create a 21st-century version of the Ottoman Empire. Turks even mutter about the caliphate -- headed for centuries by the Turkish sultan. This is explosive stuff. And the Turks are playing with matches.

But we've obstinately ignored every warning sign. First, our "ally" stabbed us in the back on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, denying our troops their planned routes into Iraq. Then the Turkish media intensified its anti-American fantasies.  Headscarves became de rigeur for the wives of top officials in Ankara as the Turks made mischief in Iraq. Emulating the history-obliterating Saudis, the Turks began work on the vast Ilisu Dam -- which will permanently submerge pre-Islamic and Kurdish archaeological sites of incalculable value. (The Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban were of comparatively minor interest to researchers.)

Then, just last month, the Turks moved to provide the Iranian regime with cover for its nuclear program. And we still didn't get it.

The most dramatic transformation in the Middle East since the fall of the shah is playing out before us. And we can't see behind the mask of the "plight of the Palestinians" (a key Obama administration concern).

In yesterday's confrontation, Israel behaved clumsily. The peace activists behaved savagely. The Turks behaved cynically. The world reacted predictably.

And Washington scratched its head.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 01, 2010, 08:32:52 AM

Quote from: ccp on June 01, 2010, 08:16:39 AM

And the rest of the world too, as always, seems to be happy to get the F* Jews.

I'm not sure...  I know I am walking into a minefield but I don't understand why one cannot differentiate and disagree with Israel's Foreign
Policy and "Jews".  I happen to have many Jewish friends, some acquaintances and some business contacts.  No different I guess than Christians
(which for purposes of disclosure I happen to be).

But I think even as CCP has pointed out before, America's foreign policy needs to do what is best for America, not necessarily what is best for Israel.
We are and have been a friend to Israel for many years and I hope many more.  But we also have other concerns, other friends, and other
responsibilities.  Those issues may conflict with Israel's position.  Why is it wrong to disagree with Israel?  Why do I "hate Jews" if I simply think
that Israel's foreign policy conflicts with America's interests?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 01, 2010, 09:11:56 AM

JDN,
Thanks for your repsonse. No one says you or anyone hates Jews if you disagree.
I was talking about Obama.  I believe he cynically uses Jews for his own power.  He had no problem sitting in a church of an obvious anti-semite for decades.

Maybe for the US it *would* simply be easier if it lets the Jews in Israel get wiped out.  Then the US would not have to take flak from the rest of the world for being an "ally" of the despised Jews.

There are well over a billion Muslims.  They have many huge countries.  The Jews have (till they are murdered - and it is coming - thanks to Iran) a small piece of Earth the size of NJ.  All they want is to live in peace and security.  And even that is too much for the Arab world.  And apparently much of the rest of the world too!

I too have also questioned out loud on this board if it is reasonable to ask US citizens to die for Jews.  My heart says yes.  But logically it may not be in the best interests of this country to do so. 

But make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT.  If the US abandons Israel all Jews there will be murdered or driven abroad.  Israel cannot defend itself against a billion Muslims forever.

JDN, please feel free to express your thoughts.  I am sure many Americans rightly question US support of Israel.  You are not an anti-semite and I am not offended.

Title: The Enemy of Your Friend is Your. . . .
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 01, 2010, 09:22:25 AM

Flotillas and Falsehoods
Don’t members of the press ever resent being so used?
 
The effort to destroy the Jewish state has many fronts. One front is in Iran, where the maniacal regime that has repeatedly promised to “wipe Israel off the map” marches inexorably toward a nuclear bomb. Another is in Gaza, from which Hamas has lobbed 10,000 missiles into Israeli cities. Yet another front, the most insidious, is comprised of the propaganda arm of the Palestinian movement. And this front thrives for only one reason — the complicity of the world press and the so-called “international community.”

It was the propaganda arm that staged the “Freedom Flotilla.” But there have been many previous productions: The propaganda arm was responsible for the photo-shopped images of damage to Lebanon during the 2006 war, the staged “death” of twelve-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah, the “massacre” at Jenin, and the “war crimes” in Gaza.

In each and every case, the “news” of Israeli atrocities was broadcast far and wide by organizations such as Reuters, AP, CNN, and AFP. The United Nations has offered its imprimatur to every libel. The truth seemed always to have a case of laryngitis.

Today, in the wake of the confrontation between Israeli soldiers and the provocateurs aboard the Gaza flotilla, the remarkably incurious world press is providing exactly the sort of headlines on which the organizers knew they could count. “Flotilla Attack Is Israel’s Kent State” screamed the Huffington Post. Agence France Presse carried a banner quoting the Turkish foreign minister to the effect that “Israel has lost all legitimacy.” Every news outlet I checked docilely described the flotilla as “humanitarian.”

Don’t members of the press ever resent being so used?

Fact: Israel imposed a blockade of Gaza to prevent weapons from reaching the radical Islamic regime there that continues to make war on Israeli civilians. Egypt too has blockaded the strip, hoping to choke off weapons to Hamas, which it views as a threat.

Fact: Humanitarian relief is delivered to Gaza from Israel on a daily basis. During the first three months of this year, 94,500 tons of supplies were transferred to Gaza from Israel, including 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; and 553 tons of milk powder and baby food for the strip’s 1.5 million inhabitants. Representatives of international aid groups and the United Nations move freely to and from the Gaza Strip.

Fact: Upon learning of the intentions of the Gaza flotilla, the Israeli government asked the organizers to deliver their humanitarian aid first to an Israeli port where it would be inspected (for weapons) before being forwarded to Gaza. The organizers refused. “There are two possible happy endings,” a Muslim activist on board explained, “either we will reach Gaza or we will achieve martyrdom.”

Fact: The flotilla ignored multiple instructions from Israeli navy ships to change course and follow them to the Israeli port of Ashdod.

Fact: On board one of the ships, according to al-Jazeera, the “humanitarian” Palestinians sang “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return” — a reference to the 628 massacre of Jews in Arabia at the hands of Muhammad.

Fact: The flotilla’s participants included the IHH, a “humanitarian relief fund” based in Turkey that has close ties to Hamas and to global jihadi groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere, and which has also organized relief to anti-U.S. Islamic radicals in Fallujah, Iraq. A French intelligence report suggests that IHH has provided documents to terrorists, permitting them to pose as relief workers. Among the other cheerleaders — former British MP and Saddam Hussein pal George Galloway, all-purpose America and Israel hater Noam Chomsky, and John Ging, head of UNRWA, the U.N.’s agency for Palestinian support.

Fact: When the family of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped during a cross-border raid by Hamas in 2006, offered to support the flotilla if, in exchange, they would agree to ask Hamas to permit international agencies to visit their son, they were rebuffed.

Fact: When Israeli commandos rappelled down ropes to the deck of the Mavi Marmara, they were assaulted and beaten with metal poles and baseball bats by the Palestinians on board. (It’s available on theisraelproject.org).

Some commentators sympathetic to Israel complain that the Israelis were late getting their explanation of events to the press. That’s probably true, but almost irrelevant. There is a jerking of knees around the world whenever and wherever Israel is forced to defend itself. This eagerness to repeat the Palestinian version of events, to assume the very worst about Israel, and to ignore the history of blatant and outrageous lies by Israel’s enemies — amounts to joining them.

http://article.nationalreview.com/435253/flotillas-and-falsehoods/mona-charen

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 01, 2010, 10:24:58 AM

Just curious, who in the world has been a better ally to the United States than Israel?  Who in the Middle East has been equal to Israel as a friend to the United States?  What foreign policy interest of the United States does it serve to turn our back on our best friends and appease out worst enemies?

We don't help Israel because Israelis are Jewish.  Our enemies want them annihilated because they are Jewish and they want us annihilated because we are American, so the Jewish state and the American state work together in certain ways where we share a common interest.  That common interest is not religion.  It is survival against war-mongering enemies.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 01, 2010, 10:47:16 AM

Indeed, Doug. I saw an earlier comment in this thread about something to the effect that our support of Israel prevents us from developing allies in the area. We already have an ally, its name is Israel, and they've stood up to the assembled might of all we are supposedly alienating. Why would we want to align ourselves with third tier despots instead?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 01, 2010, 02:15:37 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

This should turn out well. Good thing Tukey is such a great ally and of course Israel has such a strong supporter in the white house, so no worries.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 01, 2010, 04:50:17 PM

http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/05/31/the-jihad-flotilla-and-the-media-war-against-israel/

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/01/all-aboard-the-peace-thug-flotilla-the-army-of-muhammad-will-return/

Well worth reading.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 01, 2010, 06:38:46 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/01/israeli-probe-majority-of-people-on-flotilla-have-jihadist-links/

Be sure to watch all the links.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 01, 2010, 07:17:09 PM

Quote from: ccp on June 01, 2010, 09:11:56 AM

JDN,
Thanks for your repsonse. No one says you or anyone hates Jews if you disagree.
I was talking about Obama.  I believe he cynically uses Jews for his own power.  He had no problem sitting in a church of an obvious anti-semite for decades.

Maybe for the US it *would* simply be easier if it lets the Jews in Israel get wiped out.  Then the US would not have to take flak from the rest of the world for being an "ally" of the despised Jews.

I too have also questioned out loud on this board if it is reasonable to ask US citizens to die for Jews.  My heart says yes.  But logically it may not be in the best interests of this country to do so. 

JDN, please feel free to express your thoughts.  I am sure many Americans rightly question US support of Israel.  You are not an anti-semite and I am not offended.

First, Thank you CCP; I am glad you understand the inherit conflict.  To be honest, no offense meant, but I have no interest to have Americans "die for Jews".  However, I have no interest in American's dying for Christians, or Hindus, etc. either.  BUT, I think America should, if necessary, die and defend our close friends, Israel being one.  Israel has been a great friend of America, a wonderful ally, and has earned our loyalty.

That said as a given in the equation, I do think there are issues that Israel and America may disagree on.  And as you succinctly point out, the US pays a serious price for this loyalty and does take flak and frankly,
in my opinion, many American lives have been lost and billions of dollars spent because of our strong support for Israel.  Obviously, many of our problems with Muslims stem from our unwavering support for Israel.  Yet, as you also point out, I too know without America, Israel would cease to exist.   Therefore we do have a responsibility, an obligation to defend a dear friend, but like a parent who takes care of and knows they are responsible for their child, I think it is only reasonable to expect some loyalty, and frankly obedience.  Israel cannot have their cake and eat it too. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 01, 2010, 07:31:47 PM

"in my opinion, many American lives have been lost and billions of dollars spent because of our strong support for Israel."

When and where was this?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 01, 2010, 07:45:26 PM

Directly, each year we give Israel billions of dollars. 
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.

Indirectly, our unwavering support for Israel is a large reason for Muslim animosity thereby causing America to spend additional billions and be held "accountable" by Muslims.  Yet, as I pointed out, money well spent...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 01, 2010, 07:54:31 PM

We pump billions into Egypt and other muslim nations as well.


"Indirectly, our unwavering support for Israel is a large reason for Muslim animosity thereby causing America to spend additional billions and be held "accountable" by Muslims."

Muslims hate Israel for the same reason they hate us, we don't live under sharia law. They are commanded by islamic theology to wage jihad until islam rules over all of humanity.

Title: WSJ: Seige Fatigue
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2010, 05:44:46 AM

By RONEN BERGMAN
Tel Aviv

Monday's botched commando raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla has proven disastrous for Israel. World public opinion has united in condemning the Jewish state and the U.N. Security Council has already demanded an inquiry. Closer to home, the strategic alliance that Israel had painstakingly forged with Turkey is in tatters.

The horrific outcome—so far nine killed and dozens wounded—has caused irreparable damage to Israel's image. Even if the video evidence proves beyond doubt that the activists on board the ships were armed and that they were the first to attack, the battle for public opinion (which, after all, is what the flotilla exercise was really about) was lost the moment the first Israeli soldier set foot on the deck of the Mavi Marmara—the Turkish ferry that served as the flagship.

What makes the flotilla fiasco all the more astounding is that Israel has been preparing for this confrontation for months. It has had time to run various scenarios, and even to review strategies it has previously employed for similar events.

In 1988, 131 members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) who had been deported from the Palestinian Territories following the outbreak of the first intifada intended to set sail to Gaza from Limassol, Cyprus. Their boat, called Al Awda or the Ship of the Return, was accompanied by 200 journalists.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
The Mavi Marmara, lead boat of a flotilla headed to the Gaza Strip, which was stormed by Israeli naval commandos.
.Publicly, Israel announced that it would use any force necessary to prevent the vessel from reaching Gaza. But behind the scenes the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) general staff, including then Deputy Chief of Staff Ehud Barak, recognized that while seizing control of the ship or blowing it out of the water were not operationally complicated, the international repercussions of such plans would be grim if the Israelis were met with resistance and a battle ensued.

For this reason, the idea of a direct confrontation was abandoned, and the IDF decided to implement a covert operation instead. On Feb. 15, hours before it was due to set sail, the empty ship was blown up in Limassol harbor by a team of Mossad agents and frogmen from Flotilla 13 (the Israeli equivalent of Navy Seals). The team was led by Yoav Galant, then a young officer and today a major general in the IDF. The operation was a success. There were no casualties on either side and the PLO gave up on the idea of sailing to Gaza.

More recently, in August 2006 two ships carrying peace activists and food aid set out to Gaza, again from Cyprus. Under instructions from then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the vessels were boarded at sea without resistance. After a search uncovered no weapons, the ships were permitted to continue on toward the Strip. The Israeli naval forces went home, Hamas declared victory, and that was that.

Related
Pressure Rises on Israel Over Raid
Crisis Spurs Look at Turkish Group
U.S. Mutes Criticism of Israeli Raid
.But unlike 2006, the rhetoric from both sides—as well as the fact that the Insani Yardim Vakfi, a front group for the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood, organized the flotilla—made it clear that any attempt to take control of the vessels would almost certainly result in violent confrontation. This is what makes inexplicable the IDF's decision to have members of the Flotilla 13 commando unit board the Marmara. These men are not trained to deal with civilian protestors. And there were other options available to the IDF, such as disabling the ships at sea and towing them to an Israeli port.

While the instinct of many is no doubt to lay the blame at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's door, it should not be forgotten that the current minister of defense is Ehud Barak, a calmer head whose wealth of military experience includes, as mentioned above, firsthand familiarity with the arguments for and against employing potentially violent methods in similar situations.

What, then, are we to make of the decision-making that led to this tragedy?

Many observers, myself included, often resort to the concept of siege mentality when attempting to make sense of Jerusalem's approach to international relations. It is also true that the memory of the Holocaust still looms large in Israel, especially when existential threats—in which category I emphatically do not include a grab-bag collection of Turkish boats—emerge on Israel's horizon. But until recently, even with its siege mentality, the Israeli government always made an attempt—half-hearted, or ill-conceived, or badly executed, but an attempt nonetheless—to act in a way that would minimize possible harm to the state's international image.

What we witnessed in the early hours of Monday morning was symptomatic of a new degree of fatigue in Israeli governing circles. The fact that both the political and the military authorities could sign off on such an irresponsible operation suggests that the leadership of the country has given up what it has concluded is ultimately a Sisyphean attempt to accommodate world opinion. Isolation is no longer a threat to be fought, their thinking seems to go, because Israel is terminally isolated. What remains is to concentrate exclusively on what is best for Israel's survival, shedding any regard for the opinion of others.

"It makes no difference what we do, or how careful we are, or how we tackle the matter of the flotilla," I was told by a very senior military source two days before the operation. "Whatever we do, they'll all be against us, they'll condemn us at the U.N., and we'll be scolded. We might as well at least preserve our national dignity and maintain the blockade of Gaza." In other words, the war over world opinion is over—and Israel has lost.

Everything that has happened in the past year—the Goldstone Report condemning Israel's war in Gaza, the international furor after the assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai, even the statement singling out Israel at the recent Nuclear Nonproliferation Conference—is taken as an indication that any attempt to do the "right thing" is pointless and perhaps counterproductive. One might as well simply give up.

This feeling is shared by a large section of the Israeli population—not merely the right wing of Israeli society. While many are condemning the IDF's operation on Monday, it is probably fair to say that the majority of the country instinctively understands why these events were permitted to occur.

Israel's fatigue and deep sense of ostracism is, to say the least, unhealthy. It would be unhealthy for any country at the best of times. But it is particularly troubling when the country in question is at perpetual war, and when it is repeatedly threatened with annihilation by the leader of a country who is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. And, of course, it is profoundly disturbing when the fatigued and isolated country itself has the means to strike pre-emptively and punishingly at its enemies, including in ways from which, realistically, there may be no return.

Mr. Bergman, a senior military and political analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, is the author of "The Secret War With Iran" (Free Press, 2008).

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 07:03:18 AM

And if the ships blew up in Turkey, then what? It was a no win situation. Israel hasn't the luxury to appease the world's assholes, like our president or the United CrimiNals. The hajis will always hate Israel, so Israel has to teach them fear.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 02, 2010, 07:28:52 AM

Israel naval raid a folly foretold

How confused and panicky a country must be to act as Israel did.

David Grossman

June 2, 2010


No explanation can justify or whitewash the crime that was committed off the coast here early Monday morning, and no excuse can explain away the stupid actions of the Israeli government and the army. Israel did not send its soldiers to kill civilians in cold blood; indeed, this is the last thing it wanted. And yet, a small Turkish organization, fanatical in its religious views and radically hostile to Israel, recruited to its cause several hundred seekers of peace and justice and managed to lure Israel into a trap, precisely because it knew how Israel would react — knew how Israel is destined and compelled, like a puppet on a string, to react the way it did.

How insecure, confused and panicky a country must be to act as Israel acted. With a combination of excessive military force and a fatal failure to anticipate the intensity of the reaction of those aboard the ship, it killed and wounded civilians, and did so — as if it were a band of pirates — outside Israel's territorial waters. Clearly, this assessment does not imply agreement with the motives — overt or hidden, and often malicious — of some participants in the Gaza flotilla. Not all are peace-loving humanitarians, and the declarations of some of them regarding the destruction of the state of Israel are criminal. But these facts are simply not relevant at the moment; such opinions, so far as we know, do not deserve the death penalty.

Israel's actions are but the natural continuation of the shameful, ongoing closure of Gaza, which in turn is the perpetuation of the heavy-handed and condescending approach of the Israeli government. It is prepared to embitter a million and a half innocent people in the Gaza Strip to obtain the release of one imprisoned soldier, precious and beloved though he may be. And this closure is the all-too-natural consequence of a clumsy and calcified policy, which again and again resorts by default to the use of massive and exaggerated force, at every decisive juncture, where wisdom and sensitivity and creative thinking are called for instead.

And somehow, all these calamities — including the latest deadly events — seem to be part of a larger corruptive process afflicting Israel. One has the sense that a sullied and bloated political system, fearfully aware of the mess produced over the years by its own actions and malfunctions, and despairing of the possibility of undoing the endless tangle it has wrought, becomes ever more inflexible in the face of pressing and complicated challenges, losing in the process the qualities that once typified Israel and its leadership — freshness, originality, creativity.

The closure of Gaza has failed. It has failed for years now. What this means is that it is not merely immoral but also impractical, and indeed worsens the entire situation and harms the vital interests of Israel. The crimes of the leaders of Hamas, who have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive for four years without once allowing the Red Cross to visit him, and who fired thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israeli towns and villages, are acts that must be firmly dealt with, using the legal means available to a sovereign state. The ongoing siege of a civilian population is not one of them.

I would like to believe that the shock of Monday's frantic actions will lead to a reevaluation of the whole idea of the closure, at last freeing the Palestinians from their suffering, and cleansing Israel of its moral stain. But our experience in this tragic region teaches that the opposite probably will occur. The mechanisms of violent response, the cycles of vengeance and hatred have begun a new round, whose magnitude cannot yet be foreseen.

Above all, this insane operation shows how far Israel has declined. There is no need to overstate this claim. Anyone with eyes to see understands and feels it. Already there are those here who seek to spin the natural and justified sense of Israeli guilt into a strident assertion that the whole world is to blame. Our shame, however, will be harder to live with.

Israeli writer David Grossman is the author of, most recently, "To the End of the Land," to be published in October. This article was translated from the Hebrew by Stuart Schoffman.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 07:37:20 AM

Congrats, JDN, you found a useful idiot for those that would kill every jew on the planet, given the chance.  :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 07:52:54 AM

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4265.htm

Should have just sunk every boat.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 10:07:34 AM

"We need to always remember that we aren't North America or Western Europe, we live in the Middle East, in a place where there is no mercy for the weak and there aren't second chances for those who don't defend themselves."-Ehud Barak

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 02, 2010, 12:05:51 PM

Quote from: G M on June 02, 2010, 07:37:20 AM

Congrats, JDN, you found a useful idiot for those that would kill every jew on the planet, given the chance.  :roll:

It seems Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also falls into the category of "useful idiot"....



Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed concern over Israel's policy towards Gaza following Monday's commando raid on an international flotilla carrying aid to the blockaded Palestinian territory.
Blair, an envoy for the Middle East Quartet -- the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations -- working toward peace in the region, said Israel's blockade of the region since 2007 wasn't working.
"At the moment the difficulty with the current policy, apart from the events from the last few days is that we're not helping the people and isolating the extremists," Blair told CNN. "We're in danger of doing it the wrong way round."
Blair also backed the U.N. Security Council's call for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent" investigation into the raid which led to the deaths of at least nine people.
"I think the important thing is people want to know the facts," he told CNN. "So there's got to be a proper investigation. I think Hillary Clinton set out the criteria very well and very sensibly earlier and we've got to get that under way."
Blair, who has publicly stated that he opposes the economic blockade of Gaza, said that one of the main issues facing the Palestinian territory was a lack of proper access.
"I've been saying that for the best part of two years that this (the blockade) is a policy that doesn't work," Blair said.
"At the present time it's very hard to get materials into Gaza. We need to get not just humanitarian materials but materials that can rebuild the infrastructure."
Blair said that while "illegitimate" business interests were using tunnels to get goods into the territory, "what we're not doing is allowing the sector that is legitimate, the proper business sector, to conduct its business and of course this is what we've got to change."
Blair also praised U.S. President Barack Obama for his government's involvement in the region.
"Well, the most important thing for the Americans is that President Obama's gripped this from the very beginning of his time as president; I mean, that's the single most important thing," Blair said.
"The important thing for America is that they continue to be engaged in this."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 02, 2010, 01:24:28 PM

Hmm, guess JDN missed all of GM's posts re the islamification of the UK--you know, like the long thread on sharia law being imposed on UK citizens--and so finds it difficult to grasp that politicians who habitually cave tend to continue to do so, as we are learning full well in the US.

This is not complicated stuff: Turkey, Iranian clients, other usual suspects, along with sundry useful idiots sought an incident. They succeeded in creating one. Perhaps Israel got duped into overplaying its hand on the world stage, but just because a long list of people are applauding this piece of theater--many of whom we rarely find our interests aligned with--doesn't mean we have to join 'em in this farce.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 02:01:48 PM

Or "effete euro-douche" if you prefer, in Blair's case.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 02:33:19 PM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/anti_israel_sharks_sniff_weakness_n5AbqK6bk6NHcy6qEWK5jJ#ixzz0phPKSy8o


In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla fiasco, the air is thick with nonsense. Chief among the instant myths is that Israel has created a dilemma for President Obama.

Actually, it's the other way around.

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

Weakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/anti_israel_sharks_sniff_weakness_n5AbqK6bk6NHcy6qEWK5jJ#ixzz0pjYfSvzH

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 02, 2010, 02:55:59 PM

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/02/israels-actions-entirely-lawful-2/

While the international community has, once again, ganged up on Israel, one thing is for certain: the legality of Israel’s actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is not open to question. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed:

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

Title: Stratfor: Israel, Turkey, and the US
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2010, 04:48:41 AM

Turkey and Israel Fight for U.S. Support
TUESDAY WAS ALL ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL FALLOUT from Israel’s move to raid the Turkish-led aid ship trying to circumvent the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which left 9 people dead (mostly Turkish nationals) and scores of others injured. In a speech before Turkey’s parliament, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Israel not to test Turkey’s patience, adding that the state did not want his country as an enemy. Elsewhere, the head of Israeli intelligence said in a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel’s strategic worth in the eyes of the United States was increasingly on the decline.

After deciding to forcibly bring an end to the Turkish flotilla saga, Israel finds itself in a major bind. They have much of the international community condemning them for the action, and there are growing calls that Israel end the blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. At the same time, additional flotillas are being organized, which will only exacerbate matters, especially since Israel has said —international condemnation notwithstanding — it will not end the blockade.

“After deciding to forcibly bring an end to the Turkish flotilla saga, Israel finds itself in a major bind.”
From Israel’s point of view, ending the blockade directly undermines the state’s national security. A Gaza with free access to the outside world does not simply mean relatively improved economic conditions for its inhabitants. It also translates into Hamas and its Islamist militant allies gaining a freer hand to try to acquire weapons, which would be used against Israel.

From Turkey’s point of view, it is no longer content being Israel’s only Muslim ally. Indeed, Turkey has moved beyond being a pro-Western state to one on the path of becoming a great independent power. And its path to regional player status involves assuming an aggressive stance toward Israel, which can help it gain the leadership of the Arab Middle East and the wider Islamic world.

Ankara’s encouragement of the flotilla is very much in keeping with this objective. While the Turks have been successful at creating an international uproar against Israel, they have yet to demonstrate that they can force the Israeli hand. Not having a whole lot of options, Turkey is looking to align itself with the United States against Israel — something Washington has hesitated to do thus far.

While the United States will not even consider the Turkish proposition, it is not exactly endorsing Israel’s position. Even so, there is a strong possibility that the United States could prefer Turkey to Israel in the future since it needs Turkey’s help in extricating itself from the complexities of the region. Which brings us back to the warning from Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who said Israel “is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.” Currently, the United States needs Turkey more than it needs Israel.

While STRATFOR has been pointing out the emerging divergence in U.S. and Israeli interests for quite some time now, this is the first time Israel has acknowledged that its great power patron has a diminishing need for it. Though historically Israel has never faced a challenge from any of its neighboring states, the threat has come from powers outside its immediate region, which is where the great power patron has come in handy. That its traditional ally, the United States, has a need to align with Turkey, a rising regional power and potential adversary to Israel, would explain the statements of the Israeli intelligence chief, which underscore the massive national security debate currently under way in the country.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 03, 2010, 06:37:17 AM

That article makes some excellent points.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 03, 2010, 07:33:53 AM

It seems General Petraeus also falls into the category of "useful idiot"....

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of Cntcom] Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2010, 07:37:51 AM

No it doesn't. Turkey has internal fissures that could result in another military coup. Erdogan, given his islamist orientation is not the rational actor Stratfor likes to model in their analysis. If Israel doesn't blink, he loses. If he starts an armed conflict with Israel, he and his government may not survive it. Obama isn't a friend of Israel, but the majority of the American people are.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2010, 07:46:37 AM

**Were Israel wiped off the map tomorrow, the muslims would be outraged at the the continued occupation of al andalus.**

Loss of Spain hurts still, centuries after Moors' last sigh
March 14, 2004

 Iberia looms large in Islamist ambitions and regrets, writes Isambard Wilkinson in Madrid.

Thursday's bombings have raised an uncomfortable question for Spaniards. Is Osama bin Laden dreaming of exacting revenge for the loss of Al-Andalus, the ancient Moorish kingdom in Iberia?

A group said to be close to bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, sent a message to a London-based Arabic newspaper saying: "This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader and America's ally in its war against Islam."

While the authenticity of the message is open to doubt, there is no question that it reflects the thinking of Islamists who hold that any land that has once been part of the Muslim community should forever remain under Muslim rule.

At the beginning of the 11th century, three-quarters of Spain's population was Muslim. But as soon as the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella reconquered the country for Christianity, the Muslims were ordered out.

The humiliation has never been forgotten in the Arab world. But the sense of hurt may have grown since Spain, for decades a friend of the Arab world, backed the US-led war on Iraq, despite vast domestic opposition.


A dozen al-Qaeda-linked suspected terrorists have been arrested in Spain.

Bin Laden gave warning that Spain would be singled out for attack in a taped message released last October through an Arab satellite TV channel.

Bin Laden has also spoken of Al-Andalus, regarded with nostalgia by Islamists as the halcyon age of Muslim power and artistic achievement.

Moorish armies from North Africa conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century and transformed the region into an integral part of the Muslim umma, or nation.

The year 1492, when Granada was ceded to Ferdinand and Isabella, is a talismanic date for some Islamist scholars, who consider it as the beginning of the decline of the Muslim world.

The tale of the "Moors' last sigh" is recounted to epitomise the loss of one of the Islamic world's great jewels.

When King Boabdil fled Granada, the last bastion of Moorish rule, he looked back and wept. His mother chided him: "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man."

- The Daily Telegraph

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 03, 2010, 08:13:10 AM

Wow, Generals parrot the views of the Commander and Chief? Who'd of thunk it? It's not like publicly veering from the party line would be a bad career move or anything, right?

Maybe next we can hear what Jimmy Carter thinks of all this. What with all his foreign policy successes, his history of veracity, and his unimpeachable middle-eastern credentials surely he's not a useful idiot either.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 03, 2010, 12:47:47 PM

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of Cntcom] Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

Appeasement is easy when what you are giving up is the security of the lives of those from *another* country.  7 million Israelis against a billion plus Arabs?
With regards to Mr. Grossman who finds the Gaza policy a big mistake.  I suppose if the Israelis simply opened up Gaza the problem would go away???

He ignores the commitment of many Palestinians to the death of all Jews?

He ignores decades of attempts at two state solutions?

What is he talking about?

Appeasement is NOT going to work.  Unless of course the appeasement were for all Jews to vacate Israel and go somewhere other than Muslim territory.
Again may I suggest Antartica?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2010, 01:08:59 PM

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/turkey-israel-relations-2010

Justification for nukes?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2010, 01:23:17 PM

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2786/yearning-for-a-holocaust

 I am a Jew.  The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally.  For or Against it?

Muslim Student Association member: For it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 03, 2010, 01:38:34 PM

So now to use hate speech against Jews is just as acceptable on campus as using hate speech against Christians.
Yet it would not be acceptable if say Ann Coutler came to town.

Like I have pointed out Nazis are not so bad.  It is the Republicans.  And now again the Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2010, 03:16:08 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/03/report-white-house-to-pressure-israel-to-end-blockade-of-gaza/

Good thing Obama is such a friend to Israel. Imagine how bad things could get if he had jihadist alliances and spent 20 years listening to an anti-semetic pastor....

Title: Murky in Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2010, 04:57:35 PM

3 June 2010
Claire Berlinski
Murky in Turkey

What we don’t know about the Mavi Marmara incident: just about everything.

I live in Istanbul and for obvious reasons have been receiving e-mails and phone calls in the past few days asking what, exactly, is going on in Turkey. The answer is that I’m not sure. This is the only honest answer any journalist can give, unless she has managed to place a listening device in the meeting rooms of the Turkish Cabinet. It’s not, however, the answer all are giving. The events surrounding the bloodletting on the Mavi Marmara have prompted more media coverage, here and abroad, than any news event I can recently recall. Much of it is speculative and polemical nonsense. Journalists proclaim, over and over, that this has become a media war, which would seem to put them in an impressive position on the front lines, though in fact, should the worst come to pass and result in an outright Turkish-Israeli naval war—not impossible to imagine—journalists will, as usual, make no military decisions and will constitute only a tiny fraction of the dead. The media are certainly playing a role in this conflict, but in the end the power is, as it always has been, with those who control the militaries—and they’re saying little.

Here is what we don’t know. We don’t know why the Turkish government allowed the Mavi Marmara to sail. While it’s clear that some indeterminate proportion of the passengers were Islamist thugs, it’s also clear that many of the passengers were naive civilians. (You cannot argue that a one-year-old child is anything but a naive civilian.) We don’t yet know whether there was an active plot, among the thugs, to provoke this confrontation, or whether they decided to attack the Israeli commandos in an access of spontaneous enthusiasm. If the former, we don’t know whether the AKP government was aware of the organizers’ intentions or whether it never seriously considered the possibility. We can speculate, based on known connections between the İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri İnsani Yardım Vakfı, which organized the expedition, and well-known extremist groups, that this was a trap, set deliberately. We can speculate that the Turkish government conceived of the trap or lent it tacit support. But thus far we have no evidence.

Why might the Turkish government have permitted a Turkish boat packed with women, children, stupid people, and Islamic extremists to sail into the world’s most volatile military conflict zone? Why, especially, did they permit this while knowing that the Israeli government had made explicit its intention to stop that boat, by force if necessary? It’s tempting to think that the Turkish government anticipated or desired this outcome, all the more so if one looks at this conflict through a certain prism, to wit: one in which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is an Islamist nut intent upon establishing Turkish hegemony over the Islamic world by becoming the populist champion of the Palestinians, even at the risk of provoking an all-out regional war. I don’t dismiss that possibility.

But in fact, bad decisions can be made in infinitely many human ways. It’s also possible that Erdoğan sincerely believed that the boats had been properly inspected and were free of any weapons, and therefore no serious conflict could occur. It’s possible that he spoke to the organizers of the flotilla and came away with assurances about their intentions; or that he simply thought the Israelis were bluffing; or that his mind was on other things. The latter species of blunder happens all the time. Clearly, President Obama’s mind was on other things—the oil spewing all over the Gulf of Mexico, namely.

Erdoğan no doubt does have much on his mind these days, with the new leader of the CHP posing the first serious challenge to his party since the AKP took power; with Turkish troops dying at the hands of the PKK and making a mockery of his Kurdish opening; with his trip to South America, punctuated by a now-overshadowed diplomatic crisis of its own. It’s possible that Erdoğan’s intentions in permitting the boat to sail were entirely malicious (or designed to distract the Turkish public from these recent events), but it’s also possible—and never a theory to be discounted—that he and his government were simply fatally oblivious and incompetent. Any journalist who claims to know the answer, without possessing evidence of it, is exaggerating his access and overstating his analytic abilities.

Likewise, we have no idea why the Israelis responded as they did. Little about their response makes much sense on the face of it. It seems clear now that the Israelis should have known that a boat with members of the İHH aboard had the potential to turn into a floating riot. But who made the decision to interdict the boat in that fashion, and why? We don’t know. Did the decision-makers fail to consider the possibility that the passengers would attack the commandos? It seems unlikely, but so many things seem likely only in hindsight. The Israelis, too, might well have been thinking that the boat had been properly inspected, and that there was no serious possibility of violence. Perhaps they received private assurances of this from the Turkish government.

Nor could any member of the media possibly know that the Israelis wanted a violent outcome, whether (as it has variously been hypothesized) to establish Israeli deterrence, to distract the world from Israel’s activities in the Persian Gulf, or to provoke Erdoğan into an overreaction that would at last discredit him in the West. None of the journalists offering speculation about Turkish or Israeli positions claim to have even an anonymous source or a secret document in their possession. Their speculations tend to conform with perfect precision to whatever line about Turkey or Israel they’ve endorsed before.

We also don’t know whether the Israelis received intelligence, real or faulty, about the nature of the goods being shipped on the Mavi Marmara. We don’t know whether they were told—by an honest source who believed it or by a corrupt one trying to make mischief—that the boat was another Karine A. We don’t know what really happened before the violence broke out or why the accounts conflict. It’s possible, of course, that they conflict because one or both sides are wicked propagandists, but eyewitness testimony is notoriously confused in the aftermath of traumatic events. We don’t know why the Israelis stopped the boat in international waters or whether they seriously considered disabling it by other means. We certainly don’t know what the Obama administration is doing about all of this, because it is either doing nothing, or doing something so quietly that it very much appears that way.

This much I do know, firsthand: the event is dominating the Turkish media. It’s on every television and radio station. Much of the media, the Islamist press in particular, is disgusting and utterly irresponsible. The Islamist fringe is running headlines that are not, to say the least, calculated to encourage confidence about Turkey’s future. Yeni Şafak, an Islamist rag favored by the prime minister, described the Israelis as “Hitler’s Children.” An AKP Deputy Chairman, Hüseyin Çelik, has speculated (without evidence) that it is “no coincidence” that in the past week, a PKK attack claimed the lives of seven Turkish soldiers in İskenderun. The more reputable Islamist papers, such asZaman, reported this claim uncritically. Few Turks read English and almost none read Hebrew, so the Turkish public is not exposed to a wide variety of opinion. The Turkish media is not helping matters.

I’ve seen street protests at Taksim, but not elsewhere; the protesters seem to be mainly young men, as to be expected, waving Palestinian flags. Apart from that, the mood is generally calm. People seem more anxious than angry. “We don’t know what’s going on,” said my Muay Thai teacher. “No one knows what’s going on.” Everyone at my gym, which I suppose politically represents a fairly random sample of Istanbul, seemed to agree that they did not want war. Many have voiced to me a suspicion that they are being manipulated.

I have about 500 Turkish Facebook friends, most of whom I’ve never met; we’ve come into contact through our shared interest in causes or hobbies—martial arts, rescuing animals, improving Istanbul’s construction codes. Of these 500, about three have clearly gone mad, posting insane anti-Israel diatribes, full of vulgarities, in capital letters. About 50 have posted something angry about the incident or joined a group devoted to denouncing it. The vast majority have done neither, and some have spoken out strongly against Islamism and anti-Semitism. I’ve spoken to a few people who say they don’t care about the Mavi Marmara. “I didn’t know them, what were they to me?” said one computer programmer. His friend, a chef, agreed: “Why should I care about the Palestinians just because they’re Muslims?” From these comments I can firmly conclude only that Turkey is not monolithic, and that if indeed Erdoğan provoked this crisis deliberately to buttress his popularity, he may well also provoke a backlash if it spins out of his control.

These are modest observations, to be sure, but I’ll conclude with an immodest suggestion: it would be best for this region if journalists contained their observations to what they do, in fact, know. A media war is actually quite different from a real one. Whatever is really happening, however little of it we understand, is obviously minatory and extremely dangerous. The best thing journalists can do under the circumstances is to stop playing with fire unless they have something real to report.

Claire Berlinski is an American journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of  There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.

Title: A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo
Post by: rachelg on June 03, 2010, 05:36:36 PM

A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo
By DANIEL GORDIS

June 3, 2010

Jerusalem

IN the last few days, Jerusalem has been blanketed by an unusual combination of humiliation and steely determination. How is it, people here wondered aloud, that the same country that tripled its size in three lightning days in June 1967 and then pulled off the rescue at Entebbe nine years later now seems to botch everything?




We lost the 2006 war in Lebanon, believing - incorrectly - that our venerated air force could win the war from the skies. The strikes on Gaza in December 2008 were a military success, but we have utterly failed to convince the world that it was a defensive effort precipitated by eight years of Hamas's firing Qassam rockets at us, killing and maiming and destroying any semblance of a normal life for Israelis living near the border. And then came Monday's attack on the flotilla trying to break through the naval blockade of Gaza.

Yet, despite widespread criticism at the way the raid was conducted, few here doubted that stopping the flotilla was the right thing to do. Life in Gaza is unquestionably oppressive; no one in his right mind would choose to live there. But there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; if anyone goes without food, shelter or medicine, that is by the choice of the Hamas government, which puts garnering international sympathy above taking care of its citizens. Israel has readily agreed to send into Gaza all the food and humanitarian supplies on the boats after they had been inspected for weapons.

Thus this flotilla was no "peace operation." It was intended to break the blockade or to increase international pressure to end it. Its leaders, with the connivance of the Turkish government, set a trap, and Israel blundered smack into it.

But that does not make the blockade wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization that completed its takeover of Gaza through brute force. It executes its political enemies at will. It is one of the world's most misogynist regimes, allowing the murder of women for the slightest infraction of family honor.

Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from Israeli territory and has held him for four years without giving the Red Cross any access to him, in violation of the most basic international standards of conduct. And, of course, Hamas openly insists that it will countenance no long-term peace with Israel; the resistance will not end, it says, until Israel is destroyed.

Like every other country, Israel has as its foremost obligation the protection of its citizens. Given that, why should it have allowed the flotilla to enter without inspecting its goods? If the United States were to impose a blockade on Iran (which seems unlikely), and another country dispatched a string of ships in a similar operation, is there any chance the United States Navy would let them through without inspection?

Israel will, of course, endure tremendous international condemnation for this week's events. Sadly, though, we Israelis are becoming somewhat inured to such criticism. And we know that we dare not capitulate now.

It is no accident that Turkey sent the flotilla at this time. It is clearly cozying up to Iran these days, even teaming with Brazil to offer Tehran a deal on atomic fuel that would allow the mullahs to maintain their effort to build a nuclear arsenal. Ankara's warmongering talk this week was not intended for global consumption; it was meant to show Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Turkey is playing a new role in the Middle East.

Iran finances Hezbollah and Hamas and does everything it can to weaken and marginalize Israel, inching toward its vision of a world without a Jewish state. The West has known of Iran's nuclear intentions for well over a decade, but has effectively done nothing. Israelis understand that we - and we alone - will have to ensure our security and our survival.

The recent avalanche of international condemnation is very painful for Israelis, who remember the years in which we were seen as a beacon of democracy and sophistication in a repressive part of the world. Those days are gone, of course, because of the world's impatience with the "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza.

Our problem is that though most Israelis want peace with two states - one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side by side - we cannot find anyone to make a deal with us. A decade ago, President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, tried, but Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, walked away. Now the supposedly moderate Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, refuses to negotiate, as of course does Hamas.

Israelis are resigned to the fact that reason will not shake the world's blatant double standard. Our blockade of Gaza is "criminal"; yet nobody mentions that Egypt has had a blockade of Gaza in placesince 2007, and has never hesitated to use lethal force against those trying to break it. Israel's attempt to enforce a blockade becomes an international crisis, while most of the world shrugs when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to sit with Fatah leaders any time, anywhere, but they insist on mere "proximity talks," which they will probably now scuttle, using the flotilla as an excuse.

Israel's geographic vulnerability means that we do not have the luxury of caving in to the world's condemnation. We will have to gird ourselves for the long, dangerous and lonely road ahead, buoyed by hope that what ultimately prevails will be not what is momentarily popular, but rather what is just.

 
[Credit: Both Text and Image from New York Times]
 
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CAN BE POSTED HERE:
http://danielgordis.org/2010/06/03/a-botched-raid-a-vital-embargo-new-york-times-op-ed/
 
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE IS AT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03gordis.html?ref=global
 

Title: Calling it an apple doesn't make it one?
Post by: rachelg on June 03, 2010, 05:38:07 PM

Calling it an apple doesn't make it one
http://www.treppenwitz.com/2010/06/asymmetrical-use-of-language.html
[Zahava weighs in with a guest post]

So the news..... Argh!....  is not good. (Is it ever?!)

For the past week, as the "peace flotilla" made their preparations and neared our shores, the foreign politicians and media have been doing their best to ensure that no matter what happened when Israel intercepted the flotilla, there would be a receptive audience of sharks gathered when the blood hit the water.

I don't think anyone who keeps up with the news is particularly shocked by the way things turned out or how they have been reported. On the contrary, I think that to some degree most people have been waiting -- some with no small amount of dread -- for these exact events to unfold.

What is, however, truly amazing to me -- is the insistence that the passengers aboard the flotilla were peace activists and that we are meant to accept/believe that they were simply exercising their rights to civil disobedience in a public place, and that we should be outraged by the use of force against them.

There exists a well-documented history of civil disobedience in world history. I am by no means a scholar of history, but it seems to me that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would both be horrified by the hijacking of the terminology to describe their non-violent methodologies to affect social and political change to describe a well-planned-and-executed operation which culminated in the protesters bearing arms.

When I was a student, my teachers taught us that what precisely was so powerful about both Gandhi and Dr. King was that even in the face of violence being employed against their followers, the violence was not returned. The public quickly grew sick from seeing peaceful, unarmed participants -- many of whom were youths -- being indiscriminately beaten without there having been violent provocation toward their attackers. It was the resolute maintenance of non-violence on the part of the protesters which caused the public to become involved in the issues and to democratically institute change.

Peace activists BY DEFINITION do NOT bear arms and utilize them against others. FULL STOP.

Civil disobedience only deserves the name when violence is not employed by the individuals engaging in the protest/demonstration.

“Peace activists” aboard a ship who attack military personnel as they are boarding a blockade runner are not engaged in peaceful protest — they are engaged in offensive combat.

If we -- and by "we" I mean any person capable of distinguishing between "black" and "white" regardless of our political affinities -- tolerate such misuse of language to describe the passengers of this flotilla, then we make it impossible to have meaningful discussion because we will have stripped important -- and formerly potent -- words of their meaning.

If we allow it to persist, the asymmetrical application of language will lead us to anarchy. If we allow the definition of a peace activist to change from "one who refrains from violence" to "one who refrains from violence except when...", then we create a situation with limitless opportunities to continually modify language to suit the needs and political sympathies of the speaker, and we simultaneously erode the possibility of achieving understanding and agreement.

Our society has evolved to the point that we expect and demand a certain amount of honesty from the entities which sell us things; we call it 'truth in advertising'. While it is true that this has resulted in the shifting of some of the responsibility of representing truth to those in the business of marketing it, it doesn't completely absolve us of the responsibility to question the validity of the claims we are hearing and reading.

Let's not collectively surrender our ability to call things by their correct name.  You can't very well compare apples to apples unless everyone can agree on what an apple is... and is not.

Title: Separating fact from fiction
Post by: rachelg on June 03, 2010, 05:40:28 PM

I am not agreeing with this entire post but I thought was really interesting an interesting perspective


Separating fact from fiction

I'm glad I resisted the temptation to weigh in yesterday on the Gaza Flotilla raid because most of what was being reported turned out to be either wrong or grossly incomplete.

1.  Let's start in a place where few if any of the media outlets care to go; the blockade of Gaza.

a)  Is it legal? 

Simply put; yes.  Actually, in technical/legal terms, it is not a blockade per se since although Israel handed over all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in 2005, we retained control of the airspace and borders (including both land and sea borders).  [Note: This, not incidentally, is one of the reasons that our claims of no longer occupying Gaza are relatively weak.]  But if we never relinquished control of the borders and airspace, is it legally a blockade?  Not really. The result is the same (at least as far as Hamas is concerned), but blockading our own coast is not the same as if we were blockading another sovereign state.

While there are many countries around the world who do not support the so-called blockade of Gaza, few except NGOs and 'interested parties' use the term 'illegal' to describe it. 

b)  Is Israel alone in the 'blockade' of Gaza?

No.  While Israel controls the borders of Gaza, Egypt also controls its borders with Gaza and is a full participant in controlling the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza.  It doesn't get much press, but Egypt is actually much more violent in the control of its borders with Gaza; shooting dozens of refugees from Africa trying to enter Israel and Gaza... and using lethal force against Palestinians trying to enter Sinai.

Egypt's interest in maintaining the blockade is different from Israel's.    They maintain "that they cannot open Rafah crossing [and any other border crossing] unless the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas controls the crossing and international monitors are present. Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Hamas wants the border opened because it would represent Egyptian recognition of the group's control of Gaza. "Of course this is something we cannot do," he said, "because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank." [Source].

Update:  Egypt has just opened (albeit temporarily) their border with Gaza in order to "alleviate the suffering of our Palestinian brothers".  They're not complete idiots.  When the sh*t starts to stick to Israel over the blockade, they don't want to be seen standing guard along any of the borders.   

It is worth mentioning that the U.S.government supports the blockading of Gaza and the isolation of the Hamas terror organization.

c)  Is there a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a result of the blockade as Palestinian supporters claim?

No.  As much as the Palestinians and their supporters have tried to portray the blockade of Gaza as causing a humanitarian crisis, the truth is that Israel supplies all of their electricity, and allows entry of humanitarian aid from recognized organizations via the border crossings it controls.  Whether Hamas allows all of that aid to reach the people is quite another question.    The sponsors of the flotilla were informed in advance that they could save themselves a trip and allow Israel to transfer all of their aid via official land crossings into Gaza.  needless to say, they refused.

There is also a flourishing smuggling economy that operates via a network of tunnels between Gaza and Egyptian Sinai.

While the idea of being virtual prisoners in Gaza must not be very palatable to the population or the Hamas leadership that runs the strip, the stores there are full of food and consumer products and the standard of living in Gaza is higher than most of the third/developing world.  Additionally, Israel has allowed Gazans access to its own medical facilities for more serious/emergent cases; something that has been exploited cynically many times by individuals and by Hamas.

2.  Next, let's talk about the issue of 'international waters' and what this actually means in the the context of the current situation.

a)  Claims vs. actual practice:

The news media and the players in this latest drama have been throwing around the term 'International Waters', but few people really understand the idea of maritime territorial claims.  The following illustration should help provide much of the vocabulary you'll need to discuss this topic:
(http://bogieworks.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c581e53ef0134828e1a2d970c-500wi)


I've posted this, not because there is some magic loophole that Israel has exploited (quite the opposite, actually)... but because it bothers me to hear people using terminology that they don't fully understand.

Simply put, every country on earth has a legal claim to 12 nautical miles of coastal waters (from the mean low water mark), assuming they have a coastline, that is.  Some countries (Israel, interestingly, is not among them) claim an additional 12 nautical mile 'contiguous zone'.  Whether 12 or 24 nautical miles, this area claimed by all countries is still open to 'innocent passage' (a concept under Admiralty Law) and anchoring.   But a country really has the final say over what it considered 'innocent'.

b)  EEZ:

It is worth noting that many countries claim and enforce a much larger maritime claim... some out to as far as 200 nautical miles.  While this is considered an Economic Exclusion Zone and is mainly relevant for protecting natural resources (i.e. drilling and fishing rights, etc.), quite a few countries patrol their EEZ with the same vigor as they do their legal territorial claims of 12 or 24 nautical miles.  Don't think so?  Try approaching North Korea's coast.  Or for that matter, try sailing from Cuba to Florida and let me know how that works out for you.  You won't get anywhere near 12 miles before the Coast Guard boards you.


c)  Current law vs. current practice regarding interdiction

Thanks to Somali pirates, and less recently to the ongoing drug trafficking between Caribbean islands and the U.S., the rules regarding when and how boats can be approached and boarded in international waters has been constantly evolving.

While most of the Navies currently operating in the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea to protect commercial shipping from the Somali pirates rely on a legal concept called "Hostis humani generis" (Latin for "enemy of mankind") a legal term originating from the admiralty law that basically allows nearly unrestricted engagement on the high seas of pirates, slave traders, torturers and a few other select populations that the entire world has an interest in fighting, sadly, smugglers are a more difficult group to legally engage... and terrorists are not yet officially defined as Hostis humani generis.

For context let's look at the U.S. Coast Guard.  On a daily basis the USCG boards and inspects hundreds of boats and ships on the high seas (meaning in international waters) far from their own territorial claims.  In addition, they approach and challenge hundreds more each day but opt for any number of reasons not to board.  How can they do this so far outside their recognized national claims?

The reason is simple.  On a significant number (but certainly not all) of the vessels that the USCG challenges/boards, illegal drugs and weapons are found.   The U.S. has enacted Federal Laws that allow the Coast Guard to operate and interdict suspected smugglers...  even on the high seas far from its legal territorial claims.  Certainly part of the reason this is allowed is that many of the Island nations in the Caribbean do not have the means to adequately control their own maritime claims (and are sometimes directly or indirectly involved in the smuggling), so the U.S. has unilaterally - and sometimes through agreements with neighbors - taken it upon themselves to act as the cops for that part of the world's oceans.

Israel, for its part, is in a similar situation.  It's neighbors are unable or unwilling to control maritime smuggling that both directly and indirectly affects Israel's economic and physical security.  So when ample intelligence indicates that a ship or boat is engaged in smuggling or terror, Israel often acts in this gray area of international law.

Simply put, when Israel engaged the Gaza Flotilla in international waters, they were not on as solid ground (figuratively, of course) as our supporters claim, nor as legally wrong as our many detractors claim.

The flotilla had declared it's intention to smuggle goods and people into an area that Israel controls (and has declared a closed military zone), and when contacted via radio and offered the chance to alter course to an Israeli port for the purposes of transferring the cargo to Gaza (after inspection, of course), or even turning around and returning to their port of origin, the flotilla again clearly stated their intention to violate Israel's sovereignty.

Under international law, you don't necessarily have to wait for someone to breach your sovereignty before engaging them.  It is often enough that they say they are going to do it; that they demonstrate that they have the means to do it; and that they actually set in motion a physical act that makes it clear they intend to make good on their threats.

c)  How far from Israel's coast did the interdiction take place:

Approximately 40 nautical miles (although I have not seen confirmation of this from Israel sources).  Close enough to infer intent even without the flotilla's declaration of intent to violate Israel's territorial sovereignty.
 

3.  Now that we have some of the necessary background to discuss the flotilla raid responsibly, what happened... and more importantly, what went wrong?

a)  The 'boats':

There were five craft used in the so-called Freedom Flotilla.  There were originally at least two more - flying Swedish and Irish flags, respectively - but they did not participate due to mechanical problems.

There were two U.S. flagged craft; Challenger I and Challenger II, two Greek flagged craft; the Eleftheri Mesogeios and the Sfendoni, and a Turkish flagged craft called the MV Mavi Marmara.  This latter ship is where all the problems took place

It wasn't until yesterday that the actual dimensions of the participating ships, and most specifically the ship where all the trouble occurred, began to come to light.  The MV Mavi Marmara, far from being a small fishing or pleasure vessel is actually a small-medium sized cruise ship which is over 300 feet in length.  This is significant because the early reports of the mighty Israel military boarding and shooting up some tiny vessels with helpless crew seem silly when placed alongside the image of a cruise ship with hundreds of people aboard.

b)  The sponsors/supporters:

There is a feeling afoot that just because there were representatives of many countries around the world and several high profile participants in the flotilla, that the methods and goals of the flotilla had international sanction and support.  This is only partly true.  The flotilla had widespread, but unofficial, international support... and now that the botched raid has pushed the flotilla onto the front page of every newspaper ni the world, many countries have condemned Israel's handling of the situation.  But condemning Israel and officially supporting the goals and methods of the flotilla are not the same thing.  To officially support the flotilla would be madness for any country that wants to protect its own homeland and coastline from smugglers and terrorists.
c)  The 'peace activists'

The videos of anti-Israel/Islamic incitement before and during the cruise from Turkey, and the revelation that many of the people on-board the MV Mavi Marmara were not 'peace activists' but rather armed agitators (many with ties to what I'll euphemistically call militant Islamic organizations), give a clear indication that we weren't dealing with disciples of Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr..

d)  The Israel Navy:

"Just before the raid, the Israeli Navy again contacted the Mavi Marmara, warning it that it was approaching an "area of hostility which is under naval blockade", and telling it that it could instead dock in the Port of Ashdod, where the supplies would be delivered through the "formal land crossings" under the observation of activists, after which the fleet would be allowed to leave to their home ports. The Mavi Marmara replied "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza"."  [Source]

Most of you know by now that the IDF naval commandos were given impossible Rules of Engagement.  Far from the bloodthirsty savages who allegedly boarded the ships intent upon murder and mayhem, the commandos were sent aboard with paint ball guns - toys, essentially - and told that even those non-lethal tools were to be used only if necessary for crowd control.  They also each had a pistol for self defense, but were warned repeatedly that their lives had to be in danger before they could use them... and even then they would need to ask for and receive authorization.  We now know that by the time permission was received to use the meager lethal means at their disposal, at least two of the soldiers had been beaten unconscious, stripped of their sidearms and these pistols (and other weapons) were being used against the rest of the group.

The senior echelons of the IDF who wrote up and approved these ROEs should be dismissed without delay.  Besides being an intelligence failure of the first water that we didn't know what our soldiers would be dropping into... you simply don't send commandos into action with their hands tied.  Take away a soldier's weapons and give him toys, and he cannot possibly be effective no matter what the mission.  I don't care if the mission is to go bring back Shwarma from the corner store... a solder will do it better in full gear with all his weapons.

Sadly, in this case, the powers that be decided to make Mike Tyson a bouncer and send him out to face an angry mob, forgetting that if he won't be allowed to do what he was trained to do, he will be nothing more than a target... and a big one, at that.

No, I won't join your facebook group.  No, I won't sign a petition or write to my (or your) representatives.  I won't be part of a spin campaign of any sort.  THis was not Israel's finest hour and I'm not going to try to make it out to be another Entebbe raid.  Even though I believe in my heart that Israel was morally and legally in the right, it was a botched operation from start to finish and we now have to see what can be done to see that no further damage is done.

We've seen the grainy video taken from one of the helicopters hovering overhead.  I don't know about you, but you could tell me Big Foot and the Lock Ness monster were both involved in the skirmishes and I'd have no choice but to take your word for it.

I hope that there were helmet cams used by at least some of the soldiers.  But barring that, we'll have to see what the physical evidence reveals once the boats are searched in Ashdod.

For the record, I am not a scholar of Admiralty Law, but neither are any of the talking heads raving about whether Israel was or wasn't within her rights to board the flotilla in International Waters.  Personally, I am confident that Israel will successfully assert her right to act as she did... and most of the civilized world will agree to her rationale since they (most of all the U.S.) have too much to lose if slapping Israel's wrist will set a precedent that will ultimately erode their own freedom of action on the high seas.

The best advice I can give you is to NOT become shrill and strident.  Those who are condemning us would do so no matter what.  Those who are inclined to wait for the facts have given very measured statements and are waiting to see how things play out.

I know the title of this post suggested that I would reveal some magical formula for separating fact from fiction.  But from here, I am in the same boat (literally and figuratively) as you.  I am reading the same news reports and filtering the same hype from both sides.  What I hope I've given you is enough background information to be able to read the news with a critical eye.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 03, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I don't think "legality" (international waters) is a serious issue.

And personally, and I think many agree with me, Israel, for various reasons, should have stopped the flotilla.

But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better.

"This was not Israel's finest hour and I'm not going to try to make it out to be another Entebbe raid.  Even though I believe in my heart that Israel was morally and legally in the right, it was a botched operation from start to finish and we now have to see what can be done to see that no further damage is done."  (see above)

Now that is a true statement.

I know Obama is not popular here on this forum, but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle. 

And it will cost America...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 03, 2010, 08:25:49 PM

How should have Israel handled the jihad flotilla?

"I know Obama is not popular here on this forum, but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle."  

No, he's just working behind closed doors to undercut Israel.

Title: 6 Million Refusing National Suicide
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 04, 2010, 05:57:40 AM

Israel, Disarmed
If even a blockade, the most passive and benign of defenses, is impermissible, what defenses does Israel have left?
 
The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiél, and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Israel has already twice intercepted weapons-laden ships from Iran destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically delegitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself — forward and active defense.

1. Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense — fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai peninsula and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example), Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies — and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land — evacuating southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks, and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

2. Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense — military action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat (to borrow President Obama’s description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza operation of 2008–09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N.’s Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli — the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war — effectively delegitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

3. Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses — a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international delegitimization.

But, if none of these are permissible, what’s left?

Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, six million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized, and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://article.nationalreview.com/435513/israel-disarmed/charles-krauthammer

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2010, 07:37:00 AM

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

They asked to be able to transfer the haul to Gaza themselves.

I don't see what else all the talking heads think would have been better.  They could have shot a missle accross the bow. When the antagonists would not stop they could have sunk the ships.  Then the national "community" could have even had more to gang up on Israel about.

They could have had a small army board the ships perhaps with submachine guns.  Those on board would have then been screaming that this was a disproportionate response to a "peace" ship.

No matter what they did, if they did not let the ships pass, they would be condemned.  This was not botched at all.  It is the medias way of a mea culpa to the Muslims who are for this sort of thing.

To have talking heads speaking of "big nets" in the water, and on and on.  Give me a break.

"but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle." 

Obama has hardly come out in support of Israel.  Indeed, his lack of support for Israel may have inspired this sort of thing.

"And it will cost America..."

How so in this case?  You are suggesting because he has publically tried to appear neutral this was not enough.  Thus are you saying he should be condeming Israel because that is in agreement with World opinion and that will keep us popular with the world and the Arabs?

Title: Gaza Guidebook
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 04, 2010, 07:43:58 AM

The original piece has a lot of videos embedded within that are wealth worth viewing.

Israel Publishes Gaza Travel Guidebook For Pro-Hamas Freedom Flotilla

By Omri CerenPublished: May 26, 2010
Posted in: Arab and Muslim World, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Israel, Palestinians, Sticky, World News
Tags: Europe, gaza, hamas, Human Rights, Israel, Palestinians, terrorism

FROM: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TO: Free Gaza Freedom Flotilla
RE: Gaza Tourism Guide

Dear Crazy People,

We’ve been given to understand that you intend to stage another media stunt, wherein you’re again going to float some empty ships – they may be full this time, they were mostly empty last time – in the general direction of the Gaza Strip. Your hope is apparently that your cameramen will capture the Israeli reaction and edit it into an overreaction or, failing that, simply reprint your feverish fantasies with slack-jawed credulity. Again.

Our problem isn’t so much that your goal involves obfuscating the millions of tons of food and aid we’ve delivered to Gaza civilians, which allowed Hamas to move money away from infrastructure and into weaponry, which led to more of our cities getting bombarded with rockets and missiles. It’s not even how, knowing that we deliver 15,000 tons of goods every week, your 10,000 tons of concrete isn’t exactly a shining testament to your good intentions. Not when just last week we handed over 810,209 liters of heavy duty diesel fuel, 21 truckloads of milk powder and baby food, 897 tons of cooking gas, 66 truckloads of fruits and vegetables, 51 truckloads of wheat, 27 truckloads of meat, chicken and fish products, 40 truckloads of dairy products, 117 truckloads of animal feed, 36 truckloads of hygiene products, 38 trucks of clothing, 22 trucks of sugar and 4 trucks of medicine and medical equipment. But again: not the issue.

Really what we’re concerned about is that you suck at driving boats. Last time you only had one ship and you still managed to crash it because – of all things – you tried to outmaneuver an Israeli Navy vessel. This time you’re bringing nine boats. While we fully expect our Navy to interdict all of you, a legal and justified act under black letter maritime law, the odds are overwhelming that one of you tools is going to accidentally ground your boat. Given your obvious intention of creating a spectacle and your similarly obvious inability to manage same, it’s pretty much inevitable.

If and when that happens, we’d like you to have at least some sense of how to survive in Gaza City. The alternative is you running across the border – complaining the whole time about our security checkpoints – and that would be awkward for everyone.

So we’ve put together this Gaza Tourism Guide, complete with picture galleries, which we believe to be the most comprehensive ever assembled on the web.

We know that after looking over everything, you’ll be as excited to stay in Gaza as we are to have you there. Feel free to pass this on at your ISM tabling sessions at Evergreen or whatever you people do on college campuses in between advocating genocide. And in the future, if you really want to repeatedly create Gaza media spectacles so you can damage Israel’s reputation, do what everyone else does. Join the UN.

WHERE TO SLEEP

Gaza City’s luxury hotels are located on the Gaza coastline in the posh district of Ramal, which gets its name from the Arabic word for “sands.” Ramal serves as a central gathering place for international and domestic dignitaries. Foreign officials are often found in the area, speaking about Gaza’s unbearable plight at the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights during the day, before retiring to the United Nations beach club at night. Top Hamas officials also congregate in the area, and can be easily identified during wartime as the ones hiding in the half-bunker/half-silo basement of the district’s Shifa Hospital. As can be expected the accommodations and eateries in Ramal are superb.

At the far end of the luxury spectrum, the Grand Palace Hotel has a direct beach view and puts guests literally across the street from the Mediterranean Sea. The building’s decadent Crystal Hall – included in the gallery below – makes it a much-desired banquet location for first weddings, second weddings, and martyrdom celebrations. Those seeking to secure the room are advised to book well in advance.

The Grand Palace’s sprawling facilities also make it a prime location for political and corporate events. When Fatah leader Nabil Shaath returned to the Gaza Strip in 2010, entering the territory for the first time since Hamas had violently seized control in a 2007 campaign that involved shooting out the kneecaps of Fatah-linked civilians, throwing them off roofs, and executing them in the streets – this is where Shaath met with his Hamas counterparts.


If you’re looking for a younger vibe you might want to check out the Marna House. The warm family-run establishment is like a home away from home. Though it’s Gaza’s oldest hotel, the blending of modern luxury with the ethos of anti-Zionist resistance has made it a favorite with college-aged ISM volunteers. Stable Internet means guests can – and do – blog about the savagery of targeted Israeli self-defense operations, tweet about the wonderful bravery of Hamas’s human shields, and even upload galleries of the beach side terrace to Flickr. Since the clientele skews young, it’s no surprise that past guests have set up a Marna House hotel & restaurant Facebook page so they can “share memories” of their bitter twilight struggle against Occupation. The crappy resolution on the uploaded photos are a testament to the grittiness of the experience:


The Al Deira hotel, built along Gaza’s coast in sun dried mud bricks, is an option somewhere in between the Al Deira and the Marna House. Though the hotel boasts 22 spacious rooms and a world-class staff – enough so that some regular Western European diplomats and anti-Israel human rights investigators actually prefer it to the Grand Palace – the experience exudes down-to-earth Mediterranean hospitality. Bookworms will find a shop in the lobby specializing in Middle Eastern works of fiction, historical biographies, and conspiracy theories demonizing Jews. Wireless Internet is available for $2/hr or $10/day, and a fully equipped business center is available for $6/hr.


WHERE TO SHOP

Gaza’s markets are simply overflowing with goods supplied by hundreds of smuggling tunnels, from food and clothing to widescreen TVs and even live cows. The depth and breadth of the selection is so astounding that smaller tunnel operators are actually getting run out of business because they can’t compete with the scale of the larger operations.

Tourists hoping for bargains may nonetheless find themselves disappointed, however. Gaza’s relatively healthy per capita income – higher than India’s as a result of being the world’s largest per-capita aid recipient – keeps demand robust and prices stable.

Still, wily locals will know where great deals can be found. Don’t be afraid to ask for tips, either from your hotel clerk or from the attentive Hamas-provided tour guides who will be accompanying you everywhere. If you’re lucky they might be able to track down one of the souvenir Goldstone headscarves, honoring brutal apartheid judge Richard Goldstone. They’ve unfortunately been selling out all over Gaza, so nothing’s certain. Much more common are open air swap meets filled with kids selling automatic weapons.


Many tourists, especially Americans, find bartering to be distasteful or uncomfortable. This is especially true in the hustle and bustle of a market. If it’s not your cup of tea, you can head over to Gaza’s professional and well-stocked supermarkets for the kind of experience that you would find in any American chain.


WHERE TO DINE

All of the major luxury hotels have food facilities, with the seaside terrace restaurant at the Al Diera hotel being a local favorite. It’s known for its view, its mezes (small Mediterranean-style dishes), and its fresh strawberry juice. Gazans will top the juice off with a scoop of vanilla ice cream, which is perfect for getting through the hot desert summer days.

If you’re looking to get away from hotels, you can’t do better than Roots. The well-known restaurant, part of the Cactus for Development Group’s family of fine dining restaurants – “new standards in the hospitality business in Palestine!!!” – emphasizes that you should call ahead for reservations. Their full blown interactive menu here.


Visitors are strongly cautioned not to drink tap water while in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have severely overpumped Gaza’s wells, perhaps irreparably depleting the water table and leaving it open to mass contamination. Ground water is therefore not potable. Stick instead to bottled water, which is regularly supplied by Israel and imported through smuggling tunnels.

WHERE TO PLAY

Gaza summers revolve around whatever Gaza beaches aren’t being used at the time to hack up critically endangered sea turtles for their ostensibly magical blood. Whether it’s relaxing with friends, exercising with a partner, or watching an AP stringer set up photo shoots in anticipation of captions about beach life being “the only escape available to Gaza children” – there’s always something interesting going on.

The beaches do get crowded, and the new mandatory Hamas dress code makes them somewhat drab, so at some point you may want to join other relatively wealthy foreigners at Gaza’s nearby, full-time luxury spa. There you’ll find a steam room, a sauna, a small gym and a beauty parlor that offers facials and massages.


WHERE TO DRINK

Unfortunately, the Hamas government declared a total ban on alcohol importation and consumption in 2009. Even hotels frequented by well-intentioned Westerners such as yourselves are banned from serving liquor, a substance that Muslims find objectionable. Stores and clubs that fail to adhere to the ban get bombed.

WHERE TO WORSHIP

Unfortunately, non-Muslims will find few options for worship in the Gaza Strip. The synagogues left by withdrawing Israelis were immediately desecrated and destroyed. Most Christian churches were long ago transformed into mosques. Visiters are also advised to avoid gathering in Christian bookstores, which increasingly get bombed, or around actual Christians, who increasingly get killed.

WHERE TO DANCE

Unfortunately, Hamas has banned women from dancing, as well as from wearing all but the most conservative outfits.

WHERE TO LISTEN

Unfortunately, music shops and performances have also been deemed un-Islamic in recent years, to the detriment of music shop owners and performers.

WHERE TO GET ONLINE

Unfortunately, visitors are advised to avoid Internet cafes because they get bombed.

References:
* CNN Lends Credence to Protestors Embellishment [News Busters]
* Behind the Headlines: The Israeli humanitarian lifeline to Gaza [Israel MFA]
* Thwart the ‘peace crusaders’ [YNet]
* Gaza protest boat sails into Lebanon [Jerusalem Post]
* Watchers Council – What American Universities Will Tolerate These Days… [Mere Rhetoric]
* UN Palestinian Stooge: “It’s Obvious” That Israeli Attack Violated 48-Hour Truce That No One Knew About Until Now [Mere Rhetoric]
* UN: “Clerical Error” Made Us Mistakenly Think Israel Bombed UNRWA School. Opps. [Mere Rhetoric]
* Gaza Hospitals Overflowing With Hamas Weapons, Palestinian Vigilante Murder [Mere Rhetoric]
* Hamas Blowing Out The Kneecaps Of Fatah-Linked Gaza Civilians, Executing Dozens [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinian Non-Civil War Watch – Now They’re Throwing Each Other Off Roofs [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinian Non-Civil War Watch – Insanity (Updated: Content Warning) [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinian senior Fatah leader, Nabil Shaath, right, meets Hamas leader Khalil Al-Haya, left, in the Grand Palace hotel in Gaza City, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010. [AP Photo]
* Hamas Prepares 15,000 Soldiers, Civilian Human Shields For Full Confrontation With Israel [Mere Rhetoric]
* Marna House hotel & resturant [Facebook]
* New Data Confirms Old Data: Blaming Israel For Gaza’s Medical Collapse Is A Vicious Lie [Mere Rhetoric]
* More Photos from the Gaza Concentration Camp [IndyMedia]
* Wide Screen TV in Gaza [Solomonia]
* A cow is lowered into an underground chamber as Palestinians continue to smuggle supplies and animals through tunnels between Rafah, southern Gaza Strip and Egypt [Getty Images]
* Aww… Glut Of Gaza Products Putting Small-Time Smugglers Out Of Business [Mere Rhetoric]
* EU: Another 40 Million Euros To Hamas Will Totally Bring Peace To Middle East [Mere Rhetoric]
* Gaza gift shop markets ‘Goldstone’ headscarves [AFP]
* Anti-Israel Left Ignores Goldstone’s Apartheid Past, Fabricates Israeli/South African Nuke Deal Instead [Mere Rhetoric]
* Kids Selling Weapons At Gaza Auto Market [Mere Rhetoric]
* New Data Confirms Old Data: Blaming Israel For Gaza’s Medical Collapse Is A Vicious Lie [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinians Parch Themselves, Blame Israel [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinians Hack Up Critically Endangered Giant Sea Turtle For Its Magical Blood [Video] [Mere Rhetoric]
* Hamas patrols beaches in Gaza to enforce conservative dress code [Guardian]
* At Gaza’s only spa, the well-heeled find relief [AFP]
* Palestinians End Truce They Never Started. AP Blames Israel, Comes Frighteningly Close to Outright Lying [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinians Rampage, Destroy Synagogues [Mere Rhetoric]
* Peaceful Relations Watch – Christian Bookstore Director Murdered In Gaza [Mere Rhetoric]
* AP: Gaza Christians Have Been Living Peacefully, Now Under Attack By Unknown Extremists [Mere Rhetoric]
* Hamas Bans Women Dancers, Scooter Riders in Gaza Push (Update1) [Bloomberg]
* Schoolgirls in Hamas-run Gaza told to wear Islamic dress [AFP]
* Who Are These Peaceful Loving Palestinian People, And Why Do They Seem So Non-Peace Loving? [Mere Rhetoric]
* And the Wheels Come Off – (2) Gaza [Mere Rhetoric]

http://www.mererhetoric.com/2010/05/26/israel-publishes-gaza-travel-guidebook-for-pro-hamas-freedom-flotilla/

Title: Krauthammer:troublesome Jews
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2010, 11:17:55 AM

I used the phrase F* Jews.  Charles is nicer about it and uses the term "troublesome".

****Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

This Story
Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Nudging Israel toward a Gaza fix
Cairo's unmet promise
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.


Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.****

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 04, 2010, 12:57:00 PM

Quote from: ccp on June 04, 2010, 07:37:00 AM

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

I suppose it a matter of opinion. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say a group of aggressive civilian protestors armed only with a few slingshots, a pipe or two, and a few knives were marching in your town. 
Let's assume it was an illegal (no permit) rally and therefore the police were called.  The police move in to disperse the crowd.
The crowd resisted.  The police became more aggressive.  Somehow one or two handguns were stolen from the police.  Shots were supposedly fired.
The police were then instructed by their onsite commander to fire upon the crowd. Results:

"Autopsy results by forensics experts revealed that all nine of the men killed by Israeli commandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had
planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds.  Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head".  Plus, nearly 60 civilians were injured.

I'm not saying it wasn't justified.  And I'm not a policeman, but I bet your city council, your mayor, your governor, the press, and privately even the
Chief of Police would call this a giant "fiasco" as he/she tried to quell the fallout.  And there would be a thorough impartial investigation. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2010, 01:30:47 PM

The police analagy is wrong.

This was not some police action asking for a parking permit.  They were going out to intercept the possible transfer of deadly arms to an enemy combatant.

This is war.

And yes, guns are taken from the soldiers and shots are fired it certainly is appropriate to defend themselves and ask questions later.

Your position as in Kruathammer's article points out makes it nearly impossible for Israel to defend itself without some ciriticism always being justified at the end.

Then again I am not a student of this theory that everything challenge has to be met with "proportionate" force.  Quite the contrary I believe the opposite.
But that is another issue for another thread.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 04, 2010, 01:42:07 PM

Hey, and lets say these aggressive protestors were trying to aid and abet terrorists who had shot 4000 missiles into your town with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible and were hoping to make it easier for those nasty folks to shoot 4000 more? What's that do to the inane analogy already well disputed by the pieces posted above?

Just another matter of opinion, no doubt.  :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2010, 01:51:41 PM

Quote from: JDN on June 04, 2010, 12:57:00 PM

Quote from: ccp on June 04, 2010, 07:37:00 AM

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

I suppose it a matter of opinion. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say a group of aggressive civilian protestors armed only with a few slingshots, a pipe or two, and a few knives were marching in your town. 
Let's assume it was an illegal (no permit) rally and therefore the police were called.  The police move in to disperse the crowd.
The crowd resisted.  The police became more aggressive.  Somehow one or two handguns were stolen from the police.  Shots were supposedly fired.
The police were then instructed by their onsite commander to fire upon the crowd. Results:

"Autopsy results by forensics experts revealed that all nine of the men killed by Israeli commandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had
planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds.  Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head".  Plus, nearly 60 civilians were injured.

I'm not saying it wasn't justified.  And I'm not a policeman, but I bet your city council, your mayor, your governor, the press, and privately even the
Chief of Police would call this a giant "fiasco" as he/she tried to quell the fallout.  And there would be a thorough impartial investigation. 

Rioters armed with edged and impact weapons attempting to attack poliice officers would be shot early and often, until they no longer are a threat.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 04, 2010, 02:44:56 PM

Quote from: G M on June 04, 2010, 01:51:41 PM

Rioters armed with edged and impact weapons attempting to attack poliice officers would be shot early and often, until they no longer are a threat.

I understand; that reaction may well be justified.

But my question is, in the aftermath, don't you think there would be serious fallout in the press if nine civilians died, five with head shots, and nearly 60 more were injured?  And
don't you think that many politicians on all levels would assign blame and call it a fiasco?  And finally don't you think in the aftermath that there would be demands
for a thorough and impartial investigation? 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2010, 03:41:51 PM

Politicians pandering to various groups, as well as the uninformed love to second guess those that actually go into harms way to face things the sheltered critics would never dream of facing. Violence is sometimes the only answer, and real violence is never pretty.

Title: Helen of Troy, whose face launched , , , well, never mind.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2010, 08:13:08 PM

EVer wonder why Israel gets such even handed coverage in the media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 04, 2010, 08:22:52 PM

We'll see who in the MSM condemns her for this.

Title: STrat: Israel's isolation, Turkey's rise
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2010, 11:11:24 PM

Israel's Isolation, Turkey's Rise
UNNAMED SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS LEAKED to The New York Times Thursday that U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration was considering a policy shift on Israel’s blockade of Gaza. The U.S. officials reportedly described the Israeli blockade of Gaza as “untenable” and the deadly Israeli raid on the Turkish-led aid flotilla as impetus for a new U.S. approach to Gaza.

These hints of a U.S. shift toward Israel and Gaza, while still in the unofficial stage of newspaper leaks, are deeply troubling for the state of Israel. The comments by anonymous U.S. officials come after Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday, that “Israel stands to lose its closest ally in the Middle East if it does not change its mentality.” Though Turkey is stopping short of threatening a breach in its relations with Israel, it is clearly looking to publicly downgrade the alliance. And though the United States is not about to abandon its Jewish ally, Washington is not about to rush to Israel’s defense in this difficult time, either.

Israel is not a country that can survive in isolation. It is a small country surrounded by hostile states that sits on the edge of the Mediterranean basin, where larger, more distant powers with greater resources will inevitably entangle Israel in pursuit of their own interests. In such a dynamic neighborhood, Israel has to maneuver very carefully in trying to ensure its own security. Israel can do this by making itself attractive enough to the Mediterranean power of the day such that the Mediterranean power sees in its interest to fulfill the role of Israel’s security patron. The second Israel becomes a liability to that patron, however, the country’s vulnerability soars and its survivability comes into question.

“Israel is not a country that can survive in isolation.”
The Soviet Union — eyeing a strategic foothold in the Mediterranean Basin — was a patron to Israel since the state’s inception. Israel, wanting to balance its relationship with the Soviets and unnerved by Soviet sponsorship of the Arabs, then joined forces with France, which was fighting its own bloody war in Algeria and was already in a hostile relationship with the Arabs. French interest in Israel began to wane, however, in 1962 with the end of the Algerian civil war. Paris quickly began to view Israel as a liability to its efforts to maintain influence in the Middle East. By 1967, the United States was prepared to forge an alliance with Israel as a strategic counter to a Soviet push in the eastern Mediterranean. By aligning with both Israel and Turkey during the Cold War, the United States had two strategic pressure points in the Mediterranean basin to counter Soviet footholds in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Israel and Turkey were natural allies facing common foes, while the United States was the glue that held this alliance structure together.

But times have changed. Turkey is no longer a vulnerable power in need of a bodyguard to fend off the Soviets. Present-day Turkey is rediscovering its Ottoman roots in the Middle East, Caucasus, Europe and Central Asia, and is using its Islamic credentials to spread Turkish influence throughout the Muslim world. A tight alliance with Israel does not fit with this agenda. Turkey derives leverage from having a relationship with both Israel and the Muslim states (and so is unlikely to break ties with Israel), but is also viewing its alliance with Israel as a liability to its expansionist agenda. The United States, while needing to maintain a strategic foothold in the Mediterranean basin, is trying desperately to follow through with a timeline to militarily extricate itself from Iraq and reach some sort of understanding with the Iranians. Turkey, unhindered by the Persian-Arab and Israeli-Arab rivalries, can do things for the United States in this region that Israel simply can’t achieve. In short, Turkey is the more valuable ally to Washington than Israel at this point in time.

With Jordan locked into an alliance, Egypt being more interested in maintaining peace with Israel than making war and Syria too militarily weak to pose a meaningful challenge, Israel is not as dependent on the United States as it used to be. This decline in dependence explains why Israel feels able to push the envelope with the United States when it comes to thorny issues like Iran and settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. With Turkey regaining flexibility in the region and Israel not under heavy military pressure, the U.S. adhesive in the Turkish-Israeli relationship is wearing off. Washington no longer has the influence over these two powers it once had.

The United States thus finds itself in the difficult position of having to choose between its two allies in the Middle East. Washington will try a balancing act, but it has no choice but to lean toward the Turks in the wake of the flotilla crisis. A little animosity with Israel might also help the United States gain some credibility in this part of the world. Israel, on the other hand, finds itself backed into a corner. Turkey means it when it says its relationship with Israel will not go back to what it once was. The two countries will likely maintain relations, but Israel will not be able to rely on Turkey as a regional ally. The United States, meanwhile, cannot afford to prioritize Israel’s interests over Turkey’s. In this geopolitical climate, Israel lacks the luxury of options.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2010, 08:12:17 AM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO4tIlz0ZiA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NsuV_FVquY&feature=related[/youtube]

It appears that the US Coast Guard boards ships with more than teddy bears and lollypops when facing potential terrorists. Exactly what sort of greeting might a jihad flotilla get trying to enter US waters?

Title: HT: deep seated hatred for Jews revealed
Post by: ccp on June 05, 2010, 11:28:24 AM

There was something about the Helen Thomas thing that made me wonder if she has Arab roots.  Only a Jew hating person (or Jew hating Arab - of course many don't feel this way - I do not speak of all Arabs this way) would make such comments.
On Wikepedia it is noted she is the child of Lebanese emigrees to the US.
I am not clear if they were Lebanese Christains or Muslims.  There is a big difference in their regard to Jews I think.
Her parents were most likely from Muslin heritage.  The Christain Lebenese I have met don't dislike Jews.  Indeed they are more tired of the Palestinian Muslims.

So in this context  her remarks are not surprising.  At her age she may have some cognitive defects and sometimes these defects manifest by people making statments or outbursts that normally they would be able to suppress.  I had a 93 yo. Polish lady who yelled at me while I was clearing wax out of her ears screaming about the "damn Jews", and "Nazis".  Her son a wonderful man kind of laughed.

He has thanked me many times for my care of her (she recently passed away).

I never came out and told him I am a Jew.  I guess I figured I didn't want him to feel embarrased by his senile old mother's remarks.

Yet one cannot dispute she had a deep seated hatred of Jews. 
The glee and delight that many Poles had as the Jews were carted away to be murdered is of course legendary.

Just like Thomas' comments whether made because of early or mild dementia or not, indicate she too has a deep hatred of Jews.

On the other hand, I remember a senile old lady back in the early 1980s when I worked as an orderly.  She was Jewish.  She had the number tatooed on her forearm.
She was so senile she could not even tell you her name.  Yet when they brought a stretcher to take her down from her hospital room to go get an Xray she started seeing "bodies all around her".  Her memories of Auschwitz were vividly described as they took her away (just to go downstairs).  She probably thought she was being taken to the ovens.

Now nearly 30 years later I still remember watching and listening with tears welling in my eyes while she made those comments.

It amazes me regarding the last memories people have as they gradually slip into full blown dementia.

And now too we see Iran's leaders telling the world straight out their plans on how to deal with the Jewish "problem".

I was not old enough to have lived through WW2.  But I have seen enough of the bullshit of the world to know this is the real deal - again.  I have NO reaon to doubt they mean what they say.
Mark my words.  It is coming. 

Title: Marry an Israeli & Lose your Citizenship
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 05, 2010, 11:46:18 AM

Small potatoes in light of current geopolitical conflict, but this sort of casual, systemic racism--racism fellow travelers, useful idiots, jihadists and their western apologists consistently overlook--speaks to just how inconsistent and one-sided the current climate of outrage is.

Egyptians married to Israelis to lose citizenship

By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF
Associated Press Writer

CAIRO (AP) -- An Egyptian appeals court on Saturday upheld a ruling that orders the country's Interior Ministry to strip the citizenship from Egyptians married to Israeli women.

The case underlines the deep animosity many Egyptians still hold toward Israelis, despite a peace treaty signed between the two countries 31 years ago.

The Supreme Administrative Court's decision also scores a point for Egyptian hard-liners who have long resisted any improvement in ties with Israel since the signing of the 1979 peace treaty.

In upholding last year's lower court ruling, the appeals court said Saturday that the Interior Ministry should present each marriage case to the Cabinet on an individual basis. The Cabinet will then rule on whether to strip the Egyptian of his citizenship.

The court also said officials should take into consideration whether a man married an Israeli Arab or a Jew when making its decision to revoke citizenship.

Saturday's decision, which cannot be appealed, comes more than year after a lower court ruled that the Interior Ministry, which deals with citizenship documents, must implement the 1976 article of the citizenship law. That bill revokes citizenship of Egyptians who married Israelis who have served in the army or embrace Zionism as an ideology. The Interior Ministry appealed that ruling.

The lawyer who brought the original suit to court, Nabih el-Wahsh, celebrated Saturday's ruling, saying it "is aimed at protecting Egyptian youth and Egypt's national security."

The government has not released figures of Egyptians married to Israeli women, but some estimates put the number around 30,000.

Israeli officials said they had no comment on Saturday's ruling.

In 2005, former Grand Mufti Nasr Farid Wasel issued a religious edict, or fatwa, saying Muslim Egyptians may not marry Israeli nationals, "whether Arab, Muslim, or Christian." The possibility of a Jewish spouse was not mentioned.

Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, the late Grand Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's premier institution and oldest university, has said that while marriage between an Egyptian man and an Israeli woman is not religiously forbidden, the government has the right to strip the man of his citizenship for marrying a woman from "an enemy state."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_MARRYING_ISRAELIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-06-05-13-37-30

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2010, 03:41:03 PM

Islam allows for muslim men to marry non-muslim women, but a muslim woman can only marry a muslim man.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2010, 03:49:57 PM

I guess it happens sometimes....


Serviceman and Iraqi wife caught in a paperwork prison

Army reservist becomes the subject of a military investigation after marrying a translator he met while serving in the Mideast.

Steve Lopez

9:42 PM PDT, May 28, 2010


When David Bloom of Los Angeles shipped to Iraq in 2005 with the U.S. Army Reserves, the last thing he expected to find there was a wife. But the first time he set eyes on an Iraqi woman named Zee, who worked for U.S. forces as a translator, Bloom told a buddy he was going to marry her one day.

Marriage, as we know, can be a complicated undertaking. All the more so when international complexities and military rules are thrown in.

Here now, just in time for Memorial Day, is the saga of Sgt. Bloom, 41, and 24-year-old Zee, who asked that I not use her last name because of concerns about her family's safety in Iraq.

Bloom, who grew up in Highland Park, began pasting American flag bumper stickers on his car after the attacks of Sept. 11. Even though he felt misled by the original justification for war, he believed some good could be accomplished in Iraq. So in 2003 he suited up with the U.S. Army Reserves, 425th Civil Affairs Battalion.

Bloom and his unit landed in Baghdad in June 2005 to build schools and soccer fields and help deliver healthcare to children. It was a dangerous time, he said, with plenty of casualties.

"You're getting up every day wondering if these are the clothes you're going to die in," said Bloom, a former freelance journalist who now works in public relations for the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

He often videotaped his excursions, and toward the end of his deployment, Bloom asked a translator if she would help him translate interviews. That would be Zee.

There was no romance, the two now say, even though Bloom had feelings. She was beautiful, she supported the U.S. mission and risked her life to support it, using her pay to buy a home for her family. Zee had served in the Iraqi National Guard, which was extremely rare for women, and worked as a medic. She stayed on the U.S. base each night instead of going home; others had been followed and killed for being collaborators.

Bloom's unit shipped back home in 2006 without him ever confessing his feelings for Zee, other than to promise he'd see her again. Back home, he couldn't get her out of his head. He called as often as possible, and five months into it, Bloom told Zee he loved her.

"I wasn't really shocked," says Zee, who told him she loved him, too.

It took a full year for the paperwork to come through so they could meet in Turkey and marry; then Zee had to go back to Iraq and wait, agonizingly, for a visa to join Bloom in Los Angeles. But that wasn't their only problem.

"Don't you realize," Bloom's commander asked, "that you married a woman from a country we're at war with?"

No he hadn't, Bloom insisted. Saddam was gone and the war was against terrorists, not Iraq.

But Bloom was accused of failing to get clearance for the trip to Turkey. An investigating officer dug way back into his file and in early 2008, Bloom was accused of several infractions unrelated to his marriage, including the charge that he had skipped a training assignment.

Bloom denied any wrongdoing and suspected that in truth, the military was out to get him for marrying Zee. The investigator wrote in a report that although the marriage was not a violation of Army regulation, "that does not mean that his actions do not have serious consequences."

"His marriage makes him potentially vulnerable to coercion, influence or pressure that may cause conduct contrary to the national interest," the investigator added, saying that Zee and soldiers working with her could be at risk if she were targeted.

But she was already at risk, Bloom argued, simply for working with U.S. troops. Still, the allegations hung over Bloom for more than a year while he was separated from Zee. His right to transfer or promote was on hold, he couldn't return to battle and he lost education benefits pending a hearing.

It was finally held last May, and in the worst scenario, Bloom could have been discharged. He was defended by a lawyer from Hawaii named Charles Djou, who, by chance, was sworn in last week as a Republican U.S. congressman.

The hearing lasted one day, and Bloom says that when it ended, he was high-fiving Djou in the hallway. A three-person panel cleared him of all charges, with one note; he was held partially responsible for miscommunication that led to missing a training program.

Just one lingering problem. A year has gone by since that hearing, and the paperwork clearing Bloom's name has not yet been produced despite his efforts to have his restrictions officially lifted. A military spokesman told me the matter was private; no comment. Congressman Djou confirmed that Bloom had prevailed but told me he didn't have clearance to talk further.

Six months ago, Zee finally got a spousal visa and moved to Los Angeles to be with Bloom. She's studying to be a nurse, still has nightmares about the war and feels lucky to be able to walk freely down a street without fear. She said she is surprised, though, by the paperwork prisons we build here.

Last week, two days after I began making phone calls, Bloom said he'd been informed by a commander that his papers are about to come through. He said he'll believe it when they're in his hands.

"I did nothing wrong," said Bloom. "I served my country and I married the woman I love."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2010, 04:17:37 PM

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=33612ce6a3f3415db42bc971b123f3fb

Question
   I'm a muslum married to a chretien who asks a lot of time for convert: read first,do research and see if he will be conveinced or not..... i wants to get a child with him and my age doesn't allow me to wait too mutch.can i conceive a child with him even he is not convert yet to islam??
 
 
Answer
   In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful


Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

 

At the outset I wish to bring to your notice that it is not permissible for a Muslim female to marry a non Muslim male. Thus, your Nikah (marriage) has not taken place and according to the law of Shari’a, you are not married.

 

Alhamdulillah, you have stated that you tried on numerous occasions to convert him; don’t give up. Try your level best to show him the beauty of Islam; advise him to go to the ‘Aalim/ Sheikh (Religious leader) of your locality, in order that he may be explained the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam. If he embraces the Deen of Islam then the Nikah has to be performed

 

Unfortunately, at this very point in time you may not have any sexual relations with this man, nor are you allowed to have children. If a child had been conceived during this period, then this child will be an illegitimate child. Also, if there had been any intimacy between the two of you, then you should make sincere Taubah (turning to Almighty Allah) and Istigfar (seeking forgiveness) because no Nikah had taken place and every act of intimacy is considered as Zina (fornication).

 

If after all your efforts have been exhausted to convert him, he still does not accept the Deen of Islam, then we advise you leave this man. This will be in your best interest in this world and the Hereafter. Bear in mind that the ultimate aim of every Muslim is to please Allah Ta’ala and be admitted into Jannah (Paradise). Perhaps one day when you become a mother you would hope for your children to be righteous and pious and be good leaders for the nation. For them to reach that goal they would require a sound upbringing and a good father; a father who will advise them to do good actions and to worship Allah by performing Salah, Fasting in the great month of Ramadan, giving Zakah to the poor and needy, going for the magnificent journey of Haj etc.

 

Besides your feelings for this man, think of the outcome of your children if and when you have them. The pleasures of this world are temporary and short lived but the life of the Hereafter is eternal. Therefore, make sincere dua to Allah asking for His help and guidance. May Allah make this easy on you. Ameen

 

And Allah knows best

Wassalamu Alaikum

Ml. Zakariyya bin Ahmed,
Student Darul Iftaa

Checked and Approved by:

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2010, 04:28:38 PM

http://article.nationalreview.com/435606/israel-turkey-and-the-end-of-stability/mark-steyn

June 5, 2010 6:00 A.M.

Israel, Turkey, and the End of Stability
Contempt for Israel is contempt for Washington.




Foreign policy “realists,” back in the saddle since the Texan cowboy left town, are extremely fond of the concept of “stability”: America needs a stable Middle East, so we should learn to live with Mubarak and the mullahs and the House of Saud, etc. You can see the appeal of “stability” to your big-time geopolitical analyst: You don’t have to update your Rolodex too often, never mind rethink your assumptions. “Stability” is a fancy term to upgrade inertia and complacency into strategy. No wonder the fetishization of stability is one of the most stable features of foreign-policy analysis.

Unfortunately, back in what passes for the real world, there is no stability. History is always on the march, and, if it’s not moving in your direction, it’s generally moving in the other fellow’s. Take this “humanitarian” “aid” flotilla. Much of what went on — the dissembling of the Palestinian propagandists, the hysteria of the U.N. and the Euro-ninnies — was just business as usual. But what was most striking was the behavior of the Turks. In the wake of the Israeli raid, Ankara promised to provide Turkish naval protection for the next “aid” convoy to Gaza. This would be, in effect, an act of war — more to the point, an act of war by a NATO member against the State of Israel.

Ten years ago, Turkey’s behavior would have been unthinkable. Ankara was Israel’s best friend in a region where every other neighbor wishes, to one degree or another, the Jewish state’s destruction. Even when Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP was elected to power eight years ago, the experts assured us there was no need to worry. I remember sitting in a plush bar late one night with a former Turkish foreign minister, who told me, in between passing round the cigars and chugging back the Scotch, that, yes, the new crowd weren’t quite so convivial in the wee small hours but, other than that, they knew where their interests lay. Like many Turkish movers and shakers of his generation, my drinking companion loved the Israelis. “They’re tough hombres,” he said admiringly. “You have to be in this part of the world.” If you had suggested to him that in six years’ time the Turkish prime minister would be telling the Israeli president to his face that “I know well how you kill children on beaches,” he would have dismissed it as a fantasy concoction for some alternative universe.

Yet it happened. Erdogan said those words to Shimon Peres at Davos last year and then flounced off stage. Day by day what was formerly the Zionist entity’s staunchest pal talks more and more like just another cookie-cutter death-to-the-Great-Satan stan-of-the-month.

As the think-tankers like to say: “Who lost Turkey?” In a nutshell: Kemal Ataturk. Since he founded post-Ottoman Turkey in his own image nearly nine decades ago, the population has increased from 14 million to over 70 million. But that five-fold increase is not evenly distributed. The short version of Turkish demographics in the 20th century is that Rumelian Turkey — i.e., western, European, secular, Kemalist Turkey — has been outbred by Anatolian Turkey — i.e., eastern, rural, traditionalist, Islamic Turkey. Ataturk and most of his supporters were from Rumelia, and they imposed the modern Turkish republic on a reluctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. Now they don’t have to accept it. The swelling population has spilled out of its rural hinterland and into the once solidly Kemalist cities.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 05, 2010, 04:30:13 PM

Sheez, JDN, do you really need the scale of your equivocation outlined for you? Are you truly comparing a judicial edict that voids citizenship if one has the temerity to marry an Israeli citizen to to bureaucratic clowns behaving as they are wont to do? If so, the depth of the sophistry you regularly embrace remains unchanged.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2010, 04:51:19 PM

There comes a time
When we need to make a show
For the world, the Web and CNN
There's no people dying,
so the best that we can do
Is create the greatest bluff of all

We must go on pretending day by day
That in Gaza, there's crisis, hunger and plague
Coz the billion bucks in aid won't buy their basic needs
Like some cheese and missiles for the kids

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
With guns and our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

Ooooh, we'll stab them at heart
They are soldiers, no one cares
We are small, and we took some pictures with doves
As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand
So we will always gain the upper hand

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
we're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

If Islam and terror brighten up your mood
But you worry that it may not look so good
Well well well well don't you realize
You just gotta call yourself
An activist for peace and human aid

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

We con the world
We con the people
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
We con the world (Bruce: we con the world…)
We con the people (Bruce: we con the people…)
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
The truth will never find its way to your TV

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2010, 06:42:47 PM

Quote from: Body-by-Guinness on June 05, 2010, 04:30:13 PM

Sheez, JDN, do you really need the scale of your equivocation outlined for you? Are you truly comparing a judicial edict that voids citizenship if one has the temerity to marry an Israeli citizen to to bureaucratic clowns behaving as they are wont to do? If so, the depth of the sophistry you regularly embrace remains unchanged.

:roll:

GM posted, "Islam allows for muslim men to marry non-muslim women, but a muslim woman can only marry a muslim man."

I then posted a human interest story regarding a Christian marrying a Muslim; saying it that sometimes it happens...

GM then posted a comprehensive and concise article regarding the repercussions of a muslim woman marrying a Christian; the article in summary stating "not permissible for a Muslim female to marry a non Muslim male. Thus, your Nikah (marriage) has not taken place and according to the law of Shari’a, you are not married."
It was an excellent post explaining in detail the dire religious and cultural consequences.  The attitude is sexist, onerous, and totally unfair to women and simply wrong.  I agree.

And then you post something irrelevant about "judicial edict that voids citizenship"???
Or, your extraneous reference to "Israeli citizen" "if one has the temerity to marry an Israeli citizen" when no mention of Israel or Jews had been mentioned, although
I presume an Israeli or a Jew falls into the category of "non Muslim male", but then so do I.

And then your wit(?) got the better of you and you went off on a pointless personal tirade against me....

Did you even have a point?  Or was it just to be rude to me at our supposedly congenial dinner table?
I could say more, but simple courtesy prohibits me for commenting...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on June 06, 2010, 08:14:57 AM

Woof,
 It seems to me that Israel and the Palestinian people have a vested interest in establishing a peaceful Palestinian state and a secure Israeli state. The problem is that any step toward this common goal, like this blockade, is immediately attacked by outside and inside extremist to both parties. Now with America or at least Obama, the president of the world, seemingly wanting to stop Israel from securing itself from Hamas bringing weapons into Gaza, I don't see there being a chance in hell that either the Palestinians or Israelis will ever get beyond this point and will continue to fail so long as their failure is the worlds policy.
                                                           P.C.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 06, 2010, 09:26:07 AM

JDN grouses:

Quote

I could say more, but simple courtesy prohibits me for commenting...

Wow, a self-reference and the word "courtesy" used in the same sentence. Irony abounds.

The preface I posted to my piece explains its relevance. If you are unable to connect those dots, that's on you. That same sort of simple preface would explain just what it is you are responding to, though your long history of equivocating and generally tossing sand in the air full well demonstrates that clarity is the last thing you seek.

I've made it clear in personal communication to Crafty what I think of the "dinner table conversation" pretensions you cling to your breast when seeking to disallow criticism of your many rhetorical shortcomings. If he didn't share them with you, I certainly can.

But by all means, "say more." I know you are an incorrigible attention seeker whose goal is to tie conversations up in knots, hence my words aren't aimed at you, but rather the rest of the list who likely have less experience dealing with chronic attention seekers and the schisms they try to create. So bring it, as all it does is underline that point.

Title: The Forgotten Rachels
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2010, 11:02:27 AM

Oy vey.

All right gentlemen.  You have my permission to have a food fight for a while.  Rather than clutter up this thread with it however, please take it over to the Fire Hydrant thread.  Thank you.

Moving right along:
=====================


http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/TheForgottenRachels.html

 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

“My Name is Rachel Corrie,” a new play based on the writings of the young American radical who was accidentally killed during an anti-Israeli demonstration in Gaza in 2003, opened in April 2005 at London’s prestigious Royal Court, a venue named by The New York Times as “the most important theatre in Europe.” In October, it reopened again in near record time, at the same theatre. In November the “Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie” – co-sponsored by the UK government Arts Council – had its world premiere at another London theatre. Lincoln Center in New York has expressed interest to the Royal Court in staging the play, as have dozens of schools and universities. And that the play’s co-director was “Harry Potter” and “Die Hard” star Alan Rickman only served to add a touch of Hollywood glamour to the cult of Rachel Corrie.

But other Rachels have lost their lives as well – Jewish victims of the Intifada. Does anyone remember them? In Britain, where the play is being staged, how many people even know the name of Rachel Thaler, a British citizen who was murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber in an Israeli shopping mall at the age of 16?

“Not a single British journalist has ever interviewed me or mentioned Rachel’s death,” her mother Ginette Thaler told me three and a half years after her murder. Below, an article of mine published in the weekly British magazine, The Spectator, explores these phenomena and also marks the first time Rachel Thaler’s name has been mentioned in the mainstream British media. Earlier, in April 2005, I wrote another piece on “The Forgotten Rachels” for The Jerusalem Post, to mark the play’s initial staging.

-- Tom Gross

 

THE ARTICLE: THE FORGOTTEN RACHELS

<image001.jpg>
 
Rachel Levy, 17, blown up
in a Jerusalem grocery store
 
 
<image002.jpg>
 
Rachel Charhi, 36, blown up
while sitting in a café
 
 
<image003.jpg>
 
Rachel Gavish, 50, killed with her
husband and son while at home
 
 
<image004.jpg>
 
Rachel Kol, 53, who worked for
20 years in the neurology lab at
Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital,
murdered with her husband in a
drive-by shooting by the Fatah
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in
July 2005 (in the midst of a
supposed Palestinian truce)
 
 
<image005.jpg>
 
Rachel Ben Abu, 16, killed with
her teenage friends by a suicide
bomber at the Netanya shopping
mall, in July 2005 (in the midst
of a supposed Palestinian truce)
 
 
<image006.jpg>
 
Rachel Shabo, 40, murdered with
her three sons aged 5, 13 and 6,
while sitting at home
 
By Tom Gross, Oct. 22, 2005

RACHEL Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following a suicide bomb attack on a crowd of teenagers on 16 February 2002.

Even though Thaler was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live, her death has never been mentioned in a British newspaper.

Rachel Corrie, on the other hand, an American radical who died in 2003 while acting as a human shield during an Israeli anti-terror operation in Gaza, has been widely featured in the British press. According to the Guardian website, she has been written about or referred to on 57 separate occasions in the Guardian alone, including three articles the Saturday before last.

The cult of Rachel Corrie doesn’t stop there. Last week the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, reopened at the larger downstairs auditorium at the Royal Court Theatre (a venue which the New York Times recently described as “the most important theatre in Europe”). It previously played to sold-out audiences at the upstairs theatre when it opened in April. (It is very rare to revive a play so quickly.)

On 1 November the “Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie” – co-sponsored by the Arts Council – has its world premiere at the Hackney Empire.

NOT A CAUSE CÉLÈBRE IN BRITAIN

But Rachel Thaler, unlike Rachel Corrie, was Jewish. And unlike Corrie, Jewish victims of Middle East violence have not become a cause célèbre in Britain. This lack of response is all the more disturbing at a time when an increasing number of British Jews feel that there has been a sharp rise in anti-Semitism.

Thaler is by no means the only Jewish Rachel whose violent death has been entirely ignored by the British media. Other victims of the Intifada include Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a grocery store), Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus), Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal), Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children), Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home), Rachel Ben Abu (16, blown up outside the entrance of a Netanya shopping mall) and Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days after the London bombs.

Corrie’s death was undoubtedly tragic but, unlike the death of these other Rachels, it was almost certainly an accident. She was killed when she was hit by an Israeli army bulldozer she was trying to stop from demolishing a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons.

Unfortunately for those who have sought to portray Corrie as a peaceful protester, photos of her burning a mock American flag and stirring up crowds in Gaza at a pro-Hamas rally were published by the Associated Press and on Yahoo News on 15 February 2003, a month before she died. (Those photos were not used in the British press.)

While Thaler’s parents, after donating their murdered daughter’s organs for transplant surgery, grieved quietly, Corrie’s parents embarked on a major publicity campaign with strong political overtones. They travelled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary entries to a world media eager to publicise them. They have written op-ed pieces, including a recent one in the Guardian.

“ARMED STRUGGLE” IS A PALESTINIAN “RIGHT”

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the group with which Corrie was affiliated, is routinely described as a “peace group” in the media. Few make any mention of the ISM’s meeting with the British suicide bombers Omar Khan Sharif and Asif Muhammad Hanif who, a few days later, blew up Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv pub, killing three and injuring dozens, including British citizens. Or of the ISM’s sheltering in its office of Shadi Sukiya, a leading member of Islamic Jihad. Or of the fact that in its mission statement the ISM said “armed struggle” is a Palestinian “right”.

According to the “media co-ordinator” of the ISM, Flo Rosovski, “‘Israel’ is an illegal entity that should not exist” – which at any rate clarifies the ISM’s idea of peace.

Indeed, partly because of the efforts of Corrie’s fellow activists in the ISM, the Israeli army was unable to stop the flow of weapons through the tunnels near where she was demonstrating. Those weapons were later used to kill Israeli children in the town of Sderot in southern Israel, and elsewhere.

However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have actor Alan Rickman and Guardian journalist Katharine Viner, co-creators of My Name is Rachel Corrie, leaving almost all the critics who reviewed the play completely ignorant about the background to the events with which it deals.

So in April, when reviewers first wrote about the play, they tended to take it completely at face value. “Corrie was murdered after joining a non-violent Palestinian resistance organisation,” wrote Emma Gosnell in the Sunday Telegraph. The Evening Standard, for example, described it as a “true-life tragedy” in which Corrie’s “unselfish goodness shines through”.

<image007.jpg>
 
Rachel Corrie, 23, burning a mock
U.S. flag at a pro-Hamas rally in Gaza
 
Only one critic (Clive Davis in the Times) saw the play for the propaganda it is. At one point Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis notes, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.”

But ultimately the play, and many of the articles about Corrie that have appeared, are not really about the young American activist who died in such tragic circumstances. They are about promoting a hate-filled and glaringly one-sided view of Israel.

 

(Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.)

Title: An Anti-Israeli Farce
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 07, 2010, 07:17:20 AM

The Gaza Flotilla Incident: U.N. Inquiry Will Be an Anti-Israel Farce
Published on June 4, 2010 by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and James Phillips
In the aftermath of the recent gun battle aboard a Turkish aid ship heading for Gaza, international leaders have been queuing up to attack Israel. From Ankara to Brussels, the condemnation of the only longstanding democracy in the Middle East has been swift and unequivocal. The United Nations, the European Union, and the Arab League have all engaged in a frenzy of denunciation—even before all the facts have been established. Israel continues to be the U.N.’s favorite whipping boy: In the past four years, 33 of the 40 resolutions passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) have condemned Israel.
On June 2, the 47-nation Geneva-based HRC voted 32–3 to condemn “in the strongest terms the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces against the humanitarian flotilla of ships”[1] and called for an official investigation. The United States voted against the resolution alongside the Netherlands and Italy, with nine countries abstaining, including the U.K., France, Japan, and South Korea. The HRC, which replaced the hugely discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2006, has been even more egregious than its predecessor in some respects, and the newly elected membership includes some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including China, Cuba, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. According to Freedom House, less than half the newly elected members (42.6 percent) can be classified as “free.”
The Obama Administration should boycott the U.N. inquiry into the flotilla incident, which is highly likely to be a mirror image of the anti-Israeli 2009 Goldstone Commission report (“Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict”).
A Closer Look at the Gaza Flotilla Incident
The Gaza flotilla incident was provoked by a motley crew of Turkish Islamists, European leftists, and Israeli Arab leaders determined to spark a conflict with the Israeli forces enforcing an arms embargo against Hamas terrorists. The foundation for the incident was laid when six ships with more than 600 “peace activists” left Cyprus bound for Gaza. Before these ships reached Gaza, they were intercepted by the Israeli navy and special forces commandos. The first five ships complied with Israeli forces, but the passengers aboard the sixth vessel, the Mavi Marmara, attacked Israeli commandos with steel poles, knives, and pepper spray, provoking a battle that claimed at least nine lives.
Caught off guard by the violent attacks of the “peace activists,” the Israeli commandos were compelled to use firearms in self-defense. Many of the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were believed to be members of the Humanitarian Relief Fund, a Turkish charity organization that has a history of supporting radical Islamist causes and deploying jihadists to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. It is part of the Union for Good, an umbrella group that was created by Hamas leaders in 2000 to raise money for Hamas’s radical Islamist agenda. The U.S. government has designated the Union for Good as a terrorist organization.
The Biased Goldstone Commission
In September last year, the United Nations published a spectacularly biased, 575-page report accusing Israel of “war crimes” in Gaza and “possibly crimes against humanity.” It was a prime example of the U.N. publishing a supposedly neutral report written by a panel of “experts” that included key members who had already reached their own conclusions well before the investigation had even begun.
The document far less forcefully criticized Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, choosing instead to place the overwhelming emphasis on Israel’s actions. In effect, the U.N. established a dubious moral equivalence between the legitimate defensive measures of the Israeli security forces and the terrorist activities of groups such as Hamas that are deliberately targeting civilians.
The U.N.’s Gaza mission included Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, a country that does not even have formal relations with Israel. Jilani previously served as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions and was a member of a 2004 U.N. panel of experts that controversially condemned Israel for its treatment of demonstrators in the Rafah refugee camp. The panel also included Professor Christine Chinkin, a London School of Economics lecturer with very strong opinions on Israeli actions in Gaza. Chinkin signed on to a letter by 27 academics to The Sunday Times of London in January 2009[2] accusing Israel of a “war crime” in its offensive on Gaza.
The United States Must Defend Israel’s Right to Self-Defense
Israel is on the front line of the war against Islamist terrorism and fights every day for its existence amidst a sea of hostility. The Israelis are engaged in a long-term war against vicious enemies and are a vital component of a global war the free world is waging against Islamists. The defeat of these terrorist organisations and the dictatorships that back them is in the fundamental national interest of the United States.
Washington must send a clear message that it will have no part in the U.N. investigation and will oppose any attempt by the U.N. to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and its right to defend itself. The Obama Administration should also reconsider its wrongheaded decision to join the highly flawed HRC and look to establish a credible alternative human rights body outside of the U.N. system.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. , is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, both divisions of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz assisted with research for this paper.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/The-Gaza-Flotilla-Incident-UN-Inquiry-Will-Be-an-Anti-Israel-Farce

Title: Pat Buchanan in Drag
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 07, 2010, 07:48:15 AM

Ran into this Mark Levin bon mot today, that left me chortling:

Pat Buchanan is Helen Thomas in drag

 Today at 9:33am

His hate and obsession is on display here:
http://mobile.twitter.com/PatrickBuchanan

Buchanan links to nut jobs, self-haters, leftists, et al, in a pathetic defese of the terrorists, militants and leftists who seek to destroy our ally Israel, and us for that matter. I would encourage you to read Andy McCarthy's great book, Grand Jihad, which describes the common enemy we, Israel, and all freedom loving societies face.
Buchanan is, in my view, a poisonous bigot.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on June 07, 2010, 10:37:03 AM

Woof,
 Helen called it quits this morning.
                       P.C.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 07, 2010, 12:46:42 PM

Pat Buchanan is Helen Thomas in drag

 :lol:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 08, 2010, 04:26:31 AM

The Limits of Public Opinion: Arabs, Israelis and the Strategic Balance
June 8, 2010
By George Friedman

Last week’s events off the coast of Israel continue to resonate. Turkish-Israeli relations have not quite collapsed since then but are at their lowest level since Israel’s founding. U.S.-Israeli tensions have emerged, and European hostility toward Israel continues to intensify. The question has now become whether substantial consequences will follow from the incident. Put differently, the question is whether and how it will be exploited beyond the arena of public opinion.

The most significant threat to Israel would, of course, be military. International criticism is not without significance, but nations do not change direction absent direct threats to their interests. But powers outside the region are unlikely to exert military power against Israel, and even significant economic or political sanctions are unlikely to happen. Apart from the desire of outside powers to limit their involvement, this is rooted in the fact that significant actions are unlikely from inside the region either.

The first generations of Israelis lived under the threat of conventional military defeat by neighboring countries. More recent generations still faced threats, but not this one. Israel is operating in an advantageous strategic context save for the arena of public opinion and diplomatic relations and the question of Iranian nuclear weapons. All of these issues are significant, but none is as immediate a threat as the specter of a defeat in conventional warfare had been. Israel’s regional enemies are so profoundly divided among themselves and have such divergent relations with Israel that an effective coalition against Israel does not exist — and is unlikely to arise in the near future.

Given this, the probability of an effective, as opposed to rhetorical, shift in the behavior of powers outside the region is unlikely. At every level, Israel’s Arab neighbors are incapable of forming even a partial coalition against Israel. Israel is not forced to calibrate its actions with an eye toward regional consequences, explaining Israel’s willingness to accept broad international condemnation.

Palestinian Divisions
To begin to understand how deeply the Arabs are split, simply consider the split among the Palestinians themselves. They are currently divided between two very different and hostile factions. On one side is Fatah, which dominates the West Bank. On the other side is Hamas, which dominates the Gaza Strip. Aside from the geographic division of the Palestinian territories — which causes the Palestinians to behave almost as if they comprised two separate and hostile countries — the two groups have profoundly different ideologies.

Fatah arose from the secular, socialist, Arab-nationalist and militarist movement of Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser in the 1950s. Created in the 1960s, Fatah was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. It was the dominant, though far from the only, faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO was an umbrella group that brought together the highly fragmented elements of the Palestinian movement. Yasser Arafat long dominated Fatah; his death left Fatah without a charismatic leader, but with a strong bureaucracy increasingly devoid of a coherent ideology or strategy.

Hamas arose from the Islamist movement. It was driven by religious motivations quite alien from Fatah and hostile to it. For Hamas, the liberation of Palestine was not simply a nationalist imperative, but also a religious requirement. Hamas was also hostile to what it saw as the financial corruption Arafat brought to the Palestinian movement, as well as to Fatah’s secularism.

Hamas and Fatah are playing a zero-sum game. Given their inability to form a coalition and their mutual desire for the other to fail, a victory for one is a defeat for the other. This means that whatever public statements Fatah makes, the current international focus on Gaza and Hamas weakens Fatah. And this means that at some point, Fatah will try to undermine the political gains the flotilla has offered Hamas.

The Palestinians’ deep geographic, ideological and historical divisions occasionally flare up into violence. Their movement has always been split, its single greatest weakness. Though revolutionary movements frequently are torn by sectarianism, these divisions are so deep that even without Israeli manipulation, the threat the Palestinians pose to the Israelis is diminished. With manipulation, the Israelis can pit Fatah against Hamas.

The Arab States and the Palestinians
The split within the Palestinians is also reflected in divergent opinions among what used to be called the confrontation states surrounding Israel — Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Egypt, for example, is directly hostile to Hamas, a religious movement amid a sea of essentially secular Arab states. Hamas’ roots are in Egypt’s largest Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Egyptian state has historically considered its main domestic threat. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime has moved aggressively against Egyptian Islamists and sees Hamas’ ideology as a threat, as it could spread back to Egypt. For this and other reasons, Egypt has maintained its own blockade of Gaza. Egypt is much closer to Fatah, whose ideology derives from Egyptian secularism, and for this reason, Hamas deeply distrusts Cairo.

Jordan views Fatah with deep distrust. In 1970, Fatah under Arafat tried to stage a revolution against the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. The resulting massacres, referred to as Black September, cost about 10,000 Palestinian lives. Fatah has never truly forgiven Jordan for Black September, and the Jordanians have never really trusted Fatah since then. The idea of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank unsettles the Hashemite regime, as Jordan’s population is mostly Palestinian. Meanwhile, Hamas with its Islamist ideology worries Jordan, which has had its own problems with the Muslim Brotherhood. So rhetoric aside, the Jordanians are uneasy at best with the Palestinians, and despite years of Israeli-Palestinian hostility, Jordan (and Egypt) has a peace treaty with Israel that remains in place.

Syria is far more interested in Lebanon than it is in the Palestinians. Its co-sponsorship (along with Iran) of Hezbollah has more to do with Syria’s desire to dominate Lebanon than it does with Hezbollah as an anti-Israeli force. Indeed, whenever fighting breaks out between Hezbollah and Israel, the Syrians get nervous and their tensions with Iran increase. And of course, while Hezbollah is anti-Israeli, it is not a Palestinian movement. It is a Lebanese Shiite movement. Most Palestinians are Sunni, and while they share a common goal — the destruction of Israel — it is not clear that Hezbollah would want the same kind of regime in Palestine that either Hamas or Fatah would want. So Syria is playing a side game with an anti-Israeli movement that isn’t Palestinian, while also maintaining relations with both factions of the Palestinian movement.

Outside the confrontation states, the Saudis and other Arabian Peninsula regimes remember the threat that Nasser and the PLO posed to their regimes. They do not easily forgive, and their support for Fatah comes in full awareness of the potential destabilizing influence of the Palestinians. And while the Iranians would love to have influence over the Palestinians, Tehran is more than 1,000 miles away. Sometimes Iranian arms get through to the Palestinians. But Fatah doesn’t trust the Iranians, and Hamas, though a religious movement, is Sunni while Iran is Shiite. Hamas and the Iranians may cooperate on some tactical issues, but they do not share the same vision.

Israel’s Short-term Free Hand and Long-term Challenge
Given this environment, it is extremely difficult to translate hostility to Israeli policies in Europe and other areas into meaningful levers against Israel. Under these circumstances, the Israelis see the consequences of actions that excite hostility toward Israel from the Arabs and the rest of the world as less dangerous than losing control of Gaza. The more independent Gaza becomes, the greater the threat it poses to Israel. The suppression of Gaza is much safer and is something Fatah ultimately supports, Egypt participates in, Jordan is relieved by and Syria is ultimately indifferent to.

Nations base their actions on risks and rewards. The configuration of the Palestinians and Arabs rewards Israeli assertiveness and provides few rewards for caution. The Israelis do not see global hostility toward Israel translating into a meaningful threat because the Arab reality cancels it out. Therefore, relieving pressure on Hamas makes no sense to the Israelis. Doing so would be as likely to alienate Fatah and Egypt as it would to satisfy the Swedes, for example. As Israel has less interest in the Swedes than in Egypt and Fatah, it proceeds as it has.

A single point sums up the story of Israel and the Gaza blockade-runners: Not one Egyptian aircraft threatened the Israeli naval vessels, nor did any Syrian warship approach the intercept point. The Israelis could be certain of complete command of the sea and air without challenge. And this underscores how the Arab countries no longer have a military force that can challenge the Israelis, nor the will nor interest to acquire one. Where Egyptian and Syrian forces posed a profound threat to Israeli forces in 1973, no such threat exists now. Israel has a completely free hand in the region militarily; it does not have to take into account military counteraction. The threat posed by intifada, suicide bombers, rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, and Hezbollah fighters is real, but it does not threaten the survival of Israel the way the threat from Egypt and Syria once did (and the Israelis see actions like the Gaza blockade as actually reducing the threat of intifada, suicide bombers and rockets). Non-state actors simply lack the force needed to reach this threshold. When we search for the reasons behind Israeli actions, it is this singular military fact that explains Israeli decision-making.

And while the break between Turkey and Israel is real, Turkey alone cannot bring significant pressure to bear on Israel beyond the sphere of public opinion and diplomacy because of the profound divisions in the region. Turkey has the option to reduce or end cooperation with Israel, but it does not have potential allies in the Arab world it would need against Israel. Israel therefore feels buffered against the Turkish reaction. Though its relationship with Turkey is significant to Israel, it is clearly not significant enough for Israel to give in on the blockade and accept the risks from Gaza.

At present, Israel takes the same view of the United States. While the United States became essential to Israeli security after 1967, Israel is far less dependent on the United States today. The quantity of aid the United States supplies Israel has shrunk in significance as the Israeli economy has grown. In the long run, a split with the United States would be significant, but interestingly, in the short run, the Israelis would be able to function quite effectively.

Israel does, however, face this strategic problem: In the short run, it has freedom of action, but its actions could change the strategic framework in which it operates over the long run. The most significant threat to Israel is not world opinion; though not trivial, world opinion is not decisive. The threat to Israel is that its actions will generate forces in the Arab world that eventually change the balance of power. The politico-military consequences of public opinion is the key question, and it is in this context that Israel must evaluate its split with Turkey.

The most important change for Israel would not be unity among the Palestinians, but a shift in Egyptian policy back toward the position it held prior to Camp David. Egypt is the center of gravity of the Arab world, the largest country and formerly the driving force behind Arab unity. It was the power Israel feared above all others. But Egypt under Mubarak has shifted its stance versus the Palestinians, and far more important, allowed Egypt’s military capability to atrophy.

Should Mubarak’s successor choose to align with these forces and move to rebuild Egypt’s military capability, however, Israel would face a very different regional equation. A hostile Turkey aligned with Egypt could speed Egyptian military recovery and create a significant threat to Israel. Turkish sponsorship of Syrian military expansion would increase the pressure further. Imagine a world in which the Egyptians, Syrians and Turks formed a coalition that revived the Arab threat to Israel and the United States returned to its position of the 1950s when it did not materially support Israel, and it becomes clear that Turkey’s emerging power combined with a political shift in the Arab world could represent a profound danger to Israel.

Where there is no balance of power, the dominant nation can act freely. The problem with this is that doing so tends to force neighbors to try to create a balance of power. Egypt and Syria were not a negligible threat to Israel in the past. It is in Israel’s interest to keep them passive. The Israelis can’t dismiss the threat that its actions could trigger political processes that cause these countries to revert to prior behavior. They still remember what underestimating Egypt and Syria cost them in 1973. It is remarkable how rapidly military capabilities can revive: Recall that the Egyptian army was shattered in 1967, but by 1973 was able to mount an offensive that frightened Israel quite a bit.

The Israelis have the upper hand in the short term. What they must calculate is whether they will retain the upper hand if they continue on their course. Division in the Arab world, including among the Palestinians, cannot disappear overnight, nor can it quickly generate a strategic military threat. But the current configuration of the Arab world is not fixed. Therefore, defusing the current crisis would seem to be a long-term strategic necessity for Israel.

Israel’s actions have generated shifts in public opinion and diplomacy regionally and globally. The Israelis are calculating that these actions will not generate a long-term shift in the strategic posture of the Arab world. If they are wrong about this, recent actions will have been a significant strategic error. If they are right, then this is simply another passing incident. In the end, the profound divisions in the Arab world both protect Israel and make diplomatic solutions to its challenge almost impossible — you don’t need to fight forces that are so divided, but it is very difficult to negotiate comprehensively with a group that lacks anything approaching a unified voice.

Title: Israeli Floatilla to bring aid to the oppressed in Turkey
Post by: DougMacG on June 08, 2010, 09:15:14 PM

First an appreciation of the insight of George Friedman in the previous post:

Quoting: "Israel faces this strategic problem: In the short run, it has freedom of action, but its actions could change the strategic framework in which it operates over the long run. ..The threat to Israel is that its actions will generate forces in the Arab world that eventually change the balance of power."

That sums it up well IMO.  The break with the Obama administration gives them more freedom, but they still have their own limits.  BTW an Ozarik anniversary passed without much notice - where Israel took out an Iraq nuclear facility 29 years ago this week.
--------------
Here is another approach:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026492.php

"Although most of the recent talk regarding flotillas has revolved around ships sailing toward Gaza, at least two plans have emerged for "reverse flotillas" - from Israel toward Turkey - to highlight what organizers have labeled the Turks' "shameless hypocrisy" in their criticisms of the Jewish state.

 The most ambitious of the two plans has been devised by members of Israel's National Student Union, who this week announced their intention to set sail toward Turkey, in an effort to bring humanitarian aid to the "oppressed people of Turkish Kurdistan" and to members of the "Turkish Armenian minority."

Brilliant. How do you think that will go over with the Turks?"

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 09, 2010, 09:20:01 AM

The Gaza blockade has been a smashing success with regards to it's original intent which was to reduce rockets screaming into Israel.  If you look at the number of rockets launched the numbers are way down from a few years ago.

Not a peep from MSM about that.   All we hear now is that it is a public relations disaster and the policy Gaza blockade policy MUST be reviewed and of course changed by Israel.  This is the spin, even among idiot (IMO) liberal Jews.  They also spin the handling of the confrontation as being bungled. 

"The most ambitious of the two plans has been devised by members of Israel's National Student Union, who this week announced their intention to set sail toward Turkey, in an effort to bring humanitarian aid to the "oppressed people of Turkish Kurdistan" and to members of the "Turkish Armenian minority."

Seems like a good PR move, but the MSM will ignore or talk it down.  The UN will of course somehow find a way to spin this criticize Israel anyway.


 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 09, 2010, 05:35:06 PM

**Scales fallen from your eyes yet, Rachel?**

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/309811

Barack Obama, Voting Present in the Middle East
Noah Pollak - 06.09.2010 - 8:29 AM
The question of the hour is whether the Obama administration is actually going to sit on its hands and do nothing as the Middle East edges closer and closer toward a major conflict.

Where is the administration on Turkey’s dangerous provocations and outrageous rhetoric? Where does the administration stand on the Israeli blockade of Gaza — for it or against it? What does the administration think about the impending arrival of three Iranian “aid” vessels in the Mediterranean that intend to break that blockade? What does Obama think about the rising tide of eliminationist rhetoric coming from Bashar Assad, one of the primary beneficiaries of Obama’s “outreach”? Now would be a good time for the president to clear up where America stands. Instead, we have sunk to such a sordid and embarrassing place that the Obama administration’s representative to the UN Human Rights Council said nothing after the Syrian representative promoted a blood libel about Jews during the council proceedings.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 09, 2010, 06:16:39 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/09/rosie-odonnell-and-crew-what-did-helen-thomas-say-that-was-so-bad/

Liberal stance.

Title: Who is doomed?
Post by: ccp on June 11, 2010, 08:47:17 AM

My personal opinion the only one doomed is Ahmadinejad.  Israel will have to try to bomb out all their nuclear sites.  If they can't do it with conventional weapons they will have to use nucs.  I know this means an eternity of revenge in the region but as it stands now Jews should not go to the gas chambers without a fight this time.  I wish I was in more of a position to personally help.  Obama has made the decision not to intervene except with ridiculous sanctions.  We can argue all day back and forth what the US should/should not do but it clear what Israelis have to do.  Again the only other hope is some miraculous regime change in Iran.
Calling in an army of liberal or greedy lawyers is not going to fix this.

***Iran's Ahmadinejad says Israel is 'doomed'
By D'Arcy Doran (AFP) – 4 hours ago

SHANGHAI — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday Israel was "doomed" and singled out US President Barack Obama for scorn, blaming Washington for orchestrating new nuclear sanctions against Tehran.

Speaking during a visit to the World Expo in Shanghai, Ahmadinejad denounced the UN Security Council's sanctions resolution adopted Wednesday with Chinese and Russian backing as "worthless paper".

The firebrand leader accused global nuclear powers of "monopolising" atomic technology and said the new sanctions would "have no effect" -- reserving most of his tough rhetoric for the United States, not his ally Beijing.

Swatting aside the US leader's offers of dialogue and rapprochement if Iran relents on its nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad said: "I think President Obama has made a big mistake... he knows the resolution will have no effect.

"Very soon he will come to understand he has not made the right choice and he has blocked the way to having friendly ties with the Iranian people."

Ahmadinejad chose a visit to his country's national pavilion during "Iran Day" at the Shanghai Expo over an appearance at a regional security summit in Uzbekistan attended by the Chinese and Russian leaders.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev are in Tashkent for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

The SCO on Friday snubbed Iran's membership bid, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the group's new guidelines did not allow countries under UN sanctions to join, leaving Tehran increasingly isolated over its refusal to renounce uranium enrichment.

Ahmadinejad's visit to the Expo comes at a delicate time in Tehran's relations with China, one of the Council's five permanent veto-wielding members.

His government had earlier reacted furiously to China's decision to fall into line with the United States and other powers that accuse Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad nevertheless shied away from criticising Beijing, which has emerged as Iran's closest trading partner.

"The main problem is the US administration, and we have no problem with others," he told reporters, accusing the United States of seeking to "swallow" the Middle East.

"Not only China but others also announced the resolution is going to open a way for diplomacy."

The UN resolution expands an arms embargo and bars Iran from sensitive activities such as uranium mining.

It also authorises states to conduct high-seas inspections of vessels believed to be ferrying banned items for Iran and adds 40 entities to a list of people and groups subject to travel restrictions and financial sanctions.

Not for the first time, Ahmadinejad reserved his harshest rhetoric for Israel.

"It is clear the United States is not against nuclear bombs because they have a Zionist regime with nuclear bombs in the region," he said.

"They are trying to save the Zionist regime, but the Zionist regime will not survive. It is doomed."

Israel, which has the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear arsenal, regards Iran as its principal threat after repeated predictions by Ahmadinejad of the Jewish state's demise.

Israeli leaders have refused to rule out a resort to military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Ahmadinejad said the entire architecture of global power was built to keep out smaller states.

"We have always said the Security Council is a tool in the hands of the United States. It is not democratic, it is a tool of dictatorship," he said.

"Five powers have the veto right and the nuclear bombs and the monopoly and they want to monopolise nuclear energy for themselves," he added.

Russia appears to be taking a tougher line with Iran. Officials said Friday that Moscow would comply strictly with the new UN sanctions, and signalled that a deal to supply Iran with air-defence missiles was now off.

China has kept up a more emollient line on Iran. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Thursday that China "highly values relations with Iran and feels they are conducive to regional peace, stability and development."

An aide to Ahmadinejad told AFP he would leave Shanghai later Friday.***

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 13, 2010, 12:46:07 PM

Like most issues; there are two sides...



Don't single out Helen Thomas

The veteran journalist was pilloried for her remark about Israel, but where's the uproar over such comments directed at Palestinians?

Saree Makdisi        June 13, 2010
 
Unconscionable. Offensive. Hurtful. Bigoted. Terrible. Hateful.

These are the words being used to describe Helen Thomas' recent comment about Israel and Palestine. Editorialists across the country have condemned her statement that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back" to Europe.

Let's agree that she should not have said those things, and that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East fundamentally requires reconciliation between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. We need also to agree on a formula that allows them both to be at home in the same land (I have long advocated the idea of a single democratic and secular state for both peoples; a state that treats all citizens as equals). Insisting that either people does not belong is not merely counterproductive; it lies at the very root of the conflict.

If, however, it is unacceptable to say that Israeli Jews don't belong in Palestine, it is also unacceptable to say that the Palestinians don't belong on their own land.

Yet that is said all the time in the United States, without sparking the kind of moral outrage generated by Thomas' remark. And while the nation's editorialists worry about the offense she may have caused to Jews, no one seems particularly bothered by the offense felt every day by Palestinians when people — including those with far more power than Thomas — dismiss their rights, degrade their humanity and reject their claims to the most elementary forms of decency.

Are we seriously to accept the idea that some people have more rights than others? Or that some people's sensibilities should be respected while others' are trampled with total indifference, if not outright contempt?

One does not have to agree with Thomas to note that her remark spoke to the ugly history of colonialism, racism, usurpation and denial that are at the heart of the question of Palestine. Part of that history involves vicious European anti-Semitism and the monumental crime of the Holocaust. But the other part is that Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homeland in 1948 to clear space for the creation of a state with a Jewish identity.

Europeans and Americans were, at the time, willing to ignore or simply dismiss the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians, who, by being forced from their land, were made to pay the price for a crime they did not commit.

But this callous carelessness, this dismissal of — and refusal even to acknowledge in human terms — the calamity that befell the Palestinians, and of course the attendant refusal to acknowledge their fundamental rights, did not end in the 1940s. It continues to this very day.

Mainstream politicians, civic leaders, university presidents and others in this country routinely express their support for Israel as a Jewish state, despite the fact that such a state only could have been created in a multicultural land by ethnically cleansing it of as many non-Jews as possible. Today, Israel is only able to maintain its Jewish identity because it has established an apartheid regime, both in the occupied territories and within its own borders, and because it continues to reject the Palestinian right of return.

Where is the outrage about that?

Where was the outrage in 1983 when Israeli Gen. Rafael Eitan looked forward to the day that Jews had fully settled the land, because then "all the Arabs will be able to do about it is scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle"? Or when Alan Dershowitz suggested in 2002 that Israel summarily empty and then bulldoze an entire Palestinian village as a punitive measure each time it was attacked? Or when New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claimed in 2006 to have discovered a "pathology" that caused some Arabs to "hate others more than they love their own kids"? Or when Avigdor Lieberman (who now serves as Israel's foreign minister) said in 2004 that Palestinian citizens of Israel should "take their bundles and get lost"? Or when Israeli professor Arnon Sofer, one of the country's leading demographic alarmists, said that to preserve the Jewish state, Israel should pull out of Gaza, though that would require Israel to remain at the border and "kill, and kill, and kill, all day, every day"?

An endless deluge of statements of support for the actual, calculated, methodical dehumanization of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular goes without comment; whereas a single offhand comment by an 89-year-old journalist, whose long and distinguished record of principled commitment and challenges to state power entitles her to respect — and the benefit of the doubt — causes her to be publicly pilloried.

To accept this appalling hypocrisy is to be complicit in the racism of our age.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA. He is the author of, among other books, "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 13, 2010, 01:53:31 PM

"Like most issues; there are two sides...
Don't single out Helen Thomas"

Who singled her out?  Her comments speak for herself and are quite clear.

"To accept this appalling hypocrisy is to be complicit in the racism of our age."

Actually I rarely if ever heard anyone say that Palestinians can't live in Israel.  JDN have you ever heard of the two state solution?
Proposed and refused by Arabs since the 1940's.

To say that Helen Thomas career was so distinguished is a bit over done to say the least.

JDN, perhaps I can find a Neo Nazi, interview him or her and then post here his/her "side" to the story.

I don't personally recall ever hearing Jews go around saying Palestinians should be eradicated, wiped out or driven into the sea.



 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 13, 2010, 02:00:34 PM

JDN traffics in facile moral equivalency, CCP, and has never met an apple he can't call an orange should it serve his circular purposes.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2010, 03:14:24 PM

JDN, I found that that Makdisi piece to be remarkably specious.  Its kind of tough to live with side by side with folks like this preacher and his congregation, but in Israel Arabs get citizenship, to vote, to be Muslim, to bring law suits, etc.  Try the other side of that coin in any of Israel's neighbors.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmnpMXOpaM4&NR

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 13, 2010, 06:21:19 PM

"Unconscionable. Offensive. Hurtful. Bigoted. Terrible. Hateful."
CCP; these are words I too use to describe the words of Helen Thomas and anyone who say's the same.

But forget about her for a moment.  She was not the point of Dr. Makdisi's article.

Be fair in this discussion CCP, what did the Palestinians do to deserve being "forcibly removed from their homeland
in 1948 to clear space for the creation of a state with a Jewish identity."  And since then, given a choice, Israel has tried to
"eradicate, wipe out, or drive into the sea Palestinians."

I think the author's history lesson regarding the birth of Israel is mostly accurate; i.e. Palestinians were forcibly and violently
removed to create the Israel state.  We can argue the reasons/necessity thereof, but in essence they were forcibly removed.
If you were forcibly removed from your homeland, wouldn't you have some animosity?

Perhaps for good reason, but there is no love lost for Palestinians by Israel.
Avigdor Lieberman (who now serves as Israel's foreign minister) said in 2004 that "Palestinian citizens of Israel should "take their bundles and get lost"?

Crafty; Im not sure the authors comments are "spacious", but perhaps "biased".  Yet, you implied Arabs and Israeli's (Jews) are equal in Israel.  "Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.) Theodor Or chaired the Or Commission, which noted that discrimination against the country's Arab citizens had been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, had been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and had also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert criticised in 2008 what he called "deliberate and insufferable" discrimination against Arabs at the hands of the Israeli establishment."

Further in Israel the Marriage Law, Land Law, Immigration Law, as well as others are discriminatory.  Others, including this author of this article have even argued that the system of control including separate roads, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that "elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law."

Personally, to paraphrase CCP, Israel risks being pushed into the sea therefore they need to do what they need to do to survive.  I understand.  But...

As the author points out, "it is unacceptable to say that Israeli Jews don't belong in Palestine, it is also unacceptable to say that the Palestinians don't belong on their own land.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 13, 2010, 07:06:08 PM

Yo, JDN, Egypt and Jordan both are arguably Palestinian homelands, have their share of Palestinian citizens, and treat them in a manner that would be condemned in no uncertain terms if it occurred in Israel. Where is the hand wringing on their behalf? Want to talk hypocrisy? There's some of which you partake in spades.

I suppose there is no point in stating that this topic has been well discussed around here because there isn't a point that can be made that you won't rehash just to hear your jowls flap. This stuff has been discussed here before, and as ever, yesterdays data never enters into any argument you posit today.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 13, 2010, 07:11:44 PM

What of the Jews forced out of their homelands in the middle east that had to flee to Israel? Where is their right of return?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 13, 2010, 07:49:13 PM

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

Educate yourself, JDN.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2010, 08:19:44 PM

I could swear there is a word "specious" , , , anyone have a URL for a good dictionary?

I did not say equal, I said one helluva lot closer to equal than vice versa in the Muslim countries, none of whom are surrounded by suicidal killers screaming "Death to the Muslims" as they target Muslim women and children.  C'mon man, get serious.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 13, 2010, 08:36:39 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specious

 :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 13, 2010, 08:38:51 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2010, 08:19:44 PM

I could swear there is a word "specious" , , , anyone have a URL for a good dictionary?

I did not say equal, I said one helluva lot closer to equal than vice versa in the Muslim countries, none of whom are surrounded by suicidal killers screaming "Death to the Muslims" as they target Muslim women and children.  C'mon man, get serious.

There is such a word!  :-)
I looked it up to be sure my memory was not failing.   "having a false look of truth or genuineness"

You said, "JDN, I found that that Makdisi piece to be remarkably specious"  Therefore I presumed that you referring to his article.  I, commented that, while I did not find the article "spacious" I did concede "biased".

I misinterpreted your comment regarding Israeli citizenship; I thought you were implying that they were equal.

So you are saying that Arabs citizens and Jewish citizens are NOT equal in Israel?  Then we agree.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 13, 2010, 08:49:18 PM

How do christians and jews and other minorities get treated in the muslim world? Better or worse than what Israel does?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2010, 04:32:30 AM

Exactly.  C'mon JDN, you're avoiding the points being made here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmnpMXOpaM4&NR

"Palestinians were forcibly and violently removed to create the Israel state."
Citations?

Title: Parallels
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 14, 2010, 06:38:58 AM

Of course JDN has to defend Helen Thomas as their prose and narrative technique has so much in common.

Helen Thomas, the rabbi and the press

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 14, 2010; 7:15 AM
There she goes again.

That was the eye-rolling reaction in the White House press room when Helen Thomas would go off on one of her rants about the Middle East. She had been there for so long, was so admired by female journalists, was such a curmudgeonly character, that she was regarded as everyone's eccentric aunt.

Q&A, 12 p.m.: Media Backtalk: Howard Kurtz on the Media: Helen Thomas, Sarah Palin, Obama oil address, Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, more
But that's not how she was seen by much of the country, which still viewed her as the groundbreaking correspondent she once was, not the cranky columnist she had become. So when Aunt Helen snapped that Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" -- and go back to Germany, among other places -- many onlookers were stunned.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that she was a member in good standing of a tightly knit club that refused to question why a woman whose main job seemed to be to harangue press secretaries and presidents deserved a front-row seat in the briefing room. Only the furor that followed a chance encounter with a rabbi armed with a video camera prompted the 89-year-old Thomas to retire last week.

Journalists, especially those who spend a great deal of time together, don't usually turn on each other. If Thomas was spewing bias and bile, the reasoning went, what was the harm?

None of this is to detract from what Thomas accomplished beginning in 1960, when the press corps was comprised mainly of white men in skinny ties, and women occasionally showed up to write about a first lady's social activities. Thomas was never known for great writing or breaking stories, but she was a dogged daily chronicler for United Press International.

After joining Hearst Newspapers a decade ago, however, Thomas became a marginal figure. Few were reading her column, especially in Washington. Her stature -- the Society of Professional Journalists gave out a Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement -- derived from her earlier career and her choice bit of real estate.

The art of inquiry

There was something to admire in Thomas's determination to ask uncomfortable questions. But when she declared George W. Bush the "worst president ever" in 2003, she shed any pretense of fair-mindedness. As time went on, her questions turned into speeches, as in this 2007 challenge to Bush over Iraq:

"Mr. President, you started this war. It's a war of your choosing. You can end it, alone. Today. At this point bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand? We brought the al-Qaeda into Iraq." One might agree or disagree with those sentiments, but she was performing as an activist, not a journalist.

Former CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre wrote last week that "there's a big difference between asking tough questions and getting answers to tough questions. Anyone can ASK tough questions. But figuring out how to hold government officials accountable, by posing questions in such a way that they can't avoid answering them, is a much harder, and far more valuable journalistic exercise than just venting from a padded front seat in the White House briefing room. Helen Thomas' questions were not designed to probe weaknesses in the president's policies. They were just meant to provoke him."

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said on his blog that "calling on Helen Thomas was a notorious method for a hard-pressed White House press secretary to EVADE tough questions from the rest of the press corps. A zany, out-of-left-field protest from Thomas would disrupt a flow of unwelcome queries, maybe spark a tension-breaking laugh, maybe change the subject altogether."

David Nesenoff, the Long Island rabbi who triggered Thomas's resignation by asking for her thoughts on Israel, says he has received death threats and more than 25,000 e-mails, many of them obscene and hate-filled. One called him a "dirty Jew," saying: "Hittler [sic] was right! Time for you to go back in the oven!"

Nesenoff also says "there are individuals within the media" who are "pursuing an agenda," though he declines to identify them. (Critics have derided him for portraying a stereotypical Mexican with a bad accent in a video on his Web site, which the rabbi dismisses as a harmless Purim skit.) Had they called, Nesenoff says, he would have explained that he has founded an anti-bias task force, consulted for the Justice Department in the Denny's restaurant discrimination case and spoken with Mel Gibson about his drunken, anti-Semitic rant.

Q&A, 12 p.m.: Media Backtalk: Howard Kurtz on the Media: Helen Thomas, Sarah Palin, Obama oil address, Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, more
To those who say he wound up infringing on Thomas's freedom of speech, Nesenoff says that she had a public platform "for 60 years. I had it for two minutes, and I shared my two minutes with her. It was specifically her freedom of speech that caused this problem."

What friends are for

Since Thomas was a columnist, she had every right to her opinions -- even if her view was that Jews should be banished from Israel. But she didn't have a perpetual right to a newspaper column or a White House press room seat. Hearst bears some responsibility for keeping Thomas on as her behavior grew more disturbing. It's not that a pro-Israel press corps drove her out; it's that Thomas could not defend her remarks, and indeed apologized for them.

All this might have been avoided had Helen's friends gently suggested it was time to retire. But here the insular nature of Beltway life clearly came into play. Those who were accustomed to seeing Thomas around town regarded her as one of Washington's harmless gadflies, perhaps forgetting that she still had access to a powerful megaphone.

There were exceptions -- Slate's Jack Shafer and the New Republic's Jonathan Chait have noted that Thomas was asking "wildly inappropriate" questions, as Chait put it, but the story line got no traction, even when the late White House spokesman Tony Snow accused her of offering "the Hezbollah view."

Thomas, meanwhile, positioned herself as the truth-telling alternative to Washington's weenies. Her 2007 book was titled "Watchdogs of Democracy? The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public." In a March interview with Viceland magazine, she said -- with some justification -- that "everyone rolled over and played dead" during the run-up to the Iraq war. Thomas added, rather conspiratorially, that she was "sure the big communications corporations got orders from on high. So they played ball."

Back in 1996, after a long night of election coverage, the incomparable David Brinkley said he'd had enough "goddamned nonsense" from Bill Clinton and that the president "is a bore, and always will be a bore." Brinkley apologized, but days later he stepped down from hosting his revolutionary program, "This Week."

As with Brinkley, no one can take away Thomas's trailblazing career, but those decades in the spotlight also imposed a responsibility to meet certain minimal standards. Why wasn't she reined in earlier? For the same reason I've been tempted to pull a couple of punches in writing this: Who wants to beat up on an octogenarian lady? But a little tough love might have spared her this final blot on her legacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=topnews

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 14, 2010, 07:53:50 AM

***David Nesenoff, the Long Island rabbi who triggered Thomas's resignation by asking for her thoughts on Israel, says he has received death threats and more than 25,000 e-mails, many of them obscene and hate-filled. One called him a "dirty Jew," saying: "Hittler [sic] was right! Time for you to go back in the oven!"

Nesenoff also says "there are individuals within the media" who are "pursuing an agenda," though he declines to identify them. (Critics have derided him for portraying a stereotypical Mexican with a bad accent in a video on his Web site, which the rabbi dismisses as a harmless Purim skit.) Had they called, Nesenoff says, he would have explained that he has founded an anti-bias task force, consulted for the Justice Department in the Denny's restaurant discrimination case and spoken with Mel Gibson about his drunken, anti-Semitic rant.***

The other very interesting (to me) part of seeing Nesenoff of cable (I think it was Kurtz though maybe another program) was how he essentially questioned his affilition with the Democratic party.  He so much as said he will be reviewing his party affiliation.  See my post in the "media thread".

Finally a liberal Jew who is seeing the liberal Jews who would even sell out Israel to support their liberal agenda which is a more socialist (progressive, liberal whatever label you want to put on it) world order. Does the yiddish word mazzoltov apply?  It's about time some of them wake up and stop worrying about who nice, and humanitarian they need to portray themselves out of guilt or hypocracy.  One can be a good person, a good citizen without having to be masochistic dope.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 14, 2010, 08:45:49 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2010, 04:32:30 AM

Exactly.  C'mon JDN, you're avoiding the points being made here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmnpMXOpaM4&NR

"Palestinians were forcibly and violently removed to create the Israel state."
Citations?

It was war....
"We are now at war, a war in which no quarter will be asked and none will be given. It will be a battle of life and death and woe to the vanquished."
"The exact number of Arab losses is unknown but the estimates ranged from 10,000 to 15,000.
According to United Nations figures, 726,000 Palestinians left Israeli-controlled territory between 1947 and 1949."

Crafty, do you think nearly three quarters of a million people wanted to leave their home voluntarily?  That's like saying the American Indian left their homeland voluntarily
to live on an assigned reservation.

As for points being made here.....

I clearly stated my repugnance to Helen Thomas's comments.

I merely posted an article by Dr. Makdisi of UCLA.  Most on this forum have not challenged his points or quotes.  My only comment was that there are two sides to the discussion.

We agreed (you acknowledged) that Jews and non Jewish citizens are NOT treated equal in Israel.

As for the question, "How do christians and jews and other minorities get treated in the muslim world? Better or worse than what Israel does?"
The answer is probably worse, but is that relevant?  I mean to what standard should Israel be held?  To the lowest or highest?  For us
to say that we treated blacks in America better than some other countries, or for South African whites to say they treated blacks in South Africa better than most
does not make it right.   Israel is a democracy, a thriving, modern, educated country; they are held to a higher moral standard than some backward
Middle Eastern or African country or two bit dictatorship.  I like to think in most of the industrialized educated world, before the law, people should be treated equally.

I don't think I am "avoiding the issues here" pertinent to Dr. Makdisi; rather this is an emotional subject for some.  CCP honestly acknowledged such;
further, as CCP said, perhaps Israel's interests are not always America's interest.  I respect CCP's opinion, and admire his and others devotion to Israel, they have been a good friend to America,
as we have to Israel, but I think as Americans we should objectively place America's interest first before our loyalty to Israel regardless of our love for Israel.

I started out by saying, "Like most issues, there are two sides".  I still think it's true.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 14, 2010, 08:59:23 AM

JDN,

As a typical leftist, you ignore the history you don't like to offer support to those who would cut your throat if given the chance. Israel is at war, not by choice, but by necessity. If Israel has to fence off arabs and screen them through invasive security measures, it's the arabs that are to blame, not Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 14, 2010, 09:15:10 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palestinians-uighurs-and-the-curiously-selective-media/?singlepage=true

Where is the outrage?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2010, 09:20:23 AM

"726,000 Palestinians left Israeli-controlled territory between 1947 and 1949."  Crafty, do you think nearly three quarters of a million people wanted to leave their home voluntarily?"

Mostly they left because they were told to get out of the way while the Jews were being wiped out.

"As for the question, "How do christians and jews and other minorities get treated in the muslim world? Better or worse than what Israel does?"
The answer is probably worse, but is that relevant?  I mean to what standard should Israel be held?  To the lowest or highest?  For us
to say that we treated blacks in America better than some other countries, or for South African whites to say they treated blacks in South Africa better than most does not make it right.   Israel is a democracy, a thriving, modern, educated country; they are held to a higher moral standard than some backward Middle Eastern or African country or two bit dictatorship.  I like to think in most of the industrialized educated world, before the law, people should be treated equally."

Forgive me, but this is specious drivel.  The hatred of the Jews in this part of the world has been going on a long, long time and well pre-dates the existence of Israel itself.  In this context Israel's achievements in protection of rights under law is nothing less than remarkable. In the context of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmnpMXOpaM4&NR what you seek is Israel's suicide.

I'm signing off from responding to you on this.

Title: Hamas Not Allowing Supplies into Gaza
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 16, 2010, 05:21:21 PM

If the crisis ended, how could Hamas blame Israel for the conditions they create?

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Specials/Blockade_Bluster:_A_PJTV_Investigation_Reveals_the_Medicine_&_Supplies_Hamas_Won't_Allow_Into_Gaza/3742/

Title: Obama & Israel, I
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 21, 2010, 06:07:05 AM

JUNE 21, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Obama and the War against Israel
If President Obama had been trying to undermine Israel’s security — and ours — he could hardly have done a better job.
 
No other country in the world faces an array of existential threats such as the nation of Israel confronts daily. The world’s only Jewish state is also its most precarious. Geographically tiny, Israel is surrounded by theocracies that reject its very existence as a “nakba” — a catastrophe — and call for its destruction. To carry out this malignant ambition, anti-Israel Islamists have mobilized three rocket-wielding armies, sworn to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

First and most aggressive among them is the Gaza-based Hamas, a fanatical religious party committed in its official charter to obliterating Israel and killing its Jews. Hamas is the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, the inspirer of al-Qaeda and the global Islamic jihad, whose official motto declares: “Death in the service of Allah is our highest aspiration.” In Gaza, Hamas has created a terrorist state and a national death cult whose path is martyrdom and whose goal is openly proclaimed: “O, our children: The Jews — brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, warmongers — are murdering you, depriving you of life after having plundered your homeland and your homes. Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream.”

Given that hatred for Jews is the animating passion of the Hamas militants, their response to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was not surprising. Far from greeting this as a gesture of peace, Hamas regarded the Israeli withdrawal as a surrender to its terrorist attacks and an opportunity to escalate them. In the days and months following the withdrawal, Hamas launched 6,500 unprovoked rocket strikes on towns and schoolyards in Israel before the Israelis decided to strike back.

On Israel’s eastern border is the West Bank, home to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and other terrorist groups, armed and protected by the so-called “moderate” Palestinian Authority. Like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority officially rejects Israel’s existence and the right of its Jews to self-determination. Like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority provides a curriculum for its schoolchildren that teaches them to hate Jews and hope to kill them, seeking martyrdom in the process. In pursuit of these genocidal goals, all Palestinian schoolchildren study maps of the region from which Israel has been erased.

On Israel’s northern border, in Lebanon, is Hezbollah, the “Party of God,” which is stockpiling tens of thousands of Iranian rockets in anticipation of the war of annihilation it has promised to wage against the Jewish state. Created by Iran’s Republican Guard and supplied by Syria’s (officially) “fascist” dictatorship, Hezbollah is the largest terrorist army in the world. Like Hamas, it makes explicit its hatred for the Jews and its agenda in regard to them — to “finish the job that Hitler started.” Its fanatical leader, Hassan Nasrallah, leads thousands of believers in chants of “Death to Israel! Death to America!” He has said, “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” Under the complicit eye of U.N. “peacekeepers,” Hezbollah continues to amass rockets whose sole purpose is the obliteration of Israel. In May 2006, Nasrallah boasted: “Today all of Israel is in our range.#…#Ports, military bases, factories — everything is in our range.”

But it is Hezbollah’s sponsor, the totalitarian — and soon to be nuclear — state of Iran, that presents the most disturbing threat to Israel’s existence. Its blood-soaked dictators have been targeting Israel for destruction since 1979, when Iran became an Islamic republic and its theocratic ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, identified Israel and America as “the Little Satan” and “the Great Satan.” Its former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has publicly announced his support for nuclear war against the Jewish state, reasoning that since Iran is more than 70 times the size of Israel, it could survive a nuclear exchange while Israel could not.

Iran’s current leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also called for America and Israel to be “wiped from the map” — and there was no dissent from the other 56 Islamic states that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Amateur semanticists insist that Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, and that he really meant that both countries should be “erased from the pages of history.” But this is a distinction without a difference. For what can that threat possibly mean if Israel or America should continue to exist? Meanwhile, Iran continues to build long-range nuclear missiles that could be used for just such a purpose, and no serious effort to check that ambition has been made by the international community or by the United States.

Where, indeed, does the international community stand in the face of this brazen preparation to bring about a second Holocaust of the Jews? Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arab states have conducted three unprovoked, aggressive conventional wars against it, along with a continuous terrorist war that began in 1949. Yet between 1948 and 2004 there were 322 resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly condemning the victim, Israel, and not one that condemned an Arab state.

The United Nations today is dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group that was established in 1969 at a summit convened, according to its official website, “as a result of criminal arson of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem” — in other words, in response to the criminal Jews. The Organization of the Islamic Conference regularly passes one-sided resolutions that condemn Israel, particularly for its efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism and disrupt Palestinian weapon smuggling into Gaza. The U.N.’s most notorious assault on Israel was the Goldstone Report, which was commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council in September 2009 and which condemned Israel’s belated response to the unprovoked Hamas rocket attacks.

Relying on the testimony of Hamas terrorists, the Goldstone Report charged that Israel had deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians and had committed war crimes in Gaza. Outside the precincts of the Islamic propaganda machine, however, Israel’s record is in fact that of a nation that is extraordinarily protective of enemy civilians. In testimony ignored by the Goldstone Report, for example, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, stated: “During Operation Cast Lead [the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks], the Israel Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.” Hamas, by contrast, is notorious for building military headquarters under hospitals, for placing its military forces in refugee camps, and for using women and children as “human shields” to deter attacks. Hamas’s rockets are known to be so inaccurate they cannot be directed against military targets; they can only be used effectively against civilians. In addition, since Hamas’s war against Israel was a response to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal, it was a criminal aggression responsible for all the subsequent casualties, something the Goldstone Report and the U.N. Human Rights Council conveniently overlooked.

The Human Rights Council was created in 2006. In its first year, the council listed only one country in the entire world as violating human rights: Israel. It condemned Israel despite the fact that Israel is the only state in the Middle East that recognizes human rights and protects them. Not one of the world’s other 194 countries was even mentioned, including North Korea, Burma, and Iran — the last of which hangs gays from cranes for transgressing the sexual proscriptions of the Koran. The reason for these oversights is no mystery. The U.N. Human Rights Council has been presided over by representatives of such brutal human-rights violators as Libya, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, and it was such a travesty from its inception that it was boycotted by the United States until Barack Obama decided this year to join its ranks. This decision by the Obama administration, along with its overtures to Syria, Iran, and other noxious regimes, lent a stamp of legitimacy to the hypocrisy of the council and encouraged its malice.

In these sinister developments, the world is witnessing a reprise of the 1930s, when the Nazis devised a “final solution” to the “Jewish problem,” and the civilized world did nothing to halt its implementation. This time, the solution is being proposed openly in front of the entire international community, which appears unruffled by the prospect. It has turned its collective back on the Jews, and refuses to recognize the gravity of the threat. Moreover, by enforcing the fiction that there is a “peace process” that needs to be brokered between the sides, and ignoring the overt preparation for Israel’s destruction by the Palestinian side, the “peacemakers” lend their support to its deadly agenda.

For decades now, Israel has been isolated and alone in the community of nations, with one crucial exception. That exception has been the United States, a country on which it has relied for its survival throughout its 60-year history. Every would-be aggressor has understood that the world’s most powerful nation was behind Israel and would not let her be destroyed. Every government harboring ill will toward the Jewish state has had to reckon with the fact that the United States was in Israel’s corner. Every vote of condemnation in the United Nations had to confront a veto by the nation that provides its chief financial support.

Until now.

In the words of a recent Reuters dispatch, “Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with automatic support at the United Nations, where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation. The subtle but noticeable shift in the U.S. approach to its Middle East ally comes amid what some analysts describe as one of the most serious crises in U.S.-Israel relations in years.”

This change first became apparent during an official visit to Jerusalem by Vice President Biden earlier this year. On March 9, the vice president arrived for a dinner at the home of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly two hours late. His tardiness was not accidental but a calculated diplomatic slight — specifically, a punishment for Israel’s announcement of plans to build 1,600 new homes in a predominantly Jewish section of East Jerusalem. The vice president was embarrassed by the announcement’s being made during his visit.

In fact, the announcement was a routine step, the fourth in a seven-stage bureaucratic approval process for new construction. While its timing might be construed as inopportune, the building of homes in a Jewish neighborhood in Israel’s capital city was hardly an issue that should have created any sort of problem, let alone caused a rupture between allies. Nonetheless, Israeli officials, conscious of their dependence on their American partners, immediately apologized for any perceived offense.

But the Obama administration would have none of it. As severe reproaches of Israel from top U.S. officials followed, the crisis escalated. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Netanyahu, calling Israel’s announcement a “deeply negative signal” for U.S.-Israel ties. Senior presidential adviser David Axelrod delivered the same scolding message to an American audience, going on cable news shows to vent the administration’s displeasure. Branding Israel’s announcement an “affront” and an “insult,” Axelrod claimed that Israel had made the “peace process” with the Palestinians much more “difficult.”

Whereas Israel’s housing announcement was made without Netanyahu’s knowledge, Washington’s response was dictated by President Obama. When the prime minister arrived in the United States for a meeting with the president that same month, there was no ceremony in the White House Rose Garden and no posing before press cameras — the usual goodwill gestures afforded visiting heads of friendly nations.

The reception in private was at least as cold. When Netanyahu arrived at the White House for what he thought was going to be a dinner with the president, Obama unceremoniously presented him with a list of demands — including that Israel cease all housing construction in East Jerusalem — and curtly abandoned his guest to have dinner with his wife and daughters in the White House residential wing. As Obama left the meeting room, he informed his stunned visitors that he would “be around” should the prime minister change his mind. As the Israeli press reported afterwards, “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage.” Washington Post columnist and Middle East expert Jackson Diehl was even more blunt, writing that “Netanyahu is being treated [by Obama] as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator.”

Contrary to the administration’s insistence that Israel was jeopardizing peace by encroaching on negotiable terrain, the construction site in Jerusalem was anything but disputed territory. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, and the construction site is in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood. Housing construction had been under way in Ramat Shlomo since the early 1990s, and it would remain part of Israel in any conceivable peace settlement. Consequently, when Netanyahu had agreed under pressure to a partial ten-month freeze on settlements in the disputed territories, he specifically excluded Jerusalem. By its insistence that Israel cease all building in East Jerusalem, it was the Obama administration, not Israel, that was breaking with precedent, and opening up the political center of Israel itself to Palestinian claims.

I

Title: Obama & Israel, II
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 21, 2010, 06:07:25 AM

n opposing Israeli construction in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, the Obama administration embraced a version of Middle Eastern history that directly lends itself to the Arab war against the Jewish state. In the Arab narrative justifying that war, Jerusalem is alleged to occupy a central place in the history of Muslims and Arabs. In the same narrative, Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state. But the spiritual centrality of Jerusalem for Muslims is in fact a relatively recent claim and dubious on its face, while the religious claims are by-products of Muslim military conquests.

The Prophet Mohammed never visited Jerusalem, and consequently Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. Today even Islamists regard it as only the third-holiest city in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It was never the capital of any Arab state. Indeed, for centuries, Jerusalem was a forgotten city to most Arabs, and it was allowed to fall into ruin under Ottoman rule, which lasted until the creation of Israel and Jordan in the aftermath of the First World War. On a trip to Jerusalem in 1867, Mark Twain lamented that the city “has lost all its grandeur, and is become a pauper village.” When Jordan occupied Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, it was treated like a backwater. Only one Arab leader, Morocco’s King Hassan, cared enough to pay a visit to the city that Muslims who are involved in the jihad against Israel now suggest is an essential part of their history.

The sudden fracture in the U.S.-Israel relationship in March caught the Israeli government off guard. But close observers of the Obama administration would have recognized it as the logical endpoint of a series of markers that had been laid down since Obama emerged as a leading presidential contender in 2008. With these markers Obama was signaling a major shift in U.S. policy, moving toward the Muslim world and America’s traditional enemies, and away from allies like Israel.

The first sign of this shift was visible during a February 2008 presidential debate, when Obama sought to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton, his then opponent and future secretary of state, by announcing that, unlike her, he would be willing to meet with hostile governments “without preconditions.” It was a position he justified by asserting that it was critical for the United States to “talk to its enemies.” This was a rare example of a campaign promise Obama has kept.

On entering the White House, Obama quickly moved to set a new tone toward the Arab and Muslim worlds. His very first call to a foreign leader from the Oval Office was to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, and it was not an effort to dissuade Abbas from his support for terrorism or his opposition to the existence of a Jewish state. One of the first interviews Obama gave as president, in January 2009, was to the Dubai-based television network Al-Arabiya. In it, Obama effectively offered an apology to the Arab world for alleged American misdeeds. He assured his interviewer that with him in charge Arab states could look to America as a friend. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,” Obama said, adding that the United States “sometimes makes mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

It was the precursor of an extensive apology tour for America’s sins around the world. In April 2009, he visited Turkey, a NATO ally that was rapidly — and alarmingly — becoming an Islamist state. Addressing its parliament, he hailed Turkey as a “true partner” and suggested that it was the United States that had been the faithless friend. In a not-so-oblique attack on President Bush, Obama expressed his regret for the “difficulties of these last few years,” referring to a strain in relations caused by Turkey’s refusal to allow American troops to deploy from Turkish soil during the war in Iraq. Obama lamented that the “trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.” In other words, Turkey’s refusal to help America support the Muslim citizens of Iraq and topple a hated tyranny was a response to America’s prejudice against Muslims.

In his review of past grievances, Obama did not mention the millions of Muslims — including Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — who had cheered the 9/11 attacks on the United States by Islamic fanatics. Nor did he complain about the spread of anti-American and anti-Israeli conspiracy theories concerning those attacks in the Muslim world, including Turkey. As recently as 2008, polls found that as many Turks (39 percent) believed the United States or Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks as believed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the culprits.

Even more worrisome, Obama used the occasion of his Turkish visit to break with the U.S. policy of treating countries that harbor terrorists as hostile nations. President Bush had declared that there would be no room for neutrality in the war against terror: “You are either with us or against us.” But Obama now assured his listeners in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world that their governments no longer had to choose between America and al-Qaeda. “America’s relationship with the Muslim world,” Obama said, “cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda.”

Obama’s pandering to Arab and Muslim sensibilities had already been embarrassingly on display a few days earlier, when he took the step, unprecedented for an American president, of making a deep bow to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, the ruler of a nation in which it is illegal to carry a Bible or build a church, and where women are not allowed to drive automobiles. The incident took place when President Obama attended the G-20 economic summit in London. When critics decried the president’s subservient gesture to the Arab despot, the administration was caught by surprise and attempted to deny that it had ever taken place. Inconveniently for White House damage control, a video had captured Obama in full obeisant mode.

The shift in Washington’s policy toward the Arab world reached a new level in Obama’s speech in Cairo two months later. On the one hand, the president defended the U.S. military campaigns in the Middle East as driven by “necessity,” condemned the Holocaust denial and Jew hatred that are rife in the Arab world (and promoted by its governments), and called on Palestinians to abandon violence against Israel. But these statements were accompanied by others that appear particularly troubling in the light of subsequent administration moves.

While Obama rightly condemned Holocaust denial, he left the impression that Israel’s legitimacy derived solely from the legacy of European anti-Semitism and the Nazis’ extermination of six million Jews. This echoed the Arab propaganda claim that Israel is a problem created by Europeans and unfairly imposed on the Arab world. Once again Obama was bolstering an Arab myth that serves to delegitimize the Jewish state.

The Holocaust is not merely a European legacy. Middle Eastern states such as Iraq and Iran actively sided with Hitler’s armies; Arab generals served with Rommel, Hitler’s commander in North Africa; and Arab leaders applauded and actively promoted the extermination of the Jews. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was an admirer of Hitler and had Mein Kampf translated into Arabic in the 1930s as a text to guide his followers. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and founder of Palestinian nationalism, was an active and vocal supporter of Hitler’s “final solution” and spent the war years in Berlin recruiting Arabs to the Nazi cause. Al-Husseini, a man revered to this day in the West Bank and Gaza as the George Washington of a Palestinian state, organized anti-Jewish pogroms in the 1920s and 1930s, actively planned to build his own Auschwitz in the Middle East, and was thwarted only when Rommel was defeated at El-Alamein.

The Arab canard that Israel is Europe’s attempt to unload its problem onto the backs of the Arabs ignores — as did Obama — the fact that Jerusalem has been the spiritual capital of the Jewish people for nearly 3,000 years and that Jews have lived in their historic homeland continuously for all that time. Jerusalem is at the center of the Jewish spiritual tradition, and Jews have been its largest religious community since 1864. Prime Minister Netanyahu was historically accurate when he admonished Obama, saying that “the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.”

In his Cairo speech, Obama also showed little appreciation of the modern history of Israel, a nation that was not built on Arab — let alone “Palestinian” — land. The state of Israel was created out of the ruins of the Turkish empire.

In 1922, Great Britain created the state of Jordan out of 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate — a geographical, not an ethnic, designation. The territory in the Mandate had been part of the Turkish (not Arab) empire for the previous four hundred years. Then in 1948, a U.N. “partition plan” provided equal parts of the remaining Turkish land to Arabs and to Jews living on the banks of the Jordan River. In this plan, the Jews were assigned 10 percent of the original Palestine Mandate, while the Arabs received 90 percent. None of this land had belonged to a “Palestinian” nation or a Palestinian entity. In the previous 400 years there had never been a province of the Turkish empire called “Palestine.” The entire region out of which Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were created was known as “Ottoman Syria.”

In what would prove to be a continuing pattern, the Jews accepted the partition’s grossly unequal terms; their portion consisted of three unconnected slivers of land, of which 60 percent was arid desert. The Arabs, who had already received 80 percent of the Mandate land, rejected their additional portion, as they would continue to reject any arrangement that would allow for a Jewish state.

Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.

Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.

In 1967, the Arab states attacked Israel again, with the express aim of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Again they were defeated. And once again defeat did not prompt the Arab states to make peace or to abandon their efforts to destroy Israel. At an August 1967 summit in Khartoum, Arab leaders declared that they would accept “no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations” with Israel. This is the permanent Arab war against Israel. It is a war driven by religious and ethnic hatred, which is the only durable cause of the conflict in the Middle East.

It is hardly surprising, given this historical reality, that Israel should regard with skepticism the Arab demands that Israel surrender territory — which it captured in defending itself against Arab aggression — in advance of a settlement that recognizes the existence of the Jewish state. As Netanyahu has said, “What kind of moral position is it to say that the failed aggressor should be given back all the territory from which he launched his attack?” In fact, of no other nation that has been victimized — and victimized repeatedly — by aggressors is such a concession demanded.

Yet Israeli concessions are precisely what the Obama administration is demanding as a precondition of peace. It is ostensibly doing so on the dubious assumption that if only Israel would make further concessions to the Palestinians, peace would be possible. But this assumption flies in the face of 60 years of continuous Arab aggression, including unrelenting terror attacks against Israeli civilians and explicit commitments to wipe out the Jewish state.

The very idea that Israeli settlements (let alone Jewish houses in Jewish neighborhoods) are an obstacle to peace perpetuates the mythical claims of the Arab cause. There are a million Arabs settled in Israel, and they enjoy more rights as Israeli citizens than do the Arab citizens of any Arab Muslim state. So why are the settlements of a few hundred thousand Jews on the West Bank a problem? The only possible answer is Jew hatred, the desire to make the West Bank Judenrein, and ultimately the 60-year Arab campaign to push the Jews into the sea.

The Obama administration’s pressure on Israel to give up its settlements and to concede that its capital is disputed terrain feeds the inherent racism of the Arab cause and undermines Israel’s ability to resist the genocidal campaign against it. Such pressure cannot promote peace negotiations when the other party is openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction and has already shown that it will reject even the most generous offers of peace.

Directly following the Obama administration’s attacks on Israel’s building project in Jerusalem, the Palestinians invoked Israeli intransigence as a pretext for pulling out of the indirect peace talks that had been taking place. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas went on record as refusing to enter into direct talks with Israel unless it instituted an immediate construction freeze in its own capital city. Palestinians had previously participated in talks without that condition, but, as one observer noted, “How could the Palestinian position be softer on Israel than the American position? Of course the Palestinians would have to hold Israel to the newly raised standards of the Obama administration.” In this way did the Obama administration further the efforts of the Arabs to dismantle the Jewish state.

Observers of this ominous development warned that by attacking Israel over settlements the administration was encouraging a violent buildup that could eventually erupt into a third Intifada. A Hebrew-speaking Arab protester interviewed on Israeli radio called for armed resistance against Israel’s “assault on Jerusalem,” declaring that the time had come for a new Intifada. The call was taken up by Hamas, which declared a “day of rage” to lash out against Israel. Arab rioters protested in the streets, hurled stones at buses, cars, and police, and clashed with Israeli security forces. On Israel’s Highway 443, connecting Jerusalem with the city of Modi’in, Israeli Arabs firebombed passing motorists, wounding a father and his nine-month-old infant. Arab parliamentarians in the Israeli Knesset further fueled the violence. Echoing the Obama administration, one of them said, “Anyone who builds settlements in Jerusalem is digging a grave for peace.”

— David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. . . . Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy.

The preceding is the first installment of a two-part article. The second installment will appear tomorrow.

http://article.nationalreview.com/436460/obama-and-the-war-against-israel/david-horowitz-jacob-laksin

Title: Obama & Israel, III
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 22, 2010, 10:29:51 AM

Part two of the series posted yesterday:

Obama and the War against Israel, Part II
President Obama’s overtures to America’s enemies have not made the world a safer place.
 
EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of “Obama and the War against Israel” can be read here.
Even as the new Obama policies were igniting tinderboxes in the Palestinian territories, their most dangerous effects were being felt in Iran. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama had made “reaching out” to the Iranian police state a major part of his approach to the Middle East. In March 2009, he addressed a special Persian New Year message to the Iranian people and the leaders of what he called the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” itself an ingratiating reference that served to legitimize the totalitarian rule imposed on the country by the 1979 overthrow of the shah. Doubly shameful were Obama’s direct appeals to the mullahs, whom he urged to move the “Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.” At the time, Iran’s rulers were engaging in surrogate wars against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, supplying al-Qaeda and the Taliban with IEDs, which were the principal cause of the American deaths there. The contrast between Obama’s appeasement of this enemy and his aggressive displeasure toward a democratic ally could not have been more striking. It sent a dangerous message to the many other dictatorships and hostile forces in the Middle East.

Obama’s apologists insist that his message was no different from those that President Bush had previously delivered on the Persian New Year. But an actual reading of Bush’s messages reveals the absurdity of the comparison. Unlike Obama, Bush addressed his words directly to the Iranian people, not to the oppressive Iranian regime, which he condemned for pursuing nuclear weapons and depriving its citizens of the right to “live in a free society.” The word freedom appeared three times in one of Bush’s messages. It did not appear once in Obama’s. Confronting Iran’s defiance of the world community, its determination to build nuclear weapons, and its brutal suppression of its own people would have interfered with the overtures Obama was making toward a criminal regime.

In May 2009, Obama sent a personal letter to Iran’s “supreme leader,” the Ayatollah Khamenei, again disregarding his oppressed subjects. The president’s letter appealed for better “co-operation in regional and bilateral relations.” Khamenei ignored the letter. Then, in mid-June, he mentioned it scornfully in a sermon in which he inveighed against alleged American interference in Iran’s rigged elections that month.

Obama’s acquiescence in the Iranian regime’s brutal suppression of the opposition during its presidential election demonstrated how far the White House was willing to compromise its values in the interests of an elusive “dialogue” that it had come to value above all else. As pro-democracy protesters shouting, “Death to the dictator!” were being brutally crushed on the streets of Tehran, the Obama administration maintained a deafening silence. There was no official message of solidarity with the demonstrators, no serious admonition to the regime about the right of free assembly, no support for changing a regime that was killing its own citizens while threatening its neighbors. There was no stern warning to an aggressive power that was brazenly defying the international community in racing to acquire nuclear weapons.

After a week of bloodshed and arrests, the closest the administration would come to an official reproach was when Vice President Biden suggested that there was “some real doubt” about Iran’s official election results — in itself a generous understatement. Prior to the election, the victor had run close to his principal opponent in the polls, but when the ballots were counted, Ahmadinejad won in a landslide, claiming more votes than any politician in Iran’s history. However, so that Iran’s thugs would not mistake Biden’s remark for a policy statement, the vice president made it clear that neither the fraudulent election results nor the continuing repression would sway the Obama administration from its single-minded wooing of the regime. “We are ready to talk,” Biden said. Without conditions.

But the Iranian mullahs were in no mood to compromise. And why should they be? A year of defiance had cost them nothing, while gaining them precious time to carry out their designs. Ahmadinejad responded to Biden’s wrist slap by attacking America as a “crippled creature” while asserting that it was still an “oppressive system ruling the world.” Spurning Washington’s outstretched hand of friendship, he baited Obama with an invitation to take part in a debate about “the injustice done by world arrogance to Muslim nations.” Speaking at a staged “victory” rally, Ahmadinejad vowed that he would never negotiate with the United States or any foreign power over his country’s nuclear ambitions: “That file is shut, forever.”

Although it was not clear when Iran would finally be able to produce enough enriched uranium for an operational nuclear weapon, the U.S. military warned in April 2010 that the time frame could be as short as a year. Besides its illicit work on a nuclear weapon, Iran continued to develop a range of missiles that made it a regional and even a global threat. For instance, an unclassified Defense Department report released this April estimated that by 2015 Iran could have a missile capable of striking the United States. With a nuclear arsenal, Iran at last will have a chance to realize its apocalyptic dream of a holy war that will destroy the two countries it calls the source of evil in the world, “the Great Satan and the Little Satan.”

Confronted with fresh evidence of Iran’s defiance, the Obama administration did not so much stick to its guns as offer to lay them down. In April, Obama announced that the United States was no longer going to develop new nuclear weapons and would not use nuclear weapons to retaliate against non-nuclear countries that attacked the U.S. — even if they had used biological or chemical weapons. The president’s policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament did include an exception for rogue states like Iran, but given the administration’s track record of backing down in the face of Iranian intransigence, it is difficult to imagine that the warning struck fear into the hearts of the mullahs.

With Obama’s charm offensive failing, Washington was left without a strategy, a fact that Obama’s own secretary of defense conceded. Also in April, the press leaked the contents of a memorandum written by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the White House four months earlier. According to the press reports, the memorandum conceded that the U.S. possessed no effective policy to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

Obama’s multiple overtures, his apologies for America’s actions in the past, and his deference to her enemies in the present have not made the world a safer place. His attempts to make Israel — America’s most loyal ally in the Middle East and the region’s only democratic state — the culprit in the dramas engulfing the region have encouraged the jihadist cause both here and abroad.

It is hardly coincidental that Obama’s tenure in office has been accompanied by a rash of terrorist assaults within the United States (though only one has been successful so far). In September 2009, the FBI foiled a plot by three American al-Qaeda recruits to plant homemade bombs in the busiest subway stations in Manhattan during rush hour. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the attacks would have been the “most serious” since 9/11. In November, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist and a jihadist, went on a shooting rampage at the army base in Ford Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 32 others. In December, a 23-year-old jihadist from Nigeria was disarmed by fellow passengers as he tried to blow up Northwest flight 253 over Detroit using explosives he had snuck aboard the plane in his underwear. In May, a Pakistani-born naturalized American citizen, Faisal Shahzad, almost succeeded in turning New York’s Times Square into a fiery inferno when he abandoned an SUV rigged to explode there.

In the midst of these attacks by Islamic fanatics, the Obama administration refuses even to recognize the religious nature of the enemy we face. In testimony before Congress, Attorney General Holder repeatedly refused to make a connection between those terrorist acts and any religious belief, although the perpetrators themselves proclaimed their fealty to Islam and the Koran. On a separate occasion, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, John Brennan, explained the administration’s political correctness: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children” — even though many Islamic imams are on record as proclaiming that there is.

Obama insists that the United States is not at war with Islam. But it is clear that many Muslims, including the leaders of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iranian government, believe that Islam is at war with the United States and Israel. The name “Hamas” stands for “Islamic Resistance Movement.” While the Obama administration maintains that Israel’s enemies are not engaged in a religious war, the Hamas charter declares in the clearest possible terms that it is engaged in one mandated by the Prophet Mohammed, whose goal is the destruction of Israel and a genocide of its Jews: “The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. When the Jew hides behind the stones and the trees, the stones and trees will say, O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

And further: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

And: “There is no solution for the Palestine question except through jihad.”

Title: Obama & Israel, IV
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 22, 2010, 10:30:16 AM

Because of its diminutive size, Israel is a country with little margin for error. Confronted by 300 million hostile Muslim neighbors, its security depends in no small measure on the perception that it has the inalienable support of the world’s lone superpower. It is this perception that has been gravely undermined by the Obama administration, with consequences that are already apparent. It is hardly coincidental, for example, that the United Kingdom chose the precise moment of the row over housing in Jerusalem to expel unnamed Israelis from its territory for an alleged connection to the death of a notorious Hamas arms dealer in Dubai. But it is the regional ramifications of this suddenly weakened U.S.-Israel alliance that are truly worrisome.

It is only because Israel has had an American security umbrella that there has been no conventional war against it since 1973. If Israel’s enemies perceive the country to have been cast adrift by America, they will be emboldened to try once more the methods that have failed to destroy it in the past. Hezbollah is now operating bases and arms depots on Syrian territory, where it is stockpiling long-range Syrian-supplied Scud missiles capable of striking Israeli cities like Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Egypt has begun staging war games in the Sinai Peninsula using large numbers of infantry and artillery units as well as warplanes. While Egypt has justified the maneuvers as essential to maintain the readiness of its armed forces, many observers see them as a dress rehearsal for war.

The shift toward Islamic militancy and war preparations on Obama’s watch is even more pronounced in Turkey. Turkey was once a staunch NATO ally and a friend to Israel, but it has been moving for several years in a radical direction under Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Ignoring this development, Obama chose Turkey as the final stop on his first overseas visit as president, and praised it as a “model for the world.” Said Obama: “I’m trying to make a statement about the importance of Turkey, not just to the United States but to the world. I think that where there’s the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation [and] a predominantly Muslim nation — a Western nation and a nation which straddles two continents — that we can create a model international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous, that there are not tensions — inevitable tensions between cultures — which I think is extraordinarily important.”

At the very moment Obama was expressing this vapid hope, his Turkish host was moving his NATO country closer to the mullahs of Iran. While Obama had been wooing and being rejected by Iran, the mullahs had been forming an entente with Turkey that would undermine his efforts to keep them from building a nuclear weapon. This May, the Turkish prime minister met with his opposite number in Brazil to conclude a fuel-swapping deal. The deal effectively allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. With this newly formed alliance, the mullahs would be able to avoid even the ineffective sanctions that the Obama administration had finally come around to considering.

Turkey’s embrace of the Middle East’s Islamist axis — Syria, Iran, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza — occurred simultaneously with an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. With the United States standing idly by, the conference ignored the chief proliferator, Iran, while singling out Israel as the principal nuclear threat.

These ominous developments were the immediate background to the brazen attempt by Hamas and its new patron, Turkey, to break the arms blockade of Gaza, which was a joint effort by Israel and Egypt to prevent weapons from being smuggled into the terrorist state. The six ships that attempted to run the blockade departed from Istanbul and flew under Turkish flags. The flotilla’s political camouflage — it described its mission as “humanitarian” — was provided by a Turkish nongovernmental organization associated with the United Nations and known by the acronym IHH. Posing as a humanitarian aid group, the IHH is a well-documented ally of Hamas and al-Qaeda, and was identified in the trial of the “millennium bomber” as playing a key role in the plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport. The real mission of the flotilla — to break the weapons blockade — was made transparent when it refused Israel’s offer to unload any humanitarian aid it was carrying at the secure port of Ashdod.

On board one of the vessels, the Mavi Marmara, were active Turkish terrorists who had been allowed to board without inspection in Istanbul and had vowed on departure to become jihadist martyrs. The terrorists armed themselves with steel pipes and knives, and were prepared to attack any Israeli soldiers who boarded the vessel to enforce the blockade. A principal organizer of the operation was the Free Gaza Movement, which had attempted to break the blockade the previous June. Among its leaders were two close friends and political allies of President Obama, former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who paid a visit to the leader of Hamas after the effort failed. Also among its company were Jodie Evans, a major Obama donor, and British MP George Galloway, a supporter of Saddam Hussein and founder of the pro-Hamas group Viva Palestine.

Prior to the flotilla incident, the Obama White House had exerted serious pressure on Israel to exercise maximum restraint. Consequently, Israeli authorities did not equip the commandos who boarded the ship with riot gear and tear gas, and their sidearms were holstered. They descended from a helicopter armed with paint-ball guns, which proved ineffective against the steel bars and knives. They were quickly overwhelmed by what the media would insist on describing as “peace” activists, who stabbed them, beat them with the steel pipes, threw one of them off the deck, and stole two firearms, which they began shooting until the other soldiers were able to draw their sidearms and fight back. Nine of the belligerents aboard were killed and others wounded; also wounded were six Israeli soldiers, two of whom were in critical condition.

An attempt to run a wartime blockade would in other circumstances have resulted in a full naval assault. Israel’s restraint was rewarded by international media and governments alike describing the confrontation as a brutal attempt to block a humanitarian aid effort. Jihadists immediately seized on the event to further their campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state. This effort was led by Turkey, the very country behind the provocation and thus responsible for the deaths.

Prime Minister Erdogan denounced Israel as guilty of “state terrorism” and called the efforts of the Israelis to defend themselves a “bloody massacre.” He then claimed, “The heart of humanity has taken one of the heaviest wounds in history.” (This from a man who the previous year had defended Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir when he was indicted by the International Criminal Court for killing half a million Sudanese Christians and non-Arab Muslims.) Erdogan called for a jihad against Israel, and threatened that the Turkish navy would escort the next attempt to run the blockade. This threat was seconded by Iran, which vowed to send two “humanitarian aid” ships under escort by the Iranian navy. If carried out, this threat would be, in effect, a declaration of war.

In Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, a leader of the terrorist organization Fatah, Munir al-Maqdah, said, “The freedom flotilla brings a message of the beginning of the end of Israel.” He announced plans for a mass march across Israel’s northern border, using civilians as human shields. “It could be that they will just break through the border, with their children and their elderly,” he explained. “What will Israel be able to do? Even if they kill all those who take part in the march, the number of remaining Palestinians will still be more than all the Jews in the world.”

Far from voicing alarm at the jihadist threats or disapproval of Turkey’s aggression, the international community expressed its sympathy for the Islamist runners of the arms blockade. France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, deplored Israel’s “disproportionate use of force,” while Italy’s undersecretary of state for foreign affairs, Stefania Craxi, joined the Turks in condemning what she called “the massacre of Gaza.” U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-moon joined in, declaring himself “shocked” at Israel’s actions.

President Obama also failed to condemn Turkey’s role in the incident, and insisted instead that Israel allow an international body to investigate its actions. Obama then met with Mahmoud Abbas, to promise $400 million in economic aid to the West Bank and Gaza — in other words, to shore up the terrorist state and its ruling terrorist party. At the same time, senior officials of the Obama administration began telling representatives of foreign governments that the United States would support a U.N. resolution calling for a commission to investigate Israel’s (but not Turkey’s or Hamas’s) role in the incident.

This paved the way for a reprise of the Goldstone Report, which had relied on Hamas sources to condemn Israel’s defensive war in Gaza the previous year. It was essentially a demand that Israel’s right to self-defense be subject to international approval — something no sovereign country could be expected to tolerate. At the same time, the Obama administration was leaning on Israel to end its naval blockade in favor of some “new approach,” such as an international naval force. This was an even more direct assault on Israel’s right to self-defense. Not only did it challenge Israel’s fully justified efforts to keep arms and bomb-making materials out of the hands of the Hamas terrorists, but it shifted responsibility for Israel’s security to the same international community that was savaging the Jewish state for its efforts to stop the flow of arms into the hands of Hamas.

During the year and a half Obama has been in office, he has indeed brought change to America and to the world. He has transformed a nation that had been the world’s bulwark of democracy and freedom into an enabler of the very forces that are intent on destroying them. He has helped to isolate America’s only ally in the Middle East, its sole democracy and most vulnerable people. And he has brought the impending war of annihilation against the “crusaders” and the Jews, which the jihadists have promised, measurably closer to its nightmare fruition.

— David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/436748/obama-and-the-war-against-israel-part-ii/david-horowitz-jacob-laksin

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 27, 2010, 10:00:14 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7857487/US-Israeli-relations-suffer-tectonic-rift.html

Tectonic rift.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 27, 2010, 11:56:51 AM

I know Jews are unhappy with this.  Whether many of them would vote for a Republican in 12 is still not likely IMHO although I would love to be wrong here.

This presents a real opportunity for a Republican to reach out for Jewish voters.  We are a small lot but many (not me) have mucho money and influence and the power that comes with it.  I firmly believe Jews helped get the ONE into power.  Not just Soros but others.

This to me represents how Bamster can con those around him into thinking he is for them.  This to me is an example of a pathological liar and possibly some sort of psychopath or personailty disorder.  I am very glad some Jews, at least, are waking up and realizing what the other 20% like myself, and more prominent conservative Jews such as David Horowitz, Bernie Goldberg, Aaron Klein, Marc Levin, Crafty Dog ( :-D) and others already know.

Title: Is Israel positioning in Saudi Arabia?
Post by: G M on June 27, 2010, 04:31:18 PM

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=179610

I hope this means what I think it means. *fingers crossed*

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks, to enable future search requests, please lets use the Subject header for our posts.  Thank you.

Title: Tectonic rift of the day: HAMAS
Post by: G M on June 28, 2010, 07:22:18 AM

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) a.k.a. Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, Students of Ayyash, Students of the Engineer, Yahya Ayyash Units, Izz Al-Din Al-Qassim Brigades, Izz Al-Din Al-Qassim Forces, Izz Al-Din Al-Qassim Battalions, Izz al-Din Al Qassam Brigades, Izz al-Din Al Qassam Forces, Izz al-Din Al Qassam Battalions

Description: Formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both political and violent means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel. Loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others working openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS's strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and a few areas of the West Bank. Also has engaged in peaceful political activity, such as running candidates in West Bank Chamber of Commerce elections.
Activities: HAMAS activists, especially those in the Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks--including large-scale suicide bombings--against Israeli civilian and military targets, suspected Palestinian collaborators, and Fatah rivals.

Strength: Unknown number of hardcore members; tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers.

Location/Area of Operation: Primarily the occupied territories, Israel, and Jordan.

External Aid: Receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activity take place in Western Europe and North America.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3910714,00.html

Hamas says asked by US to keep silent on talks


Islamist group source says senior American officials request contacts remain secret 'so as not to rouse Jewish lobby'

Title: Re: Is Israel positioning in Saudi Arabia?
Post by: Rarick on June 29, 2010, 04:07:06 AM

Quote from: G M on June 27, 2010, 04:31:18 PM

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=179610

I hope this means what I think it means. *fingers crossed*

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks, to enable future search requests, please lets use the Subject header for our posts.  Thank you.

From the article:
“It’s interesting that the news first came from Iran,” Inbar added. “Maybe it’s a warning [from Iran] to Saudi that we know what you are doing and we are not happy about it. It’s also possible that Saudi Arabia let the news out as a warning to America that if you don’t do something, we will.”

here come the intermatiinal thumb screws for being incompetant.

Title: WSJ: Foes adopt new methods
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 02, 2010, 06:48:19 AM

By CHARLES LEVINSON
JERUSALEM—Hamas and Hezbollah, groups that have long battled Israel with violent tactics, have begun to embrace civil disobedience, protest marches, lawsuits and boycotts—tactics they once dismissed.

For decades, Palestinian statehood aspirations seemed to lurch between negotiations and armed resistance against Israel. But a small cadre of Palestinian activists has long argued that nonviolence, in the tradition of the American civil rights movement, would be far more effective.

Officials from Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, point to the recent Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, in which Israeli troops killed nine activists, as evidence there is more to gain by getting Israel to draw international condemnation through its own use of force, rather than by attacking the country.

"When we use violence, we help Israel win international support," said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank. "The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets."

Hamas and Hezbollah, the Islamist movement in Lebanon that has been fighting Israel since the early 1980s, haven't renounced violence and both groups continue to amass arms. Hamas still abides by a charter that calls for Israel's destruction; Palestinian youths still hurl rocks at Israeli soldiers across the West Bank separation barrier. And the flotilla incident didn't fall into conventional standards of peaceful protest: While most activists passively resisted Israeli soldiers, some on the boat where protesters were killed attacked commandos as they boarded, according to video footage released by Israel and soldiers' accounts.

The incident triggered international condemnation and plunged Israel into one of its worst diplomatic crises in years. In response, Israel said it would take some steps to ease its blockade on the Gaza Strip.

After the incident, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called on supporters to participate in the next flotilla bound for Gaza. Ghaleb Abu Zeinab, a member of the Hezbollah politburo in Beirut, said it was the first time Mr. Nasrallah had forcefully and publicly embraced such tactics against Israel.

"We saw that this kind of resistance has driven the Israelis into a big plight," he said. Organizers in Lebanon say they have two ships ready to sail, but no departure date has been set.

A senior Israeli foreign ministry official said Israel recognizes "changes in the tactical thinking of Hamas and other resistance movements." The official said the groups are no less committed to Israel's destruction, but have simply concluded they are more likely to defeat Israel by encouraging its international isolation instead of through military force.

"People who are provoking violence are using peaceful protest as a cover," said Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev.

The Palestinian protest movement picked up steam in the past year, spearheaded by activists in the West Bank and a coalition of pro-Palestinian international human-rights groups.

The absence of peace talks for much of the past two years has pushed the Palestinian Authority leadership to embrace the movement as well. Dominated by members of Hamas's more moderate rival Fatah, they long advocated a negotiated settlement with Israel and dismissed popular protest campaigns.

But in January, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad launched a campaign to boycott products produced in Israeli settlements and to plant trees in areas declared off limits by Israel. In April, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas outlawed settlement products in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas.

Hamas's turnaround has been more striking, said Mustapha Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian advocate for nonviolent resistance. "When we used to call for protests, and marches, and boycotts and anything called nonviolence, Hamas used these sexist insults against us. They described it as women's struggle," Mr. Barghouti said. That changed in 2008, he said, after the first aid ship successfully ran the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"Hamas has started to appreciate just how effective this can be," Mr. Barghouti said.

Hamas has started organizing its own peaceful marches into the Israeli-controlled buffer zone along the Gaza border and supported lawsuits against Israeli officials in European courts. Hamas says it has ramped up support for a committee dedicated to sponsoring similar protests in Gaza.

Mr. Dweik, the Hamas lawmaker, recently began turning up at weekly protests against Israel's West Bank barrier.

Salah Bardawil, a Hamas lawmaker in Gaza City, says Hamas has come to appreciate the importance of international support for its legitimacy as a representative of the Palestinian people and its fight against Israeli occupation, and has adapted its tactics. Hamas hasn't claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in years and now denounces the tactic as counterproductive. Since an Israeli military incursion into the territory in December 2008-January 2009, it has also halted rocket attacks into Israel.

"Hamas used to believe [international support] was just empty words," said Mr. Bardawil. "Today it is very interested in international delegations … and in bringing Israeli officials to justice through legal proceedings."

Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com

Title: European assets
Post by: rachelg on July 02, 2010, 11:34:12 AM

Editor's Notes: European assets
By DAVID HOROVITZ
02/07/2010   
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=180216
Jerusalem's touting of Europe's importance – where support for Israel once paled in comparison with Bush’s instinctive solidarity – shows how troubled and complex the Israel-US relationship has become.
 
The Bulgarian foreign minister could not have been more friendly and supportive.

At his meeting with President Shimon Peres on Tuesday, Nikolai Mladinov expressed empathy with Israel’s concerns about the Iranian nuclear drive and stressed the critical imperative to prevent Teheran achieving a weapons capability. He also backed Israeli peace efforts with the Palestinians, highlighting the need to ensure Israel’s security and prosperity.

But if those were fairly typical diplomatic formulations, Mladinov went further. He stressed that Bulgaria, which he said had been fortunate enough to see the salvation of most of its Jews from the Nazis, was a true friend of Israel – the kind of ally who is there not only when it is convenient, “but during the true hour of need.” He spoke of his country’s “strong emotional connection to Israel” and the responsibility felt by Bulgaria “to ensure Israel’s safety and its future.”

Constructively echoing the bleak “If Israel goes down, we all go down” sentiments expressed in a London Times op-ed article last week by the former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar, Mladinov declared that “Israel’s security affects Europe’s security and Bulgaria’s security... Sofia and Tel Aviv are not that far apart from each other.”

Israel is being lambasted and demonized internationally as rarely before. The rush to viciously critical judgment of Israel last month, before the facts of the flotilla interception were known, underlined the increasingly widespread international disinclination to give Israel the benefit of the doubt when assessing its behavior. Economic and cultural boycott actions are spreading like a rash.

At such a time, to hear a serving European foreign minister express such positive sentiments is welcome, indeed. And it highlighted the importance of Israel’s laudable efforts in recent years to devote serious attention to potential European partners – essential partners in these troubled times.

The realization that Europe often serves as a kind of global barometer of legitimacy in international affairs dawned some years ago in Jerusalem, and several prime and foreign ministers, including the incumbents, have rightly invested themselves in broadening the dialogue with key European players.

Relatively speaking, Israel has enjoyed partnerships with something of a dream team in Western Europe of late – with the firmly Israel-supporting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK, Angela Merkel in Germany and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy might not fall into quite the same category, but he certainly considers himself a friend and he too joined the Western European delegation that came to Israel on a leadership solidarity mission at the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead.

Quiet, sustained interaction with Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Poland,  Romania, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria has also yielded deepened understanding, of the type exemplified by Mladinov’s comments.

This European outreach is all the more valuable given the tensions in ties between Jerusalem and Washington over the past year or so. The fact that at least part of Europe is fairly sympathetic to Israel’s cause is a vital asset for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to take with him to Washington next week.

Indeed, it is a measure of how troubled and complex the Israel-US relationship has become that Europe – where support for Israel once paled by comparison with Bush’s instinctive solidarity – is now touted by Jerusalem as so important.

WHAT JERUSALEM has gradually internalized, as Netanyahu sets off for that critical meeting with Barack Obama, is the extent to which this president is ideologically committed to bringing America closer to the heart of international consensus – reversing what he perceives as the untenable relative isolation of the country he inherited from president George W. Bush.

The assessment in Jerusalem, indeed, is that Bush had no qualms whatsoever in defying international conventional wisdoms where he felt the necessity – indeed, that he saw such foreign policy independence as a sign of American leadership. President Bill Clinton was not quite as ready to play the maverick. And Obama has made plain a greater desire to work within the international diplomatic and legal forums wherever possible.

Hence, goes the thinking here, the president’s reluctance to torpedo UN moves toward an international inquiry into the flotilla interception, and the effort instead to work toward some kind of compromise on the modalities of the investigation – to Israel’s dismay.

Hence, too, to Israel’s still greater dismay, the American refusal to walk away from May’s Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference even as it obsessively and ridiculously twisted its focus away from global nuclear villain Iran to demonstratively dependable Israel. In 2005, Bush essentially washed his hands of the NPT review conference in order to protect Israel; in 2010, Obama stayed put, pushed unsuccessfully for a final document that would not harm Israel, and lamented the Israel-bashing result. As everyone from rookie real estate agents to ultra-sharp business moguls knows, when your adversaries can gauge that you’re not going to walk away from the deal, your leverage is gone and your capacity to steer things your way is lost.

Nevertheless, facing what Ambassador Michael Oren described to The Jerusalem Post last week as the “tectonic shift” in America’s foreign policy outlook, and given the top priority Israel necessarily attaches to the imperative to thwart Iran, Netanyahu will set out for Washington well aware that Israel simply cannot afford a collapse in its relationship with its key ally, even if that ally has become somewhat less reliable.

In Netanyahu’s circle, it is confidently stated that Iran will be the key issue on the agenda for the visit, and there are some who want to suggest that matters relating to the Palestinians – including the vexed issue of whether the prime minister will extend the 10-month settlement moratorium – may not come to a head.

This analysis seems wildly wrongheaded, and it is emphatically not shared by several members of the government’s inner “septet.”

More dovish figures such as Ehud Barak and Dan Meridor are urging Netanyahu, therefore, to come to the White House with constructive proposals; Barak declared on Monday that an “assertive” Israeli diplomatic plan was vital to the maintenance of the US-Israel “special security relationship.”

More hawkish figures like Moshe Ya’alon fear that the prime minister will capitulate to US pressure, while Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s idea of constructive proposals, as set out in his op-ed in these pages last week, are not the kind Netanyahu has any intention of advancing.

While Lieberman may think differently, Netanyahu knows that there is no substitute for strong Israeli-American ties. But traveling to Washington with a considerable amount of common ground in Israeli-European ties is a significant plus. It means that, for consensus-minded Obama, backing Israel is not a case of going out on a limb in the face of the entire international community.

The loss of the alliance with Turkey is a heavy blow in this context, but still, the sheer extravagant viciousness of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s anti-Israel stance has deeply discredited the criticisms he has leveled. And the relatively strong relationship Netanyahu has cultivated with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is a further plus. It is unfortunate that not quite the same can be said of the Israeli-Jordanian leadership relationship at present.

AHEAD OF Netanyahu’s crucial visit, Israeli ties to the US have not been enhanced by what seems to have been the deliberate misrepresentation, by one or more officials at the Foreign Ministry, of Ambassador Oren’s assessment of relations – as detailed in our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon’s dismaying analysis (“The truth about tectonic shifts, rifts and an ambassador’s vital credibility”) on Wednesday.

The prime minister will also be setting out in the midst of an undignified public spat with Lieberman over the dispatch of Binyamin Ben-Eliezer to try to salvage our relations with Turkey. This was a move that both undermined the foreign minister and illustrated the familiar dysfunctionality of Israel’s foreign policy.

Remarkably, too, Israel also found a new way to shoot itself in the foot, albeit with only minor repercussions, prior to the prime minister’s departure.

Bulgaria’s Mladinov was joined in Israel this week by other visiting European dignitaries, including his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, and the Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves. But the visits of all three were blighted by Foreign Ministry staffers, who instituted work sanctions in ill-directed support of eminently reasonable pay demands.

Thus Lavrov and Lieberman were forced to hold their joint press conference at the King David Hotel rather than at the ministry, Ilves had to cancel a wreath-laying cemetery at Herzl’s tomb, his wife was left without a car to bring her back from a restaurant in Abu Ghosh, and the admirable Mladinov was also initially left car-less, at Yad Vashem.

None of these undiplomatic incidents remotely constitutes a catastrophe. But the readiness to disrupt the visits of important foreign dignitaries in the cause of an internal pay dispute is symptomatic of the wider malaise.     

A Channel 2 news story detailing some of these embarrassments concluded with the reporter’s assertion that the Foreign Ministry workers have evidently recognized that the only thing this government understands are threats and a resort to forceful action.

Another conclusion might be that even those whose very job is to advance Israel’s international well-being – employers and employees alike – have lost sight of the national interest. For how else could they allow themselves to sabotage even those who are standing out as friends during what is, indeed, a “true hour of need”?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on July 03, 2010, 05:34:12 AM

Coopt Israel into the new Russian Federated sphere?  Given Obama is pretty socialist in his outlook, he may not think that is a bad thing?

Title: Buraq Hussein Obama and "Them Jews"
Post by: G M on July 06, 2010, 08:22:10 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502889.html

A Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the foreign minister made his comments, said Obama plans to press the Israeli leader to apologize to defuse tensions.

"The president is very concerned about the breakdown in Turkish-Israeli relations," the diplomat said. Asked if he thought Obama could persuade Netanyahu to apologize, the diplomat added: "I'm sure he'll give it the college try."

**Wow! Who could have forseen this?**

Title: Stratfor: A complicated alliance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 07, 2010, 10:55:05 PM

I like Stratfor a lot, but some elements of the following strike me as either glib or lacking in candor.

=-=====================

The United States and Israel: A Complicated Alliance

U.S. President Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Tuesday. In sharp contrast with the Israeli premier’s last visit to the White House in March, this meeting took place in a very cordial atmosphere with both leaders going out of their way to show that recent tensions between the two sides were a thing of the past. Obama said he hoped direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) would resume, while Netanyahu said he was willing to meet with PNA President Mahmoud Abbas at any time.

These comments from both leaders represent a marked difference in the relations between the two allies, who have for months been at odds over the Palestinian issue. The Obama administration had been pressing the Netanyahu government to make concessions to the Palestinians, which Washington needs as part of its strategy for the region and the wider Islamic world. Netanyahu and his conservative allies had been resisting the American demand.

What has changed and how did it lead to the rebalancing of U.S.-Israeli relations? It should be noted that even before the Americans and the Israelis clashed on the Palestinian issue they were at odds over how to deal with an increasingly assertive Iran, which from the Israeli point of view is a far more significant national security issue than the Palestinian problem. Consequently, Israel was demanding that the United States engage in action that would actually force Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and limit the extent to which Iran could increase its influence in the region.

“Before the Americans and the Israelis clashed on the Palestinian issue they were at odds over how to deal with an increasingly assertive Iran.”
The United States needs to withdraw its forces from Iraq. To do so, it needs to reach an understanding with Tehran that will ensure a withdrawal that doesn’t create a vacuum that the Iranians could exploit to their advantage. After months of trying to create a consensus among key world players (especially the Russians), the United States has been able to put a sanctions regime in place, which falls short of Israeli expectations, even though the sanctions are not altogether toothless. This move has helped the United States obtain concessions from the Israelis on the Palestinian issue.

It is therefore not a coincidence that on the same day Obama and Netanyahu met, Israeli press carried reports that the Israeli military was taking action against a number of its soldiers who were involved in the killing of Palestinian civilians during the 2008 offensive in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli gesture will allow the United States to go to the Palestinians and seek reciprocity in an effort to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But the United States knows that the Palestinians — due to their deep internal divisions — will not be able to make any meaningful progress toward a settlement.

But as far as Washington is concerned, that is not a problem. The United States’ goal here is not to achieve a settlement, as it will remain elusive as long as the Palestinians remain divided. Instead, the Obama administration wants to let the Arab/Muslim world know that it has tried hard to resolve the matter, but that the problem lies with the Palestinians and their state of affairs. This way Washington can try to better position itself between Israel and the Arab/Muslim countries in an effort to realize its strategic objectives in the region.

The problem with this approach is that it provides only temporary respite for the United States. Despite the fact that Palestinian disunity is a key reason preventing any movement toward the creation of a sovereign Palestinian entity, many Arab/Muslim states will not stop demanding that Washington pressure Israel. Likewise, the United States cannot change the reality that its interests in the region do not converge with Israel’s.

The United States has to reach an accommodation with Iran, which means Washington can only go so far in isolating Iran. The new sanctions only buy the United States time to sort out its real dispute with the Islamic republic, which has to do with regime security and the future regional balance of power in the wake of a post-American Iraq. In other words, the underlying structural factors that have caused a divergence in U.S. and Israeli interests are bound to complicate relations between the two allies.

Title: Israel exposes intel to warn Hez
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 08, 2010, 10:32:07 AM

second post:

Israel exposes valuable intelligence to warn Hezbollah
Israel is planning for the next round of fighting in the north by publicizing that Hezbollah has moved most of its facilities into southern Lebanon's Shi'ite villages.
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel
Tags: Israel news Lebanon Hezbollah IDF Four years after the end of the Second Lebanon War, the Northern Command of the Israel Defense Forces did something unusual on Wednesday: A great deal of valuable intelligence information about the Lebanese town of al-Hiyam, presumably gathered over a long period of time, was sacrificed for a much greater purpose. The command presented to the media, in great detail, Hezbollah military preparations in the southeast Lebanon town, including accurate maps, photographs and information about Hezbollah military installations situated near civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

  A UN patrol in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah clashed with Israel in 2006
 
Photo by: (Archive) 

The move was not solely in the service of Israel's public relations. The head of the Strategic Division of the IDF Planning Branch, Brig. Gen. Yossi Hayman, presented it in June at United Nations headquarters. This is a battle for political legitimacy and credibility. Israel is planning for the next round of fighting in the north and assumes that it will involve hard combat with Hezbollah, which has moved most of its bunkers, command centers and rocket stores in southern Lebanon out of fields and into the 160 Shi'ite villages and towns in the area. In doing so the organization is implementing lessons that came out of combat in Lebanon in 2006 and the Gaza Strip in 2008.

The publication of detailed information about Hezbollah's intentions sends the organization a clear warning of what it can expect to face if it starts a war while preparing the international community for the measures the IDF is likely to take. The optimists believe that Hezbollah will think twice before starting a provocation (in part because it is now aware of the extent of Israeli intelligence penetration of its ranks ).

The pessimists assume that at the very least the international community will have a head's-up about what Israel is confronting and its need to act forcefully against an enemy that operates from within civilian population centers while targeting Israel's own civilian population.

The disclosures could expose Israeli intelligence-gathering techniques. They will also cause Hezbollah to change its preparations, at least in al-Hiyam. The IDF apparently concluded that in view of what is at stake, the price was one worth paying. The issue is directly linked to statements during a recent lecture by GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot. He said that Israel's enemies have come to believe that Israel's rear bases and its civilian population are the weak point that balances out its military superiority.

One could draw an indirect connection with the recent report of the Military Advocate General of investigations into alleged violations of the laws of war during Operation Cast Lead. The IDF is investigating itself and trying individual soldiers and officers for violating combat doctrine, insisting all the while that its combat methods are legitimate.

At that same lecture, Eizenkot presented the IDF's program for countering the Hezbollah threat: warning civilian populations in accordance with international law and giving them time to leave the war zone, followed by a broad, massive attack on Hezbollah targets together with precision targeting of the organization's rocket and missile launch sites.

The various declarations do not necessarily mean that war will erupt in the north this summer. Military Intelligence assessments, too, suggest that Syria and Hezbollah are not interested in a confrontation at this time. The Northern Command, however, must prepare as if war will break out any minute, and it must consider that it may not get a head's-up from MI.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 08, 2010, 02:47:32 PM

    President Obama said that the US and Israel share an "unbreakable" bond.

    Obama should know. He's been trying to break it for months.

           - Fred Thompson

Title: POTH: Kristoff: Waiting for Ghandi
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2010, 06:49:36 AM

Waiting for Gandhi
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 9, 2010
BILIN, West Bank
 
Despite being stoned and tear-gassed on this trip, I find a reed of hope here. It’s that some Palestinians are dabbling in a strategy of nonviolent resistance that just might be a game-changer.
The organizers hail the methods of Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., recognizing that nonviolent resistance could be a more powerful tool to achieve a Palestinian state than rockets and missiles. Bilin is one of several West Bank villages experimenting with these methods, so I followed protesters here as they marched to the Israeli security fence.

Most of the marchers were Palestinians, but some were also Israeli Jews and foreigners who support the Palestinian cause. They chanted slogans and waved placards as photographers snapped photos. At first the mood was festive and peaceful, and you could glimpse the potential of this approach.

But then a group of Palestinian youths began to throw rocks at Israeli troops. That’s the biggest challenge: many Palestinians define “nonviolence” to include stone-throwing.

Soon after, the Israeli forces fired volleys of tear gas at us, and then charged. The protesters fled, some throwing rocks backward as they ran. It’s a far cry from the heroism of Gandhi’s followers, who refused even to raise their arms to ward off blows as they were clubbed.

(I brought my family with me on this trip, and my kids experienced the gamut: we were stoned by Palestinian kids in East Jerusalem, and tear-gassed by Israeli security forces in the West Bank.)

Another problem with these protests, aside from the fact that they aren’t truly nonviolent, is they typically don’t much confound the occupation authorities.

But imagine if Palestinians stopped the rock-throwing and put female pacifists in the lead. What if 1,000 women sat down peacefully on a road to block access to an illegal Jewish settlement built on Palestinian farmland? What if the women allowed themselves to be tear-gassed, beaten and arrested without a single rock being thrown? Those images would be on televisions around the world — particularly if hundreds more women marched in to replace those hauled away.

“This is what Israel is most afraid of,” said Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, a prominent Palestinian who is calling for a nonviolent mass movement. He says Palestinians need to create their own version of Gandhi’s famous 1930 salt march.

One genuinely peaceful initiative is a local boycott of goods produced by Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Another is the weekly demonstrations in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah against evictions of Palestinians there. And in Gaza, some farmers have protested Israel’s no-go security zones by publicly marching into those zones, even at the risk of being shot.

So far there is no Palestinian version of Martin Luther King Jr. But one candidate might be Ayed Morrar. A balding, mild-mannered activist, he was the mastermind behind the most successful initiative so far: nonviolent demonstrations a half-dozen years ago in the West Bank village of Budrus against Israel’s construction of a security fence there. More than many other Palestinians, he has a shrewd sense of public relations.

“With nonviolent struggle, we can win the media battle,” Mr. Morrar told me, speaking in English. “They always used to say that Palestinians are killers. With nonviolence, we can show that we are victims, that we are not against Jews but are against occupation.”

Mr. Morrar spent six years in Israeli prisons but seems devoid of bitterness. He says that Israel has a right to protect itself by building a fence — but on its own land, not on the West Bank.

Most Palestinian demonstrations are overwhelmingly male, but in Budrus women played a central role. They were led by Mr. Morrar’s quite amazing daughter, Iltezam Morrar. Then 15, she once blocked an Israeli bulldozer by diving in front of it (the bulldozer retreated, and she was unhurt).

Israeli security forces knew how to deal with bombers but were flummoxed by peaceful Palestinian women. Even when beaten and fired on with rubber bullets, the women persevered. Finally, Israel gave up. It rerouted the security fence to bypass nearly all of Budrus.

The saga is chronicled in this year’s must-see documentary “Budrus,” a riveting window into what might be possible if Palestinians adopted civil disobedience on a huge scale. In a sign of interest in nonviolent strategies, the documentary is scheduled to play in dozens of West Bank villages in the coming months, as well as at international film festivals.

I don’t know whether Palestinians can create a peaceful mass movement that might change history, and their first challenge will be to suppress the stone-throwers and bring women into the forefront. But this grass-roots movement offers a ray of hope for less violence and more change.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 11, 2010, 07:00:17 AM

The islamic death cult has no interest in non-violence Might as well speculate about meat eating vegans.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 11, 2010, 04:00:48 PM

"Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us. "Prime Minister Golda Meir.


Unfortunately, The Palestinians actions seem to be more of a tactical switch than a philosophical one .

"Another problem with these protests, aside from the fact that they aren’t truly nonviolent"

They aren't nonviolent at all. It is a publicity stunt. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on July 13, 2010, 05:39:30 AM

The Gahndi stuff means that someone in the PA finally read a Tom Clancy novel.  This is stuff that starts a certain set of fictional dominoes falling.  That does not mean that gahndi's tactics won't work in real life, if they could get the kids to stop throwing stone and stand/sit fast in the tear gas.............  The object is to make it clear WHO is initiating force above and beyond that used by regular police for normal crowd control.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 13, 2010, 07:10:27 AM

The stone throwing children are encouraged and praised.

 Homicide Bombers are treated like celebrities. In America  kids grow up wanting to be famous athletes and entertainers.  There kids grow up wanting   to  murder others by killing themselves .

Here are  pictures  of children from as young as infants dressed  as homicide bomber or armed with real and fake weapons.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/PalestinianChildAbuse/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 13, 2010, 08:12:44 AM

I agree with Rarick on this one.  "if they could get the kids to stop throwing stone and stand/sit fast in the tear gas....."
"The object is to make it clear WHO is initiating force above and beyond that used by regular police for normal crowd control."

And yes, I agree,  "The Palestinians actions seem to be more of a tactical switch than a philosophical one ."  But it is clever.  The flotilla debacle
was far more effective than a few boys throwing stones or even a suicide bomber.

For example, on July 10th, a highly acclaimed documentary called Budrus premiered at the Jerusalem Film Festival. The film, an Israeli-Palestinian coproduction, chronicles the nonviolent resistance by villagers in Budrus, a small Palestinian farming community of some 1,500 people about 30 km. northwest of Ramallah and three km. from the Green Line, against the construction of the security barrier whose route cuts through the village’s land.
http://forecasthighs.com/2010/07/10/budrus-a-film-flotilla/


I think this comment from the film sums up the effectiveness of nonviolence.
An Israeli activist tells us in Budrus that "nothing scares the army more than nonviolent opposition."  

In the long run, world opinion will matter.  The Palestinians seem to be learning.
The Hamas lawmaker Aziz Dweik told the Wall Street Journal that "When we use violence, we help Israel win international support."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 13, 2010, 10:09:27 AM

And why did Israel build the barrier?

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/17/terror-in-tel-aviv/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 13, 2010, 11:17:23 AM

Quote from: G M on July 13, 2010, 10:09:27 AM

And why did Israel build the barrier?

Did you read my LinK?

"The villagers are repeatedly shown saying they have no problem with Israel building a barrier to defend its citizens, but that the barrier should be built within Israel, not over the Green Line."

I wish we would build a "wall" within the USA, between Mexico and the USA.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 13, 2010, 04:24:12 PM

I doubt very much that the wall was built that way without good reason.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 13, 2010, 05:51:42 PM

Should the US give pack territory paid for  or won in a war they didn't start and if not why are you holding Israel to a different standard? 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 14, 2010, 02:48:19 PM

Rachel, I'm a little confused by your question; to my recollection in the last 50 years,
despite all the wars/skirmishes we have fought, the USA didn't acquire ANY territory.  Further, I doubt
in the end we will have anything to show for our effort in Iraq and despite all the supposed
mineral wealth in Afganistan I doubt if we will end up with one piece of coal.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on July 14, 2010, 03:04:32 PM

50 years is certainly a convenient cut off point as WWII was the last major point in time where a lot of territory and spheres of influence changed hands, witness arguments about US presence in Okinawa, etc. Speak to a Mexican nationalist, however, if you want to know why major chunks of the southwest, including your stomping grounds, should be ceded to our southern neighbor as they are said to have been unfairly gained by gringo conquest. Bet GM could enlighten you as to Native American feelings on the subject, too boot.

My take is that Rachel's question stands, unanswered.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 14, 2010, 04:23:25 PM

I suppose you are right; we could could go back 150+ years to the Mexican American Wars, or even further, 200+ (although confiscation continued thereafter)
regarding the Native American Indians, but given my approximate lifetime I chose 50 years.  A round number.  Also, modern Israel is only approximately 60 years old.

Therefore my point/question is that in all the many wars we have fought in the last 50-60 years, while we clearly could have demanded/taken
territory/assets, to the best of my recollection, we NEVER did. 

Yet perhaps you are right.  Rachel's referral to "holding Israel to a different standard" is really referring to action the USA took over 50+ years ago? 
Before Modern Israel even existed?  Yet that doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison to me. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 14, 2010, 04:41:31 PM

None of my business but now that the question is understood perhaps it could be answered rather than quibbling over the difference between 60 and 150 years.  Did core principles change in that time?

"while we clearly could have demanded/taken territory/assets, to the best of my recollection, we NEVER did."

I wonder if George Bush will get an apology from his critics.  "Iraq invaded for oil": one million Google hits on that.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 14, 2010, 07:54:16 PM

Lets hypothetically say in the last 50 years Mexico started a few wars  with the US  with the battles taking place in California.   We won the wars  at much cost to our soldiers and  civilians.  During the battles we acquired strategically important areas.   Keep in Mind during the battle  Mexico had been deliberately targeted  civilians including bombing  preschools kindergartens and school-buses. In this situation you think  that the US should give back the  strategically important land when building a fence to protect its civilians? Or do you think Israel should be treated differently?  The purpose of the fence in Israel is for security . It is not a political boundary.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 14, 2010, 08:52:38 PM

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2006/01/israels-trail-of-tears.html

"Land for peace" didn't work out so well for the native peoples of north america, right JDN?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 14, 2010, 09:06:24 PM

Rachel, I was looking forward to your response.

I understand your point.  My objection was dragging the US into the comparison.  No offense, but in my opinion you drew a poor analogy.

If you don't mind, let's forget the US in the comparison.  Rather, let's look at the basic issue; acquired land.
You said, "The purpose of the fence in Israel is for security".

Frankly, I have no problem with the fence or the land.  Nor did the people of Budrus.  Or most Americans.  Israel is threatened on all sides.  They cannot lose; they do not get peace with a second chance nor will the Arabs forgive and forget as we have done many times.

However, my point, or should I say the documentary's point, is why build the wall in acquired territory?  You can keep the land, until
a reasonable treaty is established, but still build the wall inside Israel.  And why, as the movie documents, is it such a convoluted wall?
I for example am a fan of building a wall inside the US to keep illegal immigrants out, but I would expect the wall to be built within the US.

Back to the topic, the effectiveness of non violence.  IMHO I think others on this site underestimate the power and influence of world opinion.  As Rarick
mentioned, ""if they could get the kids to stop throwing stone and stand/sit fast in the tear gas....."
"The object is to make it clear WHO is initiating force above and beyond that used by regular police for normal crowd control."

The "battle" is not only being fought on the battlefield, but in the "court" of world opinion.  In my opinion, if the Palestinians are able to convey
an "oppressed" image, they will be far more effective than stones or even suicide bombers could ever be.

As I quoted, the Hamas lawmaker Aziz Dweik told the Wall Street Journal that "When we use violence, we help Israel win international support."

You are right, "the Palestinians actions seem to be more of a tactical switch than a philosophical one" nevertheless, IMHO it is "good" tactics. 

A tactic perhaps more dangerous than simple stones...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2010, 07:30:47 AM

I agree that were non-violence to be applied with some consistency and intelligence that it would be a formidable tactic.  Indeed, given the dishonesty and the bigotry aimed at Israel, it is likely to be a formidable tactic even when applied without consistency and/or intelligence.

Title: Success on the seas
Post by: rachelg on July 18, 2010, 08:20:21 PM

I don't think my analogy was a poor one. I think you are avoiding the question and holding Israel to a different standard than you would judge the US .   Israel has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens and has a moral ,ethical, and legal right to  do so with territory over the green line.  The fence and the fences path was chosen for security reasons. You can ignore  security reasons for building  over the green line  but if you choose to do so you are either being  misguided or misinformed  about the necessities of Israel security or disingenuous. 

The fence  as it now stands including the parts over the green line  has saved the lives of many Israeli Citizens and probably the lives of some would be  homicide bombers. 

 
Success on the seas
The handling of the 'Amalthea' provides a lesson.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=181735

The docking in El-Arish last Wednesday of the Libyan Gaza-bound “aid ship” marks – from the Israeli perspective – a desirable ending to another maritime provocation. In our circumstances, nothing is ever guaranteed outright, but this may signal a new approach following the Mavi Marmara fiasco. This latest installment in what doubtlessly is an ongoing saga may just possibly indicate that operative conclusions have been drawn from what went wrong last time.

It’s clear such stunts will continue. Every last drop of propaganda-profit will be squeezed out before these ships are abandoned in favor of new ploys.

The handling of the Amalthea provides an object lesson in just how to crisis-manage such challenges.

The approach may not always work. Much, crucially, depends on the degree of aggression and malice onboard. But some of the practicable rules followed in this case will be applicable henceforth.

Most prominent in the new approach is the resort to diplomatic channels. The advantage is twofold: world opinion is put on notice that Israel wishes to avoid confrontation without sacrificing its vital security interests. Simultaneously, indirect contacts are utilized to avoid confrontation, and lead to the sort of compromise that redirected the Amalthea to Egypt.

In a sense, Israel came out having its cake and eating it too. It deterred the Libyans without resorting to violence – and without the attendant bad press.

It’s obvious that, this time, the legal ramifications of blocking foreign intruders were taken into account. Hence the decision not to engage the Amalthea in international waters. The Libyans were shadowed and warned throughout, but they weren’t to be physically thwarted unless and until they were out of international waters.

THE ROLE of the Cuban captain also needs to be focused upon. The Mavi Marmara incident had shown ship owners that they have much to lose when collaborating in the Hamas-inspired campaign to embarrass Israel and create a false façade of starvation in Gaza. The Mavi Marmara isn’t back in the business of making money for its owners. It’s still moored at Ashdod Port and there is no telling when it will be released.

This certainly is another potent weapon in Israel’s hands and one which should not be relinquished too quickly.

The combination of military deterrent and diplomatic action had already proved itself in the cases of the Iranian and Lebanese/Iranian-proxy boats.

Although the intelligence services continue to keep watch for the possibility of such sailings, it wasn’t for nothing that they “rescheduled”/called off their much-touted plans.

Likewise, the outcome of the Libyan episode is nothing to downplay. Potentially the Libyans are no less dangerous. Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi now serves as Arab League chairman and apparently feels obliged to prove that Arabs can outdo anything the Turks boast about. He cannot let Ankara’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan become the new Muslim super-hero.

Hamas, for its part, has every incentive to escalate the “nautical intifada.” This is a surefire popularity booster in the Palestinian context as well as in the domestic contexts of assorted Arab states. The approaching month of Ramadan is only likely to raise flotilla-fervor and its demagogic value.


Hamas needs to crush the Israeli blockade to facilitate large-scale rearmament. This isn’t only an anti-Israeli gambit but one calculated to give Hamas the upper hand against Fatah. That is why Hamas refused to accept the Egyptian-brokered truce with the PA recently. This is all about creating a viable Iranian outpost in Gaza. And that is something Egypt also wishes to foil.

The way in which the Libyan maneuver was resolved serves all anti-Hamas/Iran forces in the region. With that in mind, the El Arish solution sets an important precedent for Israel, one it can cite as a workable solution and one which demonstrates Israel’s disinclination for belligerence.

The very establishment of this precedent will hopefully reduce at least some of the pressure on Israel – and take some of the wind out of the sails of Hamas and its well-

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Russ on July 19, 2010, 02:31:05 AM

Frank Luntz on Why American Jewish Students Won’t Defend Israel
Evelyn Gordon - 07.18.2010 - 12:22 PM

PR guru Frank Luntz gave a lengthy interview last week to the Jerusalem Post’s David Horovitz. Much of it was what one might expect from a PR guru. But one incident he described was shocking: a session with 35 MIT and Harvard students, 20 non-Jews and 15 Jews:

    “Within 10 minutes, the non-Jews started with ‘the war crimes of Israel,’ with ‘the Jewish lobby,’ with ‘the Jews have a lot more power and influence’ – stuff that’s borderline anti-Jewish.

    And guess what? Did the Jewish kids at the best schools in America, did they stand up for themselves? Did they challenge the assertions? They didn’t say sh*t. And in that group was the leader of the Israeli caucus at Harvard. It took him 49 minutes of this before he responded to anything.”

After three hours, Luntz dismissed the non-Jews and confronted the Jews, furious that “you all didn’t say sh*t.”

    “And it all dawned on them: If they won’t say it to their classmates, whom they know, who will they stand up for Israel to? Two of the women in the group started to cry. … The guys are like, “Oh my God, I didn’t speak up, I can’t believe I let this happen.” And they’re all looking at each other with horrible embarrassment and guilt like you wouldn’t believe.”

But Luntz didn’t stop with illustrating this gaping hole in what American Jews are evidently teaching their children; he also explained it:

    “The problem that I see is that so many parents in the Jewish community taught their kids not to judge. I’m going to say something that’s a little bit ideological, but I find that kids on the right are far more likely to stand up for Israel than kids on the left. Because kids on the right believe that there is an absolute right and wrong; this is how they’ve been raised.

    Kids on the left have been taught not to judge. Therefore those on the left will not judge between Israel and the Palestinians; those on the right will.”

This is a travesty — because this particular right/left difference shouldn’t exist. First, it’s a travesty of everything the left once stood for — which was upholding a particular set of values, not refusing to judge between those values and others. Willingness to defend your own values shouldn’t be a trait limited to the right.

But it’s also a travesty because it shouldn’t be hard for any Jewish leftist to explain why Israel, for all its flaws, is still a far better example of the left’s one-time values, such as freedom, democracy, tolerance, and human rights, than any of its enemies. As Israel’s first Bedouin diplomat, Ishmael Khaldi, said in explaining why he chose to represent a country that allegedly oppresses his fellow Muslim Arabs, “We’re a multicultural, multilingual, multireligious country and I’m happy and proud to be part of it.”

Israel’s PR failings are innumerable. But if American Jews can’t get this particular message across to their children, the fault isn’t Israel’s; it’s their own. And only American Jews themselves can fix it.

Title: WSJ: Why hasn't Israel hit Iran?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 20, 2010, 05:10:20 AM

Why hasn't Israel bombed Iran yet? It's a question I often get from people who suppose I have a telepathic hotline to Benjamin Netanyahu's brain. I don't, but for a long time I was confident that an attack would happen in the first six months of this year. Since it didn't, it's worth thinking through why.

First, though, let me explain my previous thinking. In the spring of 2008, there was intense speculation that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, fresh from ordering an attack on a covert Syrian reactor, was giving serious thought to an Israeli strike on Iran. President Bush—whom Israelis believed would give them the diplomatic cover and logistical support they would need for such a strike, especially if things went amiss—had only a few months left to go. The release of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claiming (erroneously, as we now know) that Iran had halted its nuclear weaponization effort meant it was highly unlikely that the U.S. would attack.

Finally, Israeli planners understood that the longer they delayed a strike, the harder it would be to achieve meaningful effects. Iran would have more time to harden its facilities, improve its defenses, and disperse its nuclear materials.

So why didn't Israel act then? A variety of reasons, the most plausible of which was that Mr. Olmert believed an Israeli strike on Iran was a huge gamble, and that it would be rash to attack before every diplomatic, political or covert means to stop Iran's nuclear bid had been explored. Then came Barack Obama with his time-limited offer to negotiate with Tehran, followed by Iran's post-election unrest, which briefly aroused hopes that the regime might be toppled from within.

By the end of last year, it was clear that both hopes were misplaced. It was clear that the limited sanctions being contemplated by the Obama administration were not of a kind to deter Iran from its nuclear bids. It was clear that those bids were moving steadily closer to fruition. And it was clear that the administration was ill-inclined to take military action of its own.

All of which persuaded me that, having duly given Mr. Obama's diplomacy the benefit of the doubt, Israel—under the more hawkish leadership of Mr. Netanyahu—would strike, sooner rather than later. Plainly I was wrong.

What gives? Here are four theories in ascending order of significance and plausibility.

The first is that Israeli military planners have concluded that any attack would be unlikely to succeed (or succeed at a reasonable price). Maybe. But this analysis fails to appreciate the depth of Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran, and the lengths they are prepared to go to stop it. A successful strike on Iran may be at the outer periphery of Israel's capabilities, but senior Israeli military and political leaders insist it is not completely beyond it.

More
India Sees Hurdle in U.S. Sanctions
.A second theory is that Israel is biding its time as it improves its military capabilities on both its offensive and defensive ends. Yesterday Israel completed tests of its "Iron Dome" missile defense shield, designed to guard against the kind of short-range rockets that Hamas and Hezbollah might use in retaliation against an Israeli strike on Iran. The system will begin coming on line in November. Israel is also mulling the purchase of a semi-stealthy variant of the F-15 as an alternative to the much more expensive F-35, delivery of which has been delayed till 2015. What Israel decides could be a telling indicator of what it intends.

The third theory concerns the internal dynamics of Israeli politics. Mr. Netanyahu may favor a strike, but he will not order one without the consent of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, President Shimon Peres, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and perhaps also Mossad chief Meir Dagan. This inner cabinet is said to be uniformly against a strike, with the wavering exception of Mr. Barak. But Mr. Ashkenazi and Mr. Dagan are due to step down within a few months, and who Mr. Netanyahu chooses to replace them will have a material bearing on the government's attitude toward a strike.

Finally, Israeli leaders are mindful of history. Put aside the routine comparisons between a prospective military strike on Iran with Israel's quick and effective destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. As I'm reminded by Michael Doran, a Middle East scholar at NYU, Israel's leaders are probably no less alert to the lessons of the Suez War in 1956. Back then, a successful military operation by Britain, France and Israel to humiliate Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser (in many ways the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of his day) fell afoul of the determined political opposition of the Eisenhower administration, which mistakenly thought that it could curry favor with the Arabs by visibly distancing itself from Israel and its traditional European allies. Sound familiar?

There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let's hope so. Israel may ultimately be willing to attack Iran once it reckons that it has run out of other options, as it did prior to the Six Day War. But its tactical margin for error will be slim, particularly since an effective strike will require days not hours. And the political risks it runs will be monumental. As Mr. Doran notes, in 1956 it could at least count on the diplomatic support of two members of the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.S. is its last significant friend.

This is an unenviable position, and Israel's friends abroad would do well to spare it easy lectures. Iran is not Israel's problem alone. It should not be Israel's problem alone to solve, to its own frightful peril.

Title: WSJ: Preventing the next Lebanon War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 20, 2010, 05:14:08 AM

Second post of the morning:

By STEPHEN P. COHEN
Four years ago last week, Hezbollah launched a cross-border attack from Lebanon into Israel. Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two reservists kidnapped. (They died sometime later, and their remains were subsequently returned to Israel in a prisoner exchange). This attack ignited a month-long war. Israel responded with an air, sea and ground campaign, while Hezbollah launched some 4,000 rockets and missiles into the Jewish state. Nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon and 160 in Israel died.

The summer 2006 war ended with United Nations resolution 1701, which imposed a blockade on weapons intended for Hezbollah and banned it from operating near the Israeli border. To implement its provisions, the resolution dispatched a U.N. peacekeeping force to Southern Lebanon which, as of April, numbers over 11,000 troops from 31 nations.

Israel recently embarked on an extraordinary form of deterrence against the possibility of a second Hezbollah war. Instead of engaging in a pre-emptive military strike, the Israeli military launched a public relations offensive. It broadcast and publicized highly detailed intelligence maps and aerial photographs depicting exactly where Hezbollah constructs and maintains missile and rocket caches, as well as command centers.

These maps show that Hezbollah's bases are located in villages in southern Lebanon near the Israeli border, in very close proximity to schools and hospitals. Its weapons are aimed at Israeli cities and civilian targets. If these missiles were to be launched, Israel would be required to defend its population by destroying the missile emplacements and depots.

"Hezbollah has worked to develop its readiness to rise to the challenge should it arise, and we can safely say that in the past four years we have prepared ourselves far more than Israel has," the group's second in command, Sheikh Naim Qassem, said in an interview published last week in the Arabic-language daily An-Nahar.

The Hezbollah plan of deployment means that any Israeli military response to a massive missile attack on its civilian population will involve civilian casualties in Lebanon. Because of its deliberate placement of these weapons, Hezbollah is condemning Shiite villages to destruction.

The U.N. now faces the test of whether it will do anything to assure the legitimacy of its 2006 resolution. If the U.N. does not act against Hezbollah's weapons caches, the resolution will be revealed as merely a stick with which to beat Israel and not the means to enforce the cease-fire the U.N. insisted Israel comply with to end the war.

Arab governments also face a critical test. By making its deterrence transparent, Israel is offering the governments of Syria, Lebanon and their Arab supporters, as well as world policy makers, an opportunity to protect Arab lives instead of blaming Israel after the fact for what can be prevented.

Now that Israel has taken the rare step of disclosing its valuable intelligence, will the U.N. enforce its own resolution to prevent war? Will the Arab governments in the region act?

Mr. Cohen is the author of "Beyond America's Grasp: A Century of Failed Diplomacy in the Middle East" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009) and president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 21, 2010, 07:23:03 AM

On the light side.
I'm sure none of us in our lifetime have ever exaggerated, lied, or misrepresented ourselves in a bar or over the internet to pick up a woman.   :-D


July 20, 2010
In a ruling that could strike fear in the hearts of cads everywhere, a Jerusalem court has ruled that lying to a woman to get her into bed is a form of rape.

Sabbar Kashur, 30, an Arab resident of Jerusalem, pretended to be a Jewish bachelor looking for a relationship. He met a Jewish woman and they went to a nearby building to have consensual sex, according the account in the Haaretz newspaper. He split before she'd finished putting her clothes back on.

She filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault, which authorities took seriously.
Sure, it wasn't "classic rape by force," reasoned Jerusalem District Court Judge Tzvi Segal, but if the woman "hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor ... she would not have cooperated."

The court rejected a plea bargain to serve community service and sentenced Kashur to 18 months in prison.
-- Los Angeles Times

Title: In case your local Pravda missed this , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 23, 2010, 10:22:58 AM

 
Hizbullah trying to stop UNIFIL patrols

UN Peacekeepers in southern Lebanon attacked

By YAAKOV KATZ
07/03/2010 22:20

A number of recent clashes between United Nations soldiers in southern Lebanon and local villagers could lead to an escalation along the Israeli-Lebanese border as Hizbullah works to prevent peacekeepers from implementing Security Council Resolution 1701.

On Saturday, two UNIFIL vehicles, including an armored personnel carrier, were blocked by a large group of civilians as the convoy traveled on a road north of the southern Lebanese village of Kabrikha. Stones were also thrown at UNIFIL forces in another village on Saturday.

The civilians stoned the patrol, which decided to leave the scene, hitting a motorcycle that had been parked blocking the road. The crowd then surrounded the patrol, punctured the vehicles’ tires, smashed the windows, and tried grabbing weapons mounted on the vehicles. In response, the soldiers, from the French Battalion, fired warning shots in the air.

The commander of the patrol was attacked and his weapon was stolen. A group of civilians took him to a nearby home where he received medical treatment, UNIFIL said in a statement.

UNIFIL reinforcements and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) troops arrived at the scene, recovered the weapons and restored calm.

UNIFIL Force Commander Major-General Alberto Asarta Cuevas called on the LAF to ensure the security of UNIFIL forces. “It is incumbent on the Lebanese authorities to ensure the security and freedom of movement for UNIFIL within its area of operation,” Cuevas said.

Israeli defense officials say villagers affiliated with Hizbullah

Saturday’s clashes were the latest in a series of attacks against UNIFIL troops in southern Lebanon in recent weeks. Last Tuesday, residents of Kfar Kila hurled stones at UN vehicles. In the village of Hirbeit Sleim, where a Hizbullah arms cache hidden inside a home blew up last year, residents held a massive protest calling for an end to UNIFIL patrols in the village.

Israeli defense officials said that the escalation in violence was due to increased UNIFIL activity throughout southern Lebanon since Cuevas, a Spanish officer, took command of the peacekeeping force in January. The officials also said that the so-called villagers who attacked the peacekeepers were likely affiliated with Hizbullah.

“UNIFIL has been doing more in recent months,” one Israeli defense official said. “Hizbullah is not happy with this and is trying to deter the peacekeepers from entering the villages which is home to most of their arms caches these days.”

The attacks came just ahead of the fourth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War, following which UNIFIL was beefed up to its present force of about 13,000.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on July 24, 2010, 05:46:42 AM

I would not be surprised if the villiagers were told by their Hezboli handlers that the blue hats were spying for the Israelis? Heck, even Hezbollah might have reached that conclusion........

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2010, 11:11:20 PM

DF Cpl. Elinor Joseph was born in Gush Halav in the Galilee to an Arab Christian family. Her father served as a paratrooper in the IDF. She identifies herself as “Arab, Christian, and Israeli.”


(Foto:  She is quite foxy)


“I was born here. The people I love live here – my parents, my friends. This is a Jewish state? True. But it’s also my country. I can’t imagine living anywhere else.  I believe that everyone should enlist. You live here? Go defend your country. So what if I’m Arab?”

“Look at the beret,” says Elinor, smiling from ear to ear, showing off the bright green beret that she earned after completing the trek which is part of her combat training in the Karakal Battalion. Her excitement is accompanied by a new historical precedent, since Elinor is the first Arab female combat soldier in IDF history.

Cpl. Elinor Joseph was born and raised in an integrated neighborhood of Jews and Arabs in Haifa, but attended a school in which all her classmates were Arab. Despite the fact that she would always wear her father’s IDF dog-tag around her neck from when he served in the Paratrooper’s Unit, she never thought she would enlist. “I wanted to go abroad to study medicine and never come back,” she said. To her father it was clear that she would enlist in the IDF, as most citizens in Israel do. This was something that worried her very much. “I was scared to lose my friends because they objected to it. They told me they wouldn’t speak to me. I was left alone.”

Despite their opposition, she decided to move forward and enlist. I understood that it was most important to defend my friends, family, and country. I was born here.” At the end of the day, she says she realized it was the right thing to do.

[Elinor] Joseph serves in the Caracal battalion, which operates on the Egyptian border to block the entry of terrorists and smugglers into Israel.

The difficult dilemma she felt in serving at a border crossing was not easy for her but she said during moments of difficulty and misgiving she would remember, “there was a Katyusha [rocket] that fell near my house and also hurt Arabs. If someone would tell me that serving in the IDF means killing Arabs, I remind them that Arabs also kill Arabs.”

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/...ombat-soldier/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 29, 2010, 11:03:44 AM

"Arab Christian family"

I doubt she would feel this way if she were an Arab Muslim.

It is not so much the Arab part - it is the Muslim part that want the Jews wiped out.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on July 29, 2010, 01:44:37 PM

Some Bedouin--Muslim also serve in the IDF.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2010, 02:02:28 PM

There has been some very poor behavior on the part of some Palestinian Christians enabling intifada and murder of civilians.  Pyschologically predicatably human I would say-- natural to look to find a way to bond with fellow Arabs.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 01, 2010, 12:30:59 PM

Rachel,

"Some Bedouin--Muslim also serve in the IDF."

Perhaps my perception is wrong about the difference between Arab Christains and Muslims with regards to their perception, attitudes, and interaction with Jews.  Feel free to ellaborate and teach me.  I am not an expert in the area.

Title: From Bedouin Shepherd to Israeli Diplomat
Post by: rachelg on August 01, 2010, 07:03:53 PM

CCP-- It  wouldn't  be hard to find an Israeli Arab Muslim who was not a fan of Israel.   It just when anyone speaks in absolutes it is easy to be wrong.  Jews/Muslims/Arabs are not a monolith.    I did happen to come across an article  today  that discussed  your question.


From Bedouin Shepherd to Israeli Diplomat
by Jenny Hazan
Ishmael Khaldi tells Aish.com what it's really like being a minority in Israel.

It was after Ishmael Khaldi, 39, visited the University of California, Berkeley campus as Israel’s Deputy Consul General to the U.S. Pacific Northwest in 2006 that he decided he needed to write a book. “People at Berkeley didn’t want to shake my hand because I was there representing Israel,” says Khaldi, author of the recently-released A Shepherd’s Journey, a biographical account of growing up as a minority in Israel. “This encounter, with such ignorance, deep criticism, and inflammatory rhetoric, was the most shocking moment of my career so far.”

Khaldi believes that much of the Western world – the Jewish community included – have a skewed and inaccurate picture of what Israel is all about.

Khaldi’s hope is that his book will help shed a little light on the subject, and provide an inside view of the country’s Muslim Arab minority. “Although Israel is part of Jewish identity and connects every Jew around the world, the state of Israel is not just Jewish and Zionist. It’s a country of all its citizens,” says Khaldi. “My very existence proves that Israel is one of the most culturally diverse societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East.”

The first Israeli diplomat of Bedouin descent, Khaldi grew up like most of Israel’s 180,000 Bedouin, as a shepherd in a tent in a traditional Bedouin village. He walked four miles round trip to school each day from his village of Khawalid, near the Jewish town of Kiryat Ata, in the Haifa region. Like most of Israeli’s northern Bedouin, his village established close ties with neighboring kibbutzim, and since the 1930s has had amicable relations with Jewish Israelis, who have played a big role in helping to advance Bedouin technological and agricultural production. Khaldi’s grandmother even learned to speak Yiddish!

Unlike most Bedouin, however, Khaldi, decided not to build a modest home nearby his parents and start his own family and herd. Instead, when he finished his national IDF service (a service both he and all of his brothers completed), he went off to see America. On his return, he earned a degree in Political Science at the University of Haifa, then an M.A. in Political Science and International Relations at Tel Aviv University. After this, he began working for the American embassy in Tel Aviv, then Israel’s Foreign Service, a move which landed him the job at the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco, and onto the Berkley campus.

Apartheid State?

Khaldi’s entire adventure – from tending goats on the hills of northern Israel to meeting North American volunteers from the neighboring Kibbutz Kfar Hamaccabi, to his first foray in New York, where he unknowingly runs across the subway tracks to get to the right side and is eventually “rescued” by a Haredi family in Borough Park, to his long-distance romance with a Bedouin girl from a village next to his family’s, to his formation of close friendships with secular and religious Jews and Muslims on two continents, and finally to his ascent to the Israeli Foreign Service – is recorded in his intriguing new book.

Khaldi attributes his own uncommon life trajectory to the opportunities available to minorities in Israel. “Israel is a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious society,” says Khaldi, referring to the religious freedoms, women’s rights, equal educational opportunities, economic development, freedom of the press, and legislative representation. “Israel can be an example to the region and help facilitate the creation of regional wealth and development.”

Of course, Israel is not perfect. There is some level of bureaucratic discrimination and an unequal allocation of resources, both on ethnic and non-ethnic bases. But, says Khaldi, the situation of minorities in Israel is no different from the situation of minorities in the United States and other Western democracies.

“There are African American diplomats representing the United States – now there is an African American president – but that doesn’t mean discrimination does not exist in America,” says Khaldi. “It also doesn’t mean that, because there is discrimination, African Americans should wash their hands of their country of birth.”

Furthermore, says Khaldi, given that the U.S. is 234 years old, and Israel is a mere 62 (plagued by external threats, massive immigration, and internal tumult), the status of minorities in Israel is way ahead of the curve, particularly compared with the treatment of minorities in neighboring Arab countries.

Khaldi says that he is living proof that Israel is not the "Apartheid state" that some make it out to be. “Israel may be the only country in the Middle East, if not the world, where a Bedouin shepherd can become a high-tech engineer, a scientist or – a diplomat. The sky’s the limit.”

Arab-Israeli Integration

Admittedly, most members of Israeli minorities don’t make it as far as Khaldi. But he says this has less to do with the opportunities offered by the country than with a resistance to integrate; what Khaldi dubs “a self-imposed barrier to full integration into a modern life.”

Most Bedouin struggle between a desire to embrace modernity and at the same time preserve their heritage and customs. Khaldi is no exception. “In a lot of ways I am stuck between worlds,” he says. “We are a very traditional and conservative people, and it is difficult for us to integrate, particularly into modern, secular, liberal mainstream Israeli society.”

Interestingly, it is for this reason that Khaldi says he feels most comfortable in the company of religious Jews, whose culture and values tend to be much more conservative.

Khaldi recalls when he first landed at JFK International Airport, where he was shocked to be met by such a chaotic mix of people and graffiti, and cars and jet engines. “All at once, my exhaustion and anxiety broke open. I felt like the world was collapsing around me, and I cried like an orphan newborn lamb whose mother had just died,” he writes.

Then suddenly, like a bolt of lightning, he spotted a Hassid in the terminal, on the floor above him. “My heart swelled and my mood brightened immediately. I felt as if I had been lost at sea and suddenly spotted a beacon of light,” he writes. It was that Hassid that pointed him in the direction of Borough Park, Brooklyn, where he quickly found refuge with another Hassidic family.

Khaldi is confident that the resistance among Israel’s minorities to integrate will melt away with time. Already, the young Bedouin generation is much more integrated and modern than the one before. The same can be said for other Muslim minorities in Israel, although in general the level of resistance among other Arab Israelis is fiercer than among the Bedouin.

Unlike the Bedouin, who are by and large loyal to Israel, many other Arab Israelis are more politically-minded and align themselves with the Palestinians and their national aspirations. What accounts for the difference?

Khaldi explains that Bedouin, who by legend are said to be born of the wind due to their nomadic nature, don’t feel strong ties to any land in particular and never have; whereas the fellahin (Arab ‘farmers’) are agricultural and territorial by nature.

Khaldi came to understand this difference when he went to grade school in the nearby fellahin village of Ras Ali, and again in high school at the Haifa Arab Orthodox College, where he was chastised for his loyalty to Israel.

“I always thought I was an Arab, until I went to school with Arabs who told me no, that I was Israeli and Bedouin. Whereas we [Bedouin] consider ourselves Israeli first and Arab second, they consider themselves Arabs who happen to live in Israel,” he says.

One of his most bitter memories is of his first Memorial Day at the Haifa Arab Orthodox College, where he grew a great deal of attention to himself standing outside his class to observe the moment of silence. “This outraged my fellow students, who taunted, ‘The Bedouins standing with Israel are traitors,’” recalls Khaldi, whose brothers Hamudi and Amin were doing their service with the IDF at the time. “I felt miserable, but I stood there all the same. I am, after all, a proud Bedouin.”

He encountered the same sort of segregation from members of other Muslim communities. “Although I am an Arab Muslim, I am often greeted with suspicion by other Arab Muslims. They look at me first of all as Israeli,” says Khaldi, who now works as a political advisor to Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Yet things are changing. Khaldi says that at least among Israeli Arab fellahin, the sentiment is beginning to wane and that like Bedouin, Israeli Arabs are starting to integrate.

“The world is changing. The younger generation is much more exposed to other values and other cultures and the differences between them are disappearing,” he says. Khaldi points to the growing number of Arab high school girls participating in national service (Sherut Leumi).

This is just one example of many that Khaldi says fills him with hope for the future of Israel and its minority populations. “I am a proud third-generation Israeli. And while it will continue to be a challenge to preserve our culture, I look forward to raising a young generation that is even more Israeli than me,” he says. “There are differences in tradition and religion between us, but at the end of the day we are all Israeli citizens.”

A Shepherd’s Journey is available both on Amazon.com and at www.Ishmaelkhaldi.com.

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jw/id/98910714.html

Title: Not just a strategic asset, but a bonanza
Post by: rachelg on August 02, 2010, 10:44:27 AM

This article  is in response to an article that I  will not be posting

What’s in it for America?
By CHAS FREEMAN 
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=183319

Not just a strategic asset, but a bonanza
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=183321
By ROBERT SATLOFF
01/08/2010   
A cost-benefit analysis of the US relationship with Israel over the past thirty-plus years shows an Israeli ally at a bargain.
 
Adapted from remarks given at the Nixon Center (www.nixoncenter.org) debate “Israel: Asset or Liability?” with Chas Freeman on July 20.

I don’t think there is anyone who would disagree with the contention that there is no country in the Middle East whose people and government are so closely aligned with the United States; in some countries, the people are pro-American, in others, the government, but in Israel, it is unabashedly both.



Our two countries share ways of governing, ways of ordering society, ways of viewing the role of liberty and individual rights, and ways to defend those ideals. Some realists tend to dismiss this soft stuff as having no strategic value; I disagree. This commonality of culture and values is at the heart of national interest; it manifests itself in many ways, from how Israel votes at the United Nations to how its people view their role as being on the front line against many of the same threats we face.


It is to America’s advantage to have in Israel an economy that is so closely associated with ours and that is such an innovator in the IT field, in high-tech medicine, and in green technologies, like the electric car.

Indeed, the strength of our relationship helped turn Israel from an economic basket case into an economic powerhouse – and our economic partner. Just ask Warren Buffett and all the other American investors who view Israel as a destination worthy of their capital.

It is to America’s advantage to have had a close working partnership with Israel for the last thirty-plus years in the pursuit of Middle East peace. Some bemoan the peace process as “all process, no peace” and critique the strength of the US-Israel relationship as an impediment to progress, not an ingredient of it. I disagree. First, I would argue that a strong Israel, with a strong US-Israel relationship at its core, has been central to what we know as the peace process.

And second, in historical terms, the Middle East peace process has been one of the most successful US diplomatic initiatives of the last half-century.

In the words of one knowledgeable observer: “The peace process has been a vehicle for American influence throughout the broad Middle Eastern region. It has provided an excuse for Arab declarations of friendship with the United States, even if Americans remain devoted to Israel. In other words, it has helped to eliminate what otherwise might be seen as a zero-sum game.”

That sort of praiseworthy peace process was born out of the 1973 war, when two interlocking developments began to take shape – the growth of the bilateral US-Israel strategic relationship, which took off in economic and military terms, and the emergence of a peace process in its current, American-led form.

Since then, the Arab-Israeli arena has changed dramatically in favor of US interests. Over the past thirty years, we have seen peace agreements between Israel and the most powerful Arab state (Egypt) and the state with the longest border with Israel (Jordan). We have also seen thirty-seven years of quiet on the Syrian border and seventeen years of diplomacy between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. That is also a huge and positive difference.

INDEED, THE first twenty-five years after the establishment of Israel, the regional situation could be described as continuous war with periodic outbursts of diplomacy. The second thirty-five years – the period since 1973, the period since the take-off in US-Israel strategic relations – can be described as continuous diplomacy with periodic outbursts of war.

Since 1973, there has not been a regional war or a state-to-state conflict in the Arab-Israeli area. We have had limited wars – Israel versus Hizbullah, for example – but nothing that engulfed the region. That’s a huge and positive difference.

We tend to forget the context – the fear of regional war – that dominated the Arab-Israeli arena for years. For more than thirty-six years, it hasn’t happened. Of course, it may happen again and the circumstances on Israel’s northern border may be leading in that direction.

But let’s look at what we know: The peace process over the last thirty-five years has essentially evolved into a process to resolve issues between Israel and the Palestinians.

These issues are difficult, complex, and highly emotional. The failure to resolve them can lead to bloodshed and violence between Israelis and Palestinians, as we saw in the second intifada. But despite all those ups and downs, it has never reverted into regional war.

Indeed, one of the great achievements of USIsrael cooperation, manifested through their partnership in the peace process, is to have reduced the Arab-Israeli conflict to an Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Look at the experience of the second intifada, for example: approximately 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis dead in the worst outburst of intercommunal violence since 1948.

Despite this, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan survived and not one Arab state intervened to provide military support to the Palestinians; in fact, the only state to lend military support to the Palestinians was Iran.

The observer I referred to earlier as praising the peace process for eliminating the zerosum game of Middle East politics – a peace process whose oxygen is the strength and vitality of the US-Israel relationship – was Chas Freeman.

AND THEN there is the long list of militaryrelated advantages that Israel brings to the United States directly, by its own actions and through the bilateral relationship. I will cite just a few: • Since 1983, American and Israeli militaries have engaged in contingency planning, and Israeli facilities can be made available to the United States if needed. American forces have practiced the use of many Israeli facilities, ranging from Ben Gurion Airport to pre-positioning sites. All four US armed services routinely conduct training at Israel Defense Forces facilities.

• The US has deployed an X-band early warning radar for missile defense on Israeli soil.

This facility supplements other American missile defense assets and is available for both America’s regional missile defense architecture and our own reconfigured missile defense concept for protecting Europe from longerrange Iranian missiles.

• America began stocking war reserves in Israel fifteen years ago. Those stockpiles are hardly “minimal”– the total value is approaching $1 billion. They’re US property and the Pentagon can draw upon them at any time.

America has shown it is able to move military supplies from Israel to the Gulf; for example, it sent Israeli mine-plows and bulldozers to Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991.

• Israel has proven to be a prime source of effective counterterrorism/counterinsurgency tactics, techniques, and procedures, which have played a significant role in US success (thus far) in Iraq • Israel has also been an outstanding innovator in the technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures of unmanned aerial vehicles, which the US now relies upon so extensively in Afghanistan.

Add all this up: Israel – through its intelligence, its technology, and the lessons learned from its own experience in counterterrorism and asymmetric warfare – has saved American lives. And when you add to this Israel’s unique counterproliferation efforts – destroying nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) – Israel’s contribution to our security is even greater.

DO A cost-benefit analysis of the US relationship with Israel over the past thirty-plus years and the US relationship with its Arab friends in the Gulf. What do you find? To secure its interests in the Arab-Israeli arena, the United States has spent about $100 billion in military and economic assistance to Israel, plus another $30 billion to Egypt and relatively small change to others. Our losses: a total of 258 Americans in the Beirut embassy and barracks bombings and a few other American victims of terrorism in that part of the Middle East.

Compare that with the Gulf. Look at the massive costs we have endured to ensure our interests there, the principal one being to secure access to the region’s energy resources at reasonable prices. The United States has spent more than $1 trillion – $700 billion on the Iraq war alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office – lost more than 4,400 US servicemen, fought two wars, endured thirty years of conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran and a global al-Qaida insurgency fed originally by our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia. After all that, the Gulf region is still anything but secure. It’s when you boil it down to this very simple arithmetic that I can say that our relationship with Israel helped produce a strategic bonanza for the United States at bargain prices.

Is it a fairytale marriage? Of course not.

Do the two sides have differences, even profound ones, on some critical issues? Absolutely. Do certain Israeli actions run against the tactical advice and preference of various US administrations? To be sure.

But their common recognition of the strategic benefits they derive from this relationship has given the United States and Israel strong incentive to manage these differences fairly amicably over the years.

What about the argument that all this has come at a huge strategic price? I know it is de rigueur to cite Gen. David Petraeus on this issue. But look closely at what General Petraeus actually said in his prepared testimony to the Armed Services Committee. In the section of his remarks titled “Cross-Cutting Challenges to Security and Stability,” he cited eleven different items. The entire list bears mention: militant Islamic networks; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; ungoverned spaces; terrorist finance and facilitation; piracy; ethnic, tribal, and sectarian rivalries; disputed territories and access to vital resources; criminal activity; uneven economic development and unemployment; lack of regional and global economic integration; and, of course, insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace.

Would US interests be advanced if there were comprehensive peace? Of course.

Who argues to the contrary? But General Petraeus blamed neither Israel nor the USIsrael relationship for the lack of such progress; nor did he even hint that this issue is somehow the key to overcome the other ten major obstacles that he outlined.

And then there’s the argument about the US paying for Islamist recruitment because of its relationship with Israel.

Again, in an echo of the long list of factors that Petraeus said pose challenges to security and stability, radical Islamists also have a long list of complaints against America, of which US-Israel relations is only one among many and not nearly the most important.

If you think Osama bin Laden is all about Israel, and not about America, let me quote a very learned fellow: “Mr. bin Laden’s principal point, in pursuing this campaign of violence against the United States, has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, in connection with the Iran-Iraq issue. No doubt the question of American relations with Israel adds to the emotional heat of his opposition and adds to his appeal in the region. But this is not his main point.”

That very smart fellow was Chas Freeman.

Bottom line: a disinterested, professional net assessment of the impact of Israel and the US-Israel relationship on US strategic interests in the Middle East would show that the 63 percent of Americans who told the most recent Gallup poll that they sympathize with Israel – more than four times the percentage who sympathize with what the poll presented as the other side, Palestinians (I didn’t like the wording, but it’s their poll, not mine) – that those 63 percent are pretty good strategists. They know that our relationship with Israel is not just good for Israel, it’s good for America.

What we really need in the Middle East are more “Israels”– not more Jewish states, of course, but more strong, reliable, democratic, pro-American allies. It would certainly be nice to have one or two in the Gulf.

The absence of those sorts of allies is precisely what has gotten us into such deep trouble over the past thirty years.

The writer is executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 02, 2010, 11:34:13 AM

Rachel,
Do you have any sense about what proportion of Muslims or Christian Arabs in Israel feel like Khaldi?

MSM like interviews with the disenchanted not people like Khaldi.  Particularly, if they fit into the liberal agenda.

For example I doubt Soledad O'Brien would want to interview this guy.  She would much more quickly jump to interview the angry Arab Muslim who exclaims discirimination.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on August 03, 2010, 07:23:18 PM

CCP,

I don't really know but I'm sure it is a lot smaller than I would like. It would be hard to find firm data. The questions of how much do you like your country would change depending on the political situation. Is is little like asking people how happy they are? Honestly though I don't know. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rarick on August 04, 2010, 03:58:53 AM

That is part of being a nominal outsider looking in.....  Was this a "cherry picked" individual?  (it does work both ways)  I lean toward hoping that it is not.  There have been articles that have mentioned in passing something like "The market, owned by a palestinian isreali, was heavily damaged by the suicide bomber", so we know that there are palestinian people considered citizens.  My question is how many of those are there and is their quality of life a second class, or just another citizen type of situation.   Questions and answers that are the job/ duty of the media to find out, but do not get answered because of the agenda.

Highly frustrating situation- all around.

Title: Stratfor: The Border Clash
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2010, 10:39:05 AM

The Regional Context of the Israeli-Lebanese Border Clash

Any clashes on the Israeli-Lebanese border normally involve Hezbollah guerillas. The last such incident happened four years ago and resulted in the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war. Tuesday, though, in an odd turn of events, Lebanese army personnel appeared to have opened fire on Israeli troops engaged in routine maintenance of the border fence. The Israeli troops responded with small arms as well as artillery and attack helicopters. A brief skirmish followed. Three Lebanese troops, one Israeli soldier and a journalist lost their lives in the clash.

Since the war in the summer of 2006 — especially given its outcome in which Israel could not decisively defeat Hezbollah — there has been a constant fear as to when the next war would take place between Israel and pro-Iranian Lebanese Shia Islamist movement guerillas. But in the latest skirmish, from very early on, both the Israelis and Hezbollah relayed that the clash was a minor incident that would not lead to a major escalation. Later in the day, though, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah warned that his group could respond to any Israeli attack on Lebanese army forces in the future.

There are various reports suggesting that Tuesday’s clash may have been engineered by Hezbollah to deflect attention away from the fact that the group is being implicated in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al Hariri. There are also reports that indicate that the opening of fire on the Israeli troops may have been the decision of a local commander. The precise reasons notwithstanding, we have an anomalous situation where Lebanese armed forces soldiers engaged in a rare attack on Israeli Defense Forces.

Not only was it a rare event, its timing was extremely intriguing. It took place at a time when there are multiple significant developments taking place. First and foremost, the clash took place within days of the joint visit of Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar al Assad to Beirut — an unusual and unprecedented development. Abdullah’s trip to Syria and then Beirut is part of Riyadh’s efforts to pull Damascus out of the Iranian orbit and undermine Tehran’s ability to use Hezbollah as a proxy to expand its influence within the Arab world. While the Saudis have to a certain degree been successful in their efforts to create problems for Hezbollah — and by extension the Iranians — Tehran can be expected to do everything in its power to ensure that its premier regional proxy remains a formidable force within Lebanon.

“The clash was not only a rare event, its timing was also extremely intriguing.”
Hezbollah provides the Islamic republic with a significant amount of the leverage it needs to negotiate with the United States on Iraq and the nuclear issue. And we are seeing that both issues are fast approaching key impasses. At the end of this month the United States is scheduled to complete the drawdown of its forces from Iraq. At the same time, Tehran and Washington have reached a critical stage in their nuclear negotiations, where it appears the two sides could engage in some serious talks.

One of the key hurdles blocking a U.S.-Iranian understanding on these issues is that it raises fears among Washington’s allies in the Arab world (particularly Saudi Arabia) and Israel. In other words, the United States is having a hard time balancing its need to deal with Iran and maintain its commitments to the Arab states and Israel. A U.S.-Iranian settlement of sorts is far more problematic for the Israelis than the Arab states. This is because Israel’s immediate region has grown increasingly hostile in recent years. It has to deal with a Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip, a Turkey that is no longer an unquestioning ally of the Jewish state and an Egypt in transition.

Israeli fears about Egypt were heightened Monday when a couple of artillery rockets apparently fired from the Sinai landed in the Israeli port city of Eilat. A few days prior to that, Palestinian militants fired rockets from the Gaza Strip that struck the Israeli towns of Ashkelon and Sderot — the first in the area in quite a while. Thus, the Israelis experienced security incidents from three different directions in as many days.

The biggest threat undoubtedly comes from Hezbollah during a time when Iran is growing increasingly assertive given the United States’ need to negotiate with the Islamic republic. Although Tuesday’s incident on the Israeli-Lebanese border does not currently appear likely to flare up into a major conflict, it remains the main issue in the region, especially given the fact that the United States and Iran are gearing up for what could be a serious round of talks. From the point of view of the Israelis, those talks could undermine Israel’s national security interests.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 06, 2010, 04:55:42 AM

An Israeli friend with an interesting background has posted the following on another forum:
=============================
I have had a long briefing from a contact at home. Look for a major war breaking out at the end of the month.

Evidence is building that shows things are marching toward a major war.

1. Hizbullah has dug tunnels into northern Israel.

2. Hizbullah has 60,000 rockets many with chemical war heads.

3. USA aircraft carrier was supposed to head back to USA and is waiting at Malta

4. Israeli satellite captured photos of submarine off loading weapons to Hizbullah in Northern Lebanon intelligence later showed weapons were special chemical weapons engineered to
eat through protective equipment. This agent may now be loaded on Hizbullah rockets.

5. Israel Air Force training in long range missions, jets, helicopters which would suggest commando raids a long way from home.

6. IDF reserves called up and trained at an abnormal pace.

7. Israel delivers letter to UN, Lebanon and USA showing where Hizbullah has hidden rocket in civilian areas. Israel tell Hizbullah to move the weapons or we will hit them where they are.

8. Israeli subs sitting off Iran

9. IAF has airbase in Saudi Arabia

10. Israeli intelligence has captured data showing Hizbullah will attack Israel at months end, objective to take out IAF bases so our planes cannot hit Iran.

What will Obama do?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on August 06, 2010, 05:57:53 AM

Craftt  VERY interesting post, very plausible.  All makes sense except for asking what Obama will do?   Calculate exactly what the right thing is and he will do the opposite.  If a response fast and strong is called for, he will announce commissions, sponsor UN resolutions and condemn the wrong side.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 06, 2010, 08:47:44 AM

"Israeli satellite captured photos of submarine off loading weapons to Hizbullah"

Whose Submarines?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 06, 2010, 09:55:34 AM

Interesting question.  I am not aware of Iran having any , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on August 06, 2010, 12:40:59 PM

North Korean, maybe?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2010, 05:06:47 PM

Unlikely to have gone through the Suez Canal; so from NK, around the Horn of Africa, through Gibralter, and east to Lebanon?  That's a very long trip , , ,

Title: Iran launches four submarines in Persian Gulf
Post by: rachelg on August 08, 2010, 08:36:06 AM

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-08/08/c_13435760.htm
TEHRAN, Aug. 8 (Xinhua) -- Iran announced on Sunday that it has launched four domestically-made mini-submarines in the Persian Gulf.

Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Vahidi hailed the occasion as a sign of progress in Iranian military ingenuity, local satellite Press TV reported.

Vahidi said that the stealth submarine is capable of launching torpedoes as well as precision targeting, the report said.

"The mass production of this strategic vessel has been carried out with the aim of increasing the defense capabilities of the Naval Forces, "and today four advanced Ghadir submarines joined the Iranian naval fleet," Vahidi was quoted as saying.

"With the mass production of this submarine alongside various guided-missile launchers the country's defensive production chain is complete, and these capabilities will be used to serve peace, stability and security in the Persian Gulf region and the Sea of Oman," said Vahidi.

Referring to the military presence of some western countries in the Persian Gulf, he said there is "no need for the presence of outside forces" in the region.

According to Press TV, the Ghadir submarine was first unveiled in 2007. The 120-ton vessel has excellent shallow depth performance, and can carry out long-term coastal missions. The Iranian fleet currently has 11 Ghadir submarines.

Apart from three Russian-built Kilo class diesel submarines, the Iranian Navy also operates another home-made 500-ton submarine in its patrol missions in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormu

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Russ on August 09, 2010, 02:21:45 AM

The documentary takes a dramatic turn, though, when the infant’s Palestinian mother, Raida, who is being disparaged by fellow Gazans for having her son treated in Israel, blurts out that she hopes he’ll grow up to be a suicide bomber to help recover Jerusalem.

August 7, 2010
Steal This Movie
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I just saw a remarkable new documentary directed by Shlomi Eldar, the Gaza reporter for Israel’s Channel 10 news. Titled “Precious Life,” the film tracks the story of Mohammed Abu Mustafa, a 4-month-old Palestinian baby suffering from a rare immune deficiency. Moved by the baby’s plight, Eldar helps the infant and mother go from Gaza to Israel’s Tel Hashomer hospital for lifesaving bone-marrow treatment. The operation costs $55,000. Eldar puts out an appeal on Israel TV and within hours an Israeli Jew whose own son was killed during military service donates all the money.

The documentary takes a dramatic turn, though, when the infant’s Palestinian mother, Raida, who is being disparaged by fellow Gazans for having her son treated in Israel, blurts out that she hopes he’ll grow up to be a suicide bomber to help recover Jerusalem. Raida tells Eldar: “From the smallest infant, even smaller than Mohammed, to the oldest person, we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it. You’re free to be angry, so be angry.”

Eldar is devastated by her declaration and stops making the film. But this is no Israeli propaganda movie. The drama of the Palestinian boy’s rescue at an Israeli hospital is juxtaposed against Israeli retaliations for shelling from Gaza, which kill whole Palestinian families. Dr. Raz Somech, the specialist who treats Mohammed as if he were his own child, is summoned for reserve duty in Gaza in the middle of the film. The race by Israelis and Palestinians to save one life is embedded in the larger routine of the two communities grinding each other up.

“It’s clear to me that the war in Gaza was justified — no country can allow itself to be fired at with Qassam rockets — but I did not see many people pained by the loss of life on the Palestinian side,” Eldar told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Because we were so angry at Hamas, all the Israeli public wanted was to [expletive] Gaza. ... It wasn’t until after the incident of Dr. Abu al-Aish — the Gaza physician I spoke with on live TV immediately after a shell struck his house and caused the death of his daughters and he was shouting with grief and fear — that I discovered the [Israeli] silent majority that has compassion for people, including Palestinians. I found that many Israeli viewers shared my feelings.” So Eldar finished the documentary about how Mohammed’s life was saved in Israel.

His raw film reflects the Middle East I know — one full of amazing compassion, even among enemies, and breathtaking cruelty, even among neighbors.

I write about this now because there is something foul in the air. It is a trend, both deliberate and inadvertent, to delegitimize Israel — to turn it into a pariah state, particularly in the wake of the Gaza war. You hear the director Oliver Stone saying crazy things about how Hitler killed more Russians than Jews, but the Jews got all the attention because they dominate the news media and their lobby controls Washington. You hear Britain’s prime minister describing Gaza as a big Israeli “prison camp” and Turkey’s prime minister telling Israel’s president, “When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill.” You see singers canceling concerts in Tel Aviv. If you just landed from Mars, you might think that Israel is the only country that has killed civilians in war — never Hamas, never Hezbollah, never Turkey, never Iran, never Syria, never America.

I’m not here to defend Israel’s bad behavior. Just the opposite. I’ve long argued that Israel’s colonial settlements in the West Bank are suicidal for Israel as a Jewish democracy. I don’t think Israel’s friends can make that point often enough or loud enough.

But there are two kinds of criticism. Constructive criticism starts by making clear: “I know what world you are living in.” I know the Middle East is a place where Sunnis massacre Shiites in Iraq, Iran kills its own voters, Syria allegedly kills the prime minister next door, Turkey hammers the Kurds, and Hamas engages in indiscriminate shelling and refuses to recognize Israel. I know all of that. But Israel’s behavior, at times, only makes matters worse — for Palestinians and Israelis. If you convey to Israelis that you understand the world they’re living in, and then criticize, they’ll listen.

Destructive criticism closes Israeli ears. It says to Israelis: There is no context that could explain your behavior, and your wrongs are so uniquely wrong that they overshadow all others. Destructive critics dismiss Gaza as an Israeli prison, without ever mentioning that had Hamas decided — after Israel unilaterally left Gaza — to turn it into Dubai rather than Tehran, Israel would have behaved differently, too. Destructive criticism only empowers the most destructive elements in Israel to argue that nothing Israel does matters, so why change?

How about everybody take a deep breath, pop a copy of “Precious Life” into your DVD players, watch this documentary about the real Middle East, and if you still want to be a critic (as I do), be a constructive one. A lot more Israelis and Palestinians will listen to you.

Nicholas D. Kristof is off today.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 13, 2010, 08:57:02 AM

Alright.  Is the killing suspect who is an "Israeli National" a Jew, a Christain, or a Muslim?

Notice the silence so far.   

To me it makes a difference.  Does he even have ties to Hazballah?

I am looking forward to this information.  I hope he ain't another David Berkowitz.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: rachelg on August 13, 2010, 01:26:28 PM

The alleged serial killer  was born to a Christian family  from Ramle.



FYI-- Ramallah is in the west bank and often in the news. Ramle is a tiny town of mixed population and not very often in the news.  


edited per  Doug's request

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 13, 2010, 01:31:16 PM

It's an interesting case. I'm curious to see what the investigation brings forth.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on August 13, 2010, 03:03:33 PM

"The alleged serial killer is a Christian from  Ramle."

I respectfully offer different wording, alleged Christian, former Christian, pretend Christian,was born to a Christian family, or raised Christian, etc.  Practicing Christians are constrained by the  Commandments.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 13, 2010, 03:44:15 PM

This assumes he didn't convert to the religion of pieces.

Not the only scenario. He could be a piquerist. This would be a very interesting case to work.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on August 17, 2010, 08:38:48 PM

Woof,
 In light of Russia making a deal with Iran to complete its first nuclear plant capable of producing plutonium, I think it prudent to see what the consequences might be of Israel attacking Iran fairly soon.

 http://blogs.forbes.com/china/2010/08/16/if-israel-attacks-iran-what-about-china (http://blogs.forbes.com/china/2010/08/16/if-israel-attacks-iran-what-about-china)/

       www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/1/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/1/)

                                                                                                       www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html)

     www.haaretz.com/news/iran-if-israel-attacks-us-we-ll-hit-its-neclear-sites-1.280702 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-if-israel-attacks-us-we-ll-hit-its-neclear-sites-1.280702)

       http://greathistory.com/what-happens-if-israel-attacks-iran.htm (http://greathistory.com/what-happens-if-israel-attacks-iran.htm)  

 Of course the consequences of Israel not attacking Iran could be even worse.
                                          P.C.    

Title: good stuff, thanks
Post by: ccp on August 18, 2010, 05:26:49 PM

eom

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 23, 2010, 12:07:26 PM

Geraldo had a segment about Bama losing Jewish support, now "below 50%".  Jews calling themselves Republican I think he stated 33%!!

I cannot dream that most liberal Jews will vote can though.

They will stand by their man as long as they can.  If it looks bad for 2012 they will flock to the only other choice - Hillary.

I guarantee the reason we are starting to hear more about the greatness of the Hill in the news recently is partly from Jews who are abandoning the ONE.

For Israel, wipe out Iran if possible SOON or destroy all their military as best as can now and hope this will knock sense about regime change or put off the inevitable.

Or plan to move all Jews out of the country again and be driven off peacefully.  Or wait to die.

That is the choice given by Iran.

Great huh?

Title: Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 09, 2010, 06:17:17 AM

The West Bank Attack and Israel's Negotiating Strategy

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington on Tuesday for peace talks to be held on Thursday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Just three hours prior to his arrival, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on a car at the entrance of the Jewish settlement Kiryat Arba near the West Bank city of Hebron. Four Israelis — two men and two women (one of whom was pregnant) — were killed in the attack.

Hamas’ military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was the first group to claim responsibility for the attack, followed by Fatah’s armed wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and a new group calling itself Al Haq. Multiple claims for attacks and collaboration among groups is common in the Palestinian territories, but the claim itself does not matter as much as the political message the attack intended to convey.

” Israeli military activity in the West Bank would deliver another big blow to the Palestinian leader’s credibility.”
Hamas, in particular, is signaling to U.S. President Barack Obama and Israel that they are dealing with the wrong man. Abbas certainly cannot claim to speak for the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and has questionable authority in his own Fatah-controlled West Bank. As the Tuesday attack illustrated, Abbas cannot control the Palestinian militant landscape whether he wants to or not. In other words, if Israel and the United States are really seeking peace with the Palestinians, they need to open a dialogue with Hamas.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak vowed that Israel would “exact a price” from those responsible for the killing of the four Israeli civilians. Hamas and its militant associates are hoping that price comes in the form of Israeli military operations in the West Bank. Abbas was already hanging by a thread politically, but Israeli military activity in the West Bank would deliver another big blow to the Palestinian leader’s credibility, potentially give Hamas an opportunity to regain influence in the West Bank and help derail Thursday’s peace talks.

But there wasn’t much to derail. The Palestinian territories are split geographically and politically between Hamas and Fatah, with no leader, political faction or militant group able to speak on behalf of the territories as a whole. Neither Israel nor the United States is blind to this reality. But every U.S. administration needs to take its turn at mediating Israeli-Palestinian talks, and though Obama has been preoccupied with more pressing issues since he began his presidency, he has found time to take another swing at brokering peace in the Middle East.

The more interesting question in our mind is what is compelling Israel to oblige with the U.S. wish for peace talks. Israel and the United States have been on rough footing since Obama took office, mainly due to Netanyahu’s failed attempt to pressure Washington into aligning with Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and Iran early on in the Obama presidency. The more Israel pushed, the more it came to realize that it simply cannot afford to alienate its only significant ally without bearing intolerable costs. Israel needed to find a way to clean up that diplomatic mess at low cost — hence the peace talks.

The cost for Israel to proceed with talks following this attack is still low, since Israel knows it can make tough demands and not expect the Palestinian side to deliver. More important, Israel knows perfectly well that the peace process in and of itself will generate an increase in militant acts, and that will allow divisions to persist within the Palestinian territories and excuse Israel from having to make meaningful concessions. The cost on Tuesday was four Israeli lives, but on the strategic level, Hamas gave Israel exactly what it was seeking in the lead-up to Thursday’s peace talks: the status quo.

Title: Editor's Notes: New Year’s wisdom
Post by: rachelg on September 12, 2010, 04:04:09 PM

Editor's Notes: New Year’s wisdom
By DAVID HOROVITZ 
09/08/2010 16:35
http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Article.aspx?id=187481
I don’t know how Netanyahu conceives of the Almighty, but I picture him seeking divine guidance on Rosh Hashana.

   

My heart goes out to the prime minister this Rosh Hashana. It truly does. I envisage him at prayer, imploring the Almighty for the wisdom to make the right choices for his country, for his people.

There is arrogance in Netanyahu, of course. Nobody becomes the prime minister of Israel without the staggering arrogance, the elevated self-confidence, to believe that he (or, just the once, she) is uniquely capable of leading this country to tranquility or keeping it safe in the interim.


But one also senses a certain humility in him now, a humility that was not there the first time he was prime minister. An enhanced respect for the forces of history, perhaps, and a rueful appreciation of his own past mistakes, his foibles and limitations.

I don’t know how Netanyahu conceives of the Almighty, though I do promise to ask him when he gets around to giving proper interviews again. I cannot imagine he subscribes to Stephen Hawking’s newly argued theories of godlessness and existential self-ignition. At the very least, I can picture him looking at his children, as all parents do, and concluding that since nothing within his grasp could begin to explain their wondrous construction, there had to be some higher power.

And so this Rosh Hashana, much more fervently than last year, when the pressures had yet to pile up and the flush of victory was still brightening him, I see him reaching out to that vague unknowable spirit, and asking for guidance.

I THINK he’s put up a masterful performance these past few days, our prime minister.

Last November, when he emerged to announce the 10- month settlement moratorium, he looked like what he was: a torn, rattled man who had been forced to choose the least bad of two lousy options: infuriate and further alienate the United States, whose support and solidarity is indispensable to this country’s very survival, or infuriate and further alienate the settlement movement, whose ideals go to the heart of his conception of Jewish statehood. That day, as he unhappily saw it, survival trumped ideology.

These last few days, by contrast, he has looked serene and unruffled. He seemed at ease alongside US President Barack Obama at the White House a week ago, in such marked contrast to the body language of some of his earlier visits. He appeared gracious and deliberate when turning to Mahmoud Abbas the next day at the State Department, and describing this leader, of whom he had hitherto been so skeptical, as the “partner” in whose company he hoped to go such a long way, in such a short time, for peace.

And he has come across as firm and focused, since his return from Washington, in telling ministers, party colleagues and international visitors alike of his determination to make progress in negotiations to give independence to the Palestinians and to safeguard Israel.

Masterful, indeed, but still a performance. Beneath the calm surface, there must be turmoil. For there is no finessing the contradictions and conflicts that lie ahead.

THERE MAY be a short-term route out of the settlement freeze impasse. Formally, Netanyahu may not extend the moratorium, but on the ground not much will move outside the settlement blocs for the next few months. Obama won’t let Abbas escape the talks until the mid-term elections, and so that crisis will be staved off a little longer.

But the big decisions won’t go away, and Netanyahu knows it.

The big decision on Gilad Schalit. Whether to pay a price Netanyahu has written books opposing, with a near-certainty of so much further bloodshed and bereavement, or risk the death of a son of Israel, with incalculable implications for national morale.

The big decisions on Iran. Netanyahu emphatically sees parallels between the Islamic Republic and the Nazis. He knows that, in contrast to the Second World War, when an entire nation had to be won over and protractedly geared up for the mechanics of mass murder, murderous modern technology means millions can be wiped out nowadays with the flick of a switch. He cannot countenance the majority of world Jewry being regathered to our historic heartland only to again face genocide. He has profoundly internalized the Jews’ revived sovereign capacity to protect themselves here.

But when to act? When is it premature and when is it too late? Will the international community yet apply sufficient pressure? How to act? With whom?

And yes, the big decisions on Palestine. The Palestinian Authority, under Abbas and especially Salam Fayyad, is winning over the international community, cementing the concept of justified, imminent statehood, no matter what Israel’s objections may be.

When Israel’s most articulate advocate, Alan Dershowitz, pronounces the PA’s prime minister to be “probably the best” potential peace partner Israel has ever had, as he did in a phone conversation with me immediately after meeting Fayyad for 90 minutes last May, you know that every less discerning interlocutor will have been still more taken with the urbane, self-effacing statemaker, and never mind that Fayyad’s published program for Palestine-building barely hints at reconciliation with Israel.

Netanyahu came into office a year-and-a-half ago confident that he would be able to drive a better territorial bargain with Abbas than the deal proffered by the departing Ehud Olmert. But as the years go by, it is the Palestinians who remain steadfast, and the Israeli side that tries to sound tough while it offers ever more.

We’d speak about relinquishing a wrenching 85 or 90 percent of the West Bank in the 1990s, despite our insistent claims to the historic Jewish heartland; this jumped far above 90 percent at Camp David 10 years ago; then Olmert offered the whole West Bank with some land swaps, and Netanyahu has since hinted at concessions in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. But the Palestinians merely check off international agreements and resolutions, selectively interpreted, that belie any notion of territorial compromise.

Nobody knows this better than Netanyahu. At the State Department last Thursday, he paralleled Israel and the Palestinians with the biblical brothers Isaac and Ishmael, and declared, in what was by far his most conciliatory speech, that “President Abbas, history has given us a rare opportunity to end the conflict between our peoples.”

Abbas came back with a lawyerly recitation of demands and the risible, offensive assertion that the Palestinians have thus far respected all their past commitments and honored all their past agreements.

Given that this American presidency has demonstrated precious little sympathy for the notion of an Israel expanded beyond its 1967 dimensions, and that much of the international community is increasingly unimpressed by Israel’s existence at all, there seems no particular reason for Abbas to soften his position – especially given the hostility to Israel among his own people.

But if there is no better territorial bargain to be driven, what is Netanyahu planning to do at the peace table? Push and hope for an Abbas walkout, belying that rhetoric about a partnership? Agree to dismantle the vast majority of the settlements, and to rehouse a sizable minority of the settlers? Or try to play for time, even when he’s said that he wants to make rapid progress, and when he knows that stagnation will only weaken support for Israel, further bolster the Palestinians, and strain that vital alliance with America even as Iran closes in on the bomb?

How is Netanyahu, at one and the same time, to stay true to his ideological home – including his own father’s convictions – and retain his right-wing political base, without deadlocking the peace talks he has now so enthusiastically entered? But how, if the talks go nowhere, will he keep Labor in his coalition or entice Kadima to replace it, and how, amid such deadlock, will he maintain the improved climate of those crucial ties with Obama?

IN SYNAGOGUE this Rosh Hashana, I envisage all these challenges and contradictions running through Netanyahu’s head, and my heart goes out to him.

Being Israel’s prime minister is arguably the hardest job in the world. Safeguarding a tiny, mighty, vulnerable country in a vicious region that wants rid of you, and protecting a people worldwide whose existence is also inextricably tied up with yours. Leading a nation with the richest, most improbable of histories, in a world where nations can and do disappear. Surrounded by many who wish the worst upon you, and just a few who wish the best.

I picture Netanyahu seeking divine guidance in his New Year prayers, for a people that was sustained in exile for centuries by its faith. And I hope God, whatever that is, grants him the support and good advice of honest men, and the strength and wisdom to make nearimpossible decisions.

For this, I suspect, will be a fateful year for the feisty, illustrious, embattled and resilient people of Israel. And we will need all the strength and wisdom we can get.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 12, 2010, 04:35:11 PM

The "peace talks" are a waste of time and energy. The "palestinian" endgame is the end of Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on September 13, 2010, 07:38:24 PM

Woof,
 This makes me very nervous because I evidently don't share the same standards of what I construe to be the difference between an enemy and a friend with the current administration.
 U.S. near $60 billion arms deal with Saudis:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39151164/ns/world-news-mideastn-africa

                        P.C.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2010, 09:06:10 PM

FWIW, the US's strategy in the mid-east has always been divide e.g. Kissinger-Nixon using the Shah's Iran against Iraq, then using Iraq against Khomeni's Iran.  Now that we have been outplayed and out testosteroned by Iran and its nuke program, we strengthen the Arabs (Saudi's et al) vs. the Aryans (the Iranians).  Note the serious rumors btw that the Saudis were willing to greenlight an Israeli strike on Iran via their airspace.

I agree though Israel and we patriotic citizens had best keep an eye on the Manchurian Candidate in Chief though , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 14, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

"Now that we have been outplayed and out testosteroned by Iran and its nuke program, we strengthen the Arabs (Saudi's et al) vs. the Aryans (the Iranians)."

And it has always come back to haunt us.  Shah thrown out.  Mullahs take power and take hostages.  We give arms to Afghanistan.  Al Quaeda/Taliban use same arms against us.

We strengthen Saddam in war against Iran and he uses the same arms against us. 

Now like dopes we give jets to Saudis who at same time help fund Al Quaeda and probably ground zero mosque.  Perhaps they will be less belligernet against the Jews now they might see them as buffer against Iran.  The arms race in the Mid East is only just beginning.  And why would the Saudis not want to get nucs now?

As for Israel I don't see any way around it.  They use everything they have to destroy as much of Iran's military and nuc capability soon or wait to be driven from Israel or die. 
I still say the choice is a terrible one but one of survival - the enemy or themselves.  Even Bolten who has hinted he may run for President (he would be great - I think!) continues to stop short of saying military strikes.  He continues to say Israel needs to take action but never then says what action.

US Generals say using nucs is crazy.  Yes and no.  Waiting to die or be confronted with being driven from Israel or continue to hope for some other miracle are the only choices.


Comments?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2010, 09:49:36 AM

I'd quibble with some of your interpretation on some points but haven't the time right now, but will agree with the general notion that "Every solution creates a problem."

Israel is already fcuked.  As I commented at the time, it made a historical error when it did not finish the job it started the last time it went into Lebanon.  Now, if they strike Iran, Iran/Hezbollah has so many new improved rockets (well over 50,000 I's thinking) in Lebanon, dug in under hospitals, schools and the like, that virtually the entirety of Israel, including its own reactor, are in reach. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 14, 2010, 12:18:32 PM

CCP, I lean that way too, but...  All we can do is elect better leaders to see the best information and make the best decisions.  We also need to get better intelligence.  If not Bush, then Cheney would have been strong on this, but there was no word that any hawk in that administration was pushing for a full attack on Iran.  Like you said, even Bolton is not saying strike now.

Netanyahu is a strong leader and he isn't doing it. You and I might not trust Obama, but if he saw a low risk opportunity to end a rogue nuclear weapons program, who knows.  I think it was Strat that wrote about the aftermath of a strike in the gulf with the Straits mined and closed, a shutdown to the global economy that we are not ready for in addition to whatever battles or war would break out. 

Maybe the strategy has to be wait, gather intelligence and counterpunch.  If/when Iran strikes somewhere, then strike back instantly with devastation to their programs.  Can't be labeled the aggressors, you know.  Perhaps a discovery and capture of bin Laden in Iran planning more attacks would justify a dismantling by force of their weapons program.

I assume we sell rather than give arms to Saudi and have done that for decades. Saudi unfortunately is the balancing power in the region and other than Israel and Iraq the place most threatened by Iran. Their system fosters evil but I don't think their monarchy is our enemy or would threaten our interests.  Like Crafty said about Pakistan, the risk will be with who later gets control of those weapons.  In one part we don't want to be the world's policeman and in another we don't want these fair weathered friends like Saudi, China, Russia, India, Brazil, you name it, to be fully armed and ready to do the work in place of us.  We learned though that help won't come from Europe when we need reliable allies with defense capabilities.

I'm glad we don't also have Saddam to worry about in that neighborhood.  I remember learning that he wasn't an immediate threat because he was really 5-7 years away from nuclear weapons when the decision to go in was made; that was 9 years ago.

Ahmadinejad is a loud mouth provocateur with his holocaust denial talk for example but to the extent that they support war against our interests outside their borders through Hezbollah, Hamas and surrogates in Iraq, they should be met with war inside their borders, it seems to me.

Also too bad we are committed to a policy of worsening our dependence on foreign oil at a time when a responsible defense action can't be taken because it could lead to a closing the shipping lanes of oil out of the gulf.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 15, 2010, 09:27:32 AM

Doug,

Good points.

Surely there are people who know a lot more and are a lot smarter than me who have not been ready to come out and advise (at least publically) an attack on Iran.

However, I definitely don't trust Obama.  His goals and interests are not with Israel or the Jews.  That is clear.  And Bush was very weak politically after Iraq.  I wonder if he would have been against a pre-emptive attack against Iran if it wasn't for other events, Iraq, Afghanistan, a collapse in the economy, total loss of political support, and avalanche of political weight for the opposing political party.  He was in NO position in any way shape or form to advocate any kind of strike against Iran.

The collapse of our power couldn't have come at any better time for Iran than it did.  Or any better time to get a veiled marxist into the white house with a Muslim middle name adding to the great luck of the Mullahs.

Netenyahu may be caving to US pressure.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 15, 2010, 12:00:45 PM

Quote from: ccp on September 15, 2010, 09:27:32 AM

However, I definitely don't trust Obama.  His goals and interests are not with Israel or the Jews.  That is clear. 


Netenyahu may be caving to US pressure.

As you have pointed out before CCP Israel's and America's interest may not always coincide.  To paraphrase I would hope that
Obama's "goals and interests are with America and all Americans". 

He has no obligation to support the "Jews" or for that matter Christians, Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists. 
Our unwavering support for Israel has cost us dearly.  That said, Israel has  been a good friend; perhaps the only reliable friend we have ever had in the Middle East.
Still, while I understand your biased personal interest, I believe what is best for America should be the primary question on the table.  It may not coincide with Israel's
goals and interests.

Further, I don't think it unreasonable that Netenyahu listen very carefully to America's wishes.  As a loved, but errant minor child dependent upon his parent for substance,
Israel should understand, respect and carefully listen to our wishes.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 15, 2010, 12:05:27 PM

Again you miss the point JDN. If Israel ceased to exist, the muslim world would be enraged about the occupied land of "al andulas". There has to be an element of pragmatism to America's foreign policy, but the has to be a moral core as well. Our support of Israel is morallly right.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 15, 2010, 12:33:18 PM

I don't think I miss the point.  I respect CCP; but even he has made it quite clear on previous posts that Israel's interests and America's interests may differ.

Further, I'm not sure the Muslim's world's deep seated hatred towards Israel is quite the same as their desire to occupy "al andulas" or anyplace else for that matter.

Overall I too think our support for Israel is "morally right".  They have been a good friend.  But then so is our support for freedom throughout the world, our other allies,
protecting the downtrodden, righting injustice, erasing poverty, disease, etc. "morally right".  But we have limits.

As you pointed out, mixed with our strong moral core there has to be an element of pragmatism to America's foreign policy.  
In the end, What is best for America should be the ruling principle.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 15, 2010, 12:38:30 PM

It's not in our interest to let Israel be destroyed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 15, 2010, 12:42:12 PM

"As a loved, but errant minor child dependent upon his parent for substance"

JDN, Not so dependent anymore.  I think roughly 1% their GDP comes from US aid; this is not like Soviets propping up Cuba.  I would assume intelligence for security in the region flows both ways.  I'm no history expert, but I think the 'parent' was the U.N.  Either way you might say the kid grew up pretty well in spite of living in a bad neighborhood and having an absent, dysfunctional parent, if that is the metaphor.

"Israel should understand, respect and carefully listen to our wishes."  - respectfully, bullsh*t IMHO.  What other ally does that?  I see more a relationship of peers or equals.  We have recently spit on them. They can listen to us and ALL the signals around them and then do what makes sense for security and survival.

There is no way today they realistically count on unwavering or timely support from the U.S. and probably not since our first lady now Sec. State played kissy-face with Mrs. Arafat or even before that.  Obama will be President for 2 more years and annihilation of Israel, the stated goal of their enemies, can take place in minutes.
----
Regarding the posts while I typed, the GM translation is the Muslim claim on the Iberian Penninsula (Spain) and extremists have already bombed Madrid.  It IS in the best interests of the U.S. that we help prevent the annihilation of Israel or any other ally and most any other country or civilization.  The difference with Israel is that threat is stated, published, promised and repeated by some pretty bad and well-armed actors. Not some wild hypothetical.  The cultural, family, political and trade connections to the US are very real also JDN and should not be discarded or discounted.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 15, 2010, 12:58:10 PM

Doug, perhaps the UN was the biological parent, but the US raised Israel like their own child. Our money, our support, our military, our sacrifice, and our UN veto has protected Israel like we have protected no other ally.

Peers or equals?  If your point is that Israel can do it alone; then fine.  Let them; but you know and I know they are lost without us.  In exchange, therefore I do expect them to understand our point, and respect and carefully listen to our wishes.  They don't have to comply, but then like the errant child, the parent may ask the child to go it alone for a while.  Love still and will always exist, but it needs to be two ways.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 15, 2010, 01:03:04 PM

What exactly do you think Israel should do that it isn't?

Title: "Partners in peace"
Post by: G M on September 15, 2010, 01:08:13 PM

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1539/palestinians-english-vs-arabic

Ironically, the same officials who are offering themselves to Israelis as "peace partners," are, at the same time, telling Palestinians -- in Arabic -- that Israel does not want peace. The tone in the Palestinian media remains as anti-Israel as ever.

In just the past week, Palestinian Authority officials have even escalated their rhetoric by issuing daily threats to withdraw from the US-sponsored direct talks that were launched in Washington last week.

In Arabic, Mahmoud Abbas and his top officials are telling Palestinians that they would never make "even one concession" to Israel during the peace talks. In Arabic, they are saying that they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will never relinquish the right of return of millions of refugees to Israel, and will never make any compromises on Jerusalem.

In Arabic, they are also telling the Palestinians that Israel is not serious about peace, and that there is no real partner for peace in Israel.

In English, however, the same officials are telling the Israelis that they are ready to display flexibility and make "sacrifices" for the sake of peace.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 15, 2010, 01:19:45 PM

Quote from: G M on September 15, 2010, 01:03:04 PM

What exactly do you think Israel should do that it isn't?

Maybe hold off on the settlements?

Maybe treat the Palestinians in Israel a little better?  Equal?

Maybe in negotiations discuss mutual recognition of Israel as a democracy, but not only as a "Jewish State".

I'm really not sure...

We seem to have gotten off topic; I was pointing out that the American President's obligation is to place America's interests before Israel's interests.  
Hopefully they coincide.  

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2010, 10:35:07 AM

"I was pointing out that the American President's obligation is to place America's interests before Israel's interests."
 
"Hopefully they coincide."

Admittedly not clear to me.  Certainly Bamster doesn't think so.  I see no evidence he ever did.  Quite the contrary.

If Israel is not a Jewish state than frankly the Jews are again without a homeland.

My main point was that Israel is being threatened with annhilation.  And force is the only way to stop it.  Unless, as I have said, that by some miracle, events in Iran change.

There is no other logical solution at this point.  Iranian leadership is clear on their intentions.

American support for military action is not there.  Whether it is in our interests is an important side topic.  Is Israel going to wait to be the recipients of a first strike because of world opinion or defend themselves with preemptive action?  It appears the former.





 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 16, 2010, 02:35:35 PM

I said; "I was pointing out that the American President's obligation is to place America's interests before Israel's interests."
 
"Hopefully they coincide."

CCP said, Admittedly not clear to me.

And that is the dilemma!  IF it is not in America's interest, but only Israel's immediate interest, why should America do anything?  Risk anything?
We have enough on our plate.  Sorry, I think that is the belief of most Americans.

As for the subject of Israel officially being recognized as a "Jewish State" by all citizens, that does not seem congruous with being a free democracy.
I've heard it said America is a Christian nation, but that is not true.  We tolerate all religions without discrimination or favoritism. 
That is one aspect of a true democracy in my opinion.  How would you feel being Jewish not having the same rights and privileges that I have as
a Christian here in America?  Would you give an oath to support a "Christian" nation?

Concerning settlements, I don't quite get that one either.  Appease world opinion; just don't build anymore.  A little good PR might help Israel.

As for Iran, I agree most Americans definitely would not support military action at this time.  But what is in America's interest is not a "side" topic;
it is the main topic.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2010, 03:05:50 PM

"I've heard it said America is a Christian nation, but that is not true.  We tolerate all religions without discrimination or favoritism."

JDN,

True but Israel is not and is not intended to be like America.  Nor should it be. 

We are a gigantic nation that can absorb all kinds (although not without limit and recent decades call all of it into question).

Israel is intended to be a homeland for Jews.  Palestinians are multiplying at a rate as fast as any group in the world.  They would soon if not already outnumber Jews.

Do you think they would be so tolerant if they had some sort of majority power in Israel??

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 16, 2010, 06:54:08 PM

I understand your point, but following your logic it just sounds a lot like whites, South Africa and Apartheid.  I suppose you could say the blacks in
South Africa were multiplying at a rate much faster than the ruling whites.  And they did outnumber the whites.  Like Israel, the whites
were much more productive and better educated; richer and more successful than the blacks.  You could say the whites "built the country from nothing" etc.
just like the Jews in Israel.

Still, I'm not sure keeping white rule would have been right...

I think Israel has a dilemma; they call themselves a democracy, but are they?  As you say, "Israel is intended to be a homeland for Jews."  Others are second class citizens.
That doesn't sound democratic.

I am concerned that unless change and compromise takes place, like South Africa, time and world public opinion may grow against Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 16, 2010, 07:11:54 PM

JDN,

Mexicans claim where you live and claim that you are using immigration laws to keep them from their homeland.  Do you want to be a minority in Aztlan? Are you the moral equivalent of a white south african?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 16, 2010, 07:21:17 PM

http://www.aztlan.net/razapal.htm

La Raza as Palestinians

There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States. Fortunately, the struggle for equality by La Raza has not reached the level of violence that is now being experienced in the Holy Land and hopefully it never will. Some ominous signs, however, are manifesting themselves in Los Angeles County that may be a harbinger of things to come. Widespread areas in southern California have recently experienced ambushes, shootings and assassinations of police officers by young disaffected Raza youths who are routinely harassed by special police units like the now disbanded CRASH units of the Los Angeles Police Department.

The similarities are many. The primary one of course is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories. The takeover of our respective lands by foreign elements occurred 100 years apart. For La Raza it happened in 1848 when Mexico lost the southwest at the end of the Mexican American War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidlago. For the Palestinians it occurred in 1948 when the Zionist Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and signed the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired. The effects of the occupation policies over time , 153 years for La Raza de Aztlan and 53 years for the Palestinians, have been eerily similar.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 16, 2010, 09:08:34 PM

Aztian.net???
I surprised at you GM: you read and support this drivel?
You must be kidding?
 :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 17, 2010, 06:12:44 AM

I read lots of things, doesn't mean I support it. So, explain how your white south african smear against the israelis doesn't apply to you as well.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 17, 2010, 06:31:06 AM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/land_for_peace_american_style.html

Land For Peace, American Style
By Rob Miller
" Never ask a friend to buy a horse you wouldn't buy yourself" - (Loose translation of an old Yiddish proverb)

Apply the principles urged on Israel to the United States, and you end up with a scenario something like this:


The new final settlement conference between the US, Mexico, and the Aztlánistas is scheduled for late June. The agreement promises a new chapter in the relationship between the countries -- and new hope for Mexican refugees yearning for self-determination and a state of their own.

For years, there have been ongoing hostilities, culminating in a rash of illegal immigration and ongoing terrorism on the border. While there are many troublesome issues, new attitudes on both sides of the conflict may mean that peace is finally at hand.

The new status quo will probably look very much like a proposition made by New Aztlán advocates like MEChA (and prominent American academics), tempered with the peace plan promoted by Mexican President Calderon. Other Latin American countries have endorsed the plan.

What the Aztlánistas want is final status on a state of their own with contiguous borders, New Aztlán, to consist of the American territories of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. The capital of the new regime will, of course, be traditionally Aztlánista Los Angeles.


All non-Mexican settlements and American settlers would be evacuated outside these borders to the original pre-1836 US borders, with some modifications, perhaps, to reflect demographics. Part of Northern California, for instance, could be traded for land in southern Nevada, eastern Louisiana, Colorado or Utah as part of a final agreement.

A key demand for the Mexicans and the Aztlánistas is justice for the descendants of the refugees and their descendants dating from the original American-Mexican conflict. They want a full right of return for these refugees and their descendants to Mexican lands still in the hands of the US.  The plan's supporters insist upon a right to settle in the US for those Mexicans dubbed "illegal aliens" who have been victimized by what both the Mexicans and the Aztlánistas denounce as the apartheid border wall and restrictive US immigration policies.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 17, 2010, 07:06:35 AM

Quote from: G M on September 17, 2010, 06:12:44 AM

I read lots of things, doesn't mean I support it. So, explain how your white south african smear against the israelis doesn't apply to you as well.

 :?

Aztian.net    -     You like this stuff huh?  By mistake I read trash once in a while too.   :-D

We live in a democracy; freedom of choice and religion. 

In California the whites will soon be a minority; Latinos will be in control.  Fair enough; one citizen one vote.  And oh yeah, here in America all citizens are equal.  Even the anchor babies
including the illegal ones.   :-)  No quotas here based upon religion; Christians get in line to enter America just like all other religions for entry and to apply for citizenship. No favoritism.
All equal.....  Get my point?

I liked CCP's answer.  He accepted and called a spade a spade.  "Israel is intended to be a homeland for Jews."  Period.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 17, 2010, 07:27:47 AM

California wasn't empty when the US got it through warfare. You are on occupied land. How is a white southern californian different morally from white south african in your wealthy gated community?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 17, 2010, 07:44:43 AM

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/03/27/welcome-to-reconquista/

Look at the signs, JDN. They are talking about YOU.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 17, 2010, 07:52:23 AM

Quote from: G M on September 17, 2010, 07:27:47 AM

California wasn't empty when the US got it through warfare. You are on occupied land. How is a white southern californian different morally from white south african in your wealthy gated community?

CA is not trying to keep out or deny votes to ANY group based upon religion, ethic origin, race, etc.  LA's mayor is Mexican American.  Our President is black, yet not too many years ago blacks couldn't even vote.
Most of my neighbors are Mexican.

As in South Africa, maybe it is time for Israeli leaders to embrace a pluralistic and humanistic vision for the state. Perhaps Israel should begin to imagine a state in which each person — Jewish or non-Jewish — is equal under the law irrespective of religion or race.

Or not, and simply continue to call "Israel an exclusive homeland for Jews."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 17, 2010, 08:01:34 AM

And if enough of the La Raza/MECHA/Atzlanistas decide that California needs to become "New Aztlan" and illegal occupiers such as your self need to be driven out, then what?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 17, 2010, 08:26:36 AM

"Israel is intended to be a homeland for Jews."  Period.

Absolutely.  Israel will cease to exist otherwise.  But let me make myself clear - I defend that position.

That is why there has been since 1948 a *two state* solution.

What Arab country would allow Jews to come in and multiply like freaken jack rabbits till they are the majority and then turn around and tell them what to do?

Lets stop using America as some sort of standard by which Israel should be compared against. 

But comparing Israel to S. Africa is also absurd.

And I think the comparison of La Raza to Palestinian has some parallels.  They are clearly a type of terrorist intimidation organization.  Question the Latinos and we will come after you in every way shape and form.  We wil call you bigots, we will post your name, ruin your life, mobilize illegals as well as illegals and on and on and on.
Just short of violence but every other tactic they can think of.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 17, 2010, 08:32:03 AM

http://discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6192

MECHA (MOVIMIENTO ESTUDIANTIL DE CHICANOS DE AZTLÁN) (MECHA)

    *  Radical Chicano student organization
    * Supports open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and U.S. recognition of Spanish as an official national language
    * Founded on a platform of racism and revanchism
    * Sees university as “agency” to fulfill political goals



Founded in 1969 at a conference at the University of California at Santa Barabara, MEChA is an acronym for El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (the Chicano Student Movement), an umbrella organization of radical Chicano student groups. Aztlán refers to the territory in the Southwestern United States -- including California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, as well as parts of Nevada, Utah, and Colorado -- that Mexico ceded to the United States in 1848 but which Mexican separatists consider part of a mythical Aztec homeland that rightfully belongs to them. One of MEChA's more notable co-founders was Lawrence Estrada, who is currently a tenured associate professor at Fairhaven College.

MEChA’s core philosophy is set forth in its founding manifestos, “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán” and “El Plan de Santa Barbara.” In the former document, MEChA declares, “We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent [the United States],” and vows to repel the “brutal ‘gringo’ invasion of our territories.” MEChA further states: “Where we are a majority we will control; where we are a minority we will represent a pressure group; nationally, we represent one party: La Familia de Raza [the Family of Race].” MEChA’s mission finds additional expression it the organization’s slogan, “Por la Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada," which translates to “For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing.”

Although MEChA has claimed that the aforementioned documents no longer represent its beliefs, this defense is belied by the organization’s more recent documents. MEChA’s current constitution, for instance, instructs chapter leaders to “

• rient all members by discussing and reading historical documents of our Movimiento including: El Plan de Santa Barbara, El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán …” Accordingly, MEChA member groups, such the UC Berkeley chapter, cite these documents and explain that “MEChA understands that our founding documents are the fundamentals to MEChA.“

By supporting continued high levels of Mexican immigration to the United States, MEChA hopes to achieve, by sheer weight of numbers, the re-partition of the American Southwest. Toward this end, the organization endorses a host of pro-immigration policies. These include open borders, government benefits (including the right to vote and obtain drivers’ licenses) for non-citizens, amnesty for illegal aliens, dual citizenship, state recognition of Spanish as an official language, and racial set-asides in education and corporate hiring.

MEChA espouses what it calls an ideology of “Chicanismo,” wherein Chicano purity is held up as a supreme virtue while assimilation is denounced as a betrayal of ethnic heritage. Those Latinos who fail to adhere to MEChA’s ideological platform are condemned as “race traitors.” In 1995, the Voz Fronteriza, the University of California San Diego's official MEChA publication, published an editorial on the death of a Latino INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) agent. Describing him as a traitor to his race who deserved to die, the editors of the Voz concluded that "all the migra [a pejorative term for the INS] pigs should be killed, every single one."

As a student organization, MEChA has concentrated its political activism on American higher education. According to MEChA, the “university is a critical agency in the transformation of the Chicano community.” Historically, the organization has pursued two aims. On the belief that American universities engage in pro-capitalist political indoctrination, MEChA has sought to popularize its own belief about the evils of the capitalist system -- the ethic of capitalism is, in MEChA’s view, an “ethic of profit and competition, greed and intolerance” -- while at the same time promoting the “ancestral communalism” of the Mexican people.

Toward this purpose, MEChA has played a frontal role in the creation of Chicano Studies programs. A direct challenge to the traditional university curriculum, these programs are intended to “serve the interests of the Chicano people.” As a result, Chicano students are expected not merely to enroll in these programs but to “insure dominant influence of these programs.” In the words of MEChA’s national constitution, “Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán.” Students also have a duty to “constantly remind” Chicano faculty and administrators “where their loyalty lies.”

Actively involved in political causes, MEChA originally protested against the Vietnam War and rallied on behalf of Chicano labor unions such as the United Farm Workers Union. In recent years, MEChA has become a leading campus advocacy group for illegal immigration -- supporting amnesty, welfare outlays, and taxpayer-funded education for illegal immigrants. Moreover, the organization has opposed the enforcement of immigration laws on the American border with Mexico. MEChA regards both of the main political parties in the U.S. as hostile to its interests, characterizing the two-party system as the “same animal with two heads that feed from the same trough.”

MEChA has today established itself as a potent force on campuses nationwide: the organization boasts upward of 300 chapters in universities across the U.S., some 100 them of in California alone. Chicano Studies programs and departments have proliferated in recent years, many being administered by faculty who were themselves former MEChA activists and who remain sympathetic to the organization’s politics. Despite its radical agenda, MEChA has been able to generate revenue through mandatory student activity fees. MEChA has also focused recruitment on public high schools, establishing high-school chapters and encouraging its young supporters to participate in protests and marches.

While MEChA’s radicalism has been largely rhetorical, the organization has occasionally resorted to violent measures. In 1993, when UCLA denied the group’s demand that the Chicano Studies Program be accorded departmental status, MEChA activists responded by rampaging through the campus and vandalizing the university’s faculty center, reportedly causing $500,000 worth of damage. In 1996, Mecha activists, who call themselves “Mechistas,” were videotaped assaulting demonstrators protesting illegal immigration.

MEChA also has a history of intolerance toward criticism. In 2002, MEChA members stole the press run of the California Patriot, the conservative newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley, for likening MEChA to a neo-Nazi movement. The loss of the newspapers was valued at $2,000. In May of 2006, MEChA activists destroyed 5,000 copies of the Campus Courier, a student newspaper at Pasadena City College, because of what they considered the paper’s inadequate coverage of a MEChA-sponsored event.

MEChA has in the past been associated with anti-Semitic sentiments and groups. A 1998 MEChA youth conference at California Polytechnic State University featured a printed program that introduced the school as “Cal Poly State Jewniversity.” The program also referred to New York as “Jew York.” When the Anti-Defamation League objected to the program, the university’s MEChA chapter issued a formal apology. MEChA has also been linked to La Voz de Aztlán (The Voice of Aztlan), a Chicano webzine that regularly publishes articles attacking Jews, Zionism, and Israel.

Several prominent politicians have emerged from MEChA’s ranks. Among them are Antonio Villaraigosa, who served as President of a MEChA chapter at UCLA. Cruz Bustamante, the lieutenant governor of California and a former gubernatorial candidate, was a member of MEChA as a student at California’s Fresno State College.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 17, 2010, 09:10:45 AM

Exactly.

They are not coming to become Americans and blend in.
They are coming to take over.
and this is why I am not for increasing legal immigration and not for amnesty in any way shape of form.
And I oppose the birth right thing.  It is being used against us.

The immigrants of today are not the same as those of our forefathers.

Same for the mosque thing.  They are not building the mosgue to celebrate our freedoms our country.  It is as Geller put it, " a giant middle finger to America".

Do not let this Iman's subtle voice and con game fool you.

Many people who come here are gaming our own system.

We are being duped.  Like Savage says, Bloomberg proves that even billionaires can be duped, can be fools.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 17, 2010, 03:00:02 PM

Gentlemen:

This last two posts belong in the Mexico thread or the Immigration thread, not the Israel thread.  Please repost there and delete here.

Yip!

Title: Next Israel-Hezbollah war will be worse
Post by: G M on September 23, 2010, 06:49:16 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/next-israel-hezbollah-war-will-be-worse-says-u-s-analyst-1.314880

In its next war against Hezbollah, the IDF's Northern Command would use the "Lebanon Corps" and five divisions - the 162nd, 36th, 98th, 366th and 319th, according to U.S. intelligence veteran Jeffrey White in research published last week by the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

According to White, if another Israel-Hezbollah war breaks out it will not resemble the war of the summer of 2006, but will cover much of Lebanon and Israel, and probably also Syria, and is likely to also draw in Iran, involve major military operations, cause significant casualties among combatants and civilians, and destroy infrastructure.

Title: An ill wind blows for Israel
Post by: G M on September 24, 2010, 11:22:46 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mideast-strategic-perversity/?singlepage=true


Mideast Strategic Perversity
At a time when Israel’s security environment is worsening, in no small part because of the Obama administration’s strategic weakness, Israel is being pushed hard by that same administration into making its security environment even worse.
September 21, 2010 - by P. David Hornik


Russia has decided to sell Syria P-800 Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles despite heavy Israeli and American protests.

Last month Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally asked Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to call off the sale. The U.S. is also described as putting up “stiff opposition” to it. Yet over the weekend, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced the sale in Washington during talks with U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates.

Both the U.S. and Israel fear that the Yakhont, a difficult-to-intercept missile that cruises just above sea level at twice the speed of sound, could threaten their naval vessels in the Mediterranean. They are also concerned that Syria could transfer the missiles to Hezbollah. In the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah hit an Israeli missile boat with a Chinese-made missile, killing four crew members. The missile had been smuggled into Lebanon through Syria.

That not even Israel’s superpower ally could dissuade Russia from taking this aggressive, dangerous step is unfortunately part of a pattern. Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz have noted in the Wall Street Journal that, even at a time when the major European states and Japan are cutting business ties with Iran, Russia (along with China) is stepping in to fill the void.

Title: evaluation of missle threat
Post by: ccp on September 25, 2010, 07:29:07 AM

http://defense-update.com/wp/20100920_yakhont_in_syria.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+(Defense+Update)&utm_content=Google+Reader

How serious is the P800 Yakhont threat? Does it have a destabilizing effect on the Middle East?
September 20, 2010 at 12:23 am tamir_eshel No comments

The launch vehicle unit carrying two Yakhont anti-ship missiles in container launchers. The missiles are carried in the recessed position and launched vertically from the erected canisters.
The expected arrival of the P800 Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missile in Syria is considered the first serious attempt by Syria to directly challenge the Israel Navy since the 1973 war, when the Israeli Navy sunk five Syrian vessels in the first missile-boat engagement known as the ‘Battle of Latakia’. Four decades later, the P800 Yakhont is far superior than the Styx missiles that failed to protect the Syrian Navy in 1973.  Much like the Russian-Indian Brahmos, the earlier Moskit and Supersonic Alpha, Yakhont has the capability to strike its target at supersonic speed, flying at very low level, leaving the defender much shorter time to react. Yet, ship defenses have come a long way since the Electronic Warfare (EW) systems that saved the day and won the battle for the Israelis.

AEGIS systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the European PAAMS, used by the Royal Navy, French and Italian navies and Israel’s new Barak 8 ship air defense system are designed to match such treats. So does Israel’s ‘Magic Wand’ system, employing the Stunner missile interceptor, capable to counter these potent missiles effectively if employed in surface/surface or ship/surface role. However, the majority of smaller naval vessels, still equipped with ‘point defense’ anti-missile systems were not designed to counter such high speed attacks, particularly when it comes in salvos of two or four missile.






Such elements are at risk within ranges of 300 km, by missiles fired from the Mediterranean Syrian naval bases at Tartus and Latakia. Yakhont typically cruises to the target area at high altitude, and then descends for a sea skimming attack from under the horizon. The distance at which it begins its descent can be programmed before launch, by determining the achievable range, which is between 120 (low level flight) – 300 km (high mid-course, low-level beyond the horizon to the target.


The potential coverage of P800 Yakhont missiles fired from coastal sites (Tartus) or land sites in Southern Syria cover Israel's Mediterranean Naval Bases.
While some navies could avoid this area, for Israel, the long range of the P800 means its naval vessels could be at risk, even at their main base in Haifa, a site already compromised by rockets fired from Lebanon during the 2006 war. Israel’s second naval base in Ashdod could be targeted from land-based sites in Southern Syria. Furthermore, when targeting Israeli naval patrols in international waters off the Lebanese coast, P800 can be vertically launched from inland sites in Syria or Lebanon, fired behind the Lebanon mountain ridge, avoiding detection from the sea, thus minimizing the early warning for the targeted vessels. Therefore, accelerated fielding of Barak-8 and Magic Wand systems should be a top priority for Israel. Another risk for Navies operating in the Persian Gulf presents a technology leak – by such a missile falling into Iranian hands, which could accelerate the introduction of such potent weapons in Tehran’s growing anti-shipping arsenal.


The operational concept of the Bastion P coastal defense system employs multiple mobile launchers each carrying two Yakhont missiles, capable of attacking targets at a distance of 250 km from the coast. Targeting is provided by helicopters or other airborne platforms, coastal radars or ships at sea. Each launch unit is operating independently, or coordinate its activity with another launch vehicle located up to 15 km away, targeting, command and control are provided by the central command vehicle and regional command post that can be located more than 25 km apart.

The current contract, estimated to be worth $300 million includes the delivery of two Bastion coastal defense systems, each includes 36 missiles. It is yet unclear if the Syrian navy will also opt to equip its naval platforms will with these new weapons. The Yakhont can be fitted with relatively small vessels, from corvette size and larger. The Bastion system is operated from mobile launchers on land, each launcher carries two ready to launch missiles. Another configuration is designed for airborne platforms. But even with these potent weapons in hand, the Syrians may not yet be ready to employ them effectively. Syria currently does not have the means to effectively target the missile beyond the horizon, lacking maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles or attack aircraft capable of carrying such missiles. Even their largest Petya class Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) frigates do not have a flight deck for the Ka-28 (Helix) helicopters, operated by the Syrian Navy. The Syrians do not have the capability to detect, track and designate targets at those ranges since, being a small, defensive force, they did not have any weapon reaching out to these ranges. This is particularly true when the target is ‘silent’ and cannot be targeted by surface-based Electronic Support Measures (ESM).


Each mobile transporter-launcher carrying two Yakhont P800 missiles.
If the Syrians are seriously planning to extend their operational reach with the missile, one has to watch out for Syria to reach for UAVs, naval patrol aircraft (Be-200 or Il-38 from any CIS nation or other countries (decommissioning such aircraft could be an option). Such transfer of equipment could be unnoticed as it does not involves weapons transfer. They could also opt for upgrading the Su-24MK ‘Fencer D’ to take on maritime recce role. Even more serious is a combination of Su-27/Su-30 and P800s, which could provides the P800 with the stand-off targeting and attack capability against surface targets. The Russians are using their Onyx version of the weapon with their Su-33 carrier-based naval fighters. By knowing the P800 is within range, the Israeli Navy will definitely lose its dominant and unchallenged position in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly along the Lebanese coast, and therefore should take defensive measures – certainly be on guard, which it failed, during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when ISN Hanit was hit unexpectedly by a Hizbollan C-802 missile – having turned off its on-board defensive systems.

Of course, for deliberate ‘ambush’ attacks Syria could try deploying forward targeting using merchant or fishery vessels sailing in the Eastern Mediterranean  or submarines, provided by allies such as Iran (since Syria do not have any submarines now, after decommissioning their 3 Romeo subs about six years ago). But this is really a long, long shot that would cost Syria dearly.

Altogether, for the short term, the arrival of the P800 in the Mediterranean is a serious threat. Over time, as the Israel Navy gets its Barak-8 missiles and ‘Magic Wand’ deployed, the threat could be contained, given the Syrians will not deploy large numbers of these missiles on platforms and constellations that would maximize its capability to launch saturation attack against the IN leading vessels. Whatever the case may be, both sides, the Syrians and the Israelis need time to deploy and defend so the threat may be serious, at first sight, but viable solutions are already in sight.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 25, 2010, 12:04:31 PM

ccp:

This issue had crossed my radar screen.  Thanks for that report.

Title: A letter from a forgotten Jew
Post by: rachelg on October 13, 2010, 02:53:44 PM

I am a forgotten Jew.
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/entry/letter_from_a_forgotten_jew

My roots are nearly 2,600 years old, my ancestors made landmark contributions to world civilization, and my presence was felt from North Africa to the Fertile Crescent - but I barely exist today. You see, I am a Jew from the Arab world. No, that's not entirely accurate. I've fallen into a semantic trap. I predated the Arab conquest in just about every country in which I lived. When Arab invaders conquered North Africa, for example, I had already been present there for over six centuries.

Today, you cannot find a trace of me in most of this vast region.

Try seeking me out in Iraq.

Remember the Babylonian exile from ancient Judea, following the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE? Remember the vibrant Jewish community that emerged there and produced the Babylonian Talmud?

Do you know that in the ninth century, under Muslim rule, we Jews in Iraq were forced to wear a distinctive yellow patch on our clothing - a precursor of the infamous Nazi yellow badge - and faced other discriminatory measures? Or that in the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, we faced onerous taxes, the destruction of several synagogues, and severe repression?

And I wonder if you have ever heard of the Farhud, the breakdown of law and order, in Baghdad in June 1941. As an AJC specialist, George Gruen, reported:

In a spasm of uncontrolled violence, between 170 and 180 Jews were killed, more than 900 were wounded, and 14,500 Jews sustained material losses through the looting or destruction of their stores and homes. Although the government eventually restored order... Jews were squeezed out of government employment, limited in schools, and subjected to imprisonment, heavy fines, or sequestration of their property on the flimsiest of charges of being connected to either or both of the two banned movements. Indeed, Communism and Zionism were frequently equated in the statutes. In Iraq the mere receipt of a letter from a Jew in Palestine [pre-1948] was sufficient to bring about arrest and loss of property.

At our peak, we were 135,000 Jews in 1948, and we were a vitally important factor in virtually every aspect of Iraqi society. To illustrate our role, here is what the Encyclopedia Judaica wrote about Iraqi Jewry: "During the 20th century, Jewish intellectuals, authors, and poets made an important contribution to the Arabic language and literature by writing books and numerous essays."

By 1950 other Iraqi Jews and I were faced with the revocation of citizenship, seizure of assets, and, most ominously, public hangings. A year earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Sa'id had told the British ambassador in Amman of a plan to expel the entire Jewish community and place us at Jordan's doorstep. The ambassador later recounted the episode in a memoir entitled From the Wings: Amman Memoirs, 1947-1951.

Miraculously, in 1951 about 100,000 of us got out, thanks to the extraordinary help of Israel, but with little more than the clothes on our backs. The Israelis dubbed the rescue Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.

Those of us who stayed lived in perpetual fear--fear of violence and more public hangings, as occurred on January 27, 1969, when nine Jews were hanged in the center of Baghdad on trumped-up charges, while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wildly cheered the executions. The rest of us got out one way or another, including friends of mine who found safety in Iran when it was ruled by the Shah.

Now there are no Jews left to speak of, nor are there monuments, museums, or other reminders of our presence on Iraqi soil for twenty-six centuries.

Do the textbooks used in Iraqi schools today refer to our one-time presence, to our positive contribution to the evolution of Iraqi society and culture? Not a chance. Two-thousand-six-hundred years are erased, wiped out, as if they never happened. Can you put yourself in my shoes and feel the excruciating pain of loss and invisibility?

I am a forgotten Jew.

I was first settled in what is present-day Libya by the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy Lagos (323-282 BCE), according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. My forefathers and foremothers lived continuously on this soil for over two millennia, our numbers bolstered by Berbers who converted to Judaism, Spanish and Portuguese Jews fleeing the Inquisition, and Italian Jews crossing the Mediterranean.

I was confronted with the anti-Jewish legislation of the occupying Italian Fascists. I endured the incarceration of 2,600 fellow Jews in an Axis-run camp in 1942. I survived the deportation of 200 fellow Jews to Italy the same year. I coped with forced labor in Libya during the war. I witnessed Muslim rioting in 1945 and 1948 that left nearly 150 Libyan Jews dead, hundreds injured, and thousands homeless.

I watched with uncertainty as Libya became an independent country in 1951. I wondered what would happen to those 6,000 of us still there, the remnant of the 39,000 Jews who had formed this once-proud community--that is, until the rioting sent people packing, many headed for the newly established State of Israel.

The good news was that there were constitutional protections for minority groups in the newly established Libyan nation. The bad news was that they were completely ignored.

Within ten years of my native country's independence, I could not vote, hold public office, serve in the army, obtain a passport, purchase new property, acquire majority ownership in any new business, or participate in the supervision of our community's affairs.

By June 1967 the die was cast. Those of us who had remained, hoping against hope that things would improve in a land to which we were deeply attached and which, at times, had been good to us, had no choice but to flee. The Six-Day War created an explosive atmosphere in the streets. Eighteen Jews were killed, and Jewish-owned homes and shops were burned to the ground.

I and 4,000 other Jews left however we could, most of us with no more than a suitcase and the equivalent of a few dollars.

I was never allowed to return. I never recovered the assets I had left behind in Libya, despite promises by the government. In effect, it was all stolen--the homes, furniture, shops, communal institutions, you name it. Still worse, I was never able to visit the grave sites of my relatives. That hurt especially deeply. In fact, I was told that, under Colonel Qaddhafi, who seized power in 1969, the Jewish cemeteries were bulldozed and the headstones used for road building.

I am a forgotten Jew.

My experience - the good and the bad--lives on in my memory, and I'll do my best to transmit it to my children and grandchildren, but how much can they absorb? How much can they identify with a culture that seems like a relic of a distant past that appears increasingly remote and intangible? True, a few books and articles on my history have been written, but - and here I'm being generous - they are far from best-sellers.

In any case, can these books compete with the systematic attempt by Libyan leaders to expunge any trace of my presence over two millennia? Can these books compete with a world that paid virtually no attention to the end of my existence?

Take a look at The New York Times index for 1967, and you'll see for yourself how the newspaper of record covered the tragic demise of an ancient community. I can save you the trouble of looking - just a few paltry lines were all the story got.

I am a forgotten Jew.

I am one of hundreds of thousands of Jews who once lived in countries like Iraq and Libya. All told, we numbered close to 900,000 in 1948. Today we are fewer than 5,000, mostly concentrated in two moderate countries - Morocco and Tunisia.

We were once vibrant communities in Aden, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and other nations, with roots dating back literally 2,000 years and more. Now we are next to none.

Why does no one speak of us and our story? Why does the world relentlessly, obsessively speak of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars in the Middle East - who, not unimportantly, were displaced by wars launched by their own Arab brethren--but totally ignore the Jewish refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars?

Why is the world left with the impression that there's only one refugee population from the Arab-Israeli conflict, or, more precisely, the Arab conflict with Israel, when, in fact, there are two refugee populations, and our numbers were somewhat larger than the Palestinians?

I've spent many sleepless nights trying to understand this injustice.

Should I blame myself?

Perhaps we Jews from Arab countries accepted our fate too passively. Perhaps we failed to seize the opportunity to tell our story. Look at the Jews of Europe. They turned to articles, books, poems, plays, paintings, and film to recount their story. They depicted the periods of joy and the periods of tragedy, and they did it in a way that captured the imagination of many non-Jews. Perhaps I was too fatalistic, too shell-shocked, too uncertain of my artistic or literary talents.

But that can't be the only reason for my unsought status as a forgotten Jew. It's not that I haven't tried to make at least some noise; I have. I've organized gatherings and petitions, arranged exhibitions, appealed to the United Nations, and met with officials from just about every Western government. But somehow it all seems to add up to less than the sum of its parts. No, that's still being too kind. The truth is, it has pretty much fallen on deaf ears.

You know that acronym - MEGO? It means "My eyes glazed over." That's the impression I often have when I've tried raising the subject of the Jews from Arab lands with diplomats, elected officials, and journalists - their eyes glaze over (TEGO).

No, I shouldn't be blaming myself, though I could always be doing more for the sake of history and justice.
There's actually a far more important explanatory factor.

We Jews from the Arab world picked up the pieces of our shattered lives after our hurried departures - in the wake of intimidation, violence, and discrimination - and moved on.

Most of us went to Israel, where we were welcomed. The years following our arrival weren't always easy - we started at the bottom and had to work our way up. We came with varying levels of education and little in the way of tangible assets. But we had something more to sustain us through the difficult process of adjustment and acculturation: our immeasurable pride as Jews, our deeply rooted faith, our cherished rabbis and customs, and our commitment to Israel's survival and well-being.

Some of us - somewhere between one-fourth and one-third of the total - chose to go elsewhere.

Jews from the French-speaking Arab countries gravitated toward France and Quebec. Jews from Libya created communities in Rome and Milan. Egyptian and Lebanese Jews were sprinkled throughout Europe and North America, and a few resettled in Brazil. Syrian Jews immigrated to the United States, especially New York, as well as to Mexico City and Panama City. And on it went.

Wherever we settled, we put our shoulder to the wheel and created new lives. We learned the local language if we didn't already know it, found jobs, sent our children to school, and, as soon as we could, built our own congregations to preserve the rites and rituals that were distinctive to our tradition.

I would never underestimate the difficulties or overlook those who, for reasons of age or ill health or poverty, couldn't make it, but, by and large, in a short time we have taken giant steps, whether in Israel or elsewhere.
I may be a forgotten Jew, but my voice will not remain silent. It cannot, for if it does, it becomes an accomplice to historical denial and revisionism.

I will speak out because I will not allow the Arab conflict with Israel to be defined unfairly through the prism of one refugee population only, the Palestinian.

I will speak out because what happened to me is now being done, with eerie familiarity, to another minority group in the region, the Christians, and once again I see the world averting its eyes, as if denial ever solved anything.

I will speak out because I refuse to be a forgotten Jew.

 

This article was adapted and updated from an essay originally written in 2003.

Title: Buffet
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2010, 10:28:25 PM

Rachel:

I thought that pretty awesome.  It is a point which I have sought to make from time to time, but lacking the education I have not been that effective.  This seems strong to me and I will be playing it forward.

==========================

By RON FRIEDMAN
13/10/2010
The businessman and philanthropist shares his views on the economy at the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry conference. The Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry held its first annual socioeconomic conference at the Avenue Convention Center near Ben-Gurion Airport yesterday.

In a special interview for the purpose of the conference, international businessman and leading philanthropist Warren Buffett shared with the participants his views on the global economy and the role governments play in maintaining prosperous economies.

Speaking about his decision to invest in Israel, Buffett said that what drew him to Israel was its brainpower.

“If you’re going to the Middle East to look for oil, you can skip Israel. If you’re looking for brains, look no further.

Israel has shown that it has a disproportionate amount of brains and energy,” Buffett said.

Title: Stratfor: Syria, Lebanon, and Iran- an alliance in flux
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2010, 05:49:39 AM

Syria, Hezbollah and Iran: An Alliance in Flux
October 14, 2010




By Reva Bhalla

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Beirut on Oct. 13 for his first official visit to Lebanon since becoming president in 2005. He is reportedly returning to the country after a stint there in the 1980s as a young Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer tasked with training Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. A great deal of controversy is surrounding his return. Rumors are spreading of Sunni militants attempting to mar the visit by provoking Iran’s allies in Hezbollah into a fight (already the car of a pro-Hezbollah imam who has been defending Ahmadinejad has been blown up), while elaborate security preparations are being made for Ahmadinejad to visit Lebanon’s heavily militarized border with Israel.

Rather than getting caught up in the drama surrounding the Iranian president’s visit, we want to take the opportunity provided by all the media coverage to probe into a deeper topic, one that has been occupying the minds of Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah officials for some time. This topic is the durability of the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria alliance, which STRATFOR believes has been under great stress in recent months. More precisely, the question is: What are Syria’s current intentions toward Hezbollah?


The Origins of the Alliance

To address this topic, we need to review the origins of the trilateral pact, starting with the formation of an alliance in 1979 between secular Alawite-Baathist Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ideologically speaking, the Syrian Alawite elite represent an offshoot of Shiite Islam that the Sunnis consider apostate. They found some commonality with the Shiite clerical elite in Tehran, but there were also broader strategic motivations in play. At the time, Syria was on a quest to establish the country’s regional prowess, and it knew that the first steps toward this end had to be taken in Lebanon. From the Syrian point of view, Lebanon is not just a natural extension of Syria; it is the heartland of the Greater Syria province that existed during Ottoman times. Since the days of Phoenicia, what is modern-day Lebanon has been a vibrant trading hub, connecting routes from the east and south to the Mediterranean basin. For Syria to feel like it has any real worth in the region, it must dominate Lebanon.

A civil war that had broken out in Lebanon in 1975 (and lasted through 1990) afforded Syria such an opportunity. The main obstruction to Syria’s agenda at the time, besides Israel, was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under Yasser Arafat, whose vision for a unified Palestine and whose operations in Lebanon ran counter to Syria’s bid for regional hegemony. The PLO, in fact, was one of the main reasons Syria intervened militarily in Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of its Maronite Christian allies. At the same time, Syria was looking for an ally to undermine the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, with whom the Syrian Baathists had a deep-seated rivalry. An alliance with Iran would grant Syria some much-needed individuality in a region dominated by the Arab powers Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Coming off the success of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and going into what would become a long and bloody war with Iraq, Iran was also looking for a venue to counter the Baathist regime in Baghdad. In addition, Iran was looking to undermine the Pan-Arab vision, establish a presence in the Levant and promote its own Islamic vision of government. In opposition to Israel, Hussein and Arafat, Iran and Syria thus uncovered the roots of an alliance, albeit one that was shifting uneasily between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity.

The adoption of Hezbollah by the two unlikely allies in 1982 was what helped bridge that gap. Hezbollah, an offshoot of Amal, the main Shiite political movement at the time, served multiple purposes for Damascus and Tehran. Syria found in Hezbollah a useful militant proxy to contain obstructions to Syrian influence in Lebanon and to compensate for its own military weakness in comparison to Israel. In the broader Syrian strategic vision, Hezbollah would develop into a bargaining chip for a future settlement with Israel once Syria could ensure that Lebanon was firmly within Syria’s grasp and was therefore unable to entertain a peace deal with Israel on its own.

The Iranians saw in Hezbollah the potential to export its Islamic Revolution into the Arab world, a strong binder for its still new and shaky alliance with Syria and a useful deterrent in dealing with adversaries like Israel, the United States and Saudi Arabia. So, Iran and Syria set out to divide their responsibilities in managing this militant proxy. Iran was primarily in charge of bankrolling, training and enforcing the group’s ideological loyalty to Tehran with IRGC assistance. Syria was in charge of creating the conditions for Iran to nurture Hezbollah, mainly by permitting IRGC officers to set up training camps in the Bekaa Valley and by securing a line of supply for weapons to reach the group via Syria.

But the triumvirate did not get off to a very smooth start. In fact, Hezbollah and Syria clashed a number of times in the early 1980s, when Syria felt the group, under Iranian direction, went too far in provoking external intervention (and thus risked drawing Syria into conflict). If Hezbollah was to operate on Syrian territory (as Syria viewed it) in Lebanon, Syria wanted Hezbollah operating on its terms. It was not until 1987, when Syrian troops in Lebanon shot 23 Hezbollah members, that Hezbollah fully realized the importance of maintaining an entente with Syria. In the meantime, Hezbollah, caught between occasionally conflicting Syrian and Iranian agendas, saw that the path to the group’s survival lay in becoming a more autonomous political — as opposed to purely militant — actor in the Lebanese political arena.


A Syrian Setback

The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria alliance operated relatively smoothly through the 1990s as Hezbollah gradually built up its political arm and as Syria kept close watch on the group through its roughly 14,000 troops and thousands of intelligence agents who had remained in Lebanon since the end of the civil war. In 2000, with Iranian and Syrian help, Hezbollah succeeded in forcing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon’s southern Security Zone, an event that greatly boosted Hezbollah’s credentials as a Lebanese nationalist actor.

But fresh challenges to the pact came with the turn of the century. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, in particular, was a defining moment for both Iran and Syria. The two allies felt enormously uncomfortable with having the world’s most powerful military on their borders, but they were also presented with an immediate opportunity to unseat their mutual archrival, Saddam Hussein. Iran and Syria also had different endgames in mind for a post-Hussein Iraq. Iran used its political, militant and intelligence links to consolidate influence in Iraq through the country’s Shiite majority. In contrast, Syria provided refuge to Iraq’s Sunni Baathists with the aim of extending its sphere of influence in the region through a secularist former-Baathist presence in Baghdad. The Syrians also planned to use those Sunni links later to bargain with the United States for a seat at the negotiating table, thereby affirming Syrian influence in the region.

But before Syria could gain much traction in its plans for Iraq, its agenda in Lebanon suffered a serious setback. On Feb. 14, 2005, a massive car bomb in Beirut killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, a powerful and vocal opponent of Syrian authority in Lebanon. The bombing is strongly believed to have been orchestrated by elements within the Syrian regime and executed by members of Hezbollah. While a major opponent of the Syrian regime was thereby eliminated, Syria did not anticipate that the death of al-Hariri would spark a revolution in Lebanon (which attracted the support of countries like France and the United States) and end up driving Syrian troops out of Lebanon. The vacuum that Syria left in Lebanon was rapidly filled by Iran (via Hezbollah), which had a pressing need to fortify Hezbollah as a proxy force as war tensions steadily built up in the region over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Though Syria knew it would only be a matter of time before it would return to Lebanon, it also had a strategic interest in demonstrating to the Israelis and the Americans the costs of Syria’s absence from Lebanon. The regime wanted to show that without a firm Syrian check on Hezbollah, disastrous events like the 2006 summer confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel could occur.


The Syrian Comeback

It has now been more than five and a half years since the al-Hariri assassination, and there is little question that Syria, once again, has reclaimed its hegemonic position in Lebanon. The Syrian intelligence apparatus pervades the country, and Lebanese politicians who dared to speak out against the Syrian regime are now asking for forgiveness. In perhaps the most glaring demonstration of the political tide shifting back toward Damascus, Saad al-Hariri, the son of the slain al-Hariri and Lebanon’s reluctant prime minister, announced in early June that Lebanon had “made a mistake” in making a “political accusation” against Syria for his father’s murder. The message was clear: Syria was back.

That message did not necessarily sit well with Hezbollah and Iran. Syria wants to keep Hezbollah in check, returning to the 1990s model when Syrian military and intelligence could still tightly control the group’s movements and supplies. Iran and Hezbollah have also watched as Syria has used its comeback in Lebanon to diversify its foreign policy portfolio over the past year. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, for example, have been cozying up to Damascus and have quietly bargained with the al Assad regime to place checks on Hezbollah as a way to undermine Iran’s key proxy in the Levant. As long as these regional powers recognize Syria’s authority in Lebanon, Syria is willing to use those relationships to exonerate itself from the al-Hariri assassination tribunal, rake much-needed investment into the Syrian economy and, most important, re-establish itself as a regional power. Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s decision to visit Beirut alongside Saudi King Abdullah was a deliberate signal to Hezbollah and Iran that Syria had options and was not afraid to display them.

This does not mean Syria is ready and willing to sell out its Hezbollah and Iranian allies. On the contrary, Syria derives leverage from maintaining these relationships and acting as the bridge between the Shiite revivalists and the Sunni powers. Syria has illustrated as much in its current mediation efforts among the various Iraqi factions that are torn between Iran on one side and the United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey on the other. But if we go back to reviewing the core reasons Syria agreed to an alliance with Iran and Hezbollah in the first place, it is easy to see why Hezbollah and Iran still have a lot of reason to be worried.

Syria’s priority in the early 1980s was to achieve suzerainty in Lebanon (done), eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq (done) and remove any key obstacles in Lebanon that could challenge Syria’s authority. In the 1970s, that obstacle was the PLO. Today, that obstacle is Hezbollah and its Iranian backers, who are competing for influence in Lebanon and no longer have a good read on Syrian intentions. Hezbollah relies heavily on Syria for its logistical support and knows that its communication systems, for example, are vulnerable to Syrian intelligence. Hezbollah has also grown nervous at the signs of Syria steadily ramping up support for competing militant groups — including the Amal Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, al-Ahbash, the Nasserites, the Baath Party and the Mirada of Suleiman Franjiyye — to counter Hezbollah’s prowess.

Meanwhile, Iran is seeing one of the key prongs in its deterrent strategy — Hezbollah — grow increasingly vulnerable at a time when Iran is pressed to demonstrate to the United States and Israel that the costs of an attack on its nuclear installation are not worth incurring. The Iranian competition with Syria does not end in Lebanon, either. In Iraq, Syria is far more interested in establishing a secularist government with a former Baathist presence than it is in seeing Baghdad develop into a Shiite satellite for the Iranians.

For now, Syria is adroitly playing both sides of the geopolitical divide in the region, taking care to blend its reassurances toward the alliance and its primary negotiating partners in Saudi Arabia with threats of the destabilization that could erupt should Syria’s demands go ignored. Syria, for example, has made clear that in return for recognition of its authority in Lebanon it will prevent Hezbollah from laying siege on Beirut, whether they are ordered to do so by Tehran as part of an Iranian negotiating ploy with the Americans or whether they act on their own in retaliation against the al-Hariri tribunal proceedings. At the same time, Syrian officials will shuttle regularly between Lebanon and Iran to reaffirm their standing in the triumvirate. Behind this thick veneer of unity, however, a great deal of apprehension and distrust is building among the allies.

The core fear residing in Hezbollah and Iran has to do with Syrian intentions moving forward. In particular, Hezbollah would like to know if, in Syria’s eyes, the group is rapidly devolving from strategic patron to bargaining chip with every ounce of confidence that Syria gains in Lebanon. The answer to that question, however, lies not in Syria but in Israel and the United States. Israeli, U.S. and Saudi policymakers have grown weary of Syria’s mercantilist negotiating style in which Syrian officials will extract as much as possible from their negotiating partners while delivering very little in return.

At the same time, Syria cannot afford to take any big steps toward militant proxies like Hezbollah unless it receives firm assurances from Israel in backchannel peace talks that continue to stagnate. But Syria is also sensing an opportunity at its door: The United States is desperate to complete its exit strategy from Iraq and, like Israel, is looking for useful levers to undermine Iranian clout in the region. One such lever is Syria, which is why the mere idea of Israel and Syria talking peace right now should give Iran and Hezbollah ample food for thought.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 14, 2010, 12:06:43 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/10/12/on-the-bleeding-edge-of-the-west/

Contrast and compare. Western civilization and islamic savagery.

Title: 'Palestinian web landscape dominated by radicalism'
Post by: rachelg on October 20, 2010, 11:03:51 AM

Marc,
I thought the article was very strong too. The Jewish Refugee from Arab Lands are not widely known about.




Photo by: Associated Press
'Palestinian web landscape dominated by radicalism'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
20/10/2010   
New research focuses on search engines, social media sites, YouTube, Twitter, and other sources used to gauge views of general population.
 
A study of Palestinian social media commissioned by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) highlights what it calls the "serious risks to Israeli security" that may occur should the US push too hard for a peace agreement.

The results were compiled from postings on various sites including Twitter, Youtube and other social media sources, and showcase a cross-section of views. These reflect, according to the study, the opinions of the Palestinian people, or at least, those who are computer literate.

RELATED:


The study, "Palestinian Pulse," was conducted by Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz, both employed by the FDD, and utilized ConStrat, a company that deploys military-grade technology on behalf of the US Central Command. Schanzer and Dubowitz said the following in an article on The National Interest:

"While polls are often designed to elicit specific responses, social media is largely free of outside manipulation. Most Palestinians write under pseudonyms, enabling them to discuss controversial issues without fear of retribution."

The overriding conclusion drawn from the 102 page report of the results was that "although the Palestinian web landscape is not devoid of users with moderate to liberal views, it is dominated by radicalism."

Some of the study's conclusions were not altogether surprising, including that Hamas shows little desire for peace with Israel, that Fatah is in internal disarray, and that the conflict between Hamas and Fatah shows little sign of being resolved.

The authors went on to make recommendations following an analysis of the material collected.

Firstly, said the authors, "the US cannot afford to discount the potential impact of deepening Palestinian radicalism and rejectionism. If the online environment is even a relatively accurate indicator of Palestinian public sentiment, the Obama administration should consider the serious risks to Israeli security from an overly aggressive and premature push for a comprehensive peace agreement."

Further, the US government should keep a close eye on the Palestinian online presence, as this could yield more accurate results than the often-disputed opinion polls, they said.
    

Title: Under Islam
Post by: rachelg on October 21, 2010, 07:21:26 AM

Under Islam
By Aryeh Tepper
In the two decades following the establishment of the state of Israel, approximately 850,000 Jews were forcibly driven out of Arab lands. Their expulsion marked the beginning of the end of 2,500 years of Jewish life in North Africa, the greater Middle East, and the Persian Gulf. Until recently, their story has been largely unrecognized and untold in the English-speaking world. That is the task undertaken by the British historian Martin Gilbert, known for his multi-volume biography of Winston Churchill and many works on Jewish history, in his new book, In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands.


Ambitious to a fault, Gilbert begins his saga a full millennium before the birth of Muhammad in the late 6th century C.E., and by the end of his first 100 pages has covered the first centuries of Islam, the age of the Crusaders, and the spread of the Ottoman empire. The remaining two-thirds of the book are devoted to the past 100 years. Here he traces the competition between the Jewish and Arab national movements during World Wars I and II, the various reactions to the 1947 UN partition resolution and the creation of Israel, Jewish life in Muslim lands since 1948, and the integration of Jews from Muslim lands into Western countries and, of course, Israel.
What saves Gilbert's narrative from a deadly superficiality, if not always from monotony, is his tight focus. Throughout, he poses one question to his material: was the Jewish minority protected, or persecuted? When Muslim rulers treated their Jews as a "protected people," the Jews, he shows, repaid the favor by contributing immensely to Muslim culture and society. When the Jews were persecuted, not only they but the society they lived in suffered. By proceeding in this fashion, Gilbert succeeds in exploding the myth, manufactured by Islamic ideologues and peddled by left-wing apologists, to the effect that pre-modern Jews always lived harmoniously with their Muslim hosts. Sometimes this was the case; often it was not.

Another virtue of Gilbert's panoramic treatment is that it helps the reader to see patterns missed by more detailed studies. Take the much-written-about case of Haj Amin al-Husseini, one of the more poisonous figures to have emerged in the 20th century's plethora of world-class thugs, gangsters, despots, and tyrants. From the beginning of his career, this "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" was closely associated with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. In 1929 he orchestrated the Arab-Muslim pogroms in which the ancient Jewish community of Hebron was massacred. In 1937, moving on to Baghdad, he helped stir up the passions that ultimately issued in a two-day anti-Jewish pogrom.  While in Iraq he also initiated contacts with Nazi Germany, and in 1941, now living in Berlin, he created a Muslim SS division to abet Hitler's war in Bosnia.

Gilbert's bird's-eye conspectus of Husseini's career prompts a number of questions. One has to do with the relatively recent emergence of the terrorist group Hamas on the Palestinian political scene.  Hamas is a branch of the same Muslim Brotherhood to which Husseini adhered, and it is worth recalling that, during the 20's and 30's, Palestinian opposition to Zionism was indeed deeply Islamic in character. From this larger perspective, might the rise of Hamas be more correctly seen as a re-emergence, and the previous dominance of the Palestinian movement by the PLO—another extremist organization but a secular nationalist one—as but a passing interval in an essentially Islamist continuum?

Another question pertains specifically to Iraq. Gilbert describes how deeply Nazi agitation had penetrated Iraqi society in the 1930's, even before Haj Amin al-Husseini's arrival.  The mufti's soft spot for Nazi-style anti-Semitism only added to the mix. Post-World War II Iraq was known for state brutality, and one can't help wondering about the Nazi contribution to it. In one particularly grotesque case from 1969—ten years before Saddam founded his sadistic regime—nine Iraqi Jews were hanged on trumped-up charges; a national holiday was declared and a million people went to see the bodies—as Gilbert writes, "dancing, chanting, and even picnicking." How can one account for this sort of frenzied mass barbarism, unparalleled in the rest of the Arab-Islamic world? Gilbert notes that even the Egyptian government, an ardent enemy of Israel, felt compelled to protest.

Academic historians will surely find much to criticize in Gilbert's book. Although the work is copiously footnoted, his favorite source appears to be the Encyclopaedia Judaica, not your standard scholarly fare. But academic criticism has blinded itself to the crucial role that general histories play in educating the public, a role even more necessary in an age when too many historians conceive their mission as the "deconstruction" of overarching narratives. In Ishmael's House is a clear account of an important story, and whatever its deficiencies, Gilbert is to be thanked for writing it.

A final word should be added regarding the cultural significance of the work.  In his chapter on the absorption of Jews from Muslim lands into Israeli society, Gilbert quotes a Jewish Israeli public figure who proudly declares, "I am an Arab. . . . My language is Arabic, I'm a Jew but I'm Arabic." An Arabic Jew? Many Western Jews, accustomed to the capsule phrase "Arab-Israeli conflict," are likely to find such a conjunction strange, if not unintelligible. But, with exceptions, most Western Jews haven't been exposed to eastern Jewish cultures. By contrast, to many who come from the Arab world, or whose parents came from the Arab world, Arab culture is as integral to their identity as Yiddish is to the identity of Ashkenazim. If Martin Gilbert's book increases awareness of the Arab dimension of Jewish identity, it will not only have enhanced historical understanding but have contributed significantly to Jewish cultural life.

You can find this online at: http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/10/21/main-feature/1/under-islam

Title: Mea culpa?
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2010, 07:59:41 AM

This may be the indication that Iran will not be militarily challenged:

Hawkish Israeli minister drafts nuclear Iran plan 25 Oct 2010 07:59:58 GMT
Source: Reuters
 * Most hawkish Israeli minister wants "day after" plan

* PM Netanyahu officially committed to preventive action

* Retaliatory rockets, diplomatic fallout on Israeli minds

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Hardline Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has commissioned a report on how to prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran as doubt mounts about the efficacy of preventive action, an Israeli source said on Monday.

Publicly, Israel has pledged to deny the Iranians the means to make a bomb but its previous, centrist government also discreetly drew up "day after" contingency plans should Tehran's uranium enrichment pass the military threshold.

At the time, rightist opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu called for Israel to consider preemptive strikes against its arch-foe's nuclear sites. Now prime minister, Netanyahu has reined in such rhetoric while not ruling out the use of force.

In a sign the government is examining a full range of options, Lieberman, the most hawkish member of Netanyahu's coalition, has ordered ministry strategists to draft a paper on "what to do if we wake up and discover the Iranians have a nuclear weapon", said the senior Israeli political source, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Foreign Ministry planners are also preparing a report on possible responses should the Palestinians unilaterally declare a state taking in all of the occupied West Bank, where continued Israeli settlement has bogged down U.S.-sponsored peace efforts.

Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal. Its aircraft bombed Iraq's atomic reactor in 1981 and launched a similar sortie against Syria in 2007.

But many independent experts believe Israeli forces could not take on Iran alone. The Iranians have dug in, dispersed and prepared to defend many of their nuclear facilities.

Even were its warplanes to manage a successful sneak attack, Israel would almost certainly suffer retaliatory Iranian missile salvoes worse than the short-range rocket attacks of Lebanese and Palestinian guerrillas in the 2006 and 2009 border wars.

There would be a wider diplomatic reckoning: World powers are in no rush to see another regional conflagration, especially while sanctions are still being pursued against an Iranian nuclear programme which Tehran says is peaceful.

The planning department of Israel's Foreign Ministry is one of several units guiding government strategy. Chief among these are the National Security Council and an inner cabinet made up of Netanyahu and six other top ministers, including Lieberman. Netanyahu's office declined comment on the Lieberman initiative. A senior Israeli official said: "The government's position is that all attempts have to be made to prevent Iran from going nuclear."

The Israelis have voiced cautious confidence in sanctions. But they also believe Tehran could have a nuclear warhead as soon as 2012-2014, an assessment shared by some in the West.

Israeli defence officials have placed a priority on improving the national missile shield and bolstering a network of civilian bomb shelters -- a posture that may herald resilience in the face of an eventual nuclear-armed Iran or a bracing for reprisals should Israel strike Iran first. (Editing by Noah Barkin)

Title: POTH surprised by direction of events in Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2010, 10:51:31 AM

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, already struggling to stave off a collapse of Middle East peace talks, is increasingly alarmed by unrest in Lebanon, whose own fragile peace is being threatened by militant opponents of a politically charged investigation into the killing in 2005 of a former Lebanese leader.

With an international tribunal expected to hand down indictments in the assassination of the former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in the coming months, the Hezbollah militia is maneuvering furiously to halt the investigation, or failing that, to unseat Lebanon’s government, which backs it.

The White House sent a senior diplomat to Beirut last week to reassure Lebanon’s president, Michel Suleiman, of President Obama’s support for the investigation and his country’s stability. The visit by the diplomat, Jeffrey D. Feltman, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, came on top of a telephone call to Mr. Suleiman by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“The president felt very strongly that we need to reconfirm our commitment to Lebanon’s independence, Lebanon’s sovereignty and Lebanon’s stability,” Mr. Feltman said in an interview. “There are people inside Lebanon who are arguing that it faces a choice of justice versus stability. That’s an artificial choice.”

The administration’s worries go beyond Lebanon itself, and help explain why it, and not the stalled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, has been the major preoccupation of American foreign policy officials for the last few weeks.

The diplomatic activity follows a splashy tour of Lebanon by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who got an ecstatic reception from members of Hezbollah, the Shiite movement financed and equipped by Iran. American officials were particularly struck by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s trip to a small town a few miles north of the Israeli border, where he called for the “Zionists to be wiped out.”

Lebanon has long been a proxy state for battles between adversaries in the Middle East, and Iran’s attempts to build influence there are not new. But at a time when the United States is trying to revive peace talks, administration officials concluded that Iran’s latest muscle-flexing could not go unanswered.

“You don’t want the perception of a vacuum,” Mr. Feltman said. “You don’t want the perception that Ahmadinejad is the only game in town.”

Analysts said that the United States was right to reassert its commitment to Lebanon, but that it may be acting too late. Rising prices for weapons suggest that militias other than Hezbollah are rearming, increasing the threat of a civil war.

There are limits to what the administration can do to stabilize a country as divided as Lebanon. The United States has given the Lebanese armed forces $670 million in military aid since 2006. But last August, several members of Congress put a hold on further funds after a skirmish between Lebanese and Israeli soldiers raised suspicions that parts of the Lebanese Army were in league with Hezbollah.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s jubilant reception in Lebanon has only added to the resistance on Capitol Hill. Representative Eliot L. Engel, a Democrat from New York who sponsored a bill imposing sanctions on Syria, said he would consider voting to block aid because of fears that it could end up helping Hezbollah.

“We need to be careful about what we do there, so we’re not strengthening the hand of a terrorist group like Hezbollah and its allies,” Mr. Engel said in an interview. “We just don’t want to use our monies to enhance policies that are bad for Americans and bad for the people of Lebanon.”

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council in 2007 to investigate the car bombing that killed Mr. Hariri and 22 others in February 2005. Lebanon’s coalition government, now led by Mr. Hariri’s son, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, has pledged to contribute 49 percent of the tribunal’s expenses and enforce its judgments.

The Netherlands-based tribunal has been at work since March 2009, but has said little about when it plans to hand down indictments.

A raft of reports in Lebanon’s news media said an announcement could come as early as December, though some reports now suggest that the tribunal may not act until the first quarter of next year.

In either case, a sense that the investigation is entering its final stages has contributed to a feverish political environment.

The trouble is, those indicted may include members of Hezbollah, and the group, which holds seats in the Lebanese cabinet, is demanding that Prime Minister Hariri disavow the investigation. Syria, also under suspicion for having a role in Rafik Hariri’s assassination, has taken up calls to discredit the tribunal.

Syrian officials, who had once backed Saad Hariri’s government, are now sharply critical of him and his March 14 alliance, a coalition that grew out of the “Cedar Revolution,” which pushed Syrian troops out of the country. Al Akhbar, a Lebanese newspaper that is closely allied with Hezbollah and Syria, declared recently that “taking authority away from Hariri would teach him how to keep it.”

Saudi Arabia has tried to mediate, without much success. American officials say they believe that the tribunal will be able to complete its investigation. But their concern is that indictments will draw protesters onto the streets, inflaming tensions between Shiite and Sunni factions. Unrest could also lead to fresh skirmishes between Lebanese and Israeli forces along the border between the countries.

That would imperil a peace effort that is already on life support. Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu’s chief negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho, has been in Washington for the last few days, officials said, floating various ideas on ways to revive the talks. But there is no indication of an imminent breakthrough.

Syria’s increasingly disruptive role is also raising questions about the Obama administration’s 18-month effort to engage that country. Some analysts said it was time for the administration to rethink that effort.

“This is the moment when we need a straight answer out of Syria,” said Andrew Tabler, an expert on Syria and Lebanon at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “They just seem unwilling or unable to deliver it.”

Title: UNESCO and the cradle of Jewish history
Post by: rachelg on November 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM

I'm lacking the words to comment on this.--


UNESCO and the cradle of Jewish history
By JERUSALEM POST EDITORIAL 
11/02/2010 01:34
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=193600
If not for the Israeli security presence, Rachel’s Tomb, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Joseph’s Tomb would be off limits to Jews today.

UNESCO, the United Nations body in charge of preserving historical sites, went too far this time.

There is a lot of chutzpah in this post-modernist era of “deconstruction” and “revision.” Warmly cherished religious faiths and customs are reduced to “false consciousness.” Nations with their own unique ethnicity and proud traditions become “imagined communities.”

Foundational histories are reduced to nothing more than subjective “narratives.”

But even in this radically relativistic intellectual atmosphere, the latest UNESCO decision stands out. For this was a particularly blatant attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land of Israel.

In its biannual session which ended last week, UNESCO adopted proposals initiated by Arab member states to dub two Jewish historical sites “Palestinian.” In a 44-1 vote, with 12 abstentions, the UNESCO board declared the “Haram al-Ibrahm/the Cave of the Patriarchs and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb” to be “an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories” and asserted “that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.”

The move is seen in some quarters as a response to Israel’s decision in February to include the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb on a list of national heritage sites that would receive additional funding for refurbishing and for the development of educational tours.

While February’s decision was described by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a way of “reconnecting” Israelis to their history, the UNESCO decision was denounced by the prime minister as an “absurd” attempt to “detach the people of Israel from its heritage.”

He asked: “If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation are buried, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rachel, some 4,000 years ago, are not part of the Jewish heritage then what is?” Particularly absurd was the decision regarding Rachel’s Tomb. As scholars such as Nadav Shragai and Prof.

Yehoshua Porath have pointed out, it was only in 2000 that the Palestinians “discovered” its historical importance.

On Yom Kippur of that year, as the second intifada was being launched, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, a Palestinian daily, published an article that blatantly departed from Muslim tradition, which corresponds with Jewish tradition, to claim that “the tomb is false and was originally a Muslim mosque.” Until then, all official Palestinian Authority references to the site had recognized it as Rachel’s Tomb. (A similar tactic was used after the 1929 Arab riots, to transform the Western Wall into the al-Buraq wall, supposedly the place where Muhammed’s winged horse al-Buraq was tied after his night-flight from Mecca.) ZIONISM IS particularly susceptible to these types of attacks. As a movement, Zionists simultaneously rebelled against tradition – particularly the Jewish religion – and exile, while incorporating concepts from Judaism that emphasized Jews’ ties to the land of Israel.


Zionism strove for normalization of the Jewish people as “a nation among the nations.” But it also co-opted the idea of “chosenness” by aspiring to create a model nation – hevrat mofet. Bitter disputes in contemporary Israel over settlements and the proper balance between Israel’s Jewish and democratic dimensions have their roots in this “split” Jewish identity.

Nonetheless, whether one is for or against Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, or for or against emphasizing Israel’s “Jewishness” at the expense of its “democratic” nature, it is an undeniable fact that the geographical area referred to as the West Bank and that includes Hebron and Bethlehem was the cradle of Jewish history.

No amount of historical revisionism or UNESCO declarations will erase this fact.

Nor is there a doubt that Israel has done a better job at maintaining equitable access to religious sites for all faiths. In contrast, Jordan denied Israel the “free access to the Holy Places [including the Kotel] and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives” stipulated in the April 1949 Armistice.

The Palestinian Authority’s track record is no better. If not for the Israeli security presence, Rachel’s Tomb, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Joseph’s Tomb would be off limits to Jews today.

Whatever future territorial agreements are reached with the Palestinians, it would be an intolerable and untenable injustice if Jews were prevented from visiting sites with such profound historical, cultural and religious import.

Title: Why Israel is a rogue state
Post by: rachelg on November 01, 2010, 07:28:39 PM

Why Israel is a rogue state [Gabriel Latner]
The Cambridge Union Society held a debate on the motion that "Israel is a rogue state" on October 21st.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-israel-is-rogue-state-gabriel.html
The Balfour Street blog describes what happened:
In the end, the proposition was defeated, but the event didn't proceed without an unusual twist. It seems one of the members of the side in favor of the proposition, a student who was apparently selected at random (or not at random), decided to argue the point from a decidedly pro-Israel perspective.

The debater, Gabriel Latner, gave a copy of his speech to Mondoweiss with the request that it not be edited. I am reproducing it here, only by adding paragraph spacing and slight grammatical corrections where it seemed appropriate. The square bracket comments were his, written afterwards.
This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening – to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the 'Aye' door. I face a singular challenge – most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds.

This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international 'laws' to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalised stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state' rogue'. If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain's treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigour.

More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech – I will have presented 5 pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a 'rogue state' than at least 'rogueish'.

Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is 'bad'. I will not be arguing that it doesn't deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is 'rogue'.

The word 'rogue' has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as 'Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time ', while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition 'behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way '. These definitions, and others, centre on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.

The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051% . In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% - more than twice as likely. Israel's Jewishness is a statistical abberation.

The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular,Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. [I actually hoped that Mr Massih would be able speak about this - he's actually somewhat of an expert on the Crisis in Darfur, in fact it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former Dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.] There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.

But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US's reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement.

My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands – they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP- an organisation of 'freedom fighters' that, under Abed Rabbo's leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA – the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.

Another part of dictionary definition is behaviour or activity 'occuring at an unexpected place or time'. When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.

Israel's protection of its citizens' civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as 'Free' 'Partly Free' or 'Not Free'. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a 'free' country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon- a country designated 'partly free', where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. [I'm hoping Ms Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a 'journalist' for Iran,] Iran is a country given the rating of 'not free', putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, [as Ms Booth I hoped would have said in her speech], there is a special 'Press Court' which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the 'foundations of the Islamic republic' , using 'suspicious (i.e. western) sources', or insulting islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. [I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that] I guess we can't really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and Autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.

I have one final argument – the last nail in the opposition's coffin- and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was 'This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world', that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr Ran Gidor to argue tonight against [a 'journalist' come reality TV star, and myself,] a 19 year old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.

Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now- because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.

That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed OSIRAK – Sadam Hussein's nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq. That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. [Except Ms Booth]
This kid is going places.

Title: Rogue
Post by: G M on November 01, 2010, 07:47:26 PM

One of the reasons I like Israel. The willingness to do what must be done.

Title: Editor's Notes: Danny Seaman’s farewell voyage Part One
Post by: rachelg on November 07, 2010, 01:03:33 PM

Editor's Notes: Danny Seaman’s farewell voyage
By DAVID HOROVITZ
05/11/2010   
The departing head of the Government Press Office lets it all out.
 
Winding up a torrid decade as director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman has plainly decided to give vent to years of pent-up frustration.

In this interview, during which he spoke for more than an hour and a half in rapid-fire English, he loosed off passionate criticism in all directions: At a misguided government bureaucracy that threatens to doom the GPO into irrelevancy. At the failure of some in officialdom to back him when he defended Israel against what he considered dire media misrepresentation. At Israel’s surrender of many of its own historical claims and rights. At some local journalists who bolster the delegitimization of Israel. At the Palestinian manipulation of the foreign press. And, most of all, at parts of the foreign press itself, which he depicts variously as unconscionably ignorant, disinclined to appreciate fundamental truths about Israel’s best features, incompetent and sometimes downright immoral.

Is the departing Seaman a heroic advocate for Israel who is being shamefully and counter-productively treated by his foolish, short-sighted, lily-livered bosses? Or should someone so candid and opinionated never have been entrusted with the ultra-delicate task of liaising with the international media?

By the end of this interview, which I have condensed of necessity and edited to clarify Seaman’s central arguments, his verbal onslaught may have divided readers as to whether he was a rare asset or crippling liability in a job he evidently loved. But very few, I suspect, will be unmoved. Excerpts:

How long were you in the job?

About 10 years. Before then I had worked in several positions in the GPO. Going way back, I was in the same paratroop company as [Ambassador to the US] Mike Oren... I was head of the GPO’s foreign press department when the [second intifada] broke out in September 2000. There was no real director of the GPO and I was promoted to that position.

What was the main responsibility?

Handling the foreign press.

Assisting with all their technical needs. Giving the government’s message. Getting them contacts. Showing them around the country.

I was ready to leave two years ago, with the creation of the new Ministry of Public Diplomacy. There were certain things that I had wanted to do [and haven’t been able to]. I wanted to take the GPO into the 21st century.

The demise of the GPO began immediately after its peak. The peak was around the first papal visit [by John Paul II] 10 years ago. The GPO assisted the large number of media people here, creating a press center that became an international standard. Bureaucratic envy set in. Some ministries didn’t like the fact that the GPO was getting all the credit, all the prestige. Working with the media is perceived to be very prestigious...

The GPO was weak politically; it was always an outsider.

[Officialdom] usually didn’t know where to place us: Are we on the side of the government or are we on the side of the journalists? So the GPO lost out over the years.

There were things that I thought were necessary to do. For example, today, new media allows us to go back to one of our original duties at the GPO, which was to be sort of journalists. In the past we used to have a GPO correspondent sitting in meetings, and then providing information to different media organizations. There was a lull in that during the ’90s and the first part of this century, but today with new technologies we could do exactly what Israel needs, which is to bypass the mainstream media, and sometimes the bias that exists there, the blocking of Israel’s message.

Another of the most essential things, fundamental in reestablishing the relationship between the State of Israel and the foreign media, is the day-to-day contact between the government, via the GPO, and the foreign media. [In past years], we had this through [the presence of both the GPO and many foreign journalists in offices in the same building, central Jerusalem’s] Beit Agron.

The Palestinians have this advantage, through the American Colony Hotel [in east Jerusalem, where many visiting foreign journalists stay]. They have direct relations with the media, and are cultivating that relationship. Well, the government of Israel had that for years through the GPO at Beit Agron. It was a day-to-day press center. Media organizations had offices there, and so did the government, Foreign Ministry, the IDF. Army Radio was there.

When JCS [Jerusalem Capital Studios] opened up [and became the new home for many foreign TV bureaus and other foreign journalists], our relationship with the foreign media started deteriorating.

Beit Agron stopped being the center. We started losing the connection with the foreign press.

For over four years now, I’ve been saying we have to move the GPO out to Malha, because that’s where most of the foreign media are going out to, to reestablish that daily contact with them. In the past, you could sit, talk and schmooze with them, have coffee. I can’t emphasize strongly enough how important that personal contact with the journalists is.

But then you get involved in the bureaucracy. “Oh, you’re gonna move? It’s gonna be costly.”

In my talks with Oren [Helman, the former Binyamin Netanyahu adviser who is formally succeeding Seaman next week], in preparation for his taking over, I indicated to him that either we move our offices to Malha or we shut down the GPO. Because otherwise we can’t serve our purpose.

Journalists here don’t have to be in contact with government officials. They can come to Israel and walk around freely. But having a press card makes it easier for them. And that’s our advantage at the GPO – the fact that we issue the press cards. That’s sometimes the only contact that some journalists are going to have with officials in Israel.

And that’s the point where, while one person is preparing the card, another person can sit there, create a relationship with the journalist, see what they're doing, suggest ideas for the stories.

When Sderot [was under heavy rocket attack] we had a lot of journalists coming in, and we had a display in the office of the missiles that had landed there. It became a conversation point. A lot of journalists, based on what they saw [in our office], decided to go to Sderot as part of the broader story.

They hadn’t thought of doing so before.

On the Internet today, meanwhile, there’s no limit to what can be done. Everybody [in Israeli officialdom], from Olmert’s government to this government, understands this. But it just doesn’t happen. For the life of me I don’t know why. Well I do, but I’m a civil servant, so I can't express my criticism in a way that would...

You say you were ready to leave two years ago. But now the Ministry of Public Diplomacy didn’t want you to stay on?

Nobody owed me anything. It wasn’t my position for life. But it was never explained to me, which is the only thing I’m disappointed about.

They could have come up and said, “We don’t like what you’re doing.” They would rather have someone else? That’s their prerogative. But here in Israel people don’t know how to conduct themselves in an honorable way. So they go through this whole charade of having a professional [tender to fill the job]. That process was done legitimately, I have no qualms about that.

You were required to reapply for your existing job?

Yes.

And you chose not to?

No, I applied, knowing very well that I wouldn’t get it.

Look, it doesn’t matter. I’m a little disappointed, because there were a lot of things I wanted to do. I’m handing over the office in the best possible way I can. The GPO is important to Israel. Overall, for our relationship with the media, for Israel’s public relations apparatus, it is tremendously important.

It’s good to have new people coming in. I also believe in the Ministry of Public Diplomacy, and Yuli Edelstein, and what he’s doing. If they identify these areas which have not been developed by the State of Israel, areas that the usual hasbara doesn’t move in to, there’s a lot that can be done.

The whole Masbirim campaign is a very good idea, even though it is ridiculed by certain circles. Ordinary people have a greater ability to convince people internationally than a government does.

By interacting with ordinary people they meet on holiday?

Yes! Or by doing it through the Internet. There’s a lot of misinformation going around.

Unfortunately, the Israeli media is to a large degree responsible for a political indoctrination that represents only a small percentage of the Israeli public’s opinion.

The Israeli media is the original skewer of the conception of Israel, and the foreign media then plays into that?

Absolutely. An example: During the war in Lebanon [in 2006], I was up North, among the journalists. In the evenings I saw the interaction between Israeli media and the foreign media. Some of the Israeli journalists were sitting there and making the most atrocious statements about the State of Israel. They had been p***ed off about a lot of things, unhappy with the way [the war was] being conducted. In some cases there was a political tone to what they were saying. That’s good and legitimate for the internal debate. But somebody from the outside doesn’t understand the basis for this or that argument. Yet [the Israeli journalists] are more than happy to convey their opinions to somebody from the outside, not understanding how somebody from outside perceives this. They’re legitimizing the delegitimization of the State of Israel.

This is perhaps the greatest threat that we have been facing over the past decade: It’s no longer a case of Israel versus the Palestinians. It’s a deliberate, concerted effort to delegitimize Israel’s existence. [Our enemies] tried to beat us on the battlefield. They tried defeating us on the low-intensity battlefield. When they lost on these two levels, they suddenly understood that the only way to fight us today is to delegitimize our right to exist...

Part of my problem with the foreign press – and I’ve been accused of being combative and feisty in fighting them – is that you have journalists coming in here not having the faintest idea of what is going on.

They live off what they get from their colleagues; they meet certain people who come from the same social-economic background; they live off of one newspaper, Haaretz. They don’t make an effort. When you have a conversation with them, you find that they have a complete lack of knowledge of the elementary issues.

This didn’t used to be the case.

Journalists from the ’70s, ’80s, who were here during the beginning of the ’90s, were very knowledgeable, very experienced. This is a different generation.

The narrative has shifted. They’ll adopt the Palestinian narrative. That has become the bon ton. They’ll talk about “the Palestinian right of return.” There is no such thing. They talk about what the Palestinians call “Israel’s violations of Oslo.” What exactly are they talking about? They have no knowledge about the facts.

Today, if you bring in, say, an expert on international law [to hold a briefing for foreign journalists], they delegitimize the person based on what they perceive to be his political opinions. This is unacceptable, especially for a journalist. We the people, in a democratic society, rely on them to provide us with the information for us to make an educated decision on a particular issue. In this case, many journalists are failing in their duty. The media outfits that employ them are giving them automatic backing. And when the media doesn’t exercise its checks and balances, they’re failing in their job.

This began with the year 2000.

People call it “the Oslo war” – the Palestinian violence which erupted at that point. I’ve been working for Israeli public relations for 27 years, and there were certain “truths” that we were told: That if we adopt UN resolutions, there’ll be peace. If we recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination, there’ll be peace. If we remove settlements, there’ll be peace. And over the past 25 years, there’s been a progression in the Israeli position: Israel recognized the PLO as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; relinquished territory; removed settlements.

Regarding Lebanon, Israel fulfilled all the UN resolutions.

Yet the end result was not the peace that we were promised. In no way am I criticizing the efforts for peace. Peace is a strategic necessity for the State of Israel. But here, in this case, these “truths” that we were promised never came about. On the contrary, it only increased violence, increased extremism. Yet there was a failure by a lot of the media to be intellectually honest, to say “maybe we need to reevaluate,” to say “maybe we shouldn’t always be taking the Palestinians’ side because they’re the underdog.”

So in the year 2000, with the violence, with the bombs exploding here, [the foreign media’s] political positions couldn’t be [justified]. Yet every time there was a bomb here, directed against civilians, instead of an automatic expression of disgust at an assault on civilians, there were always conditions: “Well, we have to understand why [the bombers are acting].” Why do we have to understand it? But morally, you can’t make that “logic” [stand up], so they went to this other “logic,” and that was the numbers: “Look how many Palestinians were killed. If there are 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, therefore the Palestinians must be victims.”

It’s nonsense. It’s morally repugnant. It’s intellectually unacceptable to make that kind of equation.

But the media repeated this. Not only in one-to-one discussions.

Reuters, AP, AFP would end their articles saying, In the recent violence, 4,000 Palestinians died compared to 1,000 Israelis. They were doing this deliberately, to create the impression that the one side that is suffering more must be justified. They were using small journalistic techniques to create an impression that put Israel in a negative light.

I noticed it most during the Lebanon War. Israel being singled out for criticism. The terminology used for Israel: Israel is always aggressive.

Israel is always active. Other things just “happen.” Missiles “rain down” on Israel. But where Israel is concerned, and I’m quoting from some media reports, they even adopt Nazi terminology: “Israel's blitzkrieg.”

Always using negatives and very aggressive terms.

By contrast, the suffering Israel endures is always caused by some obscure [force]. It’s never quite clear what’s happening, and who is responsible. The number of ways that Israel is depicted negatively is, astoundingly, much greater than with Hizbullah. Hizbullah is a terrorist organization! It is considered so by every country in the world, including the United Nations. [Yet I found foreign media] to be taking their word, their narrative as fact.

And the same in Gaza in 2008?

It became second nature, so it’s only natural that Gaza was just an extension. For too many in the media today, it becomes a feeding frenzy. For the war in Gaza about 400 additional reporters showed up here. They seem to have no knowledge of what is going on. They don’t understand what they’re seeing.

They don’t understand urban warfare. They’ll see some phosphorus or they’ll see some smoke, and they’ll immediately adapt [what they’re told about it] without understanding from the military perspective why it’s being done. [In Gaza, they were fed] misinformation, and they gave credibility to sources who time and time again have been disproved, sources who are very credible in the Western world, such as doctors.

In the Western world doctors are given a very particular [credibility].

But that same attitude was given to Palestinian doctors, and more than once they deliberately misled and lied to the journalists. And instead of the journalists saying, “Ok, once, twice. The third time they’re not going to be lying to me anymore,” they keep turning to these sources.

Some journalists did the job they were supposed to be doing, and went to objective experts and asked them about false claims [that Israel was using illegal weaponry, or had weaponry that purportedly melted the skin, or that Israeli weaponry was causing] these kinds of injuries. [One specific reporter] did the legitimate thing. He went and he asked an expert. And he was told, “What you’re talking about is science fiction.

These weapons don’t exist.” So, in this case, the story should have been over. But no, he reports [the false allegation and the firm dismissal], giving legitimacy to the actual accusation.

You want to compare that to something? Go back to the old blood libel.

Imagine the Jews are being accused now of using blood to make matza.

Some of the foreign media would “go to the experts,” maybe one of these cooking shows on television, who’d dismiss the idea, of course.

But the very report itself would give legitimacy to this absurd kind of accusation. Some people watching would say, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire, so there must be some truth to it.” [The foreign media] would not do this to any other country.

They tried pulling some of this stuff with the United States in Iraq, but very quickly ceased doing it.

With Israel they continue to allow it...

Journalists kept accusing Israel of using illegal phosphorus weapons.

It’s not illegal! And Israel used them legally. Many countries do. But when they’re caught in an argument that is proven to be wrong, the journalists don’t issue a correction, saying, “We’re sorry.” No, they then say, “Oh, it may not be illegal, but it’s immoral.” Immoral? Isn’t war immoral? We didn’t start this war.

Lebanon is the prime example of everything we’ve been unfairly accused of. Israel had fulfilled UN resolutions.

Israel was not occupying a centimeter of Lebanese territory.

Israel was attacked. Not only were its soldiers abducted, but journalists ignore the fact that there was an allout assault on Israel’s northern communities on that first day.

Yet despite all that, after a few days, you have it for the first time: “Disproportionate use of force.”

Ever since the enemies of Israel understood that it could not be defeated militarily, because of its strength, their goal has been denying us the right to use that strength. And here, unfortunately, the media sometimes are politically cooperating with this, and other times are being duped into it.

They don’t understand that they are being used by those elements who are abusing freedom of the press, abusing freedom of speech, abusing all these civil rights in Western society. We represent Western civilization in this area. These extremists who are assaulting Israel, it’s a prelude to what can be expected in Western societies. If it’s not stopped on Israel’s borders, the rest of Western civilization will end up facing the same kind of thing.

Title: Editor's Notes: Danny Seaman’s farewell voyage Part 2
Post by: rachelg on November 07, 2010, 01:04:46 PM

Is some of your critique not the political opposition of somebody who tried to run as a Likud candidate for the Knesset?

I have never hidden my political beliefs. I do my job first. My political opinions have no bearing on the way I conduct myself in the professional aspects of the job.

Yes, I wanted to run for politics, for the Likud. I’m from a family connected to the IZL [Irgun], from a Revisionist family, an admirer of Jabotinsky and his teachings. I don’t hide these things. I'm very proud of them.

But I was brought up to respect people whatever their views, their political opinions...

Coming back to what I said about [inexperienced] journalists coming to Gaza. They are unqualified to report on modern warfare. The Palestinians are very good at manipulating images for show, for the journalists.

[None of the reporters] will actually find out what really happened.

They’ll get “verification” of an indication from a colleague who hasn’t verified it either. Even if they tried to do their job and they tried to verify, their editor would be shouting back, “I’m getting these pictures. They're coming in on X news media. Why are you not reporting about this?!” That’s why [during Operation Cast Lead] I thought the presence of journalists would not contribute to the exposure of what was actually happening there on the battlefield. The contrary.

You’re saying that when conflict erupts between Israel and Palestinians, the international press are lousy, incapable of doing their job. In effect, it’s better that they not cover it?

I don’t say they should not cover it.

But their presence on location does not contribute to the general knowledge of what is actually happening there.

So how are people supposed to understand what’s happening there?

Some of the tragedy is not only the journalists’ doing, it’s the realities themselves. If good old-fashioned journalism were at work, looking, trying to verify, getting other sources – it can’t be done. I feel sorry for a lot of the journalists today, those who really want to do a professional job.

The Palestinians are not stupid.

They have 20-30 years of experience of telling the journalists how high to jump. They know what makes modern media tick.

[With inexperienced journalists going into the West Bank], you’re taking somebody who doesn’t know the history. They’re moving from Israeli society, where we do everything to maintain normalcy.

You’ll have a suicide bombing in the morning, and by late afternoon there’s no indication of it any more. With the Palestinians, the moment you cross over, at the roadblock, people automatically have a negative reaction to the figures of authority. I get complaints [from journalists] saying there’s no human contact [between soldiers and Palestinians at checkpoints].

I try to explain to them there’s no human contact because when there was human contact, some [terrorists] saw that as an Achilles’ Heel and attacked the Israeli soldiers [at the checkpoints]. We’re trying to protect our lives. It’s the same with the security barrier. We protect our lives.

[Visiting journalists] don’t see it that way. They experience what it is like to be a Palestinian to a certain degree. When they come to our side, you have to start with the historical explanations. It’s very hard, because the life we have here seems very similar to their lives at home. They don’t understand the day-to-day things that we go through.

What are you going to do now?

I don’t know. I never sat and thought, what is my next goal going to be? I did the job the way I believed it should be done. I didn’t get a big salary. I was always paid as a head of a department, not as the head of the GPO, which is substantially different. So nobody can accuse me of reaping the [financial] benefits of this position.

More than once, people said to me, are you sure you want to do this? Maybe you shouldn’t. For example when I started taking a position on the issue of al-Dura...

That Israel was not responsible for the killing of 12-year-old Mohammad al-Dura [at Netzarim junction] in Gaza [on September 30, 2000] at the start of the second intifada, and that it had been foolish to apologize?

First, and second that I was critical of the conduct of France 2 [the TV station that broadcast the allegation of IDF responsibility for al-Dura’s death]. After literally hundreds of hours [of examination], I was absolutely convinced that the Israeli attitude of “better we not say anything” [about the incident] was not only wrong, was not only a mistake, but that it was a violation of our responsibility as civil servants. We have a responsibility to present Israel and we were failing...

Israel didn’t kill al-Dura and needed to have said so?

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And more than this. This incident was used in order to begin [the second intifada]. It served the politics of many people – Israelis and foreigners – to accuse Ariel Sharon of igniting the violence of the year 2000, [rather than] that Arafat had premeditated this. But the real violence did not erupt immediately after Sharon went to the Temple Mount [on September 28]. The real violence erupted when the blood libel erupted – that we killed the child. It was irresponsible to put these images out, because they were not clarified.

What was the basis of the accusation [that the IDF killed al-Dura]? A correspondent who was not physically on location. There was no visual evidence to back up the [charge].

There was no footage of Israeli soldiers shooting, no footage of the boy being shot, no footage of the boy dying. There was nothing to verify this.

This goes to what I was saying about the media immediately getting caught up in a news frenzy. CNN originally did the professional thing and said, “Wait a minute, I need more verification before I put out this story.” [But] once it had a life of its own, they had to report it also. And the next day, you had journalists reporting on this deception as if it were fact... Fundamental journalistic principles were not applied.

I wanted the truth. If Israel was responsible, I would be the first person to admit it. So, if they had made a mistake in this, why are journalists incapable of criticizing their colleague? When I raise these questions with journalists, they don’t offer a counter-argument.

No, they immediately resort to “Oh, you’re a right-wing extremist, these are conspiracy theories...”

Perhaps because the State of Israel didn’t really back you up?

The State of Israel did back me up... There’s no doubt about it today.

France 2 failed. This should not have been reported in the way that it was.

Would that be the most egregious example, in your eyes, of journalism failing to report the story accurately?

That was the most famous thing.

There was another famous incident I was involved with, involving Al- Jazeera, and our suspension of [some of our] services to them.

[In July 2008] they celebrated [the release in a prisoner exchange of] Samir Kuntar, [the brutal killer of four Israelis, including a four-year-old girl, in Nahariya in 1979] in their offices in Lebanon. Officially. On air. An official celebration by the organization.

Here, we required that they look into [the incident] themselves. It wasn’t an apology that I was looking for. It was whether Al-Jazeera, which wants to be treated as a professional media organization, addressed something that was clearly a professional failure.

And in this case I have a lot of respect for the way they addressed it, how they tried to correct it and make sure that kind of thing wouldn’t happen again. A lot of Western media organizations can learn from that.

By the way, I was criticized by the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office.

For protesting Al-Jazeera’s celebration of the release of Samir Kuntar?

Yes. According to them I was damaging the very sensitive negotiations going on between Al-Jazeera and the Foreign Ministry [over this incident] at that time, negotiations that existed apparently only in the minds of the people in the Foreign Ministry...

Sometimes you have to stand up [on matters of principle]. That’s what I’ve tried to convey to the system here. It started back with al-Dura. If we are wronged, we’re within our rights to stand up and say this is wrong. We should be the first ones standing up and saying that.

Yes, you have to be nice to the journalists. But if they do not conduct themselves professionally, they have to understand that we’re no different from any other country in the world.

Journalists are not above the law.

In the year 2000, there was a foreign journalist who went to hotels throughout Israel and would refuse to pay. He would show his press card and then would refuse to pay his bill, saying, “I’m a foreign journalist.” At one point he made a point of saying he was an American, and that his taxes subsidize this country. This was a top journalist. Unfortunately, the hotels decided they didn’t want to make a big issue out of it.

A leading American journalist went around Israel, stayed at hotels, didn’t pay his bills and nobody made a fuss about it?

Yes. Then you had cases, such as during the disengagement from Gaza or the war in Gaza, where media organizations hired Israelis, rented rooms, hired services, and then just disappeared without paying.

And?

There’s nothing we can do at the Government Press Office. You can file a complaint but there’s no legal thing that I can do.

I can make journalists’ lives more difficult. There are certain guidelines that allow me to do that. Such as with the case of [Swedish newspaper] Aftonbladet, and their despicable anti- Semitic... I don’t use that word lightly, by the way, because I came from a family where my father converted; half my family are Christian. I don’t use that word lightly. But in this case, Aftonbladet’s report on the IDF [purportedly] abducting Palestinians and using their body organs. We didn’t prevent Aftonbladet from working here. We just took our time. To this day, the correspondents from Aftonbladet do not get a press card immediately.

We can take up to 90 days and we can take longer...

There’s been continuous frustration over the past 10 years in the GPO – constantly fighting for budgets, for our place among the government bureaucracies, always having the personal sword over my head, always facing threats: “If you do this, you’re going to get fired. If you take this position, you’re going to be fired.” It didn’t matter that I could prove to them why I had to “take this position.”

When the [second intifada] violence erupted, in many ways the foreign media became a tool being used against the State of Israel. We have clear evidence that shows Marwan Barghouti’s and Yasser Arafat’s involvement with [Palestinian journalists] who were employed by the foreign press [and whose status and capacity to work in Israel, with attendant concerns about security risks, was an issue that Seaman dealt with extensively, including in court battles and face-offs with various Israeli politicians].

It developed over years, beginning back in the late ’80s. [Some of these Palestinian journalists] started off at the Palestinian Information Office [in east Jerusalem], which was shut down by [prime minister Yitzhak] Shamir during the first intifada. They were shut down because it was clear that they were serving to incite people on the ground. So they left and started being employed by the foreign press.

Then foreign journalists started giving cameras to Palestinians because they were getting good pictures. It evolved over the years.

With the advent of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat adapted the same measures [he had used in] Beirut.

Some of these [foreign] media organizations knew. And not only were they sympathetic, they had people who were connected to the PLO who were assigned here as journalists because it gave them that access.

Until the year 2000 it was fine, but the moment all hell broke loose, some of these people saw it as their jobs – and I’m talking about the foreigners right now – to help the Palestinian cause. And the Palestinians involved saw it as their job and they were getting clear instructions.

Instructions to do what?

To kill certain stories or promote other stories [in the foreign press].

There was an attempted suicide bombing one day in Jerusalem. A border policeman of Ethiopian descent was injured. Earlier that day, the Palestinian Minister for Jerusalem Affairs was caught illegally in Jerusalem and he was being held at the Russian Compound. We know that the Palestinian producers at the major media offices here coordinated among themselves to shift the story [that day] from [focusing on the] suicide attack to the fact that this Palestinian dignitary was being held by the Israelis. They deliberately misled on certain stories. They coordinated with the Palestinian Authority.

A lot of these [Palestinian] people first got jobs in the Palestinian media under Arafat, and then they started applying for jobs [with the foreign media based in Israel]. We started finding out that a lot of these people had been released from Israeli jails. Arafat was giving them jobs as journalists.

Are you disappointed that when you tried to take a more robust official line, in opposing some of the reporting that you feel has been unfair in the foreign media, that you haven’t had support from the Prime Minister’s Office, from the Ministry of Public Diplomacy?

From the Ministry of Public Diplomacy I did have support. When I approached the minister regarding the images from Reuters [which had cropped out of its photos weapons held by “activists” confronting Israeli soldiers] from the Mavi Marmara, Yuli Edelstein immediately put his name to [a complaint] and within 24 hours we got a [positive] response [from Reuters].

I understand at times the restraint that people in the Foreign Ministry want to show. There’s room for it at times. I’m not picking fights. [But] I believe that we should be standing up for things that we know are wrong, and not [let] journalists think they can get away with everything and that there’s no response from the Israeli side...

The same, by the way, goes for our decision not to allow journalists into Gaza for the war [Operation Cast Lead]. A decision was made. And then [various officials] started saying, “Oh, maybe we shouldn’t.” There were real reasons for this decision.

And it was upheld, but that was because the Ministry of Defense held firm. And prime minister Ehud Olmert.

Broadly speaking, you’re saying Israel doesn’t have the official courage of its convictions?

Sometimes no, it doesn’t. It’s not everybody in the Foreign Ministry. It’s certainly not the Foreign Ministry today. But for a long time those voices within the Foreign Ministry were stronger than the ones who said, “Yes, we have to stand up to it.”

This goes back to the whole issue of Israel’s hasbara failures since the Oslo Accords. We pulled the rug out from under our arguments. The moment in the Oslo process when we didn’t completely stand up for our narrative, we gave legitimacy to the Palestinian claims. [We gave up on] our positions, our claims, our rights!

As regards the Old City, east Jerusalem...?

Every place! My grandfather came here from Afghanistan, not because of Tel Aviv and not because of Haifa, but because of our ancestral right to the Land of Israel. And without our right to the Land of Israel we have no right to the State of Israel; we are no more than the colonialist occupiers which they claim we are. For many years, we used this claim of our right to Eretz Yisrael, not as a political statement, but as a case of genuine historical reasoning. You can’t say that it’s a right-wing argument. It has nothing to do with my positions or my being a right-winger. It’s a fact.

What is Judaism? Where is the birth of the Jewish people if not in Judea and Samaria? Now that’s not to say that we can’t compromise. Zionism has been a movement of compromise. But if we deny these [historical] rights, we’re undermining our own credibility and our own rights. This is part of the failure that has happened here.

Unfortunately, people with those kinds of positions had a stronger voice in the Foreign Ministry for many years. Other people were afraid to speak up. Over the years, I paid a hefty price for sticking to things that I believed were right to do. And everything that I stood up against, whether it was Aftonbladet, Al-Jazeera, the al-Dura case, I was eventually proven right.

And yet you still lost your job.

I didn’t lose my job. I was criticized for [my positions]... I paid a price with a negative portrayal, with a negative image – that I was a right-winger, an extremist, that people weren’t getting their press cards for political reasons – that has no basis in reality. Yet this became the prevalent attitude.

I’m controversial. Why? Because I stand up to defend Israel? Because I criticize the media where they fail? Nobody ever argued with me over the issues. They defamed me. And the reality is, it just doesn’t hold.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on November 11, 2010, 07:30:38 AM

Settlement fatigue

Four decades is enough. If Israel wants peace, it must stop building in the occupied territories.

November 11, 2010

 
Why, after all these years, are we still writing about settlements?

This tiresome controversy has been raging ever since Israel captured the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (along with the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula) in the 1967 Middle East War. The first settlement was built in the Golan a month later. That's four decades ago. Four decades during which the international community has been demanding that Israel step back to the pre-1967 lines, four decades during which Palestinians have called for an end to Israeli efforts to redraw the political map. It's been 35 years since the first Los Angeles Times editorial on the subject called the settlements an "obstacle to peace."

At the time that editorial was written in 1975, there were fewer than 5,000 settlers in the West Bank. Today there are nearly 300,000. That doesn't count those living in the Golan Heights or the 190,000 Israelis who have moved into traditionally Arab East Jerusalem.

In the early years, Israel offered a range of justifications — historical, archaeological and religious as well as military — for these fortified, walled-in communities that were beginning to dot the West Bank landscape. In the 1970s, the group Gush Emunim emerged on the scene, arguing that God gave the Jewish people the biblical regions of Judea and Samaria, and that they must not be returned.

But those days supposedly ended in the 1990s, when Israel officially declared its support for a two-state solution.

So why, after another decade and a half, are settlements still in the headlines? Why were new housing starts so cavalierly issued early this year on the very day Vice President Biden visited Israel? Why was it announced in September that a 10-month partial moratorium on building in the West Bank would not be extended, even as peace talks were being restarted? Why did we learn Tuesday that 1,300 more Jewish housing units would be built in the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and that 800 new units had been approved in the West Bank settlement of Ariel?

Most of the world agrees that the settlements are illegal under international law. Even the United States, Israel's most loyal ally, has been clear that, as President Obama put it Tuesday, settlements are "never helpful" and "break trust."

If Israel were serious about negotiating a peace deal, wouldn't it stop building? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that a segment of the Israeli political establishment simply refuses to accept the new reality — and that segment, mostly made up of right-wing and religious political parties, is crucial to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's delicate coalition government. Truthfully, the settler movement's political power extends beyond the right wing; that's why settlements have grown steadily regardless of what government was in power, including those of Labor Party Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak.

This page continues to believe, as it did in 1975, that settlements are an obstacle to peace. There's plenty of blame to go around, to be sure, for the absence of a final deal, but on this issue, the Israelis are squarely in the wrong. As long as they continue building in the occupied territories, the world will continue to question the depth of their commitment to peace.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 11, 2010, 10:12:39 AM

Israel's first dedication has to be to it's survival. The "palestinians" have no interest in peace, otherwise they wouldn't endlessly teach their children the joys of jihad and martyrdom. Nothing short of Israel's destruction will satisfy them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 11, 2010, 12:15:04 PM

Egypt got its land back when it recognized Israel's right to exist.

Title: Say Hi to the New Neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on November 11, 2010, 03:16:03 PM

By all means stop the settlements so "moderate" PA folks like this can move in next door.

Palestinian Authority Arrests Muslim 'Heretic' Under Threat of Life Imprisonment

Andrew G. Bostom
We are repeatedly told -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- including its draft Sharia-based Constitution -- that the Judea-Samaria Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas is a "moderate" even, "secular" counterpart to the Hamas Islamic fundamentalist regime which controls Gaza.

This absurd propaganda was debunked once again earlier today, Thursday 11/11/10.

Qalqiliya resident Walid Husayin -- the 26-year-old son of a Muslim scholar -- was captured after a "Facebook sting operation" by Palestinian intelligence officials garnered snapshots of his Facebook pages. Apparently this has become a routine, "state-of-the-art" method for imposing Sharia-based Islamic totalitarianism in the Arab Muslim Middle East.

Described as a "quiet man who prayed with his family each Friday and spent his evenings working in his father's barbershop," Husayin was reportedly posting clandestine remarks, which insulted "the divine essence" of Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance. Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident, voiced the preponderant local sentiment regarding apt "punishment," for Mr. Husayin's offense, i.e., public execution:

            He should be burned to death...to be an example to others

And the hapless Mr. Husayin's family expressed great sympathy for their kin by proclaiming he merely deserved life imprisonment -- the current "official" legal punishment should he avoid murder for "apostasy" by one of his co-religionists, with Sharia-sanctioned impunity for the murderer.

The tragic irony is that Walid Husayin's "criminal" words are pathognomonic of what poisons Islam, past as prologue to the ugly present. He is accused of having stated that Allah has the attributes of a "primitive Bedouin," and maintaining that Islam is a,

...blind faith that grows and takes over people's minds where there is irrationality and ignorance.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/palestinian_authority_arrests.html at November 11, 2010 - 05:07:33 PM CST

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2010, 06:24:27 AM

Caroline Glick
Addressing Our Homegrown Enemies

This week we learned that Nazareth is an al-Qaida hub. Sheikh Nazem Abu Salim Sahfe, the Israeli imam of the Shihab al-Din mosque in the city, was indicted on Sunday for promoting and recruiting for global jihad and calling on his followers to harm non-Muslims.

Among the other plots born of Sahfe's sermons was the murder of cab driver Yefim Weinstein last November. Sahfe's followers also plotted to assassinate Pope Benedict XVI during his trip to Israel last year. They torched Christian tour buses. They abducted and stabbed a pizza delivery man. Two of his disciples were arrested in Kenya en route to joining al-Qaida forces in Somalia.

With his indictment, Sahfe joins a growing list of jihadists born and bred in Israel and in free societies around the world who have rejected their societies and embraced the cause of Islamic global domination. The most prominent member of this group today is the American-born al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

US authorities describe Awlaki as the world's most dangerous man. His jihadist track record is staggering. It seems that there has been no major attack in the US or Britain - including the September 11 attacks and the July 7 attacks in London - in which Awlaki has not played a role.

Sahfe and Awlaki, like nearly all the prominent jihadists in the West, are men of privilege. Their personal histories are a refutation of the popular Western tale that jihad is born of frustration, poverty and ignorance. Both men, like almost every prominent Western jihadist, are university graduates.

So, too, their stories belie the Western fantasy that adherence to the cause of jihad is spawned by poverty. These men and their colleagues are the sons of wealthy or comfortable middle class families. They have never known privation.

Armed with their material comforts, university degrees and native knowledge of the ways of democracy and the habits of freedom, these men chose to become jihadists. They chose submission to Islam over liberal democratic rights because that is what they prefer. They are idealists.

This means that all the standard Western pabulums about the need to expand welfare benefits for Muslims or abstain from enforcing the laws against their communities, or give mosques immunity from surveillance and closure, or seek to co-opt jihadist leaders by treating them like credible Muslim voices, are wrong and counterproductive. These programs do not neutralize their supremacist intentions or actions. They embolden the Western Islamic supremacists by signaling to them that they are winning. Their Western societies are no match for them.

In recent weeks we have seen a number of statements by establishment political leaders in Europe indicating that they are willing to consider abandoning these politically correct bromides. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's statement last month that "multiculturalism has utterly failed," for instance, is widely perceived as a watershed event.

And in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, former British prime minister Tony Blair acknowledged that there is a problem with unassimilated Muslims in Britain. As he put it, anti-immigration sentiment is not general but particular. It relates, Blair admitted, to "the failure of one part of the Muslim community to resolve and create an identity that is both British and Muslim."

Blair acknowledged that it is due to the European establishment's refusal to recongnize the problem of growing Islamic supremacism in Europe that so many millions of Europeans are today ditching the establishment and its politically correct orthodoxies and voting for anti-establishment politicians who are willing to address the problem. He called for a continent-wide approach to immigration whose goal would be to prevent jihadists from exploiting the system to overthrow it.

Statements like Merkel's and Blair's are insufficient. But the very fact that enough Europeans are willing to break the PC barrier to force these leaders to acknowledge and perhaps address the challenges of unassimilated, supremacist Muslim minorities means that Europe is taking the first steps towards addressing the challenges that jihadist Islam poses to its security, culture and civilization.

Perhaps most emblematic of this change was the Merkel government's recent move to finally close the mosque in Hamburg where the September 11 plotters met and planned their acts of war against the US.

Disturbingly, the establishments in the two countries most actively targeted by global jihad - the US and Israel - remain in deep denial about the challenges of homegrown jihadist fifth columnists. The US remains in denial even though the majority of recent jihadist attacks and attempted attacks against the US were carried out by American citizens.

The US's denial of the nature of the jihadist threat was demonstrated in all of its politically correct glory this week with President Barack Obama's address to Indian students at St. Xavier University in Mumbai. In response to a student's query about his view of jihad and jihadists, Obama praised Islam as "one of the world's great religions." He went on to claim that the overwhelming majority of Muslims view Islam as a religion of "peace, justice, fairness and tolerance."

Obama's message was not only deceptive and off point, it was deeply insensitive to his audience. Two years ago this month, Mumbai was the site of a massive jihadist commando attack against targets throughout the city, and Mumbai's residents are still grappling with the wounds of that attack.

Obama's statement also ignored the US's contribution to that attack. The suspected mastermind of the Mumbai massacres was a US citizen named David Coleman Headley from Obama's hometown of Chicago. Moreover, Headley (formerly Daood Sayed Gilani) served for many years as a double agent. A convicted drug dealer, he was sent to Pakistan as a Drug Enforcement Agency agent. While there, he trained at Lashkar-e-Taibe jihadist training camps.

Obama failed to note that perhaps due to his work at the DEA, US law enforcement officials ignored testimonies from two of Headley's former wives in 2005 and 2007 that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taibe, the India-focused Pakistani al-Qaida affiliate run by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Rather than address these issues, or the fact that the US has refused Indian extradition requests for Headley, Obama vacuously told students that it is the job of young people from all religions to reject extremism and violence.

Headley, of course, is just one of many American jihadists who has enjoined the fruits of America's politically correct denial of the homegrown Islamic threat. In the months following the September 11 attacks, the US Department of the Army actively courted Awlaki as part of its Muslim outreach program. Awlaki, then George Washington University's Muslim chaplain, was wooed despite his documented links to three of the September 11 hijackers.

As Israelis wake up to the reality of al-Qaida in Nazareth, our leftist establishment remains in denial about its role in enabling this reality. Sahfe's Shihab al-Din mosque was established as a triumphalist mosque adjacent to the Church of the Annunciation in the lead up to the millennium. At the time, the Vatican launched a vocal protest against its construction.

In the hopes of winning over the likes of Sahfe, then-prime minister Ehud Barak and then-foreign minister and public security minister Shlomo Ben-Ami rejected the Vatican's objections. They even donated the land for the mosque from the Israel Lands Authority.

Safhe returned the favor by interrupting Pope John Paul II's homily at the Church of the Annunciation during his March 2000 visit with a call to prayer. Months later, the Shihab al-Din mosque was one of the focal points for inciting the anti-Jewish riots in the Arab sector in October 2000.

Today, leftist judges together with leftist politicians and opinion makers block all efforts by politicians and the public to acknowledge and address the growing lawlessness and jihadist bent of Israel's Muslim minority. Fear of the politically correct Supreme Court has deterred authorities from outlawing the Islamic Movement. Efforts to contend with illegal land seizures and building have been blocked by the leftist media, pressure groups largely sponsored by the New Israel Fund and the courts. Even symbolic measures like the government's recent bid to require non-Jewish immigrants to pledge loyalty to the state have been viciously attacked by Israel's leftist establishment as fascist and racist.

But as Europe is belatedly acknowledging, these politically correct commissars must be sidelined if the free world is to withstand the growing threat of homegrown jihad.

What this means for Israel is that the political and legal space has to be found to speedily embark on the law enforcement equivalent of a counterinsurgency operation. Israel must enforce its laws with as much zeal and commitment in the Muslim sector as it does in the Jewish sector. This means that Shihab al-Din and other jihadist mosques have to be closed.

It means that jihadist groups like the Islamic Movement have to be outlawed and its leaders have to be tried for treason and other relevant offenses. The same is true for all Arab leaders, political groupings and social organizations that promote the destruction of Israel.

Building and zoning laws must be enforced. State lands that have been seized must be taken back, if necessary by force, including with the involvement of the IDF.

So, too, Jewish rights have to be protected. Like Muslims, Jews have the right to buy land and homes throughout the country. Jews who wish to live in Muslim-majority communities must enjoy the protection of the law just as Muslims who live in Tel Aviv and Upper Nazareth do.

By the same token, the government must embark on a campaign to win back the loyalty of its Muslim citizens. It must empower leaders who embrace their identity as Israelis and seek the integration of Israeli Muslims into the wider society. Authorities must ensure that Israeli Muslims who wish to integrate are not discriminated against by Jews or intimidated by other Muslims.

Over the past couple of weeks, IDF commanders have spoken at length about the nature of the war to come. Their remarks have concentrated on what is already largely recognized - that Israel's home front will be targeted by long-range missiles.

Disappointingly, they ignored the most significant new threat facing the home front today: The likelihood that Israel's external foes will receive active assistance from its Muslim citizens.

Nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, global jihad remains the central threat to the West, and not because of its popularity in western Pakistan. It remains the central threat to the free world because of its popularity among the Muslims in the free world.

To remain free, free societies must shed our politically correct shackles and address this growing menace to everything we hold dear.
 
Caroline Glick
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.

Title: Running out of time
Post by: rachelg on November 26, 2010, 08:01:55 AM

Editor's Notes: Running out of time
By DAVID HOROVITZ
26/11/2010   
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=196848
Sanctions on Iran are starting to bite, but not hard enough yet to force the regime to rethink its nuclear drive. Where does that leave Israel?
 
In July 2007, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the dissolution of the Management and Planning Organization of Iran, a 60-year-old, largely independent government body that had been responsible for much of the country’s economic oversight.

The MPO used to prepare the national budget, draw up longterm development plans and oversee their implementation.

It worked on a province-byprovince basis and was, according to expert accounts, a highly competent system of national economic management.

Ahmadinejad tore it down the better to directly control his country’s economy. He set up his own budgetary planning body and centralized additional economic powers under his authority.

The result has been dismal – Neanderthal management, as it was summed up to me by one of several experts with whom I’ve spoken in recent days.

While Ahmadinejad is still emphatically secondary to Iran’s supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in terms of overall power, he is undoubtedly a key economic player, and his policies are lousy.

His insistence on maintaining an overvalued rial, apparently for reasons of national prestige, is harming exports.

His low interest rate policies have caused heavy damage to the nation’s banking system.

Unemployment is officially hovering in the 13 percent range and inflation at about 10%, though unofficial estimates suggest the true figures in both cases may be twice as bad. Unsustainably high subsidies mean, for instance, that Iran is among the cheapest places on earth to fill up your car with gas – just five or six dollars a tank. And because those levels of subsidy simply cannot be maintained, the president is replacing them with cash handouts, which in turn are proving ever-more expensive and hard to sustain.

All this is unfolding in a climate of intensifying, though far from hermetic, international sanctions. No Western oil companies are active in Iran, there is inadequate technical assistance to maintain extraction, and oil and gas production are down. Financial sanctions have sent the cost of doing business soaring, and exports are being hit.

What is striking about Ahmadinejad’s economic leadership, according to the various experts with whom I’ve spoken, is that he is not strategically confronting those sanctions, not managing the resources at his disposal to most effectively minimize their impact.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates made headlines 10 days ago when, in a direct riposte to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s demands for a “credible threat of military action” to back up the sanctions effort, he argued that military strikes could only offer a “short-term solution” that would merely render Iran’s nuclear drive “deeper and more covert.”

Less noticed here was Gates’s assessment that the sanctions have “bitten much harder” than the Iranian leadership had anticipated and his striking revelation that “We even have some evidence that Khamenei now is beginning to wonder if Ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions on the economy, and whether he is getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy really is in.”

The experts I’ve spoken to all agree that the sanctions are indeed starting to hurt. Recent measures are said to have significantly affected the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the all-powerful military conglomerate which, via its various tentacles, reportedly controls as much as a third of the Iranian economy. As well as overseeing the nuclear program, missile defense and national security, the IRGC is also responsible for building the oil industry’s infrastructure, for mining activities vital to the nuclear program, telecommunications, even farming, employing a vast work force.

And its room for economic and commercial maneuver is said to be increasingly constrained.

Israel is understood to have been impressed by the extent of EU sanctions enforcement.

Russia’s decision not to go through with the sale of S-300 missile defense systems is also recognized as a significant shift.

When a regime that uses cash to grease the wheels and stay in power is facing dwindling financial reserves and is presiding over an inefficient, mismanaged economy, the consequences are clear. It has to rely increasingly on coercion. And it is losing popularity.

As yet, however, the international squeeze is far from universal and the sanctions are not devastating.

There is concern at China’s capacity to fill any vacuum and meet any need created by other countries’ suspension of commercial partnerships. There is dismay that India is still providing a highly significant proportion of Iran’s refined oil requirements.

And there is widespread agreement, uniting Israel and the other key international players pushing the sanctions effort, that for all the economic distress, there is absolutely no sign at present of Iran changing course.

To the central question, Will Iran abandon its nuclear weapons drive as a result of sanctions?, the answer for now is an emphatic no. To the subordinate question, Will Iran slow or suspend its nuclear weapons drive as a result of sanctions?, the answer for now is sadly no as well.

As Netanyahu told the Jewish Federations’ General Assembly in New Orleans, “We have yet to see any signs that the tyrants of Teheran are reconsidering their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

IT GETS worse.

Fiendish computer viruses might be wreaking all kinds of havoc within the Iranian nuclear program. Centrifuge operations might be stalling intermittently. Bizarre accidents might continue to occur.

Nevertheless, should the Iranians choose to do so, the experts believe that, within six months, they could “break out” and become a member of the nuclear club. That is not to say that, within six months, they could definitely weaponize – fashion a nuclear warhead and fit it to an effective delivery system.

Rather, they could enrich their stocks of low-enriched uranium to create a nuclear device and test it – a test that would be immediately picked up by international monitors and hailed by Iran as proof that it had now gone beyond the point of no return.

Will Iran choose to do so? Nobody claims to have a definitive answer to that question.

But there is widespread dismay at Iran’s apparent sense of emboldenment, and I encountered no little criticism of the role of the United States – under both president George W. Bush and President Barack Obama – in encouraging that Iranian confidence.

Time and again, I was told that the Iranian regime is pragmatic. That it is not suicidal.

That among the prime motivations for its nuclear quest is the desire to ensure that it will not be vulnerable to what happened in Iraq – to its speedy demise at the hands of outside interventionist forces. That when it truly feared the US was heading its way, between 2003 and 2005, it froze its nuclear program.

But Iran has watched trifling North Korea – throwing its weight around again this week – ignore warnings of international hellfire and expose the US as a paper tiger. And it delighted in the fact that Obama recognized Ahmadinejad’s election victory 17 months ago, essentially legitimizing a regime that the US hadn’t recognized for the previous three decades, and doing so precisely when the Iranian people were staging their most determined effort to date to break free of it.

The bottom line: Two years ago, the Iranians were wondering whether the US and/or Israel might seek to intervene militarily to stop them. Now, they believe that the US is out of the equation.

Israel thinks so too. The view here is that opposition in the US to a military strike at Iran extends far beyond the Democratic administration and deep into Republican ranks as well. The US doesn’t want to attack, I was told, and that includes much of the political Right. Gates’s thinking – that military intervention would only unify the Iranian people behind their currently unpopular government and its nuclear quest, and that it could not cause a long-term collapse of the program – is supplement by the wider regional argument that it will bring Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims closer together in opposition to the West, legitimize Iran’s claims that the West cannot be trusted and must be confronted, and spark much-intensified nuclear weapons programs throughout the Middle East.

The US wants to build deterrence, I was told. The US wants to replicate the conditions of mutual assured destruction that kept America and the Soviet Union just the right side of sanity during the Cold War. The trouble is, this is not the Cold War, and the Islamists are not the Communists.

SO WHERE does that leave Israel? The short answer is ambivalent. The slightly longer answer is extraordinarily worried, and ambivalent.

Israel mistrusts the Iranians more than the Americans do, maybe because it understands them better. It still believes in the potential for sanctions to force at least a suspension of the nuclear program if the regime feels its hold on power is disintegrating. But it knows that, as things stand, Iran is closing in on the bomb faster than the sanctions are forcing a rethink.

Israel regards a nuclear Iran, under this regime, as a monumental threat, a catastrophe, a devastating change. An Iran unbound would be an extreme danger to us, to the region, to the world. Iran regards itself as one of the world’s great nations, and certainly as the rightful leader of the Islamic world, and a nuclear capacity would give the regime far greater capacity to advance its ambitions.

With its own oil reserves depleting, it would also be more capable of imposing itself on weaker oil-producing neighbors; its evident interest in muscling-in on Bahrain is a mild harbinger of what might follow.

Netanyahu has placed Israel at the forefront of the international chorus of alarm, in contrast to Ariel Sharon, who preferred to work behind-the-scenes in alerting the international community to the scale of the danger.

Netanyahu has drawn parallels between the ayatollahs and the Nazis, and rightly notes that we did not gather the majority of the Jewish nation to this historic sliver of land after the horrors of the Holocaust only to be rendered vulnerable again, 70 years later, to another regime’s genocidal ambitions.

And yet there are many highly influential voices in Israel that urge a return to the lower profile. Let’s put ourselves in the background again, they say. Don’t lead the global struggle, or we’ll turn ourselves into the first target.

Some of these men of influence claim, like Gates, to detect cracks in the regime, including between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.

They see the first faint signs that Iranian public thinking on the nuclear issue is becoming more nuanced as the economy sinks. There is still overwhelming support for Iran’s right to nuclear energy, but not necessarily, if this is the economic cost, for its need for nuclear weaponry.

These Israeli voices argue that, since the regime seeks the bomb primarily to ensure its survival rather than primarily to destroy Israel, then – however implausible this sounds – the challenge for the international community, in the upside down world of diplomacy, is to construct a framework in which the regime would feel that by backing down on nukes it would be “enhancing its survivability.”

As things stand, to get into regime’s head, it regards defying international will as giving it more power and leverage, while capitulating to pressure would likely presage more demands, more concessions and ultimately its demise. This echoes the Gates approach: “The only long-term solution to avoiding an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it’s not in their interest.”

FOR NOW, the widely (though not universally) held assessment here is that the regime would likely not fire at Israel if it got the bomb, and would not supply a non-state actor either, for fear of bringing the entire international community violently down upon its head. And while the preparation of all necessary potential military measures is deemed essential, Israeli military intervention is not currently regarded as advisable.

The Washington-based Politico website reported on Wednesday, indeed, that “Some Israeli officials say the country’s fingers are off the hair-trigger that would launch a strike on the Iranian nuclear program” and referred to “the apparent willingness of the Israelis to postpone a demand for confrontation by months – at least.”

Echoing former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s somewhat incoherent talk of things we know, things we don’t know, things we know we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know, Israel thinks it doesn’t know where a not-insignificant proportion of the Iranian nuclear program is located. And Israel worries that there are other facilities that it doesn’t know it doesn’t know about.

In a best-case scenario, if Israel destroyed the majority of the Iranian nuclear program – the part it knows it knows about – Iran has the expertise and the capacity to rebuild, and would be back where it is today in three to five years.

Politico quoted Yossi Kuperwasser, the deputy director-general of Moshe Ya’alon’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, to underline the contention that Israeli fingers are off the hair-trigger for now: “Everybody understands that you have to give some time for the sanctions to bear their full fruit.”

Indeed Ya’alon himself, along with fellow septet ministers Dan Meridor and Ehud Barak, not to mention Netanyahu, have all publicly indicated that they support giving sanctions more time, while The Jerusalem Post reported last month that Avigdor Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry is even preparing policy options for the “day after” Iran passes the nuclear threshold, in a “first admission that the government is giving serious thought to adjusting to a reality where Israel is no longer, according to foreign sources, the sole nuclear power in the region.”

For his part, the current chief of staff, Lt.- Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, it is believed, cautions against military intervention as things stand.

Whatever their thinking, it is a safe bet that the entire Israeli leadership would be mightily relieved if they were spared the fateful decision. If, that is, the sanctions regime were ratcheted up further and more widely imposed, if the Iranian economy nosedived further, and if the Iranian regime – or a desperate Iranian public – concluded that the country was being devastated by its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
    

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 26, 2010, 08:57:13 AM

"In a best-case scenario, if Israel destroyed the majority of the Iranian nuclear program – the part it knows it knows about – Iran has the expertise and the capacity to rebuild, and would be back where it is today in three to five years."

And of course Iran would send suicide squads around the world to act revenge.

That is why IMO the only real option is nuclear weapons.  You have to set Irans military capacity back to the stone age once and for all.  We also have to send a message around the world. 
Or wait and hope (like a stock you bought whose price is dropped big) and pray for some sort of regime change.

It is obvious our military and "dah"bamster have already decided to live with a nuclear Iran.  The decision is already made.  The rest is a game and dog and pony show and a prayer that ahmadingegad (sp?)  and his like will be forced out.

Israel is on its own from what I can glean from the media. Or if there is something behind the scenes I don't know about.  But I highly doubt it.  Bamster sat in th Church of an anti semite for 20 years.  The liberal Jews can think they will pressure and presuade him all they want. They will not have their way with him like they think. He is from camp of the antisemitic group of blacks.  OF course not all and probably not even most Blacks at all.

You know.  About the only time this President of ours is passionate is when he is pleading the Muslim cause, the minority cause, anything anti - white, pro - muslim, or anything anti American.  The rest of his speeches about America are pure show.  It is obvious to me.  If it ain't obvious to my liberal Jewish friends by now then I can't help them.  Unfortunately it may be too late for Israel by then.

Title: The WikiLeaks effect
Post by: rachelg on November 30, 2010, 06:41:12 PM

The WikiLeaks effect
By JPOST EDITORIAL
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=197319
30/11/2010   
Prominent pundits of Mideast affairs have argued Israel alone was pushing for military attack on Iran, WikiLeaks debunked these theories.
 
In recent years, prominent pundits of Middle East affairs such as Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch, The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss, and Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, have argued that Israel alone was pushing for a military attack on Iran.

It was the ubiquitous “Israel lobby” that would make sure the US continued to threaten Iran with military strikes, said Walt and Mearsheimer. It was clear to all that “for Saudi Arabia the worst thing that could happen would be... an Israeli attack on Iran,” Dreyfuss claimed just this month. Lynch, meanwhile, asserted that “while Arab leaders would certainly like Iranian influence checked, they generally strongly oppose military action which could expose them to retaliation.”


Warmongering Israel, ran the thesis, was single-handedly endangering geopolitical stability by attempting to plunge the Middle East into a war with the US.

All of these learned gentlemen also posited the premise of “linkage,” according to which all Middle East pathologies are a direct outcome of Israeli aggression and obstinacy. Only after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved, they have argued, can other issues, such as Iran’s belligerence, be addressed.

Sunday’s revelations provided by WikiLeaks conclusively debunk these risible theories.

From the flood of classified documents, it has become unequivocally clear that Israel is not alone in arguing that Iran, rather than perceived Israeli intransigence on the Palestinian issue, is the principal destabilizing element in the Middle East. We can read in black on white that a broad coalition of Arab countries, particularly in the Persian Gulf area, have been articulating to American leaders for some time, in private and intense conversations, their fear of Iran and, in some cases, the desperate need to take military action.

The documents show that in 2008, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake [Iran]” while there was still time.

The king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, told the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

The United Arab Emirates’ defense chief, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi, told US Gen. John Abizaid that America needed to take action against Iran “this year or next.”

“Ahmadinejad is Hitler,” he declared in July 2009.

For his part, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the Iranians “big fat liars.”



ARAB LEADERS have preferred to keep their true position on Iran from the masses out of a desire to avoid a backlash of public opinion. One wonders, far more in hope than expectation, whether “moderate” Arab leaders will now be prepared to stop separating their private opinions on Iran from their public statements to their people, and in so doing set the groundwork for a coalition encompassing Israel against Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday urged such Arab leaders to speak as honestly about the Iranian danger in public as they have done in private contacts with US diplomats.

It is striking that Israel will feel itself little damaged by the WikiLeaks exposures, which show top officials saying much the same to the US in private as they say to their people in public. The gulf between Arab leaders’ private and public positions, by contrast, is now evident for all to see.

What is also now clear is that some American foreign policy experts, who may have had significant influence on the Obama administration, were wrong to single out Likud-led Israel and the neocon “cabal” in America as the sole driving force behind the military option for Iran. And their insistence that a Palestinian state is prerequisite to mustering Arab support for sanctions or military action against Iran is definitively disproved – revealed as either a severe analytical error or part of a deliberate bid to prompt unwarranted US pressure on Israel.

Whatever the wider repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable deluge, it has exposed the hypocrisy of those Arab leaders who publicly blame Israel for their woes while privately pleading for military measures to thwart their true enemy, Iran. And it has exposed the incompetence, too, or malice, of the analysts who took those Arab leaders’ public utterances at face value, and utilized them in a bid to ratchet up pressure on, and to besmirch, Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2010, 09:03:26 PM

Rachel:

Several points in there that are as excellent as they are overlooked , , , and obivous-- which did not prevent me from missing them until I read this. 

Title: Hamas willing to accept Israel's right to exist?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2010, 01:05:52 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-vows-to-honor-palestinian-referendum-on-peace-with-israel-1.328234

Title: Israel-Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2010, 08:19:57 AM

U.S. Hopes for Smoother Israeli-Turkish Relations
December 9, 2010 | 1318 GMT
PRINT Text Resize:   
ShareThis
Moshe Milner/GPO via Getty Images
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) thanks Turkish pilots for their support in stopping the Carmel Mountain fire near Tirat Hacarmel, Israel, on Dec. 3Summary
There are growing indications that the Israeli government is preparing to make a public apology for the deaths of nine Turkish civilians in the summer Gaza flotilla incident and is willing to pay compensation to the victims’ families. Though the Israeli government can expect Turkey to play up hostilities as Ankara expands its influence in the region, both countries have deeper, underlying reasons to mend ties and put this issue behind them. The United States, meanwhile, can remove a critical obstacle to its relationship with Turkey as Washington looks to Ankara for its cooperation, particularly in relation to Iran and Russia.

Analysis
Turkey and Israel are in negotiations to find a way to normalize relations after the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident in which nine Turkish civilians died. The two have been stumbling toward reconciliation privately for some time but more recently began publicizing their rapprochement through such gestures as Turkey’s sending firefighting aircraft to Israel to help in combating the Carmel Mountain fires. There are signs now that a compromise is in the making, with Israel trying to find a way to apologize to and compensate the families of the victims without having to apologize directly to the Turkish state.

Domestic politics on both sides are hampering the reconciliation process. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) needs to preserve his credibility in the coming election year and wants to convince Turkish citizens that he has forced Israel to concede on his terms and has arduously defended Turkish sovereignty. For this reason, Erdogan reiterated Dec. 8 that “there is no such distinction as ‘the people’ or ‘the state.’ They [the Israelis] must apologize to the Republic of Turkey.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criticism from his country’s far right. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman charged the prime minister with “caving in to terrorism” and demanded that Turkey apologize to Israel instead. Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom also criticized the idea — albeit less dramatically — when he said Dec. 8 that it would be inconceivable for Israel to apologize to Turkey as such a move would encourage other countries to act like Ankara.

Looking Beyond Domestic Constraints
Though the domestic complications are substantial, deeper strategic interests are driving Israel and Turkey to work out a compromise so each can move on to other items on their foreign policy agendas. Publicly, Turkey began distancing itself from Israel well before the May 31 flotilla affair by strongly condemning Israel over its January 2009 invasion of Gaza, excluding Israel from Anatolian Eagle air exercises in October 2009 and by lashing out against Israel over the low seat controversy. Though Israel initially might have been surprised by Ankara’s moves, it is also quite accustomed to having diplomatic relationships with countries that need to make outbursts against Israel from time to time. Israel’s relationships with Egypt and Jordan, for example, are vital to Israeli national security interests, but Israel also knows these countries have domestic constituencies, which tend to respond favorably to anti-Israeli rhetoric, to which they must answer. This is something Israel can tolerate, as long as its peace agreements with these countries remain intact.

When Turkey was more insular, there was little need for Ankara to engage in such rhetoric. Now, as Turkey — under the rule of the Islamic-rooted AKP — is steadily expanding its influence across the Middle East, the anti-Israel card acts as a booster to Turkish credibility in the region. Israel will end up having to increasingly tolerate this. The flotilla incident (specifically, the resulting deaths of Turkish civilians) took this dynamic several steps too far, but now that the situation is settling and Turkey has captured the region’s attention, Ankara can demonstrate through the Israeli apology that Turkey is still the only country that can speak and deal with Israel on a level platform.

The U.S. Connection
But these negotiations are not confined to Turkey and Israel. The common bond between these countries is the United States, and when Turkey and Israel are sparring, they both end up risking potentially serious damage to their relationships with Washington. As Israel is discovering, the current U.S. imperative in the region is to find a way to restore a balance of power in the Persian Gulf so that the United States can address pressing concerns in Russia and the Far East. Turkey is the one power in the region with the potential, the assets and historical influence to manage affairs from Syria to Iraq to Iran. Just as important, Turkey’s geopolitical positioning makes it a critical component to any U.S.-led campaign to counter Russian influence in Europe and the Caucasus. Israel simply cannot compete with Turkey in this regard, and though the U.S.-Israeli relationship remains strong, Israel cannot count on Washington to defend it against Turkey if doing so would go against broader U.S. interests in the region. In addition, whether Israel likes it or not, Turkey is building influence with a number of Arab states and players that remain hostile to Israel. If Israel risks a lasting rupture in relations with Turkey, it also risks upsetting its strategy of keeping the Arab states too weak and divided to pose a meaningful threat.

Turkey has more room to maneuver than Israel in handling this diplomatic spat, but is also finding trouble in managing its relationship with Washington while its relationship with Israel is on the rocks. The United States and Turkey are already attempting to work out a number of issues as Turkey continues to assert its regional autonomy and as U.S. policymakers struggle to come to terms with the AKP as a powerful, Islamic-rooted political entity. Still, the United States needs Turkey to assist with an array of regional issues, and Turkey is eager to fill a vacuum in the Middle East as the United States draws down its presence there. For Washington and Ankara to move on to the strategic questions of how they can work together to contain an emerging Iran or a resurgent Russia, they need to clear the air a bit and work through several unresolved issues.

One such issue is ballistic missile defense (BMD). Turkey made an important and symbolic move in signing on to the NATO version of BMD, allowing the United States to signal to countries like Russia and Iran that Turkey remains part of a Western coalition of forces to limit their regional expansion. The BMD commitment was important for the United States to show Turkey is still more or less in league with Washington on issues like limiting Russian and Iranian expansion into Eurasia and the Middle East, respectively.

As for the next steps, U.S. policymakers privately have been urging the Turkish leadership to mend ties with Israel. As long as the United States’ two key allies in the region are throwing rhetorical daggers at each other, it will be politically difficult for Washington to openly conduct policy in the region in coordination with Turkey. The United States has been playing the role of mediator between Israel and Turkey and appears to be making progress in getting Israel to agree to some type of apology to move the rapprochement along. There may also be a connection between Israel’s openly suggesting an apology to the Turkish victims and the United States’ controversial announcement Dec. 7 that it was lifting its long-standing demand for Israel to freeze settlement construction. U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration had tried to use this demand to build credibility in the region and demonstrate its willingness to be forceful with the Israelis. Backing down at this point of the peace process — and while Latin American countries are on a recognition drive for a Palestinian state — is channeling a great deal of criticism toward Washington. However, it can also be viewed as a highly visible favor to Israel — a favor perhaps intended to move along the Turkish-Israeli reconciliation.

Some type of compromise between Israel and Turkey is inevitable. Though the road to reconciliation will be bumpy, the strategic impetus for U.S.-Turkish cooperation is likely to outweigh domestic political constraints in the end.



Read more: U.S. Hopes for Smoother Israeli-Turkish Relations | STRATFOR

Title: Zionism, Nixon-style
Post by: rachelg on December 13, 2010, 08:15:55 PM

Zionism, Nixon-style
By JPOST EDITORIAL
12/12/2010   
Nixon’s readiness to come to Israel’s aid in time of need underlines the critical mutual importance of the Israeli-American strategic alliance.
 
A new batch of recordings released by the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum provides further evidence of former US president Richard Nixon’s animosity toward Jews and other minorities. Particularly appalling were comments made by Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger after a March 1973 meeting with prime minister Golda Meir at the White House.

Nixon and Kissinger brutally dismissed Meir’s requests to come to the aid of refuseniks.

“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Kissinger said.

“And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

“I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”

Nixon also ordered his personal secretary Rose Mary Woods to block entry to a state dinner held in honor of Meir – he called it “the Jewish dinner” – to any Jew “who didn’t support us.”

And the president disparaged top Jewish advisers – among them Kissinger and William Safire – for supposedly sharing the common trait of needing to compensate for an inferiority complex.

“What it is, is it’s the insecurity,” Nixon said. “It’s the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure. And that’s why they have to prove things.”

In tapes released in 2007, Nixon said of Kissinger “Anybody who is Jewish cannot handle” Middle Eastern policy. Henry might be “as fair as he can possibly be, but he can’t help but be affected by it. Put yourself in his position. Good God ... his people were crucified over there. Jesus Christ! Five million of them popped into big ovens! How the hell’s he feel about all this?”

COUNTER-INTUITIVELY, this is the same Nixon who, during the Yom Kippur War, overrode intra-administration bickering and bureaucratic foot-dragging to implement a breathtaking transfer of arms. Code-named Operation Nickel Grass, the operation, over a four-week period, deployed hundreds of jumbo US military aircrafts to deliver more than 22,000 tons of armaments to Israel.

And Nixon acted at a time when Washington was in the throes of a post-Vietnam War trauma, embroiled in Watergate and reeling from the forced resignation of vice president Spiro Agnew.

Finally, Nixon braved the threat of an Arab oil embargo, which convinced the Europeans not to get involved.

Indeed, the day after Nixon asked Congress for an emergency appropriation of $2.2 billion for Israel, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal announced an embargo of oil to the US.

White House chief of staff Alexander Haig, CIA deputy director Vernon Walters and historian Walter Boyne all credited Nixon with coming to the aid of Israel at a time when no European country was willing to, as Jason Maoz noted in a recent article in Commentary.

“It was Nixon who did it,” recalled Nixon’s acting special counsel, Leonard Garment. “I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, this is insane. . . . He just ordered Kissinger, ‘Get your ass out of here and tell those people to move.’” Haig, in his memoir Inner Circles, wrote that Nixon, frustrated with the initial delays in implementing the airlift and aware that the Soviets had begun airlifting supplies to Egypt and Syria, summoned Kissinger and Schlesinger to the Oval Office on October 12, 1973, six days into the war, and “banished all excuses.”

The president asked Kissinger for a precise accounting of Israel’s military needs, and Kissinger proceeded to read aloud from an itemized list.

“Double it,” Nixon ordered. “Now get the hell out of here and get the job done.”

Meir herself referred to Nixon as “my president” and told a group of Jewish leaders in Washington shortly after the war: “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the materiel that meant life to our people.”

THE NEW York Times, attempting to explain the apparent contradiction between Nixon's anti-Semitic remarks and his pro-Israel behavior, ascribed it to a distinction the president made between Israeli Jews, whom he admired, and American Jews.

Perhaps so. Whatever the case, Nixon’s readiness to come to Israel’s aid at a time of dire need, his appreciation that this was an American interest, has an ongoing relevance, underlining the critical mutual importance of the Israeli-American strategic alliance.

With all its implications for policy-making in Washington and in Jerusalem, this remains as true today as it ever was.
    

Title: Buying time till Obama is gone (hopefully)
Post by: ccp on December 16, 2010, 02:45:24 PM

ISRAEL’S SECRET WAR
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann12.13.2010
 
The big question in the Middle East these days is: Who has time on their side?

As Iran races to develop its nuclear bomb-making capacity, we have always assumed that time was on the Ayatollah’s side. The Iranian strategy of delay and obfuscation in its negotiations with the West seems to have succeeded in buying Teheran the time it needs for its spinning Centrifuges to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb. The possibility that Iran may acquire advanced anti-aircraft systems from Russia – even though the Kremlin denies it – seems to make the military option of an air strike on Iranian nuclear plants harder and harder for Israel.

But on the West Bank and Gaza, time has always seemed to be on Israel’s side. Time to build settlements, time to expand those already there, and – most important – time to wait out Obama’s four year term in office all work for Netanyahu.


Then the worm turned! The Stuxnet worm, a Windows-specific computer worm that spies on and reprograms industrial systems. Iran has acknowledged that its nuclear program – the target of the worm – has been damaged significantly. In fact, some speculate that the worm may take a year for Iran to work through. But, since this is the most important use of cyber warfare thus far in history, nobody can really know its full impact.

When one considers the worm in the context of a cruder form of secret war – the targeted assassination of three Iranian nuclear scientists in recent weeks, the agents of the Mossad may have been very busy! And effective! Who knows?

And the United States has finally gotten focused on real sanctions against Iran. Doing what Bush should have done but didn’t, Obama and Hillary (yes – words of praise) have gotten the international community to sanction Iran where it hurts by undermining their capacity to produce oil, reducing their access to gasoline, and curtailing their ability to borrow money.

When we worked for Netanyahu as he approached his election as prime minister last year, we were both deeply impressed by his understanding of the danger an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose to Israel. “It is 1938,” were his prophetic first words when we met in a Manhattan hotel to begin our work. 1938. The war, the holocaust, the slaughter of the Jews seemed to be approaching.

That’s why Bibi’s seeming willingness to play the clock has been puzzling. By waltzing Hillary and Obama around the dance floor of Middle East negotiations, an on-again, off-again settlement building policy, and making noises about peace without actually giving anything up, he appears to be playing for time. And, given Obama’s and Hillary’s inexperience and incompetence in first demanding a settlement freeze and then deciding it had been a mistake to do so, Netanyahu is dancing rings around the pair.

But wasn’t time on Iran’s side? Maybe not.

Perhaps what Bibi is doing – we have had no contact with him since his election – is influenced by the progress he sees in undermining Iran’s nuclear program on the one hand and in keeping Obama to a single term on the other.

Netanyahu watches American politics very, very closely. He probably understands that Obama is inimical to Israel’s interests and likely fully grasps his pro-Arab tendencies. But he also realizes the magnitude of the defeat inflicted upon the president in the midterm elections and sees the probability of his replacement by a staunch Republican friend of Israel in the offing.

So between the worm and the Tea Party, he may figure that time is on his side, after all.

And it may be!

Title: Remember Cast Lead
Post by: rachelg on December 21, 2010, 08:18:20 PM

Remember Cast Lead
By JPOST EDITORIAL
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=200485
21/12/2010   
Prospects or talks producing a peace breakthrough are faint enough; Hamas’s rule in Gaza represents a huge obstacle to the implementation of any accord.
 
This time two years ago, Israel was on the verge of launching the 22-day Operation Cast Lead. The fighting began at 11:30 a.m. on December 27 with a wave of F-16 air strikes on Hamas strongholds in Gaza, aimed at putting a stop to the relentless cross-border fire that was terrorizing Israelis living in towns and cities in the South. Now, after two years of relative quiet, Gaza seems to be heating up again.

Late Monday, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi ordered the air force to strike eight targets in the Gaza Strip, including a Hamas training camp and a tunnel used for smuggling, in retaliation for a string of offensives against Israeli troops and civilians over the last two weeks. Upping the ante, terrorists in Gaza on Tuesday morning fired a Kassam rocket that struck near a kindergarten in Ashkelon, lightly wounding a girl on her way to school and causing shock to two other people. Later on Tuesday, the IAF struck back again.

IDF sources say Hamas is not interested in a full-scale escalation. However, limited escalation does seem to be in Hamas’s perceived interest, in part as a means of deflecting growing frustration over its failure to attain political goals such as the release of its prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

TWO YEARS after Cast Lead, renewed terrorist activity from Gaza is a reminder of the split that has taken place in the Palestinian leadership in recent years. While the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority struggles to maintain control of the West Bank and move toward statehood, Hamas is pursuing a bleak policy of low-intensity terrorism from Gaza.

Hamas’s victory in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections was the culmination of a long process that marked the official end of a half-century during which the Palestinian national movement was dominated by a more secular political culture. Nizar Rayyan, a Hamas leader in Gaza who was killed by the IDF in January 2009, had proclaimed that Hamas’s fight against Fatah was to “uproot secularism in Gaza.”

It is no secret that Hamas aspires to extend its control to the West Bank. And as the Israeli academic Asher Susser noted in The Rise of Hamas in Palestine, growing Islamism is not limited to those territories either. It is part of a larger trend of Islamic ascendancy and re-Islamization of society and politics from Egypt to Jordan, from Iraq to Syria.

Part of the reason for Hamas’s electoral success was disgust with the rampant corruption and cronyism that permeated Fatah and its leadership. But there was also a belief among Palestinians that Hamas’s ruthless methods were more effective against Israel. As Azzam Tamimi wrote in Hamas: A History from Within, Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, months before the 2006 elections, was widely regarded as proof that violence and terrorism had produced results where the PLO’s professed abandonment of the “armed struggle” and focus on negotiation had failed.

That election victory was followed a year later by a violent coup, in which Hamas gunmen ousted Fatah from the Strip. Even though 2005’s disengagement meant there was no Israeli civilian or military presence there, the rocket fire escalated, and a reluctant Israel saw no alternative but to launch its Cast Lead assault on the Islamists.

SOME ANALYSTS believe that Hamas is losing popularity among the Palestinians, who may be internalizing the destruction their Gaza government brought down upon the Strip by goading Israel into military action two years ago. Some argue, too, that Gazans are beginning to look across to the West Bank, where stability and economic coordination with Israel are producing a much-improved day-to-day climate. Finally, it is suggested that Hamas’s gradual efforts to impose a fundamental Islamic framework in Gaza are producing growing disaffection.

Whatever the accuracy of these assessments, however, there are no significant signs that Hamas’s grip on Gaza is loosening. Having capitalized on ballot-box support to engineer its violent takeover, Hamas will not willingly relinquish control.

The prospects of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations producing a peace breakthrough are faint enough; Hamas’s rule in Gaza represents a huge obstacle to the implementation of any substantive accord.

More immediately, the current minor-escalation of fire from Gaza underlines Hamas’s potential to wreak havoc in southern Israel with the mortars, rockets and missiles it has been steadily acquiring since Operation Cast Lead.

For two years, the force of that operation evidently served as a deterrent to this kind of cross-border fire. However firm it considers its hold on Gaza to be, Hamas would be foolish to risk forcing Israel into a repeat resort to such use of force.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 29, 2010, 06:41:09 PM

I think racism is bad where ever it rears it's ugly head.


Letter urges Israeli girls to avoid dating Arabs

Jerusalem (CNN) -- A letter from about 30 prominent rabbis' wives was causing a stir in Israel Wednesday because it urges Israeli girls not to date Arabs.
The open letter comes three weeks after the uproar caused by another letter, which was written by 50 state-appointed rabbis and told Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews.

The latest missive, which was published by some websites and news outlets, says Arab men act polite around Jewish girls and "act as if they really care about you," but it says that's a ruse. The men, it says, even change their Arab names to Hebrew forms like Yossi and Ami in order to get close to the girls.
"This behavior is temporary," the letter says. "As soon as you are in their hands, in their villages under their control, everything becomes different. You can ask dozens of girls who have been there. They will tell you it is all an act.
"As soon as you arrive at the village, your life will never be the same. The attention will be replaced with curses, beatings, and humiliations. Even if you want to leave the village it will be much harder. They won't let you, they will chase you, they won't let you come back."
It urges Jewish girls not to go out with non-Jews or work in places that employ non-Jews.
"Your grandmothers never dreamt that their descendants would do something that will take the next generations of her family out of the Jewish people," it says.
The letter was initiated by the head of Lehava, an extreme right-wing group that says it aims to prevent the "assimilation of the Jewish people" and works at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."

"It's known that girls who go out with Arabs are beaten, these girls are in danger. ... There is a violent social trend and everyone ignores it," said the head of the group, Anat Gopstein, in a radio interview Wednesday morning.
The head of Israel's Reform movement, Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia," according to spokeswoman Yuli Goren.
More than 30 female rabbis from the Reform movement published a counter-letter harshly condemning the one released Wednesday, Goren said. Kariv also called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Yaacov Neeman to speak out against it.
Among the rabbis' wives who signed the letter is Nitzchia Yossef, the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the ultra-orthodox Shas political party. Esther Lior, the wife of extreme right-wing Rabbi Dov Lior, was another signatory.
Rabbi Yosef was one of the authors of the letter written earlier this month that urged Jews not to sell or rent property to non-Jews. It prompted widespread condemnation from politicians, human rights groups and leading rabbis in both Israel and the United States.
The letter, which was distributed to synagogues and published in some religious newspapers, had warned that those who defied the religious ruling should be ostracized. It said if one apartment is taken by a non-Jew, it devalues all the neighbors' apartments.
More than 800 rabbis from around the world signed a petition against the letter, saying "statements like these do great damage to our efforts to encourage people to love and support Israel."

The petition said "the attempt to root discriminatory policies based on religion or ethnicity in Torah is a painful distortion of our tradition. Am Yisrael (the Jewish people) knows the sting of discrimination, and we still bear the scars of hatred. When those who represent the official rabbinic leadership of the state of Israel express such positions, we are distressed by this ... desecration of God's name."
Nearly 1.5 million Arab residents live inside Israel, making up 23% of the population.
A poll published Tuesday by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem showed that 48% of Israelis oppose the call to avoid renting or selling property to Arabs.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2010, 07:03:07 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/

"Moody" is an Iranian doctor living in America with his American wife Betty and their child Mahtob. Wanting to see his homeland again, he convinces his wife to take a short holiday there with him and Mahtob. Betty is reluctant, as Iran is not a pleasant place, especially if you are American and female. Upon arrival in Iran, it appears that her worst fears are realized: Moody declares that they will be living there from now on. Betty is determined to escape from Iran, but taking her daughter with her presents a larger problem.

**Watch the movie, JDN. Even though this case was in Iran, it's a common situation. A western woman meets a charming muslim man who is very modern. They marry, then return to his native land and then he stops being so kind and charming.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2010, 07:45:36 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html

(CNN) -- Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence, Saudi media reported Sunday.
It is OK to slap Saudi women who spend too much, a judge has told an audience.

It is OK to slap Saudi women who spend too much, a judge has told an audience.

Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that "if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment."

Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine's statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.

Arab News reported that Al-Razine made his remark as he was attempting to explain why incidents of domestic violence had increased in Saudi Arabia. He said that women and men shared responsibility, but added that "nobody puts even a fraction of blame" on women, the newspaper said.

Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," it added.

Domestic violence, which used to be a taboo subject in the conservative kingdom, has become a hot topic in recent years. Groups like the National Family Safety Program have campaigned to educate the public about the problem and help prevent domestic abuse.

Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN that Saudi women routinely face such attitudes.
Don't Miss

    * Report: Saudi girl granted divorce

"This is how men in Saudi Arabia see women," she said in a telephone interview from the Saudi city of Dahran. "It's not something they read in a book or learned from a friend. They've been raised to see women this way, that they're less than a person."

Al-Huwaider added that "I'm not surprised to see a judge or a religious man saying that - they've been raised in the same culture - a culture that tells them it's ok to raise your hand to a woman that this works."
advertisement

Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband.

Last month, after human-groups condemned the union, the girl was granted the divorce.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 29, 2010, 07:48:38 PM

So two wrongs make a right?

I respect Israel, therefore I expect more from Israel. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2010, 07:51:52 PM

Would you want a woman to marry into a culture where domestic violence is normative behavior?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 29, 2010, 08:03:24 PM

It reminds me of America not too many years ago.

"Don't date a black person".  "Don't even sell you house to a black person,
it will denigrate and lower the neighborhood."

Racism...

I would like to think we've moved beyond that....
And Israel too...

Domestic violence is everywhere....  And it's not right...

http://pavementpieces.com/orthodox-jewish-communities-sweep-abuse-under-rug/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2010, 08:12:53 PM

Yeah, your example might make sense if the US were surrounded by hostile black countries sworn to wipe out the US. It's easy to condemn Israel while seated in the US, although your future in "Alta California/Aztlan" is questionable.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2010, 08:17:36 PM

Perhaps I've missed it, but have you condemned Japan's racism and caste system?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 29, 2010, 10:47:57 PM

Quote from: G M on December 29, 2010, 08:17:36 PM

Perhaps I've missed it, but have you condemned Japan's racism and caste system?

Japan's racism and caste system?

Hmmm I"ll try, but I've had a few drinks...

Japanese are definitely not perfect; in the countryside, especially in the Kansai area people can
be rather conservative (and racist).  Warm on the outside, but cold on the inside.  Then again, once
they get to know you, they are the best of people.  Sort of like East London treated me years ago.  I could
go on for hours if you like.....

And I concur, it is very difficult to rise up in a large Japanese Company being gaijin.  Sony and Nissan are an exception.

As for caste system, it's basically a meritocracy mixed with money.  Of course if you are rich,
like anywhere, your family wants you to marry rich.  And live with the rich.  But what I like about Japan,
is you can find rich homes next to poor people; most communities are integrated, albeit the houses are bigger.
I suppose the Emperor's family rates a higher level, but he married a commoner; all quite similar to England.

As for "caste system" in general there is none.  Perhaps in the Edo period.  You are dating yourself (and myself)  :-)
People marry foreigner's all the time.  Parents might not be "happy", i.e. cultural differences, language, etc. but
in the end everyone seems pretty happy.

Like America; where you go to school matters; even more so in Japan.  But in Japan their best Universities, i.e. Tokyo Daigaku, Kyoto University, etc.
are based solely upon your test score.  Period.  I have rich friends who have gone there, AND small countryside
shop owner's children who have gone there.  It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, connections or not,
what is your test score?  Maybe America should adopt this system?  You cannot be more fair... No affirmative action here.
Or favors for the rich...

Frankly, if you are Japanese, the system is very fair.  And if you are not, well, it's not bad; give me better weather and I wouldn't mind moving
there.  And when I was there I was treated very well.  it's sounds a lot better than living in a Muslim Country, or being an Arab in Israel....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 29, 2010, 11:07:39 PM

Kind of glossing over the treatment of the ethnic minorities in Japan, or are you aware of that? As far as caste, I'm referring to the Burakumin.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2010, 07:55:26 AM

I'm not sure this is the correct forum to discuss Japan, but to answer your question, I did indirectly refer to Burakumin when I called the Kansai people conservative and racist.  In the Edo period there was a definite caste system.  Meiji abolished this, but it still exists to some degree.  However this issue is dying out; it's almost gone unless perhaps you are Burakumin and wish to marry into a very old and prestigious samurai family or join an elite company.  I suppose no worse maybe better than the blacks have it here.  Also, the group itself is "dying out" through assimilation.  Many Japanese don't even know this problem exists
nor do they even know a Burakumin.  And discrimination is never tolerated in public.  There is discrimination everywhere, in every country, but when civic leaders, church leaders, and government officials condone discrimination, I find it particularly appalling.

That said, treatment of minorities in Japan is MUCH better than nearly anyplace I know.  As related to this forum, the treatment of minorities is far far better in Japan than anyplace in the Middle East.

Title: WSJ: Israeli Gas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2010, 11:08:28 AM

JDN:

I think you gloss over the issue of danger to Israel here from 5th column type issues and drift into moral equivalence territory.  Although I am distinctly uncomfortable with what I read here, I really can't say I see it as anywhere near comparable to what Jews have been subjected throughout the mid-east (indeed often glossed over is that essentially as many Jews who emmigrated to Israel did so from Arab countries as Europe) or what the Christians of Iraq are suffering as we have this conversation here. 

Anyway, here's the article I came to this thread to post:
WSJ
By CHARLES LEVINSON And GUY CHAZAN
TEL AVIV—Two years ago, Ratio Oil Exploration LP, an energy firm here, employed five people and was worth about half a million dollars.

 
Noble Energy
 
Operations in Noble Energy's Leviathan gas field, the world's biggest deepwater gas find in a decade.
.Today it sits at the center of a gas bonanza that has investors, international oil companies, Israeli politicians and even Hezbollah, Israel's sworn enemy, clamoring for a piece of the action.

Ratio's market capitalization now approaches $1 billion. The rally at Ratio is thanks to the company's 15% stake in a giant offshore gas field called Leviathan, operated by Houston-based Noble Energy Inc.

On Wednesday, the frenzy got fresh fuel: Noble confirmed its earlier estimates that the field contains 16 trillion cubic feet of gas—making it the world's biggest deepwater gas find in a decade, with enough reserves to supply Israel's gas needs for 100 years.

It's still early days, and getting all that gas out of the seabed may be more difficult than it seems today. But Noble and its partners think the field could hold enough gas to transform Israel, a country precariously dependent on others for energy, into a net-energy exporter.

Such a transformation could potentially alter the geopolitical balance of the Mideast, giving Israel a new economic advantage over its enemies.

Even before Wednesday's announcement confirming the size of Leviathan, the big field was causing a ruckus in Israel and the region.

Leviathan, named after the Biblical sea monster, and two smaller gas fields nearby have kicked up a broad speculative craze.

Israel's Gas Bonanza
View Interactive
.More photos and interactive graphics
.The energy index of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange rose 1,700% in the past year. In recent months, energy stocks accounted for about a quarter of trading activity on the exchange, once mostly the domain of real-estate companies.

It's also shaken regional relations. Lebanese politicians are trying to lure companies to explore their nearby waters, while the two countries—still technically at war—have threatened each other over offshore resources.

A minor diplomatic furor has erupted between Israel and the U.S., which is lobbying hard against Israel's plans to raise taxes on energy companies, including Noble.

Leviathan sits some 84 miles off Israel's northern coast and more than three miles beneath the Mediterranean's seabed. Noble began drilling its first exploratory well in the field in October.

Even before Leviathan, a series of finds had put the so-called Levant Basin, stretching offshore in the Mediterranean, on the international energy map.

In March, the U.S. Geological Survey released its first assessment of the zone, estimating it contained 1.7 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's equal to half the proven gas reserves of the U.S.

The finds also exposed a grittier underside to Israel's financial sector. A string of criminal investigations launched by Israeli authorities into share-price movements and company disclosures have dogged some of the bonanza's highest flyers.

And a long-running shareholder fight at Ratio spilled into the public this fall, featuring a cameo appearance by a man wanted by U.S. authorities on racketeering and conspiracy charges.

 Israel's recent discovery of offshore gas fields has Lebanon, its northern neighbor, looking to do the same to help feed its growing electricity demands. WSJ's Don Duncan reports from Lebanon.
.Except for the occasional small oil and gas find in its early years, Israel has searched in vain for energy. Big Oil shied away, worried about antagonizing Arab and Iranian partners.

A hardy group of Israeli explorers kept at it anyway. Ratio was one of them. In the early 1990s, Ratio's chief executive, Yigal Landau, from a family of infrastructure magnates, and Ligad Rotlevy, whose family textile business goes back 80 years, formed the company to search for oil onshore.

By then, companies were also venturing offshore. In 1998, another Israeli energy firm, Delek Group Ltd., persuaded Noble, one of the first independents to operate offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, to start looking in Israel's slice of the Mediterranean.

Noble drilled its first Israeli well in 1999, and quickly scored two modest finds. Financial firms and local businessmen with little energy experience began snapping up offshore leases from the government.

Thanks to a 1952 petroleum law still on the books, Israel offered some of the world's best perks to energy companies, including low royalties and corporate taxes on exploration.

Ratio tried to buy into the offshore projects that Noble and Delek were pursuing, but was rebuffed. Instead, in 2007, Messrs. Landau and Rotlevy put up $40 million and took a gamble on the rights to an offshore license neighboring the Noble and Delek fields. It would eventually become the Leviathan field.

Armed with promising seismic data, the pair then convinced Noble and Delek to buy into their lease. They sold a 45% stake to Delek and a 40% stake to Noble.

In January 2009, Noble made a landmark discovery. The Tamar field contained premium quality gas—almost pure methane. Noble had expected to find three trillion cubic feet at the most. The reservoir ended up containing nearly three times that. Two months later, the company found a second, smaller deposit of gas at the nearby Dalit field.

Then, last summer, Noble dropped a bomb shell. The Leviathan field appeared to be a supergiant, according to three-dimensional seismic studies, with almost twice the gas reserves of Tamar.

Ratio's shares soared, and so did those of other energy firms in Tel Aviv. The rally set off alarm bells among regulators.

"We saw new players, and these skeleton entities that had nothing to do with oil, had no experience or know-how, buying and trading leases, making baseless claims," said Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Uzi Landau. "We decided we had to stop this crazy atmosphere engulfing the market." He wouldn't discuss specific companies.

Officials at the Israeli Securities Authority declined to comment on specific cases, but said they were concerned about an ongoing pattern in which small energy companies publish vague or misleading reports that cause their share prices to skyrocket, and often to plummet later.

In September, the ISA raided the offices of two energy-exploration firms related to probes into trading irregularities.

In the case of EZ Energy, regulators stormed its offices Sept. 20, seizing computers and files after its stock shot up 150% in a single session. The ISA says EZ Energy is being investigated for criminal wrongdoing, but hasn't been specific.

EZ Energy declined to comment. The company has disclosed it held a private meeting with Ratio to discuss buying a small share of another, unstudied offshore gas license. Ratio said the company has stopped taking meetings with other energy firms. Ratio isn't accused of any wrongdoing in connection with EZ.

Amid the stock-market frenzy, the Israeli government started considering changing its 1950s-era energy royalties and tax regime, to boost the government's take of any gas find.

Earlier this year, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said he was considering changing terms retroactively—meaning the government could extract better terms on previously assigned leases. Noble and Israeli oil executives went on the offensive.

A retroactive change would be "egregious" and "would quickly move Israel to the lowest tier of countries for investment by the energy industry," Noble's chief executive, Chuck Davidson, wrote Mr. Steinitz in April.

The company enlisted high-level negotiators, including the U.S. State Department and former President Bill Clinton, to lobby against any change.

Mr. Clinton raised the issue in a private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York in July, according to a Clinton aide. "Your country can't just tax a U.S. business retroactively because they feel like it," the aide said Mr. Clinton told Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Netanyahu was noncommittal, the aide said. A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu declined to comment on the meeting.

Finance Minister Steinitz has so far ignored the pressure. Last month, he said a government-appointed committee had made preliminary recommendations to abolish tax breaks for energy firms and impose steep tax increases of 20% to 60% on windfall profits. Any tax changes are subject to approval by Israel's cabinet.

"Israel is sovereign to make its own decision and change its tax regime," Mr. Steinitz said in an interview.

Shares in energy companies plummeted on news of the tax increases. Delek Energy said it would have to reevaluate the Tamar field. "This really threatens our ability to deliver the project on schedule," said Gidon Tadmor, the CEO. Funding for development of the gas field is now on hold, he said, due to banks' concerns about the new tax regime.

Despite these problems, Israel's gas find is making waves abroad. Lebanon has staked out its own claim to offshore gas. In August, lawmakers in Beirut rushed the country's first oil-exploration law through its normally snarled parliament.

Lebanon's oil minister, Gebran Bassil, an ally of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, said in late October that his ministry hopes to start auctioning off exploration rights by 2012.

Iran, Israel's arch-nemesis and Hezbollah's chief backer, has also weighed in. Tehran's ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, last month claimed that three-quarters of the Leviathan field actually belongs to Lebanon.

Mr. Landau, the Israeli infrastructure minister, denied the claim and warned Lebanon that Israel wouldn't hesitate to use force to protect its mineral rights.

Meanwhile, the poster child of the boom, Ratio, has seen its star fade after authorities launched a criminal probe of the company's relationship with an Israeli wanted by the U.S. on racketeering and conspiracy charges.

The Israeli investigation is ongoing and charges haven't been filed.

A disgruntled investor, Shlomi Shukrun, has publicly accused Ratio's founders, Messrs. Landau and Rotlevy, of recruiting Meir Abergil to pressure Mr. Shukrun out of his shares and money he says they owed him.

Mr. Abergil, along with his brother, currently sits in an Israeli prison awaiting extradition to the U.S. to face a 32-count federal indictment. He declined a request to comment for this article.

Ratio officials, meanwhile, say Mr. Shukrun hired people with links to a Georgian crime syndicate to threaten Ratio's Mr. Landau and his family into making up Mr. Shukrun's losses. Mr. Shurkrun's lawyer said his client did send people to collect money from Mr. Landau, but he denied making any threats and denied any connection between his client and Georgian organized crime.

Instead of turning to the courts, the two sides say they turned to Mr. Abergil to help broker a solution. When Ratio's share price started its steep ascent, the dispute over a few hundred thousand dollars became a dispute over a few hundred million dollars.

The case is based on a quarrel that began in 2005. It only came to light in September, when Mr. Shukrun went public with his version of the story, and tapes and transcripts of the private arbitration hearings were leaked to the press.

Mr. Landau, Ratio's CEO, says that after Mr. Shukrun threatened him, he turned to a private security company, run by the brother of a convicted (and now deceased) Israeli crime boss. That firm, in turn, brought in Mr. Abergil, Mr. Landau has said. The brother couldn't be reached for comment.

"The smell of gas in Israel has driven people crazy," he says.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2010, 01:32:57 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2010, 11:08:28 AM

JDN:

I think you gloss over the issue of danger to Israel here from 5th column type issues and drift into moral equivalence territory.  Although I am distinctly uncomfortable with what I read here, I really can't say I see it as anywhere near comparable to what Jews have been subjected throughout the mid-east (indeed often glossed over is that essentially as many Jews who emmigrated to Israel did so from Arab countries as Europe) or what the Christians of Iraq are suffering as we have this conversation here. 

Hmmm...  Discriminatory rules on housing?  Marriage?  Dating?  Seems like racism to me.  And yes, there are worse places, but I hold Israel to the top tier i.e. North America, Western Europe, etc.  I do not hold them to the same low standard as the bottom tier.  And I think Israelis considers themselves top tier.

Interesting you mention "Jews who immigrated to Israel from Arab countries". Did you see the article in the Times on Israeli President Moshe Katsav.  Not addressing his crimes, but I found his defense interesting.  "Katsav contends that he is innocent and a victim of a political witch hunt, implying that he was a target because he represents Jews of Middle Eastern origin. For decades, Middle Eastern, or Sephardic Jews, were an underclass in Israeli society."

My point is that racism is wrong, but it exists everywhere, however the letter signed by the rabbi's wives was blatant, public and wrong and
therefore rather disturbing...

Title: intermarriage
Post by: rachelg on December 30, 2010, 03:23:36 PM

This letter was posted by certain section of Judaism  Rabbi's wives.   I don't think it should have been written but it not an example of the average Israeli's attitude.  I bet if you asked you could get some  American pastors wives  to say Christians should only marry Christians.  Women really don't have many rights in Arab villages as they do in Jewish ones. 

Jewish Law is against intermarriage for Jews.   Jewish Law is also  against eating cheeseburgers and mixing linen and wool for Jews.   It does not mean there is something wrong with cheeseburgers.     I don't have to think that being against intermarriage is racist because anyone can convert to Judaism.   Judaism does not encourage conversion and you  can be a good person/serve God/ have a place in the world  to come with out it but anyone including  Muslim Arabs have a right to convert.   Many religions are against intermarriage.

As for How I personally feel about Jewish  intermarriage--

1. I value intact  happy healthy marriages and families much  more.
2. It makes a little sad because I  value Judaism and Jewish continuity not because I think Jews make better spouses. I don't think it is racist to want my spouse to share my values and my religion.    However when I have Jewish friends or family or who marry non-Jews I am happy they found the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.
 This is  a little  or a lot mean or blunt...
JDN--You consistently  judge Israel on  a standard different from how you judge every other country including America.   I  generally choose not to argue with you  on this thread  because I think it just  encourages you to  post more articles critical of Israel and  I don't see you criticisms of Israel  as being fair or helpful.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2010, 05:29:08 PM

That reads as soundly reasoned and well-explained to me.

I would only add the danger of mingling with a population that outnumbers and surrounds you, a large percentage of whom are dedicated to driving you into the sea but will smile in your face until they get the chance to do so is a very tricky proposition.  If it were your butt that was on the line, you might understand this point better; but they are there and you are here.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 30, 2010, 06:00:15 PM

"Did you see the article in the Times on Israeli President Moshe Katsav." 

I doubt that any high up official in any Arab country would have been convicted of such a crime.  This holds Israel to a higher standard.  Kudos to Israel for holding even this guy responsible.

"Not addressing his crimes, but I found his defense interesting.  "Katsav contends that he is innocent and a victim of a political witch hunt, implying that he was a target because he represents Jews of Middle Eastern origin"

I agree, a poor defense.  Reminds me of every single poltician in the US who is ever accused, or proven guilty of any crime.  Their defense is always to claim it is all just politics.
And if they are Black they cry it is racism. 

Perhaps the difference between Moshe Katsav and Bill Clinton is the former case must have had more evidence than just an unsubstianable allegation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2010, 06:59:49 PM

Rachel; thank you for posting.  However, I respectfully disagree.  I do not "judge Israel on  a standard different from how you judge every other country including America."  I judge them on the same high moral standard.

I am not talking about a few irrelevant individuals expressing their personal opinion in private but an influential group of Rabbis and their wives.

Yes, I could probably find a few American Pastor wives who would say that in private or even at a cocktail party.  But who would listen?  But in Israel when 30 prominent rabbis' wives
write a public letter published in newspapers urging Israeli girls not to date Arabs, and 50 state-appointed rabbis wrote a letter telling Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews EVERYONE listens.

A better example would be if Federal officials in America said in writing and publicly that "white girls should not date Blacks or Asians."  And yet Blacks and Asians make up less as a percentage of the whole population than do Arabs (23%).

Or bringing it closer to home....

Maybe if these same officials said, "do not date a Jewish man/woman and do not rent to a Jewish man/woman".  Or "if I rent to a Jewish person, it devalues the neighborhood".  Or "don't work in the same place as Jews".  What would you say?

I assume, and rightfully so, you would be outraged. These persons who said that would lose their jobs.  Worse, much worse.  They should be charged with a crime.  Think about it for a moment.  Jews have fought against discrimination for many years.

In conclusion I think my criticism is "fair".   While I support and respect Israel, I am fair.  As CCP said, he hopes America's interest and Israel's coincide, but he realizes that might not always be true.  I look for America's interest; and therefore indirectly Israel's interest.  But I believe America first; Israel is just one ally among many.  And frankly we do more for Israel than almost any ally.

Rachel, I understand you point.  But I think you picked a poor post to speak out and defend Israel.  Such discrimination is indefensible. 

As for CCP; yes kudos to Israel for holding this guy responsible.  But he was convicted of rape. Clinton, and I think he did wrong, had consensual "sex".  Or whatever he did...

But I brought Katsav up because in his own defense even he, as President of Israel acknowledged discrimination in Israel.  It should never
be tolerated.  Neither in Israel or in America.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2010, 12:03:11 AM

JDN:

Please address the central point:  In the US whites are not surrounded/outnumbered by people who want to drive them into the sea, who send suicide mass killers, who cheer the death of white women and children etc and who ally with Iran and others who seek to wipe out the Jewish state altogether even as they kill Christians in Iraq, in Egypt and disrespect their holy places in Gaza.  Its not just the jews in Israel, it is anything that is not Muslim that is the problem for "the group mind" of religious fascism.

The real conditions one the ground in the US and Israel are radically quite different.  As was said here in the US by a Supreme Court justice "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and it is foolishness both glibl and specious to assert that Israel should do exactly as we do in very different circumstances.

Your argument simply is , , , useful to those who seek to assert moral parity as a means to sabotage Israel's chances of survival.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on December 31, 2010, 06:30:23 AM

"it is foolishness both glibl and specious to assert that Israel should do exactly as we do"

Yet Rachel said, "You consistently  judge Israel on  a standard different from how you judge every other country including America."
Obviously I don't.  I judge them the same. 

So Marc, the basis of your argument is that because circumstances are different, blatant public racism and discrimination justified?  Well, that's honest at least.

Apartheid comes to mind.  Separateness.  Justified?    :-(

"Don't let your daughter date an Arab."  If you substitute the word Arab for Jew in the following quote it sounds almost exactly the same as
what the Rabbi' wives are saying in their letter:

"The black-haired Jewish (Arab) youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew (Arab) uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people." (Book 1 Chap 11) 
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Did you read the letter these prominent Rabbis' wives wrote?  This is not a few irrelevant pastor wives in America; Rabbis in Israel have real influence and power.

After these letters were posted, Jerusalem Post questioned the purpose and function of the Rabbinate,
“The state’s employment of hundreds of city and neighborhood rabbis who express racist, xenophobic opinions upsets the delicate balance that must be maintained between Israel’s Jewish and democratic dimensions. Even from a purely functional perspective, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no need for the state to bankroll hundreds of city and neighborhood rabbis at a cost to the taxpayer of millions of shekels a month.

These are employees of the state; not private citizens expressing their opinion over a beer in a private room.  In your heart, are you comfortable with those letter?  Isn't that prima facie evidence of racism?  Even the head of Israel's Reform movement, Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia,"

I'm sorry, but I find these signed public and published letters written by prominent individuals some of whom are state employed indefensible and racist.  I would be ashamed if my family wrote such a letter about anyone and published it.  And I would call for the resignation/firing of any public employee who spoke such words.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this point.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2010, 08:44:06 AM

"So Marc, the basis of your argument is that because circumstances are different, blatant public racism and discrimination justified?"

Not quite.  You have already quoted this passage from a previous post of mine

"Although I am distinctly uncomfortable with what I read here, I really can't say I see it as anywhere near comparable to what Jews have been subjected throughout the mid-east (indeed often glossed over is that essentially as many Jews who emmigrated to Israel did so from Arab countries as Europe) or what the Christians of Iraq are suffering as we have this conversation here." 

So, no I am not saying it is justified, nor I am saying it is not.  I am saying it is glib to evaluate by the same criteria/analytical framework that we apply here in the US and that doing so has the practical real world consequence of enabling those who seek to blur moral distinctions in order to create a perception of real politik that will lead the US to change its alliance and friendship with Israel so that Israel and its jew will be destroyed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 03, 2011, 08:01:15 AM

" Clinton, and I think he did wrong, had consensual "sex".  Or whatever he did..."

No, I was referring to the woman who stated Clinton beat her, held her arms down and raped her and was afraid to come forward because he was Governor of Arkansas at the time she alleged he did that to her.

As for Israel they have every right to protect itself as a Jewish state. 

You don't like it don't go there.

You think it racist, who cares.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 03, 2011, 06:13:23 PM

Quote from: ccp on January 03, 2011, 08:01:15 AM

" Clinton, and I think he did wrong, had consensual "sex".  Or whatever he did..."
No, I was referring to the woman who stated Clinton beat her, held her arms down and raped her and was afraid to come forward because he was Governor of Arkansas at the time she alleged he did that to her.

As for Israel they have every right to protect itself as a Jewish state. 

You don't like it don't go there.

You think it racist, who cares.

I'm curious CCP; you seem like an intelligent reasonable guy.

You don't find these very PUBLIC and published comments written by influential government employees and their wives to be racist?

How would you feel in America if important and influential leaders of our country said the same, but substitute the word "Jew".
I mean if there were article published in major American newspapers or on FOX News saying "don't rent to Jews" and don't let your daughters date "Jews" or save our daughters from Jews, you wouldn't be upset?

You should be.  Of course you would be!  I would be!

Among the quotes were the following words:

"work at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."

"The letter, which was distributed to synagogues and published in some religious newspapers, had warned that those who defied the religious ruling should be ostracized. It said if one apartment is taken by a non-Jew, it devalues all the neighbors' apartments."

It urges Jewish girls not to go out with non-Jews or work in places that employ non-Jews."

This is not some private conversation over a beer, behind closed doors; an internal family decision; these are respected government officials, leaders and/or their wives publicly stating the above.

You are a good person CCP; I can't imagine that you wouldn't be indignant.  Repulsed by these statements. 

There is nothing wrong with being biased in favor of Israel.  Your faith of course, but also Israel has been a good friend.  But this is over the line.

Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia,"

More than 800 rabbis from around the world signed a petition against the letter, saying "statements like these do great damage to our efforts to encourage people to love and support Israel."

Yet you support these statements?   :?

And yes, I think it's racism.  Pure and simple.  And if more goes on like this, others will too.  And if it continues, without repudiation by top government officials, I think the U.S. should reconsider it UN veto and billions of dollars it gives to Israel.  This was a PR disaster and needs to be repudiated.

I understand the concern regarding Arabs, and the sanctity of being a Jew in Israel, but in this instance, I think these Rabbis and/or their wives crossed the line.

I would like to think you too are disturbed by what they said, and expect and apology and renunciation by government officials.

As for Clinton, like anyone, it's hard to keep track of allegations with no basis of fact.  I tend to ignore them.  People are innocent until proven guilty like Katsav.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that "this is a difficult and sad day for the State of Israel, a day in which our former president was convicted of such serious crimes."
"However, this is also a day in which our justice system proved again that everyone is equal before the law," Barak added. "The justice system is a central source of strength for Israeli democracy."

That is admirable.  The Israeli system/democracy at it's best!  But aren't Arabs or any other minority in Israel entitled to be "equal".
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 04, 2011, 08:08:23 AM

JDN,
You've made your opinion clear.  I like you and have nothing personal with you at all.  But -
My opinion is that I am offended and annoyed and angry that Israel cannot be left alone by one billion Muslims.  I am offended that Jews cannot be left to live their lives in piece on one tiny spot on Earth the size of New Jersey.  I am offended by Arabs and other types of Arabs whose endless hatred of Jews never ceases.  I am offended that despite their haveing one thousand times more land that a few million Jews that is not enough for them. 
They have no more claim or rights to Israel or Palestine or whatever or whosever name you want to use for that small property on Earth then Jews who have lived there for 3,000 years ALWAYS having to fight for their lives.  Philistines, Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Turks, and probably a dozen others.

Leave the Jews alone.

Israel is not the US and not founded or supposed to be maintained the same political structure as here.  So what if the Jews intertwine religion and politics.  Let them run the country and defend it and PRESERVE it the way they want.  They know what is best to protect themselves - not you.  Like I said you don't like it don't go there.

I see no problem with Rabbies trying to encourage Jews to marry Jews anymore than the Pope need not go around telling Christians to marry Muslims or Jews, or HIndus or Muslims encouraging their young to marry Muslims.  So what?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 09:00:07 AM

Quote from: ccp on January 04, 2011, 08:08:23 AM

I see no problem with Rabbies trying to encourage Jews to marry Jews anymore than the Pope need not go around telling Christians to marry Muslims or Jews, or HIndus or Muslims encouraging their young to marry Muslims.  So what?

I think there is a difference.  In the privacy of your own home or with friends, I don't judge.  Each of us is entitled to our opinion.  I'm old enough to remember people in Milwaukee (where I grew up) saying, "Don't sell to blacks, they lower the value of the houses in the area."  Absolutely wrong, but in the privacy of your own home, well.... But I don't remember anyone taking out an ad and saying that.   I  suppose my religious mother would have preferred that I marry a Christian (I didn't).  But again, no government official in a public newspaper said that I must marry a Christian...

On the pulpit, the Pope himself may suggest or encourage me to marry a "nice catholic girl"; I have no problem with that.  But if the Pope publicly published in newspapers and said, "don't rent to Jews" or "to ostracize anyone who associates with Jews" or "don't work in the same place as Jews" I would be appalled.  And if my government paid his salary I would be even more upset.  It's like paid high government officials publicly sanctifying racism.  That is what happened here.

One other minor point you mentioned;  "They know what is best to protect themselves - not you."  Perhaps you are right, but if they are so self sufficient, I think America should save the billions upon billions of dollars we give to Israel each year (America needs the money!) and also let's forget our veto in favor of Israel at the UN which we do at great cost to America.  My point, America has paid over and over for the right to express it's opinion and demand equality and abhor racism.  Something America has tried to always stood for.

I was pleased to see that many responsible Jews in Israel and worldwide agreed with me.  I'm sure their love for Israel equals yours, but they know and acknowledge wrong from right.  I only wish everyone would condemn these racist actions.    And then move on after a nice apology from the Rabbis.  Israel is a thriving Democracy; there is no place for blatant PUBLIC racism.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 09:07:55 AM

Should we stop spending money defending Japan, given their much more xenophobic, racist nature than anything found in Israel?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 09:19:59 AM

It is my understanding that Japan pays more than their fair share for our troops on Japanese soil.  Further, America benefits from having a military base in Japan. And finally it was at America's insistence that Japan not arm themselves.  Tell Japan to do it themselves and they will.  And they won't ask for our foreign aid dollars.

I rarely see anywhere PUBLIC published displays of racism in Japan by government employees.  Or if it did happen, there is a quick apology or resignation.

Private displays of racism?  That is true in Japan.  But then private 'racism" is also true in Israel, America, and frankly every country I have ever visited.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 04, 2011, 09:33:11 AM

***Perhaps you are right, but if they are so self sufficient, I think America should save the billions upon billions of dollars we give to Israel each year (America needs the money!) and also let's forget our veto in favor of Israel at the UN which we do at great cost to America.***

I've said I don't know if we can ask or expect non Jews to give a shit about Israel to the extent of money or blood.

You express your feelings quite clearly on this.

***I was pleased to see that many responsible Jews in Israel and worldwide agreed with me.***

Good for you.  I have already also sad youcan have your opinions and I don't care much.  Pleaseing you is not paramount.  What is is that the Jews don't get slaugtered again.  If your view counted,

or for that matter the Jew hating President we have now than Israel is doomed.

As for Israel's reliance on the US for aid I am sure they would wish they don't need it.  It does come at a price.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 10:41:13 AM

"It is my understanding that Japan pays more than their fair share for our troops on Japanese soil."

**Really? What would a fair share be?

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/ap_military_japan_020710/

"This is a bigger issue than the golf courses and free highway passes," Toma said. "It goes back to the fact that Okinawa was occupied after World War II and why the bases have to be here in the first place."

That sentiment is widely shared, and underscores a feeling that the bases should be spread out more evenly among Japan's main islands and Okinawa. Okinawa was one of the bloodiest battlefields of World War II, and Okinawans feel that the continued U.S. presence places an uneven burden on them, though the argument that all U.S. forces should leave Japan is not popular.

American officials say the deployment in Japan of troops, fighter jets and the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier based outside the U.S. has enabled Japan to hold down its own defense costs in line with its pacifist constitution.

They say the U.S. presence also prevents an arms race in east Asia, acts as a deterrent against North Korea, and counters the rise of China.

Facilities such as on-base golf courses represent a small fraction of the sum U.S. taxpayers chip in for the defense of Japan — about $3.9 billion a year, according to a U.S. State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the details.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 10:53:37 AM

"I rarely see anywhere PUBLIC published displays of racism in Japan by government employees.  Or if it did happen, there is a quick apology or resignation."

**Shintaro Ishihara has been Tokyo's governor since 1999.

http://cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0424/cover1.html

As a politician Ishihara has seldom ducked a controversy. He has said, for example, that reports of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre that Japanese troops inflicted on China have been exaggerated, and he has called for Japan to abandon its pacifist constitution and develop a full-fledged military. Ishihara steps into the minefield of racial politics so often, and with such disastrous results, that one of his top aides conceded that he was relieved his boss took a day last week to inspect a forest on the outskirts of Tokyo. "I am not xenophobic," Ishihara insisted in an interview with Time. "I'm just patriotic."

But to many, Ishihara's rhetoric seemed unforgivable last week, as he told the Self-Defense Forces that he planned to hold a big emergency drill in September, to prepare for a disaster such as an earthquake. It was in that context that he spoke about the dangers of rioting foreigners. "I hope you will not only fight against disasters but also maintain public security on such occasions," he said. "I hope you will show the Japanese people and the Tokyo people what the military is for in this state."

His comments were made in a prepared speech, not in off-the-cuff remarks. And his use of the inflammatory term sangokujin rekindled images of xenophobia that Japan has been trying to shake off for half a century. Sangokujin, literally "people from third countries," was a derogatory word used by Japanese when referring to laborers brought from Taiwan and Korea before and during World War II and then expelled after Japan's defeat. Ishihara's use of the term was particularly hurtful, because of the race-baiting that erupted after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. With no evidence, Koreans in Japan were accused of poisoning wells, setting fires and looting stores and homes. As those rumors spread, thousands of Koreans were rounded up and killed by mobs of Japanese.

Whatever the roots of Ishihara's attitudes on race, many believe that his rhetoric should disqualify him from higher office. "If a person with such 19th-century nationalistic thinking is in power, there is no guarantee that a nightmare will not be repeated," says Shin Sug Ok, a business consultant of Korean descent. Treatment of foreigners is a sensitive issue in Japan. Residents of Korean descent, even those whose families have lived in Japan for several generations, still do not have the right to vote. Last year, there were several brawls between Japanese and Brazilians of Japanese ancestry. There are still onsen, or public bathing facilities, that bar foreigners from entering. Makoto Sataka, a prominent political commentator, calls Ishihara "ignorant and irresponsible," adding: "If similar comments had been made about Japanese nationals living overseas, how would they feel?"

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 11:22:59 AM

GM
It would seem this post of yours has nothing to do with Israel, but belongs on your private Japan Thread.
Perhaps you could move it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 11:28:03 AM

Perhaps you could clarify why you have one standard for Japan and a different one for Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 12:24:31 PM

I don't.
I have one standard for all "modern" countries, i.e. Western Europe, North America, etc. and Israel.  Let's talk about England, France, Italy, Canada, etc. if you want.  Probably I can find one public person whose opinion is racist in every country, but rarely a respected GROUP of people like Rabbis. 

Individual exceptions happen.  In your Japan example, ONE person's ten year old opinion (that was repudiated in Japan) isn't relevant.  Further, Ishihara's opinion,
albeit in general anti foreigners, did not say that "foreigners lower the value of real estate" or tell Japanese girls "don't marry foreigners" or that everyone should "ostracize all foreigners" etc. like the publicly employed rabbis' and their wives did.  And how he thinks 60 year old history should be interpreted is hardly the same as blatant current day racism as displayed by these Rabbis and their wives.  Nor are individual small time shop owners, onsen owners, bar owners, etc. relevant.  I might not blame the little shop owner in Israel for not wanting his daughter to marry an Arab either.  But that's different than a large group of influential public employees being publicly racist.

The Tokyo area in which Ishihara is governor is filled with foreigners.  Numerous mixed marriages exist; many foreigners work side by side with Japanese.  The fact that he wants the U.S. troops out of Japan is not racist; it's simply a political opinion that frankly may have merit.  I wouldn't want a large contingency of foreign troops on American soil either.  Or maybe Japan should "develop a full-fledged military."  But it's complicated.  We indirectly defend Israel AND we give them money.  In contrast, Japan pays us.  A lot!  More than anyone else in the world to house our troops.  Plus they provide prime land we didn't pay for.  It's to our benefit as well.  And Japan's not begging for our help or our money every year either.  Or asking for our veto in the UN.

But to answer your question, the rabbis' action and the public and published words of their wives was clearly and unequivocally racist way beyond and above anything Ishihara has said or done or suggested being implemented in Tokyo.

And what exactly is your point regarding how Japan is related to Israel?  Do I especially care about Japan? No.  I'm half German half Norwegian born in Milwaukee.  I don't care about Japan any more than I care about England, Germany, Canada, etc.  Maybe you should start a England thread?  Or a Germany thread?  Or Canada?  Or?

Again, may I suggest if you wish to discuss Japan you take it to the Japan thread...

But if you want to discuss, criticize or defend racism in Israel, do it here.  I think must people find the Rabbis' comments disturbing.  Some will
argue that for the defense and future of Israel it's necessary.  I respect that opinion, but disagree.  But probably time to move on; this particular subject has been
beaten to death...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 12:36:04 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.

http://www.aina.org/news/20110101232613.htm

Egyptian Security Guards Withdrew One Hour Before Church Blast, Say Eyewitnesses
Posted GMT 1-2-2011 5:26:13
       

(AINA) -- The car explosion that went off in front of Saints Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria killed 21 and injured 96 parishioners who were attending a New Year's Eve Mass. According to church officials and eyewitnesses, there are many more victims that are still unidentified and whose body parts were strewn all over the street outside the church. The body parts were covered with newspapers until they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and chanting Jihadi chants (video showing dead bodies and limbs covered with newspapers in the street).

According to eyewitnesses, a green Skoda car pulled up outside the church shortly after midnight. Two men got out, one of them talked shortly on his mobile phone, and the explosion occurred almost immediately after they left the scene. On the back of the Skoda was a sticker with the words "the rest is coming" (video of car explosion and Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar").

It was reported that the bomb, locally made, had 100KG of explosives in addition to having nails, glass and iron balls inside. The strength of it not only caused glass panes to be shattered in all the neighborhood, but also made body parts fly into the building's fourth floor, and to the mosque facing the church.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility but officials hastily blamed either Al-Qaida or the Israeli Mousad of being behind the blast, but none of them mentioned the Egyptian state security which is viewed by Copts as the real culprit.

To clear his security forces of negligence, the Minister of Interior said that the blast was an "individual" case, caused by a single suicide terrorist detonating his vest, and has nothing to do with an exploding car. The governor of Alexandria claimed the attack as being aimed at Muslims and Christians alike.

After the blast, traumatized Copts were angered by chants of "Allah Akbar" from Muslims and began hurling stones at the mosque. Immediately security forces which were absent during the car blast and the ensuing events, appeared and starting shooting tear gas at the Copts, and they in turn hurled stones at them, said an eyewitness. Fifteen Copts were rounded up from their homes by the authorities.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 01:06:05 PM

Seventeen members of Congress are pressing the State Department to act on the "grim reality" faced by Coptic Christian women in Egypt, who frequently are coerced into violent forced marriages that leave them victim to rape and captive slavery.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote on April 16 to Ambassador-at-Large Luis CdeBaca, who heads up American efforts to thwart human trafficking around the globe.

In their letter, they exhort the State Department to confront the "criminal phenomenon" of forced marriage they say is on the rise in Egypt, where the 7 million Coptic Christians often face criminal prosecution and civic violence for their rejection of Islam.

"I think it is about as bad as it can be" for Copts and other religious minorities in Egypt, said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who penned the letter. "It is very tough to be a Coptic Christian."

The official communication to the State Department outlined just what women face when forced into marriages with Muslim men: "physical and sexual violence, captivity ... exploitation in forced domestic servitude or commercial sexual exploitation, and financial benefit to the individuals who secure the forced conversion of the victim."

Wolf and the other lawmakers say this bears all the hallmarks of human trafficking and want the State Department to include reports of the abductions in their next Trafficking in Persons report, which is due in June.

"Keep in mind that we have given Egypt about $53 billion since Camp David" — the 1978 peace accords between Israel and Egypt that were arranged by the U.S. government — "so we're actually funding them," Wolf said.

The State Department's 2009 report on trafficking singled out Egypt for its Level II Watchlist, noting that the government made only "minimal efforts to prevent trafficking in persons" last year.

But while it notes the plight of Sudanese women and others in bondage in Egypt, it does not mention Copts once — nor does the report mention Christians anywhere in its 324 pages.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/21/house-members-press-white-house-confront-egypt-forced-marriages/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 04, 2011, 01:09:12 PM

"officials hastily blamed either Al-Qaida or the Israeli Mousad"

Perhaps we can "reach out" to the dastardly but poor uneducated disenchated youth who do these deeds and prove our love by allowing a mosque be built on ground zero.

All we need is love.  The pepsi generation.

We need to get past the hate mongering.  That is all.

Well this is what we get with a bunch of 60's hippies running the world now.


 

Title: That darn Mossad!
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 01:21:24 PM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crykxt6A-zQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


Even willing to pretend to be muslims and chant "allah akbar" as the car bomb burned.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: The Tao on January 04, 2011, 04:09:03 PM

Unfortunately, there will never be getting over racism and cultural differences, as even though one may conquer them personally, they will not be conquered from a society as a whole. These are differences that have formulated themselves into existence over millenia.

It is what it is, and if you enter another culture, you should know better upfront.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 05:17:41 PM

Quote from: G M on January 04, 2011, 12:36:04 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.
   

Actually Israel has received far far more aid from the U.S.  But here nor there...

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my opinion, aid to Egypt amounts to a bribe.  And it has worked well.  Egypt has maintained peace with Israel since Camp David.  Not a small accomplishment; it has been to our benefit and especially to Israel's benefit.  Egypt has stayed out of the mix so to speak.  Peace or at least no major war in the Middle East.

Obviously my heart goes out to the Coptic Christians.  They are being persecuted.  It is "very tough to be a Coptic Christian."

Yet if we withdraw our aid, force/demand (how would you do that?) better treatment of the small number of Coptic Christians in Egypt, will that benefit America?
The Middle East?  Or even the Coptic Christians?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 06:24:18 PM

To an extent, it is a bribe. At the same time, Israel would stomp a mudhole in Egypt's ass in another war, both sides know it. The world's worst kept secret is Israel's nuclear weapons. Israel has no dreams for expansion, conquest. Israel just wants to survive and not be the subject of endless threats and attacks. Israel protects islamic holy sites, including the dome of the rock mosque from those that would destroy it to bring about the "end times", despite the way Jews are treated in the muslim world.

Israel protects christians and other religious minorities in Israel. Christians elsewhere in the middle east enjoy no such protections, even under "dhimmi" status.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 06:32:11 PM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xv6NWbVyAc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Good parenting here. Preparing them to live in peace?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 06:40:36 PM

As a Christian, I am grateful that that Israel does protect religious minorities; mine being on of them.   :-)

I agree, Egypt would lose again, nevertheless, a united Arab front including Egypt would only make it more difficult and costly for Israel.
And yes, everyone seems to know Israel has nuclear weapons, but I can't imagine them being used unless all else fails and they are about to
be overrun.  Even then, to be the first to use nuclear weapons (without being threatened by nuclear weapons) would open up a Pandora's Box and
would have severe repercussions. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 06:44:35 PM

Yes, Israel is a sober and responsible custodian of it's nukes. Any surrounding neighbors you'd want to have nukes, JDN?

Title: Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions'
Post by: G M on January 04, 2011, 06:56:16 PM

Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions'

by Raymond Ibrahim
Hudson New York
October 18, 2010

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8081/coptic-persecution-mubarak

For centuries, the Copts — Egypt's Christian, indigenous inhabitants — have been subject to persecution, discrimination, humiliation, and over all subjugation in their homeland (etymologically, "Copt" simply means "Egyptian").  In the medieval era, such treatment was a standard aspect of sharia's dhimmi codes, first ratified under Caliph Omar in the 7th century and based on Koran 9:29.  Conversely, during the colonial era and into the mid 20th century, as Egypt experimented with westernization and nationalism, religious discrimination was markedly subdued.  Today, however, as Egypt all but spearheads the Islamist movement — giving the world Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Aymen Zawahiri in the process — that is, as Egypt reverts to its medieval character, the Copts find themselves again in a period of severe persecution.

And there appears to be no one to stop it — not even those most accountable: America's friend and ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his government.  Indeed, recent events indicate that the Mubarak regime is intentionally inciting Egypt's Muslims against the Copts.

Consider: on September 15, prominent Egyptian  Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, ex-secretary general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, appeared on Al Jazeera and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunitions in their churches and monasteries"— imported from Israel, no less, since "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" — and "preparing to wage war against Muslims."

He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," urging Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church."  Al-Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons — an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist/Bedouin attacks.

Needless to say, these remarks have inflamed Muslim passions (not to mention paranoia) against Egypt's Christians, who make approximately 12% of the population.  To make matters worse, right on the heels of al-Awwa's "monastery-conspiracy-theory," Islamist leaders began to circulate baseless rumors that the Church and Pope Shenouda III "kidnap" Coptic women who willingly convert to Islam, and trap them in desert monasteries, "torturing" and "re-indoctrinating" them back to Christianity — even when the women in question publicly insist they never converted to Islam.

Due to all these allegations, since last month, there have been at least ten mass demonstrations in Egypt — most numbering in the thousands — condemning the Copts, the Coptic Church, and Pope Shenouda.  The "Front of Islamic Egypt" issued a statement promising the Copts a "blood bath."  Most recently, on October 8, Muslim demonstrators chanted "Shenouda, just wait, we will dig your grave with our own hands," while burning the 86 year-old pope's effigy.

At the very least, the usually intrusive Mubarak regime could have easily dispelled the absurd rumor that Coptic monks, among Egypt's most humble figures, were stockpiling weapons for an imaginary coup d'état in Egypt, by formally investigating and clearing the monasteries of the charge.  Same with the ludicrous rumors that the Pope is kidnapping and torturing Coptic women who freely convert to Islam — an especially odd rumor considering the reverse is true: in Egypt, Christian women are regularly kidnapped and compelled to embrace Islam.

To further exasperate matters, on September 26, Al Azhar, a formal state body of Egypt, denounced a remark on Koran 5:17, which accuses Christians of being "infidels," made by a Coptic clergyman at an internal meeting on dogma, as "blasphemous."  It further took this opportunity to state formally that citizenship rights in Egypt "are conditional to respect for the Islamic identity" of Egypt, thereby reversing any modern progress made regarding Egyptian equality and reinforcing the Copts' historical role as dhimmis (i.e., conditionally tolerated religious minorities). Pope Shenouda was further compelled to publicly apologize "if our Muslim brothers' feelings were hurt."

All this in a nation where Christian and Jewish scriptures are systematically denounced as fabricated.  Indeed, mere weeks earlier, a well known publishing house in Egypt issued a book dedicated to "proving" that Christians had forged the Bible.  Such double standards are well entrenched: after all, whereas the Coptic clergyman privately remarked on a Koranic verse, the Egyptian government openly interferes with Christian doctrine, while preventing Muslims from converting to Christianity, in accordance to sharia's ridda, or apostasy, laws.  For example, Mohammad Hegazy is one of many Egyptians who tried formally to change his religion from Muslim to Christian on his I.D. card —in Egypt, people are Gestapo-like categorized by their religion — only to be denied by the Egyptian court. (Many other such anecdotes abound.)

Considering the citizenship rights Copts enjoyed in the early to mid 20th century, how did things come to this pass?  Much of this can be traced to Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, who altered Egypt's Constitution — by adding Article 2, "sharia is the principle source of legislation" — only to be rewarded, ironically, with assassination by the Islamist "Frankenstein monster" he had empowered.  Since then, there has been a tacit agreement between the government and the Islamists.  As Youssef Ibrahim puts it, the agreement "turned over to Islamists control in media, education, and government administrations in return for allowing Mr. Mubarak's rule to go on unchallenged, setting the stage … for his son, Gamal, to succeed him. As part of the deal, [Mubarak] agreed to feed Egypt's Christians to the growing Islamic beast."

Hence the dire situation the Copts find themselves in.  Magdi Khalil, a human rights activist at the forefront of the "Coptic question," states that "Egypt is on the verge of chaos and change of regime and there is a plan for Copts to pay the price of this predicted chaos, by directing the surplus violence, hate and barbarism towards them."   This redirection onto the Copts is obvious even in subtle things: aside from the habitual anti-Copt indoctrination that goes on in mosques — all of the aforementioned demonstrations occurred immediately after Friday's mosque prayers — Egypt's state run public education system also marginalizes, if not ostracizes, the Copts (see, for example, Adel Guindy's "The Talibanization of Education in Egypt.")

More obvious proof of the government's complicity is the fact that, not only has it not prevented or dispersed the increasingly rabid demonstrations against the Copts — the way it viciously and unequivocally does whenever any protests are directed against itself — but Egyptian security, as Magdi Khalil affirmed in a phone conversation, actually facilitate, and sometimes participate, in these mass demonstrations.  After all, Islamists who publicly call for the death of the Pope do so, writes Ibrahim Eissa, "knowing quite well that State Security will not touch them, since demonstrations are directed against the Pope and not the President, the Church and not the inheritance issue [Gamal Mubarak as successor of his father]. Those who go out in Jihad against 'inheritance,' democracy and election fraud are beaten mercilessly by security forces but those who go out to incite sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians believe …that they are the friends and 'buddies' of the police and the State Security."

As history teaches, whenever a majority group casts all its woes onto a minority group, great tragedy often follows. This is especially so when the majority group in question begins taking on an Islamist—that is, intolerant, violent, and medieval — character.  Yet if Egypt's "secular" government and U.S. ally is willing to sacrifice the Coptic scapegoat to appease the ever-burgeoning Islamist monster it has been nurturing for some four decades, to whom can Egypt's Christians look for relief?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 04, 2011, 07:55:25 PM

Quote from: G M on January 04, 2011, 06:44:35 PM

Yes, Israel is a sober and responsible custodian of it's nukes. Any surrounding neighbors you'd want to have nukes, JDN?

If you are referring to Iran, short of using nuclear weapons Israel is welcome to attack (defend itself) and destroy any nuclear weapon installations in Iran.
God bless them. 

Frankly, if most of the Middle East (Arab countries) sank into the the Mediterranean or Arabian Sea I don't think in the long run we would be worse off.
Maybe better...

But you harp on the Copts. 
Besides sympathy (doesn't buy you a cup of coffee), is there something you suggest we do?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 04, 2011, 11:55:52 PM

We could start by noting that the hatred of Israel and the Jews really has little to do with what Israel does and does not do; the hatred simply is of anything not Islamic.  Such an awareness should inform the criteria by which we judge Israel.   Our society's ideas about racism are formed in the context of the majority dealing with minorities.  OTOH Israel is surrounded by vastly superior numbers of those, many/most of whom wish to wipe it out.  Given its size, the margin of error for Israel is quite small.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 05:12:20 AM

"But you harp on the Copts.
Besides sympathy (doesn't buy you a cup of coffee), is there something you suggest we do?"

**Prepare to take in a bunch if Egypt decides to get Armenian on them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 10:27:39 AM

http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/wall-ruling_/11362.htm

As a result of the policies of Teddy Kollek, the mayor of Jerusalem from 1966 to 1993, facilities were provided for the Arab minority of East Jerusalem far beyond anything introduced under Jordanian rule, including a sewer and piped water system, clinics, libraries, parks and gardens. Access to Israeli hospitals was unrestricted. The Arab neighborhoods also grew in both size and prosperity. The Christian Arab communities declined, however, with many leading Christian Arab families emigrating, as they had in what had been largely Christian Bethlehem, because of Muslim hostility.

The Christian communities inside Jerusalem have suffered throughout the centuries from chronic disagreements among themselves, and from frequent hostility and neglect by the city's rulers. With reunification in 1967, Israel pledged to uphold freedom of access and worship, and this pledge has been kept. The Via Dolorosa is among the city's busiest routes. Christians of every denomination (there are more than thirty in the city) worship at their holy places, which are often divided between two or more denominations, and were in the past much fought over, amid blows and curses. Those in search of the Garden of Gethsemane can ,choose among three different sites, depending on the branch of their faith. Two different sites, one inside and one outside the present Old City walls, are both claimed as the true Calgary. Within the Holy Sepulchre, where the most visited of these Calgarys is located, six separate Christian denominations have their custodians; each has its own altars and places of worship. Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Armenians, Protestants and Copts are the main Christian groups in the city. Each has its own needs, aspirations, properties, leaders and worshipers. For several years a Mormon university has been an impressive feature of Mount Scopus, adjacent to the Hebrew University.

Under Israeli rule, Christian worship is unimpeded. Churches can now be freely built and freely repaired. Outside Christian interests are continually asserted. This summer, the first Vatican emissary to Israel since 1948 asked for special consideration of Roman Catholic needs. Within a month, an emissary from President Boris Yeltsin of Russia pressed the concerns of the new Russia for a voice. Israel responded by agreeing to continue to uphold the needs of all Christian religious denominations. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres informed the Russian emissary that whereas political rights, of which the Russians also had spoken, must be retained by Israel, the spiritual rights of all religious groups would be scrupulously upheld.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 05, 2011, 03:34:55 PM

Quote from: G M on January 05, 2011, 05:12:20 AM

"But you harp on the Copts.
Besides sympathy (doesn't buy you a cup of coffee), is there something you suggest we do?"

**Prepare to take in a bunch if Egypt decides to get Armenian on them.

LA already took their fair share of the Armenians....
You can have the Copts...    :-)

Seriously, what do you think we should do?
Or are you just lamenting the plight of the Copts, yet still think we should give money to Egypt?

Action has repercussions. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2011, 03:44:11 PM

Forgive me for interjecting here, but as best as I can tell the point is the standards to which Israel should be held.  The question is not what the US should do about Egypt and the Copts, the point is that the treatment of Christians throughout the mid-east, including Egypt and Iraq shows a pronounced proclivity to Islamic animus towards anything not Islamic.  In that Israel is surrounded by such folks, standards need to be formulated in a way that does call for Israel to prepare the way for its own destruction.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 03:51:41 PM

The problem is Egypt is very brittle. Were the Muslim Brotherhood to take over, things for the Copts, as well as average Egyptians would be much worse off. Keep in mind that those who could take power in Egypt see the pyramids and other artifacts there as something they'd like to destroy, just as the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Bamiyan. And, like the talibs, the destruction of artifacts would be the least of the horrible things done by them.

Egypt used to be very westernized, now salafism is taking deep root in the population. This does not bode well for the future. Classic Egyptian things, like belly dancing are going away because they are "unislamic".

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 04:18:05 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/04/ap/middleeast/main7213241.shtml

Anti-Christian Drumbeat Loud Before Egypt Attack
In Church Attack, Egypt Looking At Islamic Hard-liners At Home, Possible Al-Qaida Influence


(AP)  CAIRO (AP) - In the weeks before the New Year's Day suicide bombing of an Egyptian church, al-Qaida-linked websites carried a how-to manual on "destroying the cross," complete with videos on how to build a bomb and the locations of churches to target - including the one that was attacked.

They may have found a receptive audience in Alexandria, where increasingly radicalized Islamic hard-liners have been holding weekly anti-Christian demonstrations, filled with venomous slogans against the minority community.

The blast, which struck Saturday as worshippers were leaving midnight Mass at the Mediterranean city's Saints Church, killed 21 people.

President Hosni Mubarak has accused foreign groups of being behind the attack, which has sparked a wave of angry protests by Christians in Egypt.

But on the ground, investigators are searching in a different direction - scrutinizing homegrown hard-liners, known as Salafis, and the possibility they were inspired by al-Qaida.

Only two or three days before Saturday's bombing, police arrested several Salafis spreading fliers in Alexandria calling for violence against Christians, a security official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

According to authorities, the strong belief among investigators is that local extremists who knew the area and the nature of their target were behind the blast. The Egyptian weekly Al-Youm Al-Saba said police were examining photos of the Salafis' weekly protests for suspects.

In the weeks before the attack, al-Qaida militants on the Web spewing calls for "jihad," or holy war, on Egypt's Christians laid out everything anyone would need to carry out a bombing.

One widely circulated posting includes a so-called "Jihadi Encyclopedia for the Destruction of the Cross," with a series of 10 videos describing how to build a bomb.

In the videos, an unidentified militant in a white lab coat and a black mask is shown listing the ingredients to make TNT and mixing up the chemicals in beakers.

The site lists Coptic Christian churches in Egypt, along with phone numbers and addresses - including Alexandria's Saints Church. "Blow up the churches while they are celebrating Christmas or any other time when the churches are packed," it says.

Security officials say they were aware of the online "how-to manual" before the church bombing and are examining any links between it and the material posted on Islamic websites.

One main Salafi group, the Salafi Movement in Alexandria, issued a statement condemning the bombing, saying its preachings "reject such practices."

The ultra-conservative Salafi ideology has been gaining followers throughout Egypt in recent years, preaching a return to the ways of early Muslims. It calls for strict segregation of the sexes and rejection of any religious "innovations," such as permitting boys and girls to attend school together or collecting interest on bank loans.

The movement has spread across class lines, among wealthy businessmen, the middle class and urban poor. Men grow long beards and shave off mustaches, to imitate the Prophet Muhammad. Women wear the black niqab robes and veil, which envelop the entire body and face, showing only the eyes.

In many ways, it resembles the doctrine of al-Qaida, with one major difference - while it advocates jihad against "foreign occupiers" in Iraq or Afghanistan, it rejects holy war inside Egypt, at least for now.

But many observers warn that some members are growing more radicalized and have begun to advocate jihad within the country, providing fertile ground for al-Qaida influence.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 04:26:08 PM

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2006/April/todaysfeatures_April5.xml&section=todaysfeatures

Fatwa against statues triggers uproar in Egypt
(AFP)

3 April 2006
CAIRO -A fatwa issued by Egypt’s top religious authority, which forbids the display of statues has art-lovers fearing it, could be used by Islamic extremists as an excuse to destroy Egypt’s historical heritage.

Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the country’s top Islamic jurist, issued the religious edict which declared as un-Islamic the exhibition of statues in homes, basing the decision on texts in the hadith (sayings of the prophet).

Intellectuals and artists argue that the decree represents a setback for art -- a mainstay of the multi-billion-dollar tourist industry -- and would deal a blow to the country’s fledgling sculpture business.

The fatwa did not specifically mention statues in museums or public places, but it condemned sculptors and their work.

Still, many fear the edict could prod Islamic fundamentalists to attack Egypt’s thousands of ancient and pharaonic statues on show at tourist sites across the country.

“We don’t rule out that someone will enter the Karnak temple in Luxor or any other pharaonic temple and blow it up on the basis of the fatwa,” Gamal al-Ghitani, editor of the literary Akhbar al-Adab magazine, told AFP.

Wave of criticisms

Gomaa had pointed to a passage from the hadith that stated: ”Sculptors would be tormented most on Judgment Day,” saying the text left no doubt that sculpting was “sinful” and using statues for decorating homes forbidden.

Gomaa’s ruling overturned a fatwa issued more than 100 years ago by then moderate and highly respected mufti Mohammed Abdu, permitting the private display of statues after the practice had been condemned as a pagan custom.

Abdu’s fatwa had “closed the issue, as it ruled that statues and pictures are not haram (forbidden under Islam) except idols used for worship,” Ghitani pointed out.

Novelist Ezzat al-Qamhawi said Gomaa’s ruling would “return Muslims to the dark ages.”

Movie director Daud Abdul Sayed said the fatwa “simply ignored the spiritual evolvement of Muslims since the arrival of Islam... Clearly, it was natural that they forbid statues under early Islam because people worshipped them.

“But are there Muslims worshipping statues nearly 15 centuries later?” he asked.

The notion sounds “ridiculous,” Yussef Zidan, director of the manuscript museum at the prestigious Bibliotheca Alexandrina, told AFP.

“Why would anyone even bring up the issue (of the statues) in a country where there are more than 10 state-owned institutions that teach sculpting and more than 20 others that teach the history of art?”

Ghitani added: “It’s time for those placing impediments between Islam and innovation to get out of our lives.”

The wave of criticisms against the fatwa has put clerics on a collision course with intellectuals and artists, who say that such edicts only reinforce claims -- particularly in the West -- that Islam is against progress.

Some, including Sayed, compared Gomaa’s edict to a similar one issued by the former fundamentalist rulers of Afghanistan, the Taleban, that led to the destruction of statues of the Buddha despite an international outcry.

**Snip

Gomaa has already put out a few contentious decrees and appears set to break his predecessor mufti Wasel’s record on notorious fatwas.

Wasel stirred a controversy in July 2001 for issuing a fatwa against a popular television show, the Arab version of “Who wants to be a millionaire?” that was airing on Egyptian television, saying it was forbidden by Islam.

“These contests are a modern form of betting,” Wasel had said.

The show was eventually cancelled, although it was not clear if the move was related to the fatwa.

In another fatwa in May 2001, Wasel ruled that beauty pageants in which women appear half-naked in front of panels of male judges are haram. The authorities played deaf and Egypt continues to host them.

Wasel slapped a fatwa on watching solar eclipses and another on bullfights, but refused to support rights activists in their campaign to outlaw female genital mutilation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 04:40:26 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-sufi-salafi-egypt-religion

Salafi intolerance threatens Sufis

Egypt's peaceful Muslims are being denied religious freedoms as the influence of conservative Salafism grows


          o Baher Ibrahim
          o guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 May 2010 09.00 BST
       
Whenever religious freedom is discussed in Egypt, the topic inevitably turns to the status of the Christian Copts. Thousands of articles have been written about Egypt's Copts and how they are denied their religious freedoms, but it almost never occurs to anyone that even Sunni Muslims are being deprived of their basic rights to religious freedom and worship.

That is exactly what happened at the end of last month when the ministry of awqaf (religious endowments) decided to ban Egypt's Sufi orders from holding gatherings for the performance of dhikr – rituals devoted to the remembrance of God. Sufis have been performing these rituals for centuries, so a ban at this particular time is absurd.

The ministry's excuse is that the ban is intended to pre-empt undesirable behaviour at Sufi gatherings, such as the shouting of invocations and late-night loitering in mosques. In a city such as Cairo where the noise of traffic is a constant background, it just doesn't make sense. Clashes took place at Cairo's al-Husayn and al-Sayyida Zeinab mosques between members of Sufi orders and security forces who forced them to evacuate the two shrines.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 05, 2011, 05:07:32 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahilia

Jahiliyyah, al-Jahiliyah or jahalia (Arabic: جاهلية) is an Islamic concept of "ignorance of divine guidance" or "the state of ignorance of the guidance from God"[1] or "Days of Ignorance"[2] referring to the condition Arabs found themselves in pre-Islamic Arabia, i.e. prior to the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad. By extension it means the state of anyone not following Islam and the Qur'an.

**It's this concept that spawned the destruction of the Bamiyan statues. Anything pre-islamic or seen as un-islamic is thought of as having no value.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2011, 06:54:20 PM

Now you've done it JDN, he's on a rampage!  :lol: 

More seriously now, wouldn't you love to have these folks as your neighbors and marrying your daughters?

Title: Credit where credit is due
Post by: G M on January 06, 2011, 06:42:05 PM

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3216/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Egypt-Muslims-to-act-as-human-shields-at-Coptic-Ch.aspx

Egypt Muslims to act as "human shields" at Coptic Christmas Eve mass
Coptic Churches around the country expect an influx of Egyptian Muslims to share with the country's Christians their Christmas Eve mass

**It would be nice to see this as the start of something important. It won't stop the jihadists though.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2011, 06:53:25 PM

Whatever happens, it will be interesting. 

The Adventure continues!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2011, 03:31:43 AM

CAIRO — A deadly suicide bomb attack outside a Christian church in Alexandria on Saturday has forced the government and religious leaders here to acknowledge that Egypt is increasingly plagued by a sectarian divide that could undermine the stability that has been a hallmark of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly three decades in power.

A church in Shoubra, a Cairo neighborhood where many Christians live. Security is being tightened for celebrations of Coptic Christmas on Thursday and Friday.
As Egypt’s Christians headed to church under heavy security Thursday night to observe Coptic Christmas Eve, the nation was struggling to come to terms with a blast that killed at least 21 people, highlighted a long list of public grievances with the government and prompted concerns that national cohesion was being threatened by the spread of religious extremism among Muslims and Christians. (I've not heard of extremism amongst the Copts.  Anyone know what POTH is talking about here?)

“I have heard this a lot, that this type of incident might be the first in a series, turning Egypt into another Iraq — that is the fear now,” said Ibrahim Negm, the chief spokesman for Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the nation’s highest religious official. “There is a paradigm shift here that says we have to do something about the sectarian issue.”

The bombing, which the authorities said bore the characteristics of an operation by Al Qaeda, has increased the likelihood that Mr. Mubarak, who is 82 years old and has had health problems, will seek a sixth six-year term this year, in order to preserve the status quo. Yet, it is precisely that stability — or, some say, stagnation — that many Egyptians now cite as perhaps the nation’s greatest underlying problem.

“The regime fooled us for many years with the illusion of ‘stability,’ ” wrote Magdy el-Gallad, in the independent daily newspaper Al Masry Al Youm. “We neither progressed nor has our situation remained stable.”

After the bombing and the ensuing riots, political experts, politicians, commentators, opposition leaders and average citizens said that the very steps taken by the president in the name of stability — including preservation of an emergency law that allows arrest without charge — had produced a state with weak institutions, weak political parties and a bureaucracy unable to resolve the social, political and economic problems that helped cultivate extremism.

“It is very clear that the government totally lost control — of everything,” said Muhammad Aboulghar, a professor at Cairo University medical school and a liberal activist. “The only control they have is on the security of the president, the group around him, and few other party figures. That’s it.”

But for all the criticism it unleashed, the blast appears to have forged a consensus that Egypt, despite its historic tradition of moderate Islamic thinking and multicultural tolerance, has in recent years become overwhelmed by fundamentalist religious identification, a position that until now the government strongly denied.

That view has reinforced the growing belief that President Mubarak was not ready to surrender the reins of power, people here said. Mr. Mubarak underwent surgery in Germany last year, and appeared frail for months afterward, leading to speculation about who might succeed him. But people who have recently met with him said that he appears to have regained his strength and seems to have no intention of giving up power.

There is also a belief among those in the political elite, the military, the business community and the governing National Democratic Party that with so much uncertainty — even before the bombing — this is not the time for the party to nominate Mr. Mubarak’s son, Gamal, to run in September’s presidential election.

“If Mubarak disappears tomorrow, you will have the Islamists as the strongest political force in the country,” said Mohammed Salmawy, head of the Arab Writers Union. “The political parties, even lumped together, do not have the power to take over, and you have the army, which will not allow the country to go into chaos. Worse yet, you might have military Islamic rule because there is no reason to suppose the army is any different than society.”

When the bomb exploded shortly after New Year’s Eve Mass, the government moved with unusual speed and certainty. Within hours, President Mubarak made a televised address urging national unity. Muslim religious leaders, like Mr. Gomaa, quickly condemned the attack and reached out to the leader of the church, Pope Shenouda III.

===========

Page 2 of 2)



Within days there were pop songs on the radio calling for unity; billboards around the nation displaying the crescent moon and the cross, symbols of both faiths; and promises that government officials would this time follow through on plans to prevent more violence and correct the underlying problem.

But the effort was widely dismissed here as window dressing by an out-of-touch elite.

“While Egyptian officials fell in love with numbers — of streets paved, of hospitals built, the number of hotels and so on — somewhere the symbolic or the ideological mission of the state withered away,” said Ali Eddin Helal, a senior official in the National Democratic Party. “No state can live just by figures or by numbers. You have to give people meaning.”

The talk of unity failed to stop Christians and their supporters from pouring into the streets by the thousands.

“The government is corrupt!” shouted Mina Magdy, 23, who joined one of the demonstrations in the Shoubra neighborhood of Cairo on Tuesday. “If there was justice, nobody would dare do this. But the people who kill are not being held accountable.”

The bombing opened the floodgates of frustration among Christians who had long chafed under what they saw as discriminatory laws.

Many complained that the government had allowed unrestricted construction of mosques while restricting even the restoration of churches. They complained that no one had yet been tried in a Christmas Eve shooting last year in Nag Hammadi, a town in Upper Egypt where a Muslim gunman fired on Christian worshipers, killing 7 people and wounding 10. And they complained about the last parliamentary elections, in which the opposition emerged with fewer than 20 seats out of a total of 518 in Parliament, fueling widespread accusations of fraud and vote rigging, which the government has denied.

“This sectarian atmosphere is driving young people to retreat and lock themselves within the framework of the church,” said Gamal Asaad, a Coptic Christian and member of Parliament. “There is no room for political participation, which makes them susceptible to the conservative religious discourse. If there were real elections, if there was real representation, if there was any real participation by the people, then the political decisions could be more appropriate and address all these problems.”

In the last few years, Egypt has struggled through a seemingly endless series of crises and setbacks. The sinking of a ferry left 1,000 mostly poor Egyptians lost at sea, an uncontrollable fire gutted the historic Parliament building, terrorists attacked Sinai resorts, labor strikes affected nearly every sector of the work force and sectarian-tinged violence erupted, including last year’s shooting in Upper Egypt.

And in nearly every case, the state addressed the issue as a security matter, deploying the police, detaining suspects, dispersing crowds. That was also true in 2010, even as evidence mounted of growing tension between Egypt’s Muslim majority and a Christian minority that includes about 10 percent of the approximately 80 million Egyptians.

“I think that 2010 was a very, very bad year in the history of Egypt,” said Mona Makram-Ebeid, a former member of Parliament from a prominent Christian family. “Will this be a national awakening? If not, it might portend very, very dangerous days to come.”

Title: Is peace possible?
Post by: G M on January 18, 2011, 04:04:56 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-peace-possible-in-the-middle-east/?singlepage=true

No.

Title: Not a fait accompli, after all
Post by: rachelg on January 21, 2011, 01:30:01 PM

Editor's Notes: Not a fait accompli, after all
By DAVID HOROVITZ 
01/21/2011 16:24
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=204578
Dagan’s final act, backed up by the reported success of Stuxnet, was to shatter the illusion that Iran's drive for nuclear weapons is unstoppable.


Two weeks ago, the departing Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, gave an extraordinary briefing to about two dozen senior Israeli journalists. Extraordinary for two reasons: First, because the head of an organization engaged in clandestine activities all over the world had not previously made a habit of taking large groups of local reporters into his confidence. And second, because he vouchsafed the assessment that Iran, which had hitherto been understood to be perhaps a year away from a nuclear weapons capability, was now unlikely to reach that goal before the middle of the decade.

Dagan’s briefing, his radical departure from years of secretive Mossad scheming in the country’s defense, was not supposed to have been for attribution: He was providing information that the reporters could use in their writing, it was made clear to the assembled journalists, but that was not to be presented in his name. Every news outlet that was present at the briefing, The Jerusalem Post included, faithfully honored this understanding. Except for one, Yediot Aharonot, which, on its front page the following day, splashed a story headlined “Outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan warns: ‘Don’t hurry to attack Iran,” complete with a picture of Dagan and a sub-headline that quoted him as saying that various “actions against Iran have pushed it away from a bomb until 2015 at the earliest.”

On Monday of this past week, Dagan made another appearance, before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and backpedaled a little. There were, he now took pains to stress, “certain scenarios” under which the ayatollahs could “shorten the time” it would take them to go nuclear. Certainly, he noted, there was no room for complacency. North Korea, he cautioned, was a case study in the dangers of an inadequate international response to a rogue state’s nuclear ambitions.

It has been speculated that Dagan’s uncharacteristic venture into the media minefields was designed by this shrewdest of operators to undercut Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s relentless drumbeat regarding Teheran. It was notable that shortly after Dagan’s press briefing, Netanyahu rushed to play down the 2015 timeline as merely representing “intelligence estimates.”

Dagan, it is argued, considers that premature military intervention in Iran would be a grave strategic mistake. Yediot, indeed, directly quoted him as saying “One should go to war only if the sword is at the throat.”

But Dagan may also have had another, related aim in going semi-public: reversing what until recently had been the growing sense, around the world, that in the absence of high-risk military intervention, by Israel or anyone else, a nuclear Iran was a fait accompli.

Teheran has worked hard to create that sense – hyping each ostensible technological advance, publicizing every expansion of its uranium-enrichment capacity, repeatedly asserting its membership in the select nuclear club. Its working hypothesis, plainly, was that if it could persuade the watching world that its nuclear drive was unstoppable, it would undermine the international will to thwart it, via sanctions and other pressures. Image and hype would gradually become reality.

Dagan’s press briefing went a good distance toward countering the defeatist mindset Teheran has been trying to inculcate among its worldwide opponents. Iran, he made clear, had been several years away from a nuclear weapons capability when he took office in 2002. And now, more than eight years on, although it had made immense strides forward, it was still several years away.

Clearly, ran the Mossad chief’s inference, there was nothing inevitable about a nucleararmed Iran, after all. And, by implied extension, there was every incentive to intensify both clandestine activities against the nuclear program, and overt international sanctions against the fundamentalist regime that is pursuing it. Iran can certainly be stopped, and without resort to military action, ran Dagan’s message – a message both directed at his own prime minister and designed to further invigorate international sanctions pressure.

DRAMATICALLY BOLSTERING this contention have been the flood of foreign reports in the course of Dagan’s time at the Mossad of sabotage in the Iranian program – reports culminating in the last few days in unprecedented revelations about the effects of the Stuxnet computer virus, apparently deeply embedded in Iran’s nuclear computer systems.

Over the years, we heard first about a strange fire breaking out at an Iranian laboratory, about a plane linked to the nuclear program crashing, about various equipment malfunctions. Then nuclear scientists started disappearing. A year ago, nuclear physicist Massoud Ali Mohammadi was killed by a remote-controlled bomb. Two months earlier, his colleague Majid Shahriari, a quantum physicist, was assassinated by an explosive device affixed to his car by a passing motorcyclist. A third top scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi Davani, narrowly escaped the same fate in a similar operation that same morning.

But Stuxnet has elevated the reported impact of sabotage to an entirely new level. In recent weeks, the Post has carried several articles detailing the ostensible damage achieved by this fiendishly sophisticated computer worm, quoting international experts suggesting that it has set back the uranium enrichment program by two years. The virus reportedly caused the motors driving the enrichment centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz facility to speed up to the point where the centrifuges smashed into each other, and the expert opinion was that Iran would have to replace all of its computer equipment if it wanted to be freed of Stuxnet’s catastrophically contagious attentions.

Our reports, and some in other newspapers, cited speculation that Israel may have had a hand, or more pertinently a head, in the ultra-sophisticated virus assault. But no Israeli officials were taking any credit.

Then, last weekend, The New York Times firmly rooted Stuxnet in Israeli territory. It reported that the Dimona complex, “the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program,” had become “a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.”

Specifically, it went on, Israel had constructed at Dimona a centrifuge network “virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz,” and used it to test and refine Stuxnet, which it called “the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed.”

“To check out the worm, you have to know the machines,” it quoted an unnamed American expert on nuclear intelligence as saying. “The reason the worm has been effective is that the Israelis tried it out.”

So effective had Stuxnet proved, the Times further reported, that it “appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Teheran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.”

Adding rich detail to what was already known of Stuxnet’s origins and capabilities, the article elaborated that, apart from accelerating the centrifuge motors to send them “spinning wildly out of control,” the virus “also secretly recorded what normal operations at the nuclear plant looked like, then played those readings back to plant operators, like a pre-recorded security tape in a bank heist, so that it would appear that everything was operating normally while the centrifuges were actually tearing themselves apart.”

Unsurprisingly, the Times article was short on named sources for its information. It relied, it said, on “intelligence and military experts familiar” with the operations at Dimona. How remarkable that the Times would produce an enormously detailed article on the dramatic impact of Stuxnet, based on information from experts “familiar” with the workings of Dimona, precisely when the outgoing head of the Mossad was uncharacteristically breaking cover to declare that Iran was still a good few years from the bomb. What a fortuitous coincidence.

IF STUXNET has indeed had the reported dramatic impact – and the Times story went on to assert that “some experts who have examined the code believe it contains the seeds for yet more versions and assaults” – then plainly Iran has now been hit by a strike as potent as any military operation might have been. A spectacular blow achieved, moreover, without the potentially cataclysmic repercussions of a military attack.

When Israel blew up Saddam Hussein’s nuclear core at Osirak in 1981, the bombing wound up permanently thwarting his nuclear plans, but the working assessment here had been that it would only put the program out of action for a few years.

Where Iran is concerned, the limitations of a military attack are far greater: There is no certainty that the location of all key nuclear installations is known, and therefore vital facilities might not be targeted; it is widely assessed that Iran, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, would have the technological expertise to rebuild; and the regime, again in contrast to Saddam, would have an array of options – including missile fire, terrorism and utilization of Hamas and Hizbullah – to retaliate for any such attack.

In sum, that means the resort to a high risk military strike is in no way perceived as a panacea. Given that context, the reported success of Stuxnet – an invisible invader that has rendered Iran’s Osirak-inspired physical defenses completely irrelevant – is all the more dazzling and significant an achievement.

There is, it should be stressed, no comparing the smashed Iraqi and the virus-infected Iranian nuclear programs. Saddam was utterly reliant on overseas assistance, and was making a dash for the bomb when thwarted; Iran has painstakingly assembled domestic expertise and adopted a careful, gradual approach. It will not abandon that effort easily.

But the setback is more than practical. Stuxnet would appear to also be a huge psychological success.

Iran’s scientific boffins cannot have been too comfortable seeing colleagues bumped off in the streets of Teheran. An article in Der Spiegel just this week, indeed, quoted Dagan as saying those killings had directly slowed the program, and sown fear within the Iranian nuclear scientists’ community. Many scientists, it reported Dagan as saying, had stayed away from work in the days after the assassinations. Iran’s showcased TV appearance last week by purported Mossad recruit Majid Jamali Fash, the self-confessed assassin of physicist Mohammadi, may have been intended to reassure Iranians, and especially Iranian scientists, that the regime had smashed the alleged Mossad ring of operatives, but it probably had the opposite effect – bringing home to potential Iranian targets how vulnerable they are in their own land. “The man widely believed to be responsible for much of Iran’s program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a college professor,” the Times reported in its recent article, “has been hidden away by the Iranians, who know he is high on the target list.”

In this fevered climate, with colleagues dead or in hiding, Stuxnet must have drastically exacerbated the nuclear team’s concerns, sharply denting any certainties about attaining the nuclear goal.

No warplanes have targeted Iran’s nuclear sites. Instead, a stealth weapon of a far subtler nature has delivered a devastating payload. And its full impact is still unfolding.

Far from credibly peddling the sense that the bomb is a fait accompli, and that the rest of the world will have to live with, or rather capitulate to, a nuclear-emboldened Islamist Iran, the combination of sabotage and assassinations may now have left the regime with the opposite challenge on its hands: scrambling to persuade its own key scientists that they can do it.

IT WOULD be foolish, deeply so, to believe that thwarting Iran is now a fait accompli either. The Iranians have shown ferocious tenacity in pursuing their nuclear weapons goal thus far. They consider its attainment to be transformative for their regional and even global status. There are, as Dagan indicated on Monday, other avenues they can follow. And they will not abandon the nuclear arms quest unless they truly come to believe that its pursuit has become an imminent risk to their very hold on power.

The onus, therefore, should now be on the international community, via intensified economic pressure, to bring the regime to precisely that realization. As Meir Dagan has signaled, and as the reports on Stuxnet appear to confirm, Iran most certainly can be outwitted, pressured and ultimately stopped.

The balance has tilted.

Title: Dershowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 26, 2011, 09:55:59 AM

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Although I have opposed Israel's civilian settlements in the West Bank since 1973, I strongly believe that the United States should veto a resolution currently before the U.N. Security Council that would declare illegal "all Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." This condemnatory resolution is being supported by all members of the Security Council other than the U.S. So it will pass unless the U.S. exercises its veto power.

There is a big difference between a government action being unwise, which the Israeli policy is, and being illegal, which it is not. Indeed, the very Security Council resolution on which proponents of the condemnation rely makes it clear that the legal status of Israel's continued occupation isn't settled.

Passed in 1967, Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role assisting then-U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in drafting) calls for Israel to return "territories" captured during its defensive war of 1967. The words "all" and "the" were proposed by those who advocated a complete return, but the U.S. and Great Britain, which opposed that view, prevailed.

Even partial return of captured territories is conditioned on "termination of all claims of belligerency" and "acknowledgment of the sovereignty . . . of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Resolution 242 does not mention the rights of nonstates, such as the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter two of which do not accept the conditions of the resolution. (Nor do Iran and several other states in the region.) It would be wrong for the Security Council retroactively to rewrite Resolution 242, which is the foundation for a two-state solution—Israel and Palestine—44 years after it was enacted.

But the real reason the U.S. should veto this ill-conceived resolution is that it is inconsistent with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has put it: "We continue to believe strongly that New York is not the place to resolve the longstanding conflict."

A negotiated resolution will require the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge that some of the land captured by Israel from Jordan, after Jordan attacked Israel, rightfully belongs to Israel. These areas include the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall—which were illegally captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful 1948 war calculated to undo the U.N.'s decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands. Additionally, there will have to be land swaps that recognize the realities on the ground. Areas such as Ma'ale Adumim and Gilo, for example, have become integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem.

Finally, Resolution 242 explicitly requires that Israel have "secure and recognized boundaries," an implicit recognition that its pre-1967 boundaries were neither secure nor recognized. Some territorial adjustments will be essential if Israel is to remain more secure than it was in the lead-up to the 1967 war.

The Palestinian Authority seems to understand at least some of these realities, as reflected in the recent disclosure of 1,600 internal documents by Al Jazeera. In one 2008 document, Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurie is quoted proposing that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem, with the exception of the Jewish areas of Har Homa and part of the Old City of Jerusalem. Some on the Security Council, however, clearly don't understand.

The current draft of the proposed resolution condemns "all Israeli settlement activities." Read literally, this condemnation would extend to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and those areas that even the Palestinian Authority concedes must remain under Israeli control. Israel will not, and should not, return "all" such territories. The U.S. does not believe it should, nor do reasonable Palestinians.

So what then is the purpose of the utterly unrealistic resolution now under consideration? It simply gives cover to those Palestinians who do not want to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. It is also a stalking horse for the Palestinian effort to secure a further U.N. resolution unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood—a result that neither Israel nor the U.S. would recognize.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without any preconditions. He promises generous proposals, which could lead to Palestinian statehood relatively quickly. The Palestinian Authority, however, has set preconditions to any negotiations, most specifically a second freeze on all West Bank and East Jerusalem construction. While I favor such a freeze, I do not believe that it should be a precondition to negotiations.

Let serious discussions begin immediately about the borders of the two states. As soon as the borders are decided, Israel will stop building in all areas beyond them. This is the only way toward peace. A Security Council resolution unilaterally deciding the central issue of the negotiations will only make matters worse.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is "The Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).

Title: Sh*t meets fan
Post by: G M on January 26, 2011, 06:49:04 PM

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Why-Egypt-Matters-to-You

Read it all, and pray.

Title: Stratfor intel guidance for Egypt
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2011, 12:15:16 PM

Editor’s Note: The following is an internal STRATFOR document produced to provide high-level guidance to our analysts. This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus.

Let’s use the Iranian rising of 1979 as a model. It had many elements involved, from Communists, to liberals to moderate Muslims, and of course the radicals. All of them were united in hating the Shah, but not in anything else.

The Western press did not understand the mixture and had its closest ties with the liberals, for the simple reason that they were the most Western and spoke English. For a very long time they thought these liberals were in control of the revolution.

For its part, the intelligence community did not have good sources among the revolutionaries but relied on SAVAK, the Shah’s security service, for intelligence. SAVAK neither understood what was happening, nor was it prepared to tell CIA. The CIA suspected the major agent was the small Communist party, because that was the great fear at that time — namely, that the Soviets were engineering a plot to seize Iran and control the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, Western human rights groups painted the Shah as a monster, and saw this as a popular democratic rising. Western human rights and democracy groups, funded by the U.S. government and others, were standing by to teach people like Bani Sadr to create a representative democracy.

Bani Sadr was the first post-Shah president. He was a moderate Islamist and democrat; he also had no power whatsoever. The people who were controlling the revolution were those around the Ayatollah Khomeini, who were used by the liberals as a screen to keep the United States quiet until the final moment came and they seized control.

It is important to understand that the demonstrations were seen as spontaneous, but were actually being carefully orchestrated. It is also important to understand that the real power behind the movement remained opaque to the media and the CIA, because they didn’t speak English and the crowds they organized didn’t speak English, and none of the reporters spoke Farsi (nor did a lot of the intelligence agency people). So when the demonstrations surged, the interviews were with the liberals who were already their sources, and who made themselves appear far more powerful than they were — and who were encouraged to do so by Khomeini’s people.

It was only at the end that Khomeini ran up the Jolly Roger to the West.

Nothing is identical to the past, but Iran taught me never to trust a revolutionary who spoke English; they will tend to be pro-Western. When the masses poured into the streets — and that hasn’t happened in Egypt yet — they were Khomeini supporters who spoke not a word of English. The media kept interviewing their English-speaking sources and the CIA kept up daily liaison meetings with SAVAK — until the day they all grabbed a plane and met up with their money in Europe and the United States. The liberals, those who weren’t executed, also wound up in the United States, teaching at Harvard or driving cabs.

Let’s be very careful on the taxonomy of this rising. The Western human rights groups will do what they can to emphasize its importance, and to build up their contacts with what they will claim are the real leaders of the revolution. The only language these groups share with the identified leaders is English, and the funding for these groups depends on producing these people. And these people really want to turn Egypt into Wisconsin. The one thing I can guarantee is that is not what is going on.

What we have to find out is who is behind this. It could be the military wanting to stage a coup to keep Gamal Mubarak out of power. They would be doing this to preserve the regime, not to overthrow it. They could be using the demonstrations to push their demands and perhaps pressure Hosni Mubarak to leave voluntarily.

The danger is that they would be playing with fire. The demonstrations open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is stronger than others may believe. They might keep the demonstrations going after Hosni leaves, and radicalize the streets to force regime change. It could also be the Muslim Brotherhood organizing quietly. Whoever it is, they are lying low, trying to make themselves look weaker than they are — while letting the liberals undermine the regime, generate anti-Mubarak feeling in the West, and pave the way for whatever it is they are planning.

Our job now is to sort through all the claimants and wannabees of this revolution, and find out who the main powers are. These aren’t spontaneous risings and the ideology of the people in the streets has nothing to do with who will wind up in power. The one thing to be confident of is that liberal reformers are the stalking horse for something else, and that they are being used as always to take the heat and pave the way.

Now, figure out who is really behind the demonstrations and we have a game.



Read more: Intelligence Guidance: The Situation in Egypt | STRATFOR

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 27, 2011, 12:24:26 PM

I'll bet that the Muslim Brotherhood is pulling the strings on these protests. If Egypt were to fall to them, it would be catastrophic.

It, in essence would be the victory Osama was looking for in the wake of 9/11.

Title: Carteresque
Post by: G M on January 27, 2011, 01:57:12 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/27/report-obama-to-step-up-criticism-of-mubarak-if-he-cracks-down-on-protesters/

What could go wrong?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2011, 08:47:20 PM

I would offer for our consideration another line of analysis here.

Bush sought to get us out of the supporting bastards because they were our bastards line of policy e.g. look out how well Kissinger's embrace of the Shah worked out.  I suppose we could blame the moron Carter, but does that not evade the central question presented?

Did not Hamas' victory in Gaza meant that Israel could finally take a hard line?

Was not one of the core premises of the Iraq War to enable democracy?  Yes the Dems have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but what if we had not thrown away the success of the Surge?  Would we not be esconced on Iran's western border with Iraq as a beacon of the possible for the Arab (Muslim) world?

I lack the knowledge to opine on the implications of the MB taking over in Egypt, but as Stratfor points out, geopolitics are geopolitics and Sunni and Shia (Iran) seem to be oil and water.  I do think policies based upon backing unpopular bastards have their risks.

Title: Stratfor: Egypt
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2011, 09:58:24 PM

A 'Day of Rage' Turns All Eyes to the Egyptian Military

With tensions running high in Egypt ahead of the planned Jan. 28 “Day of Rage,” a street agitation campaign organized by the multi-faceted opposition, speculation is rising in the country and internationally over the regime’s next moves. The regime faces a very basic dilemma. After three decades of emergency rule in which Cairo’s iron fist was sufficiently feared to keep dissent contained, the wall of fear is crumbling. The task at hand for the ruling National Democratic Party, the military and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is to rebuild that wall as quickly as possible and to spread enough fear among those Egyptians who are gathering the courage to come out into the streets in protest.

Preparations to rebuild the wall of fear have begun. Internet access and cell networks are cutting out in major cities while the more technologically savvy Egyptian youth are advising each other on how to circumvent the state censures and remain online. Anonymous, 26-page glossy documents are also being distributed in Cairo containing a basic how-to guide for the Friday protestors. Pre-emptive round-ups were reportedly underway on Thursday night in an attempt to take some of the wind out of Friday’s demonstrations. So far, the security forces deployed consist of uniformed local police, plainclothes police and Central Security Forces (black-clad paramilitaries equipped with riot gear). Though these security forces have been working long hours over the past three days, Egypt still appears to have plenty of police resources to throw at this crisis.

“If the Egyptian security apparatus does not succeed in transforming the Day of Rage into a Day of Fear, the trigger for army intervention will not be far off.”
While the streets are being readied downtown, heavy discussions are taking place just a few miles away in the presidential palace and the central military high command in greater Cairo. STRATFOR sees two key trends developing so far. One in which the Mubarak name is being gradually de-linked from the core of regime and another where the military is gaining a much larger say in the governance of the state.

Among the more revealing statements made by the NDP coming out of the Jan. 27 meeting, which also included security officials, was the following: “The NDP is not the executive, just a party, and itself reviews the performance of the executive.” A report from the Egyptian daily, Al Mesryoon, also claimed that during a Jan. 25 Cabinet meeting, an unnamed minister called for Mubarak to appoint a vice president from the military, resign as president of the NDP and cancel all plans to have his son, Gamal, succeed him as president.

This report has not been verified, but it fits into a trend that STRATFOR has been tracking over the past several months in which the military and old guard of the ruling party have been heavily pressuring the elder Mubarak to give up on his plans to have his son succeed him, arguing that ‘one of their own’ from the military needed to take the helm to lead the country through this precarious period of Egyptian history. STRATFOR also cannot help but wonder why both Mubarak and his son have been mysteriously quiet and absent from the public eye throughout the crisis, especially as rumors have run abound on Gamal allegedly fleeing the country, gold being smuggled out of the country and funds being transferred to overseas banks.

Over the next 24 hours, the military’s moves are critical to watch. Cairo is obviously the center of activity, but our eyes will also be on the city of Suez. Suez has been the scene of intense protests over the past three days, with police and fire stations being raided and firebombed by demonstrators and three demonstrators killed in protests. This is the only city we know of thus far where STRATFOR sources have reported that the military is deploying alongside the police in an effort to restore calm. Civil-military relations are traditionally the strongest in Suez, the historic scene of battle for Egypt, where soldiers are still viewed by many as unsung heroes. If the military succumbs to the protestors in Suez, control of Cairo then comes into serious question.

This is still an exercise in scenario building. Even the most hardcore opposition protestors on the street will admit that the reality of the situation is that the army remains in control. Amid all the unknowns, one thing is near certain: If the Egyptian security apparatus does not succeed in transforming the Day of Rage into a Day of Fear, the trigger for army intervention will not be far off.



---------------------
The Strategic Implications of Instability in Egypt

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the Egyptian government on Wednesday to engage in political, economic and social reforms as part of an effort to heed to the legitimate demands of the Egyptian people. Clinton’s statement came a day after the Middle East’s largest Arab state experienced its most extensive protest demonstrations in 34 years. Unlike the unrest in 1977, these protests were not about the price of bread; rather the agitators are seeking the ouster of the Egyptian government — at a time when the regime is already in a state of transition, given that President Hosni Mubarak is at an advanced age and is ailing.

For three decades, the Mubarak government has sustained Egypt’s status as an ally of the United States and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty — a position that was realized during the days of Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar Sadat. It was under Sadat that Cairo moved away from its opposition to Washington, which was the hallmark of the regime presided over by Sadat’s predecessor, Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also the founder of the modern Egyptian republic. The key American concern is that when all is said and done, Cairo will remain pro-Western and at peace with Israel.

“The problem with democratic reforms is that they can potentially bring to power political forces that at the very least do not define their country’s national interest in line with U.S. strategic interests in the region.”
It is not certain that a post-Mubarak Egypt will necessarily become hostile to the United States and Israel. But it is also not certain that status quo will be sustained in a post-transition Egypt. What exactly will happen will be based on the ability (or the lack thereof) of the Egyptian military to ensure that there are no fundamental changes in policy — regardless of whether or not the current ruling National Democratic Party is in power.

Washington realizes that the public discontent within Egypt and the region creates for a very tricky situation that the Egyptian military may or may not be able to manage. The United States cannot come out and openly oppose the drive toward democratic governance, mainly for public relations purposes. But Washington doesn’t want to be caught in a situation akin to a 1979 Iran when the Shah fell, bringing to power a regime that has emerged as the biggest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the region.

The options for the Egyptian government are to work with the military while trying to manage reforms to placate the masses. The problem with democratic reforms is that they can potentially bring to power political forces that at the very least do not define their country’s national interest in line with U.S. strategic interests in the region. As it is, the United States is struggling to deal with an Iran empowered because of the collapse of the Baathist regime in Iraq.

At a time when Iran is projecting power across Mesopotamia and into the Levant, a less than stable Egypt will massively amplify the United States’ Middle East problems. Regime change in Egypt also has implications for the stability in other major countries in the region such as Israel, Syria, Jordan and Yemen. It is this gravity of the situation that would explain why Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Wednesday issued a very odd statement in which he expressed a lack of confidence in the ability of the Egyptian state to handle the public uprising.

The United States and much of the rest of the world will be watching how the Egyptian government manages the protests, the military and the succession question. Thus, everything depends on whether or not there will be regime change in Egypt.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 28, 2011, 03:24:38 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2011, 08:47:20 PM

I would offer for our consideration another line of analysis here.

Bush sought to get us out of the supporting bastards because they were our bastards line of policy e.g. look out how well Kissinger's embrace of the Shah worked out.  I suppose we could blame the moron Carter, but does that not evade the central question presented?

Did not Hamas' victory in Gaza meant that Israel could finally take a hard line?

**Aside from that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Was not one of the core premises of the Iraq War to enable democracy?  Yes the Dems have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but what if we had not thrown away the success of the Surge?  Would we not be esconced on Iran's western border with Iraq as a beacon of the possible for the Arab (Muslim) world?

**There was a window where a west-friendly democracy movement had a chance to develop, like the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. However, our enemies, both foreign and domestic killed it in the crib. I fear that what could happen in Egypt would be "One man, one vote, one time.**

I lack the knowledge to opine on the implications of the MB taking over in Egypt, but as Stratfor points out, geopolitics are geopolitics and Sunni and Shia (Iran) seem to be oil and water.  I do think policies based upon backing unpopular bastards have their risks.

**The need to back unpopular bastards sucks, but it sucks less than losing the center of gravity in the arab world to jihadist control.**

Title: Wikileaks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2011, 06:31:43 AM

Agreed that the risks of "One man, one vote, one time" are considerable.  So too are the risks of being married to bastards when the day comes , , ,

Anyway, FWIW here's POTH excerpts from Wikileaks:
===============

WASHINGTON — It was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first meeting as secretary of state with President Hosni Mubarak, in March 2009, and the Egyptians had an odd request: Mrs. Clinton should not thank Mr. Mubarak for releasing an opposition leader from prison because he was ill.

 
In fact, a confidential diplomatic cable signed by the American ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, advised Mrs. Clinton to avoid even mentioning the name of the man, Ayman Nour, even though his imprisonment in 2005 had been condemned worldwide, not least by the Bush administration.
The cable is among a trove of dispatches made public by the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks that paint a vivid picture of the delicate dealings between the United States and Egypt, its staunchest Arab ally. They show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.

But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public “name and shame” approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided “the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years.”

This balancing of private pressure with strong public support for Mr. Mubarak has become increasingly tenuous in recent days. Throngs of angry Egyptians have taken to the streets and the White House, worried about being identified with a reviled regime, has challenged the president publicly.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms. In an interview posted on YouTube, Mr. Obama said neither the police nor the protesters should resort to violence. “It is very important,” he added, “that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances.”

It is not known what Mrs. Clinton said to Mr. Mubarak in their first meeting, at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik. But she set the public tone afterward, when she was asked by an Arab television journalist about a State Department report critical of Egypt’s human rights record.

“We hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement,” Mrs. Clinton said, adding that Mr. Mubarak and his wife, Suzanne, were friends of her family, and that it was up to the Egyptian people to decide the president’s future.

The cables, which cover the first year of the Obama presidency, leave little doubt about how valuable an ally Mr. Mubarak has been, detailing how he backed the United States in its confrontation with Iran, played mediator between Israel and the Palestinians and supported Iraq’s fledgling government, despite his opposition to the American-led war.

Privately, Ambassador Scobey pressed Egypt’s interior minister to free three bloggers, as well as a Coptic priest who performed a wedding for a Christian convert, according to one of her cables to Washington. She also asked that three American pro-democracy groups be granted formal permission to operate in the country, a request the Egyptians rejected.

However effusive the Americans were about Mr. Mubarak in public, the cables offered a less flattering picture of Egypt’s first lady, Suzanne Mubarak. During a visit to the Sinai, one reported, she commandeered a bus that had been bought with money from the United States Agency for International Development and that had been meant to carry children to school.

Egyptian state security was concerned enough about American activities in Sinai, according to another cable, that it surreptitiously recorded a meeting between diplomats and members of a local council.

Yet many more of the cables describe collaboration between the United States and Egypt. In her 2009 visit, Mrs. Clinton was trying to revive the moribund peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Mubarak was central to this: the cables detail his efforts to broker a cease-fire between Israelis and the militant group Hamas in Gaza, as well as American pressure on him to curb the smuggling of weapons to Hamas from Egypt through tunnels.

Mrs. Clinton was also laying out Mr. Obama’s rationale for engaging Iran — an overture, the cables report, that Mr. Mubarak predicted would fail. A May 2009 cable before Mr. Mubarak’s first visit to the Obama White House noted that Egyptian officials told a visiting American diplomat, Dennis B. Ross, that “we should prepare for confrontation through isolation.”

Like other Arab leaders, Mr. Mubarak is depicted in the cables as obsessed with Iran, which he told American diplomats was extending its tentacles from “the Gulf to Morocco” through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. He views these groups — particularly Hamas, a “brother” of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood — as a direct threat to his own rule.

In a meeting with General Petraeus on June 29, 2009, Mr. Mubarak said the Iranian government wanted to establish “pockets” of influence inside Egypt, according to a cable. General Petraeus told him the United States was responding to similar fears among Persian Gulf states by deploying more Patriot missiles and upgrading its F-16 fighter jets stationed in the region.

Despite obvious American sympathy for Mr. Mubarak’s security concerns, there is little evidence that the diplomats believed the president, now 82, was at risk of losing his grip on power. The May 2009 cable noted that riots over bread prices had broken out in Egypt in 2008 for the first time since 1977. And it said the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood had prompted the government to resort to “heavy-handed tactics against individuals and groups.”

==========

But the cable, again signed by Ambassador Scobey, portrayed Mr. Mubarak as the ultimate survivor, a “tried and true realist” who would rather “let a few individuals suffer than risk chaos for society as a whole.”

“During his 28-year rule,” the cable said, “he survived at least three assassination attempts, maintained peace with Israel, weathered two wars in Iraq and post-2003 regional instability, intermittent economic downturns, and a manageable but chronic internal terrorist threat.”
Another cable, dated March 2009, offered a pessimistic analysis of the prospects for the “April 6 Movement,” a Facebook-based group of mostly young Egyptians that has received wide attention for its lively political debate and helped mobilize the protests that have swept Egypt in the last two days. Leaders of the group had been jailed and tortured by the police. There were also signs of internal divisions between secular and Islamist factions, it said.

The United States has defended bloggers with little success. When Ambassador Scobey raised several arrests with the interior minister, he replied that Egypt did not infringe on freedom of the press, but that it must respond when “people are offended by blogs.” An aide to the minister told the ambassador that The New York Times, which has reported on the treatment of bloggers in Egypt, was “exaggerating the blogger issue,” according to the cable.

American diplomats also cast a wide net to gather information on police brutality, the cables show. Through contacts with human rights lawyers, the embassy follows numerous cases, and raised some with the Interior Ministry. Among the most harrowing, according to a cable, was the treatment of several members of a Hezbollah cell detained by the police in late 2008.

Lawyers representing the men said they were subjected to electric shocks and sleep deprivation, which reduced them to a “zombie state.” They said the torture was more severe than what they normally witnessed.

To the extent that Mr. Mubarak has been willing to tolerate reforms, the cable said, it has been in areas not related to public security or stability. For example, he has given his wife latitude to campaign for women’s rights and against practices like female genital mutilation and child labor, which are sanctioned by some conservative Islamic groups.

Still, Mr. Mubarak generally views broader reforms as an invitation to extremism. “We have heard him lament the results of earlier U.S. efforts to encourage reform in the Islamic world,” said a cable, noting that he often invoked the shah of Iran — a secular leader who came under pressure from Washington, only to be replaced by an even more repressive, hostile government.

Even the private encounters with Mr. Mubarak have layers of sensitivity. While Mrs. Clinton was advised to steer clear of mentioning Ayman Nour, the cable signed by Ambassador Scobey suggested she might broach the topic of Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American author and critic of Mr. Mubarak who fled Egypt after being found guilty of defaming the country.

“If you have any one-on-one opportunity with President Mubarak,” the ambassador wrote, “you may wish to suggest that annulling these cases and allowing him to return to Egypt would also be well received by the new administration.”

It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton did so.

Title: Another one from POTH
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2011, 06:35:24 AM

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — Demonstrators in Egypt have protested against rising prices and stagnant incomes, for greater freedom and against police brutality. But religion, so often a powerful mobilizing force here, has so far played little role.

That may be about to change.

With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation’s mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement.

Reporters in Egypt said on Friday that, after rumors swept Cairo late Thursday that the authorities planned to throttle the protesters' communications among themselves, access to the Internet, text messaging services and Twitter was not possible on Friday morning in Cairo, Alexandria and possibly other cities.

Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. The support of the Brotherhood could well change the calculus on the streets, tipping the numbers in favor of the protesters and away from the police, lending new strength to the demonstrations and further imperiling President Hosni Mubarak’s reign of nearly three decades.

“Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests.

But Islam is hardly homogeneous, and many religious leaders here said Thursday that they would not support the protests, for reasons including scriptural prohibitions on defying rulers and a belief that democratic change would not benefit them. “We Salafists are not going to participate in any of the demonstrations tomorrow,” said Sheik Yasir Burhami, a leading figure among the fundamentalist Salafists in Alexandria.

While the largest demonstrations have taken place in the capital, Cairo, and the most chaos Thursday was to be found in Suez, Alexandria has been a focal point for past protests. The beating death of a young businessman named Khaled Said last year led to weeks of demonstrations against police brutality and calls to overhaul the security services.

The city on the Mediterranean, long Egypt’s gateway to the outside world, has mirrored the country’s steady erosion over decades of authoritarian rule. It has gone from being a cosmopolitan showcase to a poor, struggling city that evokes barely a vestige of its former grandeur. The New Year’s bombing of a Coptic church here was a reminder of the direction of the city, identified by European intelligence services as a hub for radicalizing students who come to study Arabic. Many of the most radical Salafists — those who would support the use of violence — were arrested by the government after the bombing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sheik Gaber Kassem, leader of the mystic Sufi community here, said the Sufis were discouraging their followers from taking part in the demonstrations, which the government has deemed illegal.

“We are going to be in the mosque and we’re going to be in front of the mosque, but we are not going to march in the streets,” said Mr. Kassem, adding that they were in favor of freedom of expression and had taken part in legal protests Tuesday, but that they were against the violence and chaos that were likely on Friday.

Relative calm prevailed here on Thursday, as activists said they were preparing for Friday’s demonstrations. With riot police and plainclothes security personnel watching, dozens of lawyers protested in front of the courthouse, calling for two of their colleagues who had been arrested at Tuesday’s demonstration to be set free and shouting, “People, people, take to the streets.”

Hamid Said, 29, who founded the Nasar Center for Human Rights in Alexandria, said that to date the protests here had not been led by Muslim groups, as the government claimed. “You did not have the Muslim Brotherhood protesting here, you had normal people protesting against their problems,” said Mr. Said, a lawyer who said he had been arrested five times since 2008, but never detained for more than a few days.

Mr. Said cited political oppression and police brutality as the leading causes of frustration among the people. He said that he had once applied for a position for which he was well qualified, but that he lost out to the son of a government minister.

Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a Muslim cleric known as Abu Omar, said that many conservative Muslims would not support a secular politician like Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize winner and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “ElBaradei and the others, they have no connection to religion. If Hosni Mubarak goes, they will replace him with someone else like him,” said Abu Omar, who came to prominence after it was disclosed that he had been kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency from Milan in 2003.

Religious leaders like Mr. Kassem said they could not rule out that many of their followers would join the protests.

The spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Alexandria said that efforts by the government to hinder groups from gathering, like blocking access to social networking sites, would no longer be effective.

“It’s already clear that we will go out tomorrow. The message is already out,” he said. “Tomorrow all the Egyptians are going to be on the streets.”

Title: Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2011, 07:05:31 AM

Looks like it may be a busy day on this thread!

Plenty of POTH commentary mingled in this piece-- Marc

ALMOST exactly six years after the Cedar Revolution led to a rapid withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the United States’ dream that it could use this fragile country as a launching pad for a New Middle East — one with a decidedly pro-American bent — has seemingly collapsed.

One could argue that it crumpled at exactly 11:58 a.m. on Tuesday, when a Christian member of the Lebanese Parliament from the Bekaa Valley named Nicola Fattoush strode into the presidential palace and cast his ballot against Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Mr. Hariri is the son of Rafik Hariri, a former prime minister whose assassination in February 2005 is the basis for soon-to-be-expected indictments by the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Although the new prime minister, Najib Mikati, didn’t need Mr. Fattoush’s support to defeat Saad Hariri — the militant Shiite movement Hezbollah and the Parliament’s largest single bloc of Christians, headed by Gen. Michel Aoun, along with some Sunni Muslim and Druze members, provided the numerical edge — Mr. Fattoush’s vote held particular significance. Not only had he been an ally of Saad Hariri’s, but he had just days before received a widely publicized visit from the United States ambassador, Maura Connelly, in his home district.

That a small-time figure known for his political horse-trading would spurn a superpower’s attempt to retain his vote for its man provides an exclamation point on just how poorly Washington’s policy of “maximalism” — applying sporadic bouts of pressure on its allies while refusing to sincerely negotiate with its adversaries — has fared in Lebanon and the Middle East as a whole. The Obama administration is going to need a very different approach when it comes to dealing with the “new” Lebanon.

Unfortunately, though, such a change will be far more difficult today than it would have been just six years ago, when Hezbollah had its political back against the wall, lacking support outside its Shiite base and the insurance of Syrian troops in the country.

In April of that year, Hezbollah went so far as to send one of its affiliated politicians, Trade Hamade, to meet with State Department officials to work out a modus vivendi. He left Washington empty-handed: the Bush administration believed that American influence was on the rise in Lebanon and that Hezbollah could be cornered into agreeing to disarmament before any substantive negotiations.

Instead of undermining Hezbollah’s political support by broadening alliances with pro-American figures in Lebanon and addressing the concerns held by many Lebanese — the sentiment that Israel still occupied Lebanese territory in the south, that there were Lebanese in Israeli jails and that the country needed a stronger national defense — the Bush administration cultivated a narrow set of local allies and pursued a “with us or against us” strategy aimed at eliminating Hezbollah. Sadly, it took this policy less than a year to result in a botched Israeli invasion that killed and wounded thousands of Lebanese citizens and gave Hezbollah unprecedented popularity in the region.

(MARC:   At the time I posted here of the grave historical error that IMO Israel was committing by pulling up short.)

Today, Syria has regained much of its hegemony in the country — this time without the cost of stationing troops — and is again at the center of regional politics. Hezbollah’s military capacity, by all accounts, has soared, and many of its leaders seem to harbor the dangerous belief that they can decisively win a “final” confrontation with Israel. The Party of God has also deftly maintained and even expanded its political alliances — including one with about half the Christians in the country — that gave it the power to change the government this week by constitutional means.

Perhaps most frustratingly, Hezbollah has largely succeeded in undermining the legitimacy of the United Nations tribunal in the Arab and Islamic worlds. In this effort it had unintentional American help. As a recent report from the International Crisis Group put it, the manner in which the investigation was established, “pushed by two Western powers with clear strategic objectives” — the United States and France — “contaminated” the process.

So, what can the United States do to reverse Hezbollah’s new momentum? Its options are limited. Given the change of government, Congress may well try to cut off all aid to Lebanon and the Lebanese Army. The Obama administration will likely reiterate its support for the tribunal and push for any indictments of Hezbollah figures. But neither step would have much of an impact on Hezbollah’s core calculations or desires.

=========

Hezbollah will continue to increase its military power, edging ever closer to what Israeli officials have called a “redline” of capabilities that would prompt Israel to mount a major “pre-emptive” attack. Such a move would, as it was in 2006, be devastating for Lebanon, probably for Israel and certainly for United States interests in the region, not least because Hezbollah would likely survive and even gain new adherents among those affected by Israeli strikes on Lebanese infrastructure and civilian areas.

Still, there is a way for Washington to stake out a reasonable, nonviolent alternative: by pushing for the immediate revival of peace talks between Syria and Israel. Eleven years ago, a peace agreement between the two countries that would have included the disarmament of Hezbollah fell apart, largely because the Israeli prime minister at the time, Ehud Barak, found it too politically difficult to hand over to Syria the last few hundred yards of shoreline around the northeast corner of the Sea of Galilee bordering the Golan Heights.

Although a new deal on the Golan would not lead to the end of Hezbollah in the immediate term, it would contain the movement’s ability and desire to use violence, as Syria would need to commit to cutting off the supply routes by which Iranian (and Syrian) weapons are now smuggled into Lebanon. Militarily weakened, and without Syrian or much domestic political backing to continue in its mission to liberate Jerusalem, Hezbollah would find it extremely difficult to threaten Israel’s northern border.

Certainly some Israelis see the benefits of such a deal. Ilan Mizrahi, a former deputy chief of the Mossad and national security adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told an interviewer recently that on his first day on the job, he recommended that Mr. Olmert make a deal with Syria because it would “change the security situation in the Middle East.” He said he still believed that.

When asked if a pullout might create a threat to Israel along the Golan, Mr. Mizrahi answered: “Our chief of staff doesn’t think so. Our head of intelligence, military intelligence, doesn’t think so ... the best Israeli generals are saying we can negotiate it, so I believe them.”

Would pressuring Israel into a full withdrawal from the Golan be politically difficult for President Obama? Surely — as it would be for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. But given the alternatives for Lebanon, Israel and the United States, anything less would be merely setting up temporary roadblocks to an impending regional disaster.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 28, 2011, 07:21:30 AM

"Still, Mr. Mubarak generally views broader reforms as an invitation to extremism. “We have heard him lament the results of earlier U.S. efforts to encourage reform in the Islamic world,” said a cable, noting that he often invoked the shah of Iran — a secular leader who came under pressure from Washington, only to be replaced by an even more repressive, hostile government."

**Don't you wish we had kept the Shah in power, bastard that he was?

Title: Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt
Post by: G M on January 28, 2011, 12:27:33 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,742186,00.html

Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt

By Gil Yaron in Jerusalem
Riot police in Cairo (Jan. 26 photo): Israel is afraid of regime change in Egypt.
Zoom
REUTERS

Riot police in Cairo (Jan. 26 photo): Israel is afraid of regime change in Egypt.

Israel is watching developments in Egypt with concern. The government is standing by autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, out of fear that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood could take power and start supplying arms to Hamas.

Israel is usually a country where politicians have an opinion on any topic, and vociferously so. But in recent days, Israel's leadership has been unusually silent on a certain question. No one, it seems, is willing to make an official comment on the ongoing unrest in Egypt, where protesters have been holding anti-government rallies. It's not because Israel does not care about the riots ravaging its southern neighbor -- on the contrary, Israeli news channels, normally prone to parochialism, have been closely following recent events in the Arab world, from Tunisia to Lebanon.

Radio, television and newspapers constantly report the courage of the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, not only relishing the historic spectacle, but openly expressing sympathy with Egypt's struggle for democracy.

But the Israeli government is keeping quiet. "We are closely monitoring the events, but we do not interfere in the internal affairs of a neighboring state," was the curt answer from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to requests for comments.

So for journalists looking for quotes, it is a happy coincidence that Israel's former Industry and Trade Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer resigned from the Israeli cabinet last week and can now freely express his opinions as a member of the opposition Labor Party. "I don't think it is possible (for there to be a revolution in Egypt)," Ben-Eliezer told Israeli Army Radio. "I see things calming down soon." The Iraqi-born former minister is a renowned expert on Israeli-Arab relations and is a friend of the Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.

Ben Eliezer's statement is consistent with the assessment of members of Israel's intelligence community and Middle East experts, who point to the strength of Egypt's army. In his remarks to Army Radio, Ben-Eliezer also explained Israel's position on the protests. "Israel cannot do anything about what is happening there," he said. "All we can do is express our support for (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak and hope the riots pass quietly." He added that Egypt was Israel's most important ally in the region.

Uneasy Peace

Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, in 1979, but the relationship between the neighboring countries remains delicate. Good relations are limited to government circles. The regime in Cairo attempts to curtail the establishment of closer links between the countries' civil societies. The professional associations of doctors, engineers or lawyers, for example, require their members to declare that they will not contribute to normalizing relations with Israel.

Even 30 years after the peace agreement, annual trade between the neighboring countries only amounts to a value of $150 million (€110 million). (For comparison, Israel's trade with the European Union was worth around €20 billion in 2009.)

A recent incident involving the vice governor of the Sinai Peninsula reveals how many Egyptians think about Israel. After a shark attack off the coast, the official said that it could not be ruled out that the deadly fish had been released by Israeli intelligence to harm Egypt's tourism industry. After the bloody attack on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1, a spokesman for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood speculated that Israel could be responsible for the attack, with the intention of sowing discord between Christians and Muslims.

Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the main reasons why official Israel seems to support Mubarak so keenly. It is considered the most popular political movement in Egypt, and its position regarding the peace treaty with Israel is clear: They want it revoked immediately. "Democracy is something beautiful," said Eli Shaked, who was Israel's ambassador to Cairo from 2003 to 2005, in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Nevertheless, it is very much in the interests of Israel, the United States and Europe that Mubarak remains in power."

For Israel, more is at stake than the current so-called "cold" peace with Egypt and a few tens of millions of dollars in trade. "Never before have Israel's strategic interests been so closely aligned with those of the Sunni states as today," says Shaked, referring to Arab countries whose populations are mainly Sunni Muslim, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The recent publication of the US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks showed what he means: Much of the Arab world, and especially Mubarak, sees Shiite Iran and its allies, such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as an existential threat, just as Israel does.

Potential Serious Danger

"If regime change occurs in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would take the helm, and that would have incalculable consequences for the region," says Shaked. The Israeli government has noted with concern the fact that, even after 30 years of peace, Egypt's army is still equipped and trained mainly with a possible war against Israel in mind.

A cancellation of the peace treaty would open up a new front with the 11th largest army in the world, which is equipped with modern American weapons. But what Israel fears more than a -- somewhat unlikely -- armed conflict with Egypt is an alliance between an Islamist regime in Cairo and Hamas, which considers itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Today the Egyptian army tries to stop -- albeit hesitantly -- weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, the main supply route for Hamas. An Egyptian regime that opened the border with Gaza for arms deliveries would pose a serious danger to Israel.

Shaked considers the West's demands for more openness and democracy in Egypt to be a fatal mistake. "It is an illusion to believe that the dictator Mubarak could be replaced by a democracy," he says. "Egypt is still not capable of democracy," he adds, pointing out that the illiteracy rate is over 20 percent, to give just one example. The Muslim Brotherhood is the only real alternative, he opines, which would have devastating consequences for the West. "They will not change their anti-Western attitude when they come to power. That has not happened (with Islamist movements) anywhere: neither in Sudan, Iran nor Afghanistan."

Ultimately the choice is between a pro- or an anti-Western dictatorship, says Shaked. "It is in our interest that someone from Mubarak's inner circle takes over his legacy, at any cost." In the process, it is not possible to rule out massive bloodshed in the short term, he says. "It would not be the first time that riots in Egypt were brutally crushed."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 28, 2011, 12:52:46 PM

Quote from: G M on January 05, 2011, 03:51:41 PM

The problem is Egypt is very brittle. Were the Muslim Brotherhood to take over, things for the Copts, as well as average Egyptians would be much worse off. Keep in mind that those who could take power in Egypt see the pyramids and other artifacts there as something they'd like to destroy, just as the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Bamiyan. And, like the talibs, the destruction of artifacts would be the least of the horrible things done by them.

Egypt used to be very westernized, now salafism is taking deep root in the population. This does not bode well for the future. Classic Egyptian things, like belly dancing are going away because they are "unislamic".

Almost like I knew what I was talking about.

Title: What next? Disco?
Post by: G M on January 28, 2011, 01:55:12 PM

(http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-wbc.jpg)

Stagflation? Check.

A incompetent leftist president dithers while we get ready to lose a vital ally to jihadists? Check.

Spiking gas prices? Check.

Title: The pragmatic fantasy
Post by: G M on January 28, 2011, 05:32:26 PM

Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2011 / 23 Shevat, 5771
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0111/glick012811.php3

The pragmatic fantasy

By Caroline B. Glick


   
   

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Today the Egyptian regime faces its gravest threat since Anwar Sadat's assassination thirty years ago. As protesters take to the street for the third day in a row demanding the overthrow of 82-year old President Hosni Mubarak, it is worth considering the possible alternatives to his regime.

Thursday afternoon, Egyptian presidential hopeful Mohammed ElBaradei, the former head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency returned to Egypt from Vienna to participate in anti-regime demonstrations. As IAEA head, Elbaradei shielded Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He repeatedly ignored evidence indicating that Iran's nuclear program was a military program rather than a civilian energy program. When the evidence became too glaring to ignore, Elbaradei continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran and obscenely equated Israel's purported nuclear program to Iran's.

His actions won him the support of the Iranian regime which he continues to defend. Just last week he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran telling the Austrian News Agency, "There's a lot of hype in this debate," and asserting that the discredited 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 remains accurate.

Elbaradei's support for the Iranian ayatollahs is matched by his support for the Muslim Brotherhood. This group, which forms the largest and best organized opposition movement to the Mubarak regime is the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaida. It seeks Egypt's transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad. In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood has been increasingly drawn into the Iranian nexus along with Hamas. Muslim Brotherhood attorneys represented Hizbullah terrorists arrested in Egypt in 2009 for plotting to conduct spectacular attacks aimed at destroying the regime.

Elbaradei has been a strong champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just this week he gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the jihadist movement. As he put it, "We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. …[T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them." The Muslim Brotherhood for its part has backed Elbaradei's political aspirations. On Thursday it announced it would demonstrate at ElBaradei's side the next day.


Then there is the Kifaya movement. The group sprang onto the international radar screen in 2004 when it demanded open presidential elections and called on Mubarak not to run for a fifth term. As a group of intellectuals claiming to support liberal, democratic norms, Kifaya has been upheld as a model of what the future of Egypt could look like if liberal forces are given the freedom to lead.

But Kifaya's roots and basic ideology are not liberal. They are anti-Semitic and anti-American. Kifaya was formed as a protest movement against Israel with the start of the Palestinian terror war in 2000. It gained force in March 2003 when it organized massive protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2006 its campaign to get a million Egyptians to sign a petition demanding the abrogation of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel received international attention.

Many knowledgeable Egypt-watchers argued this week that the protesters have no chance of bringing down the Mubarak regime. Unlike this month's overthrow of Tunisia's despot Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, they say there is little chance that the Egyptian military will abandon Mubarak.

But the same observers are quick to note that whoever Mubarak selects to succeed him will not be the beneficiary of such strong support from Egypt's security state. And as the plight of Egypt's overwhelmingly impoverished citizenry becomes ever more acute, the regime will become increasingly unstable. Indeed, its overthrow is as close to a certainty as you can get in international affairs.

And as we now see, all of its possible secular and Islamist successors either reject outright Egypt's peace treaty with Israel or will owe their political power to the support of those who reject the peace with the Jewish state. So whether the Egyptian regime falls next week or next year or five years from now, the peace treaty is doomed.

Since the start of Israel's peace process with Egypt in 1977, supporters of peace with the Arabs have always fallen into two groups: the idealists and the pragmatists.

Led by Shimon Peres, the idealists have argued that the reason the Arabs refuse to accept Israel is because Israel took "their" land in the 1967 Six Day War. Never mind that the war was a consequence of Arab aggression or that it was simply a continuation of the Arab bid to destroy the Jewish state which officially began with Israel's formal establishment in 1948. As the idealists see things, if Israel just gives up all the land it won in that war, the Arabs will be appeased and accept Israel as a friend and natural member of the Middle East' family of nations.

Peres was so enamored with this view that he authored The New Middle East and promised that once all the land was given away, Israel would join the Arab League. Given the absurdity of their claims, the idealists were never able to garner mass support for their positions. If it had just been up to them, Israel would never have gotten on the peace train. But lucky for the idealists, they have been able to rely on the unwavering support of the unromantic pragmatists to implement their program.

Unlike the starry-eyed idealists, the so-called pragmatists have no delusions that the Arabs are motivated by anything other than hatred for Israel, or that their hatred is likely to end in the foreseeable future. But still, they argue, Israel needs to surrender.

It is the "Arab Street's" overwhelming animosity towards Israel that causes the pragmatists to argue that Israel's best play is to cut deals with Arab dictators who rule with an iron fist. Since Israel and the Arab despots share a fear of the Arab masses, the pragmatists claim that Israel should give up all the land it took control over as a payoff to the regimes, who in exchange will sign peace treaties with it.

This was the logic that brought Israel to surrender the strategically priceless Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for the Camp David accord that will not survive Mubarak.

And of course, giving up the Sinai wasn't the only sacrifice Israel made for that nearly defunct document. Israel also gave up its regional monopoly on US military platforms. Israel agreed that in exchange for signing the deal, the US would begin providing massive military aid to Egypt. Indeed, it agreed to link US aid to Israel with US aid to Egypt.

Owing to that US aid, the Egyptian military today makes the military Israel barely defeated in 1973 look like a gang of cavemen. Egypt has nearly 300 F-16s. Its main battle tank is the M1A1 which it produces in Egypt. Its navy is largest in the region. Its army is twice the size of the IDF. Its air defense force constitutes a massive threat to the IAF.

And of course, the ballistic missiles and chemical weapons it has purchased from the likes of North Korea and China give it a significant stand-off mass destruction capability. Despite its strength, due to the depth of popular Arab hatred of Israel and Jews, the Egyptian regime was weakened by its peace treaty. Partially in a bid to placate its opponents and partially in a bid to check Israeli power, Egypt has been the undisputed leader of the political war against Israel raging at international arenas throughout the world. So too, Mubarak has permitted and even encouraged massive anti-Semitism throughout Egyptian society.

With this balance sheet at the end of the "era of peace," between Israel and Egypt, it is far from clear that Israel was right to sign the deal in the first place. In light of the relative longevity of the regime it probably made sense to have made some deal with Egypt. But it is clear that the price Israel paid was outrageously inflated and unwise.

Title: This too, Glenn Beck's fault
Post by: G M on January 30, 2011, 06:47:58 AM

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=205797

If Brotherhood takes over, IDF will face formidable enemy
By YAAKOV KATZ
30/01/2011    
Analysis: This year is turning into critical one for Israeli isolation in the Mideast. Turkey is gone and Egypt appears to be on way.
 
The collapse of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt is not yet about Israel but soon will be, depending on his successor.

If the Muslim Brotherhood grabs the reins in the massive Arab country, Israel will face an enemy with one of the largest and strongest militaries around, built on some of the most advanced American-made platforms.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 30, 2011, 05:02:32 PM

It is remarkable to see how all the experts disagree as to what is going on and what is going to happen.

Everywhere I read I read something different about what is going on.  The experts on cable don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about.  They almost sound like idiots in their prostilatizing. [spelling?]

John Bolton was on Marc Levin radio around two nights ago and said this guy, Mohammed ElBaradei was basically important ONLY in the West but is not a factor in Egypt at all.  He stated he is "manufactured" in Western media.  I was under the impression from the media that the US likes this guy yet now we are reading he is now forming alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood (sounds like the name of some sort of prison gang doesn't it?).  We have some who say the MB is a minority (no more than 30% or so of the vote) and not much threat, we have others saying they are.

It sounds like near total chaos.

It is obvious Obama is not sure which way to go.  I would not jump to conclusions that any of this was his fault as the region is so complex there probably is no perfect answer.  I think the total lack of any coherent understanding of what is happening now or where it will go from all the talking heads makes it clear how complex the region is.

I do think it a good question to ask that in general terms is a weak President ala Carter, and now Obama something that leads to more instability in the Middle East or just a coincidence that Iran, Turkey, and possibly now Egypt have coups during Democratic Presidents reigns something that has contributed to this instability?

Another question with no definite answer is should the US be supporting the  unpredictable results of Democracy or leaders who align their countries  more in keeping with our interests?

I don't know the answer and no one else does either.  I know only one thing.  Hillary Clinton won't help.   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on January 30, 2011, 06:16:57 PM

CCP; I think that sums it up.  Everyone seems to "disagree as to what's going on" and what should be done.  Also, another key as you pointed out is...

"Another question with no definite answer is should the US be supporting the  unpredictable results of Democracy or leaders who align their countries  more in keeping with our interests?"

We do and others on this forum have consistently said we should focus on promoting democracy.  We've even justified previous intervention as the "right thing to do".  Yet time will tell...
Personally, I think there is something to be said for acknowledging dictators/kings, if they are our dictator/king so to speak.  Or at least if they are aligned with our interest or at minimum are  benign. 
America first is my motto.

I think your analysis is fair; Obama is not sure which way to go.  And I think there are pros and cons.  It's easy to criticize, but either way he goes is fraught with problems....

Oddly enough, overall I think Hilary Clinton has done a reasonable job as Secretary of State.  Better than I expected from her.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 30, 2011, 06:36:37 PM

I would much prefer a free and democratic Egypt with the rule of law, free markets and protection of minorities.

That's not going to happen here. So, I'd rather have Mubarak or another that will preserve the status quo of an authoritarian ally rather than a major domino of the caliphate falling into place, and setting up other middle eastern allies to fall as well.

The MSM is badly misleading the public right now. Losing Egypt will shape the future, and not in a good way for anyone on the planet.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I'll take no joy seeing my predictions coming true.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2011, 07:39:49 AM

"Mohammed ElBaradei"

Yesterday someone pointed out that some of the professional Egyptians (probably those who reside in the West) know of him but the average Egyptian has no clue who he is mostly confirming John Bolton's point of view. 

Yet somehow the media is promoting him out of know where as some sort of important leader here.  I don't know who is helping him, State Dept, WH or liberals in the media?

I have to read about him.  If I recall he is no friend of Israel.

We should start a party in the US:

Brothers and Sisters for American Ideals.  Any citizen of the US no matter what religiion, ethnicity, where ever they where born, as long as they aspire to traditional American ideals they can join.

As for Hillary listening to her is a waste of time.  She just sits and makes obvious statements.  IMHO she is not doing a good job, just doing her job.  A titan of foreign policy she is not. 
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2011, 09:40:32 AM

Those of us who espouse spouting bastards because they are our bastards (apologies to John Foster Dulles's quote about Somaza of Nicaragua) need to acknowledge that the day comes when difficult questions are presented.  This happened in Iran where the US played a pivotal role in putting the Shah in power, and then, under Kissinger-Nixon, in building him up.  Yes, Carter and his crew were profoundly clueless, but it must be acknowledged they faced a truly difficult situation.

The same can be said here, including the part about Baraq being clueless (tangent:  Where does this meme about Hillary doing a good job, which seems to pop up from time to time, come from?  Not from any evidence of which I am aware :-P )

In my humble opinion, when things get this far, it may well be too late already.

The time for the Dems to have been concerned about democracy in the Arab world, and the US's respect, was when the Surge was in play and was working.  Instead, for transient personal political advantage Baraq, Hillary, et al through it away.  Naturally the various Iraqi players read the writing on the wall , , , just as the various Afpakia players are doing now.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 31, 2011, 10:50:38 AM

"Naturally the various Iraqi players read the writing on the wall , , , just as the various Afpakia players are doing now."

As are the players in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere in the ME.

Title: Bastards
Post by: G M on January 31, 2011, 11:04:29 AM

In much of the world, you are stuck with the choice between one version of a corrupt thug and his crew and a worse thug and worse crew. Just as we had to ally with Stalin to beat Hitler, then ally with various strongmen bastards across the globe as we faced down the Soviets, the realpolitik can and should be informed by our morals and long term strategy.

I wouldn't want to be an Iranian under the Shah, but I'd like even less to be an Iranian under the Mullahs. I wouldn't want to live under Mubarak, but I don't see a better life for the Egyptians waiting in the wings. Not now anyway.

Title: I'm not shocked
Post by: G M on January 31, 2011, 12:54:44 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-israel-usa-idUSTRE70U53720110131

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak

 

By Douglas Hamilton

JERUSALEM | Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:54pm EST

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid inflaming an already explosive situation. But Israel's President Shimon Peres is not a minister.

"We always have had and still have great respect for President Mubarak," he said on Monday. He then switched to the past tense. "I don't say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East."

Newspaper columnists were far more blunt.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"

"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

Obama on Sunday called for an "orderly transition" to democracy in Egypt, stopping short of calling on Mubarak to step down, but signaling that his days may be numbered.

**History will reflect that the biggest anti-semites in the US were those that voted for Obama, no matter the intent.

Title: Muslim Brotherhood Wants War With Israel
Post by: G M on January 31, 2011, 02:20:58 PM

http://www.forexcrunch.com/muslim-brotherhood-wants-war-with-israel/

Mohamed Ghanem, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, calls Egypt to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with it’s eastern neighbor.

Speaking with Iranian television station Al-Alam, Mohamed Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Ghanem also said that the Egyptian police and army won’t be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

There are doubts about the loyalty of the Egyptian army to president Mubarak. If the brotherhood takes control over Egypt, it will be very messy from the whole region.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2011, 03:25:53 PM

AS John Bolton asks,
If we think Iran is a problem now can anyone imagine what they would be like with nuclear weapons?
One can now ask the same for Egypt.

I notice the Egyptians are riding around the streets in Abrams tanks - great. :cry:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 31, 2011, 03:53:42 PM

It's my understanding that the only place in the world currently producing M1-Abrams tanks is the factory in Egypt.

Title: M1A1
Post by: ccp on February 01, 2011, 07:50:04 AM

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a1_abrams.htm

Title: Egypt sneezes.....
Post by: G M on February 01, 2011, 09:10:34 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/01/jordan-next/

Going around.

Title: They need to read this forum
Post by: G M on February 04, 2011, 07:58:20 AM

Quote from: G M on January 28, 2011, 12:52:46 PM

Quote from: G M on January 05, 2011, 03:51:41 PM

The problem is Egypt is very brittle. Were the Muslim Brotherhood to take over, things for the Copts, as well as average Egyptians would be much worse off. Keep in mind that those who could take power in Egypt see the pyramids and other artifacts there as something they'd like to destroy, just as the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Bamiyan. And, like the talibs, the destruction of artifacts would be the least of the horrible things done by them.

Egypt used to be very westernized, now salafism is taking deep root in the population. This does not bode well for the future. Classic Egyptian things, like belly dancing are going away because they are "unislamic".

Almost like I knew what I was talking about.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/04/us-intel-missed-tunisia-egypt-uprisings/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 04, 2011, 09:45:03 AM

They want freedom from repressive government.  So do I here in the US.  I don't want more "good"government by whatever definition Soros whose fingerprints are on world wide progressism.  I want to be left alone.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on February 04, 2011, 10:24:39 AM

"US intel missed Tunisia, Egypt uprisings"

They also missed the end of cold war and the 9/11 attacks.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 04, 2011, 11:10:48 AM

Doug,

The FBI had an informant inside the original NY/NJ AQ cell, but decided the 2000 bucks a month (or so) wasn't worthwhile and cut him loose. Other USG entities also had pieces of the puzzle, but no one put them together.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on February 04, 2011, 12:00:46 PM

True we had pieces of a puzzle for 9/11.  The fall of the Soviet Union was a better example that Dick Cheney gave for large events missed by U.S. Intelligence.  We rightfully worry about Egypt now, but maybe larger dangers are looming in Yemen or Pakistan or ?

I don't have any information yet that the affects of the events in Tunisia were negative except for the first lady taking a ton and a half of gold out.  A very different population, history and location than Egypt. If I were a 'reformer' in Egypt I would set Mubarek up with a decent place inside of Egypt to live comfortably and die of old age instead of watching another poor country get looted by the kleptocrats.

Very strange for Obama to support reformers in Egypt and not in Iran.  Obviously based on projected outcome, not principles that we would understand.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 04, 2011, 12:04:51 PM

Funny how not too long ago, Obama was respectful towards Mubarak and the left lectured us on not interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 07, 2011, 02:02:25 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-egypt-could-fall-into-hands-of-radical-islamists-1.341890

Egypt could fall into the hands of radical Islamists as a result of the country's uprising, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday.

Netanyahu warned about the result of the riots in Egypt over the past two weeks while speaking at an event for European diplomats held at the Knesset on Monday.

"Egyptians can choose a state with secular reforms. However, there is also another possibility that the Islamists will exploit the situation in order to gain governance over the country and lead it backward," the Prime Minister said.

"The third possibility is that [Egypt] will go in the direction of Iran," Netanyahu said, adding that they would "oppress the country and threaten all those surrounding it."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on February 08, 2011, 03:31:11 AM

Woof,
 This from some freedom loving folks right here at home. Not!   www.adc.org/government/action-alerts/
                     P.C.

Title: POTH: Elections to be held in West Bank, and Gaza?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2011, 08:53:25 AM

Palestinian Leaders Suddenly Call for Elections
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: February 12, 2011
JERUSALEM — The Palestinian leadership announced Saturday that it planned to hold presidential and parliamentary elections by September, apparently a response to the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt calling for greater democracy and government accountability.

 The decision was announced in the West Bank city of Ramallah after a meeting of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which oversees the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, is also the chairman of the P.L.O.
At the same meeting, Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian peace negotiator with Israel, submitted his resignation and Mr. Abbas accepted it. A subcommittee was formed to look for a successor as well as to consider restructuring the negotiations unit.

The Islamist Hamas faction rejected the plan for national elections, saying Mr. Abbas had no legitimacy to call for them since he was serving beyond his term.

The Palestinians have not held elections since 2006, when Hamas won a majority in the parliament, leading to a year and a half of uneasy power sharing and a brief civil war in June 2007. Since then, Hamas has governed Gaza and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority has controlled the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority announced that postponed local elections would be held in July, a move that Hamas also rejected.

Hamas has said it believes that elections should follow a reconciliation process between itself and Fatah, including a restructuring of the P.L.O. to include Hamas, which is currently excluded.

The authority’s announcement on national elections said: “We call upon all parties to set aside their reservations and disagreements. Let us work together to hold elections and uphold the will of the Palestinian people. As for differences and disagreements, whether in political or security matters, we believe that these issues could be resolved by the coming elected Legislative Council.”

In explaining his resignation as chief peace negotiator, Mr. Erekat said that the leak to Al Jazeera television last month of some 1,600 documents — minutes and e-mails — from the negotiations had come from his department and that he bore responsibility for the embarrassment they caused. The leaks showed Mr. Erekat and fellow negotiators making more far-reaching offers than were publicly known regarding the yielding of land to Israel in East Jerusalem and on other divisive issues, like the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in what is today Israel.

A member of the P.L.O. executive committee who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that there was unhappiness with Mr. Erekat, especially after the leaks were exposed, and that he was leaving because of it. Mr. Erekat has been a part of the negotiating team for nearly two decades.

Other Palestinian officials said there were no negotiations to lead and blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

“I think this resignation makes a point that we don’t believe Netanyahu has any intention of accepting the minimum of what had been agreed to before,” Nabil Shaath, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team, said in a telephone interview. “We want a total end of building settlements, including in East Jerusalem.”

In reaction to Mr. Erekat’s announcement, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Fawzi Barhoum, said the resignation was proof that negotiations and peaceful efforts with Israel were a failure, and added that the Palestinian Authority should “cease all types of coordination with the Zionist enemy.”


Khaled Abu Aker contributed reporting from Ramallah, and Fares Akram from Gaza.

Title: Israeli embassy in Cairo closed?
Post by: G M on February 14, 2011, 07:30:01 AM

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/111752/20110212/israel-embassy-cairo-close-mubarak-egypt.htm

** Good thing the MB is so darn secular!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 14, 2011, 08:51:33 AM

Lets be precise:  It remains to be seen whether the closing was a temporary (and rational!) security measure, or is a permanent state of affairs.  MB is simply reporting here, yes?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 14, 2011, 09:08:07 AM

Thus it seems.

Title: Ready to lead on day one!
Post by: G M on February 14, 2011, 09:20:32 AM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9sMo-LTdSc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


"Wafer-thin resume"


Or was this on purpose?

Title: Glenn Beck forced Obama to do this
Post by: G M on February 16, 2011, 04:54:23 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/16/report-u-s-to-join-un-security-council-statement-rebuking-israel-over-settlements/

Report: U.S. to join UN Security Council statement rebuking Israel over settlements

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on February 17, 2011, 12:05:18 AM

Woof,
 There's nothing to worry about Israel, Obama's got your back. Now that should be a comfort. :-P

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_iran

                     P.C.

Title: Glenn Beck plots invasion of Israel
Post by: G M on February 17, 2011, 10:58:07 AM

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/prepare-invade-israel-hezbollah-leader-t-0

‘Prepare to Invade Israel,’ Hezbollah Leader Tells Followers
Thursday, February 17, 2011
By Bassem Mroue, Associated Press

Hassan Nasrallah

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah speaks via a video link during a rally in Beirut's southern suburbs on Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2011. Hezbollah's leader told his Shiite guerrilla group to be prepared to invade northern Israel. (AP Photo/Bilal Hussein)

Beirut (AP) – Hezbollah's leader told his Shiite guerrilla group Wednesday to be prepared to invade northern Israel, a day after Israel's defense minister warned that the quiet along the tense border could erupt into violence.

The comments by the two sides illustrate the fragile situation along the frontier since they Israel and Hezbollah fought a bitter, six-week war in the summer of 2006. The war ended in a U.N.-brokered truce but officials on both sides of the border believe it is only a matter of time before hostilities resume.

"I tell the holy warriors of the Islamic Resistance to be ready for a day when, if war is imposed on us, your command might ask you to control the Galilee area," Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech Wednesday. The Galilee refers to land in northern Israel.

On Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak toured the Israeli military's northern command and told soldiers there that the quiet along the frontier might not last.

"This is not forever and it could under certain conditions deteriorate, and then you will have to be called on again, with everything you learned in training," he said. "Today the units are better trained and more prepared but there is always more to be done and you need to be ready for every test."

Hezbollah and Israel fought a 34-day war in 2006 that left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2011, 12:40:10 PM

Looks like Israel is going to be real sorry it didn't finish the job last time and clear Hezbollah out, all the way through the Bekaa Valley  :cry:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 17, 2011, 12:45:30 PM

No worries, Obama has Israel's back.



Just as soon as we get done condemning them at the UN, of course.



I'm not sure how Glenn Beck pulled this all off.....

Title: The Race to Jerusalem
Post by: G M on February 19, 2011, 08:59:14 AM

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/18/the-race-to-jerusalem/

The Race to Jerusalem
posted at 7:55 pm on February 18, 2011 by J.E. Dyer


This one, I didn’t want to be right about. It was clear as far back as early 2009, but I’ve never advanced any analysis I hoped so much would be wrong. And if there’s one thing I was wrong about, it was how quickly events would accelerate once the starting gun had been fired. I thought it would take longer – that there would be a longer interim in which the activity of various participants was ambiguous.

The starting gun has been fired in what I call the “race to Jerusalem.” Arguably, it was fired last fall when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited southern Lebanon as the honored guest of Hezbollah. The race started a new phase when Hezbollah unseated the Hariri unity government of Lebanon on 12 January – and then succeeded in facing down Saudi and Turkish negotiators to select its own approved candidate to head the new government.

But a week later the race transitioned again, as Tunisians toppled the Ben Ali government and unrest spread across the Middle East. The region went from one government crisis – in Lebanon – to more than half a dozen in the space of three weeks.

Now Iran has pressed the issue of an unprecedented naval deployment to the Mediterranean Sea, with the latest report today being that Egypt will permit the Iranian warships to transit the Suez Canal.  At the UN, meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has resisted all US efforts at compromise and forced America to veto a resolution declaring the settlements in Judea and Samaria illegal.

Developments of this kind were predicted nearly two years ago, by – full disclosure – me. There are three major influences at work in the current unrest in the Middle East.  One is the genuine desire of many citizens for liberalization and reform.  We must not forget that influence; it requires protection and support – it cannot survive on its own – but it is a positive and welcome factor.

The second influence is the generic drive of various Islamist groups for the imposition of sharia.  The possibility of these groups gaining state power – the Muslim Brotherhood, its offshoots, or similar groups – makes for very high stakes in the national crises of the Arab nations.  Even assuming the Islamists gain power on the Hezbollah model, as part of coalition governments, they are still on the threshold of transforming Islamism from being principally about guerrilla jihad to being principally about national power.

The prospect before us is a new phase of what we may call, for lack of a better term, “caliphate Islamism,” as opposed to the more familiar Islamism of guerrilla jihad.  The auguries of this have been seen already in Tunisia, where the twin flags of the “Islamic caliphate” – the white al-liwaa of the putative head of state and the black ar-raya of jihad – have been observed in abundance in street demonstrations. Indeed, a crowd chanting anti-Jewish slogans outside the great synagogue in Tunis (see here and here) was waving dozens of these flags, referred to by Islamists as the flags of khilafah, or the caliph/caliphate.

This brings us to the third influence: the race to Jerusalem. The aspirants to Islamist leadership have maneuvered for years, in a desultory manner, to back (and ultimately lead) the factions that would succeed in occupying Jerusalem.  The principal state aspirants since 1979 have been revolutionary Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan; the turmoil in the Arab world in 2011 suggests there will be a scramble to reestablish Arab leadership in the coming days.

My argument in 2009 was that withdrawing US support to Israel’s requirement for territorial defensibility would unleash the accelerating maneuvers we are seeing today.  Barack Obama has, in effect, done precisely that with his dismissal of the national security interest Israel has in the settlements issue.  It was foreseeable that Obama’s policies would do what they have done: give the Middle East a green light for a competitive race to Jerusalem.

Here are links to the 4-part series from June 2009.

The Next Phase of World War IV?

The Next Phase of World War IV – Part 2

The Next Phase of World War IV – Part 3

The Next Phase of World War IV – Part 4

J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative.  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 19, 2011, 12:04:36 PM

Israel's good friends in the UN Security Council all of whom except the US voted that the settlements were "illegal".  The US simply had Hill girl state that the settlements were "illegitimate" but not illegal; essentially a technicality.  If Israel were an oil powerhouse it would be different.  But for a couple of millions of Jews - who cares? :cry:

Permanent members
People's Republic of China which replaced the Republic of China in 1971
France
Russian Federation which replaced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991
United Kingdom
United States
Non-permanent members
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Colombia
Gabon
Germany
India
Lebanon
Nigeria
Portugal
South Africa

Title: Glick
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2011, 12:21:15 AM

On Wednesday night, Israelis received our first taste of the new Middle East with the missile strikes on Beersheba. Iran’s Palestinian proxy, the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood known as Hamas, carried out its latest war crime right after Iran’s battleships entered Syria’s Latakia port.

Their voyage through the Suez Canal to Syria was an unadulterated triumph for the mullahs.

For the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s warships sailed across the canal without even being inspected by the Egyptian, US or Israeli navies.

On the diplomatic front, the Iranian-dominated new Middle East has had a pronounced impact on the Western-backed Fatah-led Palestinian Authority’s political posture towards the US.

The PA picked a fight with America just after the Obama administration forced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to surrender power.

Mubarak’s departure was a strategic victory for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and for its sister branch Hamas in Gaza.

As part of his efforts to neutralize the threat the Muslim Brotherhood posed to his regime, Mubarak sealed off Gaza’s border with Egypt after Hamas seized power there in June 2007.

The Gaza-Sinai border was breached during last month’s revolution. Since Mubarak’s forced resignation, the military junta now leading Egypt has failed to reseal it.

The revolution in Egypt happened just after the PA was thrown into a state of disarray. Al- Jazeera’s exposure of PA documents indicating the leadership’s willingness to make minor compromises with Israel in the framework of a peace deal served to discredit Fatah leaders in the eyes of the Israel-hating Palestinian public.

In the wake of the Al-Jazeera revelations, senior PA leaders escalated their anti-Israel and anti- American pronouncements. The PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat was forced to resign.

The shift in the regional power balance following Mubarak’s fall has caused Fatah leaders to view their ties to the US as a strategic liability.

If they wish to survive, they must cut a deal with Hamas. And to convince Hamas to cut a deal, they need to abandon the US.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 27, 2011, 07:41:18 AM

**Well, he sure was quick to throw Mubarak under the bus, but strangely quiet on Khadaffi. Especially given this: Report: Ex-minister says Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie

By KARL RITTER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 23, 2011; 3:07 PM

STOCKHOLM -- Libya's ex-justice minister on Wednesday was quoted as telling a Swedish newspaper that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988.

"I have proof that Gadhafi gave the order about Lockerbie," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying in an interview with Expressen, a Stockholm-based tabloid.



**I wonder why Obama would be so quick to sell out Mubarak yet so quiet about a known international terrorist?

Obama’s sinister silence on Libya (Updated)

As Muammar Gaddafi butchers his own people, and as evidence of his direct role in the Lockerbie bombing has emerged, President Barack Obama has gone radio silent on the whole thing. His Secretary of State has spoken out. Even the UN has muttered about its “concern.” But the POTUS who helped nudge Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, an American ally who kept peace with Israel, out of power, is now mum.

Why?

I don’t know. His silence has led to curiosity, which led to Google searches, which led to reminders that his former spiritual guide and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, visited Gaddafi in 1984 at the height of tensions between that dictator and the United States. Gaddafi was already known at the time as a major force behind international terrorism.

    To begin, Wright is a close confidant and supporter of Louis Farrakhan. The leader of the Nation of Islam has called Jews “bloodsuckers” who practice a “gutter religion.”

    Wright was among those deeply affected in the early ’80s by Farrakhan’s South Side Chicago activism. In 1984, Wright was one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Qadhfi. The ostentatious Farrakhan junket came at a time when Qadhfi had been identified as the world’s chief financier of international terrorism, including the Black September group behind the Munich Olympics massacre.

    By the time Wright and Farrakhan visited, Libyan oil imports had been banned, and America was trying to topple what it called a “rogue regime.” In the several years after that, Farrakhan was pro-active for Qadhfi, even as Libya was internationally isolated for suspected involvement in numerous terror plots, including the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

    Farrakhan’s and Wright’s 1984 visit and subsequent support was done precisely to openly ally themselves with a declared enemy of the United States.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2011, 07:51:34 AM

This belongs on "War, Peace, and SNAFU" or "US Foreign Policy" or "Other Arab countries" , , , not here  :lol:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2011, 08:11:25 AM

I get that, but is that really the subject of your post (or GM's response)? Your post was an asssertion of cognitive dissonance on the part of BO critics with regard to US policy concerning various Arab countries.  I've offered 3 alternatives if you want to keep this particular discussion going.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on February 27, 2011, 08:54:20 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2011, 07:51:34 AM

This belongs on "War, Peace, and SNAFU" or "US Foreign Policy" or "Other Arab countries" , , , not here  :lol:

It has been moved.

Title: WSJ: The Israel first myth
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 01, 2011, 06:54:26 AM

In the past few weeks, we've seen revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, a brutal and continuing attempt to put down a rebellion in Libya, and varying degrees of unrest, sometimes violent, in Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Sudan and Yemen.

If only Israel would recognize a Palestinian state, we would have peace in the Middle East!

Ha ha. Hardly anybody is saying that now, but it's worth remembering that it has been the accepted view among Mideast "experts" for decades. Israeli cartoonist Yaakov Kirschen, who draws the syndicated Dry Bones strip, had a terrific one a few weeks ago. It showed a pair of such experts yammering, "Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Gaza," ad nauseam. In the second panel, the experts are shaken as a voice yells "EGYPT!" In the third panel, they stand silently, trying to make sense of it all.

Nick Cohen of London's Observer, a rare British leftist who does not loathe Israel, confronts his ideological brethren in an excellent column:

To a generation of politically active if not morally consistent campaigners, the Middle East has meant Israel and only Israel. In theory, they should have been able to stick by universal principles and support a just settlement for the Palestinians while opposing the dictators who kept Arabs subjugated. Few, however, have been able to oppose oppression in all its forms consistently. . . .
Far from being a cause of the revolution, antagonism to Israel everywhere served the interests of oppressors. Europeans have no right to be surprised. Of all people, we ought to know from our experience of Nazism that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory about power, rather than a standard racist hatred of poor immigrants. Fascistic regimes reached for it when they sought to deny their own people liberty. . . .
Syrian Ba'athists, Hamas, the Saudi monarchy and Gaddafi eagerly promoted the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion], for why wouldn't vicious elites welcome a fantasy that dismissed democracy as a fraud and justified their domination? Just before the Libyan revolt, [Muammar] Gaddafi tried a desperate move his European predecessors would have understood. He tried to deflect Libyan anger by calling for a popular Palestinian revolution against Israel. That may or may not have been justified, but it assuredly would have done nothing to help the wretched Libyans.
Cohen also claims that "the right has been no better than the liberal-left in its Jew obsessions. The briefest reading of Conservative newspapers shows that at all times their first concern about political changes in the Middle East is how they affect Israel."

Maybe he's right--we haven't been following British coverage closely enough to say--but here in America, the anti-Semitic canard that neoconservatives are loyal to Israel first has been disproved. Politico reported Feb. 3:

As Israeli leaders worriedly eye the protests and street battles in neighboring Egypt, they've been dismayed to find that the neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats who are usually their most reliable American advocates are cheering for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's fall. . . .
In particular, neoconservatives such as Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, Bush National Security Council official Elliott Abrams, and scholar Robert Kagan are essentially saying good riddance to Mubarak and chiding Obama mainly for not making the same sporadic push for democracy as President George W. Bush.
"If [the Israelis] were to say, 'This is very worrying because we don't know what the future will bring and none of us trust the [Muslim] Brotherhood'--we would all agree with that. But then they then go further and start mourning the departure of Mubarak and telling you that he is the greatest thing that ever happened," said Abrams, who battled inside the Bush administration for more public pressure on Arab allies to reform.
"They don't seem to realize that the crisis that now exists is the creation of Mubarak," he said. "We were calling on him to stop crushing the moderate and centrist parties--and the Israelis had no sympathy for that whatsoever."
One can see why Israelis would be especially anxious about the outcome of the revolution in Egypt, the most populous Arab state and one that has waged war against Israel several times. On "The Journal Editorial Report" a couple of weeks ago, Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary and a pro-democracy neoconservative, raised an analogy that seems to us pertinent:

There's really been too much hand-wringing. Yes, there are a lot of ways this can go wrong. But, you know, I'm reminded that when the Berlin Wall came down, someone I admire, Margaret Thatcher, and her counterpart in France, Francois Mitterrand, were wringing their hands with the specter of a revived German threat in Europe. And President [George H.W.] Bush said: Look, let's celebrate what the Germans have done, let's embrace unity, and then we'll have a chance to steer this in the right direction. . . .
Look, when the tide of freedom is sweeping, we should love it. And when it's headed in the wrong direction, then we'll have a lot more credibility to say, "Whoa, this isn't freedom anymore."
We agree with Wolfowitz, but there's a more sympathetic way of looking at Thatcher's and Mitterand's unease over German unification--one that ought to inspire some empathy for Israel's anxiety. Germany was in their backyard and had waged a vicious war on both England and France just a few decades earlier. The same is true of Egypt today vis-à-vis Israel. And Egypt's future is harder to predict than Germany's in 1989, when most of the country was already stable, democratic and allied with the West. Regime change in Egypt produces uncertainty about the 1978 peace treaty, an agreement that is essential to Israel's security.

On the other hand, we've long argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is largely a product of Arab dictators, a point even Thomas Friedman acknowledges in a recent column: "The Arab tyrants, precisely because they were illegitimate, were the ones who fed their people hatred of Israel as a diversion." But Friedman still manages to get it backward:

If Israel could finalize a deal with the Palestinians, it will find that a more democratic Arab world is a more stable partner. Not because everyone will suddenly love Israel (they won't). But because the voices that would continue calling for conflict would have legitimate competition, and democratically elected leaders will have to be much more responsive to their people's priorities, which are for more schools not wars.
In truth, a more democratic Arab world--which is now a real possibility, though by no means a certainty--is a necessary precondition for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. On this point Friedman has long been obtuse. Nine years ago, he suggested the Arab states offer "a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees."

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, in a 2002 interview with Friedman, enthusiastically endorsed the idea, which Friedman started calling "the Abdullah plan." But as Friedman acknowledged in a 2009 column, Abdullah, who became king in 2005, "always stopped short of presenting his ideas directly to the Israeli people." That 2009 column included the latest Friedman brainstorm, "what I would call a five-state solution," involving the creation of a Palestinian state and promises by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia aimed at guaranteeing Israel's security.

It was fanciful of Friedman to think that Arab dictators--whom he now acknowledges have depended on scapegoating Israel to maintain their hold on power--would have agreed to such plans. But what if they had?

A little history is perhaps apposite here. From Israel's creation in 1948 until the 1979 Iranian revolution, Jerusalem had close relations with the authoritarian government of the shah. The current regime in Iran is dedicated to Israel's destruction. It's hard to see how Israel would be better off today if it had entrusted its security to the Arab dictators whose own people have suddenly made them an endangered species.

Two Columnists in One!

■"Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a more repressive one; it may well be that a majority of Iraqis favor more curbs on professional women and on religious minorities. . . . Women did relatively well under Saddam Hussein. . . . Iraq won't follow the theocratic model of Iran, but it could end up as Iran Lite: an Islamic state, but ruled by politicians rather than ayatollahs. I get the sense that's the system many Iraqis seek. . . . We may just have to get used to the idea that we have been midwives to growing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq."--Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, June 24, 2003
■"Is the Arab world unready for freedom? A crude stereotype lingers that some people--Arabs, Chinese and Africans--are incompatible with democracy. . . . This line of thinking seems to me insulting to the unfree world. . . . It's condescending and foolish to suggest that people dying for democracy aren't ready for it."--Kristof, Times, Feb. 27, 2011

Title: Wall of Lies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2011, 03:40:40 PM

Good thumbnail refutations of the most common lies about Israel.

http://walloflies.org/

Title: Caroline Glick
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2011, 04:45:28 PM

CG once again shows herself to be an unusually astute observer and analyst:
===============


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is stuck between a diplomatic rock and a political hard place. And his chosen means of extricating himself from the double bind is only making things worse for him and for Israel.

Diplomatically, Netanyahu is beset by the Palestinian political war to delegitimize Israel and the Obama administration’s escalating hostility. That hostility was most recently expressed during President Barack Obama’s meeting with American Jewish leaders on March 1. Insinuating that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace in the Middle East, Obama scolded Jewish leaders, telling them to “search your souls” over Israel’s seriousness about making peace.

Obama’s newest threat is that through the socalled Middle East Quartet, (Russia, the UN, the EU and the US), the administration will move towards supporting the Palestinian plan to declare statehood. That state would include all of Judea and Samaria, Gaza and eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem. Since it would not be established in the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, and since its leaders reject Israel’s right to exist, “Palestine” would be born in a de facto state of war with Israel.

To credit this threat, Obama has empowered the Quartet to supplant the US as the mediator between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Buoyed by Obama, Quartet representatives and American and European officials have beaten a steady path to Netanyahu’s door over the past several weeks. Their message is always the same: If Israel does not prove that it is serious about peace by giving massive, unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians, then they will abandon all remaining pretense of support for Israel and throw their lot in completely with the Palestinians.

For the past year and a half Netanyahu’s policy for dealing with Obama’s animosity has been to try to appease him by making incremental concessions.

Netanyahu’s rationale for acting in this manner is twofold. First, he has tried to convince Obama that he really does want peace with the Palestinians. Second, when each of his concessions is met with further Palestinian intransigence, Netanyahu has argued that the disparity between Israeli concessions and Palestinian rejectionism and extremism demonstrates that it is Israel, not the Palestinians, that should be supported by the West.

To date Netanyahu’s concessions have included his acceptance of Palestinian statehood and the two-state paradigm for peace; his temporary prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria; his undeclared prohibition on Jewish building in Jerusalem; his undeclared, open-ended prohibition of Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem after his temporary building ban expired; his agreement to drastically curtail IDF counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria; his move to enact an undeclared abatement of law enforcement against illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem; and his decision to enable the deployment of the US-trained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria.

Netanyahu’s declaration of support for Palestinian statehood required his acceptance of the Palestinian narrative. That narrative blames the absence of peace on Israel’s refusal to surrender all of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Having effectively accepted the blame for the absence of peace, Netanyahu has been unable to wage a coherent political counteroffensive against the Palestinian political war.

Now, in a bid to head off Obama’s newest threat to use the Quartet to back the Palestinians’ political war against Israel, Netanyahu is considering yet another set of unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.

For the past week and a half, Netanyahu has been considering a new “diplomatic initiative.”

According to media reports, he is weighing two options. First, he may end IDF counterterror operations in Palestinian cities in Judea and Samaria.

Such a move would involve compromising all of the IDF’s military achievements in the areas since 2002, when it first targeted the Palestinian terror factories from Hebron to Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield.

The second option he is reportedly considering involves announcing his acceptance of a Palestinian state with non-final borders. Such a move would render it difficult if not impossible for Israel to conduct counterterror operations within those temporary borders. It would also make it all but impossible for Israel to assert its sovereign rights over the areas.

Supporters of this initiative argue that not only will it stave off US pressure; it will strengthen Netanyahu’s political position at home. Recent polls show that Netanyahu’s approval numbers are falling while those of his two main rivals – opposition leader Tzipi Livni and Foreign Minister and Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman are rising.

Netanyahu reportedly believes that by moving to the Left, he will be able to take support away from Livni and so regain his position as the most popular leader in the country. Given this assessment, Netanyahu’s supporters argue that making further concessions to the Palestinians is a winwin prospect. It will strengthen Israel diplomatically and it will strengthen him politically.

Sadly for both Israel and Netanyahu, this analysis is completely wrong.

Since Obama came into office, he has consistently demonstrated that no Israeli concession will convince him to support Israel against the Palestinians.

So, too, the fact that every Israeli concession has been met by Palestinian intransigence has had no impact on either Obama or his European counterparts. Netanyahu correct claims that the Palestinians’ intransigence shows they are not interested in peace is of interest to no one.

And it is this lack of interest in Palestinian intransigence rather than Palestinian intransigence itself that is remarkable. What it shows is that Obama and his European counterparts don’t care about achieving peace. Like the Palestinians, all they want is more Israeli concessions.

Since taking office, Obama has only supported Israel against the Palestinians twice. The first time was last December. After months of deliberate ambiguity, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the administration opposes the Palestinian plan to unilaterally declare independence.

Then last month the administration grudgingly vetoed the Palestinian-Lebanese draft Security Council resolution condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

In both cases, the administration’s actions were not the result of Israeli appeasement, but of massive congressional pressure. Congress issued bipartisan calls demanding that the administration torpedo both of these anti-Israel initiatives.

What this this shows is that Netanyahu’s strategy for contending with Obama is fundamentally misconstrued and misdirected. Obama will not be moved by Israeli concessions. The only way to stop Obama from moving forward on his anti- Israel policy course is to work through Congress.

And the most effective way to work through Congress is for Netanyahu to abandon his current course and tell the truth about the nature of the Palestinians, their rejection of Israel, their anti- Americanism and their support for jihadist terror.

At the same time, Netanyahu must speak unambiguously about Israel’s national rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, our required security borders, and about why US national security requires a strong Israel.

The stronger the case Netanyahu makes for Israel, the more support Israel will receive from the Congress. And the more support Israel receives from the Congress, the more Obama will be compelled to temper his anti-Israel agenda.

As for domestic politics, Netanyahu’s attempt to appease Obama is a major cause of his falling approval numbers among voters. Likud voters do not expect him to outflank Livni from the Left.

They voted for Likud and not Kadima because they recognized that Kadima’s leftist policies are dangerous and doomed to failure.

Kadima’s recent increase in domestic support owes more to the breakup of the Labor Party than to Netanyahu’s failure to carry out Kadima’s policies of territorial surrender and diplomatic kowtowing to the UN, EU and Obama. The main beneficiary of Likud’s eroding support has been Leiberman.

While Netanyahu has maintained his allegiance to the false, failed, unpopular-outside-of-themedia “peace with the Palestinians” paradigm in the foolish hope of winning over Obama, Leiberman has seized control of the Right’s political agenda. While Netanyahu accepts the legitimacy of the Palestinian leadership that rejects Israel’s right to exist, Leiberman presents himself as the leader of the majority of Israelis who oppose the Left’s agenda of land for war.

Moreover, when Netanyahu shunts aside his own party’s most popular politicians such as Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon in favor of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, he demoralizes his party faithful and his voters.

And not only does Barak hurt Netanyahu with voters, this week he took an ax to Israel’s most important diplomatic asset – congressional support.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Barak said that Israel may ask Congress to increase US military support for Israel by $20 billion. Given the US’s economic woes, and Congress’s commitment to massive budget cuts, at best Barak’s statement represented a complete incomprehension about the basic facts of US domestic politics. At worst, it was a supremely unfriendly act towards Israel’s friends in Congress who are trying to maintain the current level of US military aid to Israel in the face of a popular push to slash the foreign aid budget.

Beyond that, the plain fact is that Barak’s statement was wrong. Israel’s steady economic growth and its recently discovered natural gas fields should make it possible for Israel to decrease the military aid it receives from the US. This is true even though the revolutions in Egypt and throughout the Arab world will require Israel to massively increase its defense budget.

If Netanyahu is serious about surmounting his diplomatic and political challenges, his best bet is to abandon his present course altogether. The most effective way to defend Israel against Obama is to boldly assert, defend and implement a unilateral Israeli plan.

Netanyahu himself gave the broad outlines for such a plan this week when he stated that to defend itself, Israel will need to maintain perpetual control over the Jordan Valley. If Netanyahu were to announce a plan to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and the major blocs of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, he would accomplish several things at once. He would advance Israel’s national interests rather than the Palestinians’ interests against Israel. He would force the US and Europe to discuss issues that are grounded in strategic rationality rather than leftist- Islamist ideology. Finally, he would take back the leadership of his own political camp from Leiberman and augment his political power domestically.

So, too, if Netanyahu fired Barak and replaced him with Ya’alon, he would energize his political supporters in a way he has failed to do since taking office.

Netanyahu is reportedly considering unveiling his new diplomatic initiative in a speech before Congress in May. If he were to use that venue to unveil this plan and also announce a plan to wean Israel off US military aid within three years, not only would he blunt Obama’s power to threaten Israel. He would secure popular US support for Israel for years to come.

And if he did that, he would restore the Israeli voters’ support for his leadership and stabilize his government through the next elections.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 12, 2011, 05:29:09 PM

Funny how some liberal jews could knowingly vote for Buraq, yet insist that Pro-Israel Glenn Beck is an anti-semite. I'd love to see this explained.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors, Caroline Glick
Post by: DougMacG on March 12, 2011, 05:37:52 PM

Crafty, I am also very impressed with her insights and writings.  In the category of either that great minds think (nearly) alike or look what famous people read the forum, I see (link below) that she describes her undergraduate degree as from "Beir Zeit [Palestinian University] on the Hudson" a.k.a. Columbia University.  :-)

I will guess that as part of Netanyahu head faking left, he is welcoming of the criticism from the right in Israel as part of that strategy.  He cannot save his country by losing power.  Strange of the US to sponsor a new nation born in a state of war with our best ally, and for the American Jewish vote to still mostly join politically with leftists, (I see GM already hit that note) but the Obama phenomenon is what it is - a wrong turn and a continuous contradiction. People here on the forum understood that from the beginning.  It doesn't look like C.G. will be on Obama's international donor list. http://www.carolineglick.com/e/about.php

Title: The "religion of peace" has more "human right difficulties"
Post by: G M on March 14, 2011, 09:03:58 AM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142846

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Tolaim/ResizeImg.aspx?save=1&source=album&album=467&image=7666&a=377&b=1000)

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Tolaim/ResizeImg.aspx?save=1&source=album&album=467&image=7668&a=377&b=1000)

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Tolaim/ResizeImg.aspx?save=1&source=album&album=467&image=7669&a=377&b=1000)

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Tolaim/ResizeImg.aspx?save=1&source=album&album=467&image=7671&a=377&b=1000)

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Tolaim/ResizeImg.aspx?save=1&source=album&album=467&image=7667&a=377&b=1000)

Title: Gaza celebrates the murders
Post by: G M on March 14, 2011, 09:05:51 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041106,00.html


Gaza celebrates; Fayyad condemns terror attack

Rafah residents hand out candy following murder of parents, three children in West Bank settlement of Itamar. Palestinian PM denounces act, says "we categorically oppose violence and terror, regardless of victims', perpetrators' identity"

Elior Levy
Published:    03.12.11, 14:36 / Israel News
   

Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.

 

Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy "is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank."

Title: Partners in peace!
Post by: G M on March 14, 2011, 04:11:18 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/14/video-the-disgusting-terrorist-attack-in-itamar/

Hey, who deserve a state more than these charming people???

Title: Flotilla Round Two, coming soon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 22, 2011, 02:19:19 PM

Turkey: New Gaza Flotilla To Contain 15 Ships
March 22, 2011 0520 GMT
 
About 30 organizers from 15 countries met in the Spanish capital of Madrid early February 2011 to discuss plans by the Turkish organization Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) and several European groups to send a 15-ship flotilla to the Gaza Strip between May 15 and May 30, the anniversary of 2010's interception, Haaretz reported March 22. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon will summon foreign ambassadors to the ministry to help stop the flotilla, which has asked the governments of some nationals planning to join the flotilla to guarantee their safety should Israel attempt to stop the ships again. Israel will launch a public campaign March 22 against the flotilla plan.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 22, 2011, 02:30:10 PM

Hmmmm. Maybe they need to get diverted down to Libya. Do some important human shield work there.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 22, 2011, 07:01:24 PM

Israel strikes Gaza. Lucky air strikes no longer are warfare, otherwise I'd be concerned.

Title: Stratfor: Implications
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2011, 09:30:31 AM

Dispatch: Implications of the Attacks in Israel
March 23, 2011 | 2013 GMT
Click on image below to watch video:



Analyst Reva Bhalla explains the regional consequences of the escalating violence in Israel and what this means for Iran and Egypt.


Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

A bombing struck a bus station in central Jerusalem on Tuesday wounding 34 people and killing one other. This apparent escalation by at least some Palestinian factions raises the potential for another military campaign by Israel in the Palestinian territories. This not only could produce another crisis for Egypt, but could also play to Iranian interests in the region.

This quite rare Jerusalem attack comes on the heels of a barrage of rocket attacks coming from Gaza Strip into population centers in southern Israel and the Negev Desert. It also comes a little less than two weeks after a particularly gruesome attack on a family in the West Bank in the Itamar settlement. We are clearly seeing an escalation by at least some Palestinian factions against Israel. Now who is actually behind the attacks is much less clear. Often you will find that a lot of groups will use contradicting claims and denials and new names to deliberately confuse the Israel security intelligence apparatus. Some of the more recent rocket attacks from Gaza were claimed by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which out of all the Palestinian militant groups is the closest to Iran.

We therefore need to put this latest attack in regional context. The killings in the West Bank were intentionally designed to provoke the Israelis. The Israelis, however, refused to be provoked. Then we saw a barrage of rocket attacks coming from Gaza now coordinated with an attack on a bus station in central Jerusalem.

This now could produce an enormous crisis for Egypt. The Egyptian government, now led by the military, is in a very delicate position in trying to manage this political transition at home while now also trying to deal with a war next door in Libya. On top of that, we’re seeing an escalation in the Palestinian territories, and whenever you have an Israeli military intervention in the Gaza Strip, which now seems very possible, you have an influx of refugees from Gaza into the Sinai Peninsula. That creates a security crisis on the Egyptians and the Egyptians often have to clamp down on the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and the Sinai.

This could allow Hamas in the Gaza Strip and, crucially, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is the main opposition group in Egypt, to condemn the Egyptian military-led government and escalate anti-Israeli sentiment. That in turn could endanger the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and this is a dynamic that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood couldn’t really capitalize on during the recent crisis, but it could do so now, especially if you have an Israeli military intervention in the Gaza Strip under the current circumstances.

When going beyond the Palestinian territories, we have a situation where the Iranians are pursuing a covert destabilization campaign in the Persian Gulf region, using Shia unrest to destabilize the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in particular. When looking at the unrest overall in the region, the one key ingredient that was missing was Israel. Israel is often the single unifying call for many on the Arab streets, and that is certainly something that a lot of Palestinian factions will be paying attention to right now. Watch for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and others in the region to escalate attacks in an effort to provoke a military confrontation with Israeli forces, create a crisis for Egypt through the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and threaten Israel on multiple fronts. This is something that could well play to the Iranian agenda and escalate the regional unrest overall.

Title: Look at Syria
Post by: G M on March 24, 2011, 10:57:25 AM

I don't think the current offensive against Israel is accidental.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-24-09-07-02

DARAA, Syria (AP) -- The Syrian government pledged Thursday to consider lifting draconian restrictions on political freedom and civil liberties in an attempt to quell a week-long uprising that protesters say has left dozens fatally shot by security forces.

Losing Syria would be very damaging to Iran, so you'll see an offensive against Israel to distract from the protests. Of course, I doubt the chinless one will hesitate to play the Hama card, if needed.

Title: Re: Look at Syria
Post by: G M on March 24, 2011, 12:56:58 PM

Quote from: G M on March 24, 2011, 10:57:25 AM

I don't think the current offensive against Israel is accidental.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-24-09-07-02

DARAA, Syria (AP) -- The Syrian government pledged Thursday to consider lifting draconian restrictions on political freedom and civil liberties in an attempt to quell a week-long uprising that protesters say has left dozens fatally shot by security forces.

Losing Syria would be very damaging to Iran, so you'll see an offensive against Israel to distract from the protests. Of course, I doubt the chinless one will hesitate to play the Hama card, if needed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/24/syria-cracks-down-on-protesters-37-dead/

Hama card, now in play.

Title: Is crow kosher?
Post by: G M on March 24, 2011, 07:41:53 PM

Anyone here doubt Obama is planning on turning on Israel? Liberal Jewish chickens coming home to roost?

Title: Syrian NFZ? Sure!
Post by: G M on March 25, 2011, 05:33:45 PM

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/25/2134551/more-protesters-shot-as-syria.html


CAIRO -- Syria's fledgling anti-government movement snowballed into a national protest Friday when thousands of marchers gathered in defiance of President Bashar Assad, whose security forces fired live ammunition, witnesses and human rights groups said.

In scenes considered unimaginable only days ago, Syrian protesters tried to burn or bring down statues of Hafez Assad, the notoriously iron-fisted former president, and slashed large public portraits of his ruling son.

No firm casualty figures were available because of conflicting tallies and the lack of access to Syrian medical officials. At least 37 people have died in the past week and scores more were injured, almost all of them in the southern city of Daraa, while 20 or more deaths were reported Friday in other areas.

In neighboring Jordan, which is ruled by a U.S.-friendly monarchy, one man was killed and as many as 100 people were injured as security forces intervened with batons in a clash between regime supporters and protesters calling for political reform, according to news agencies. Small protests and sit-ins have taken place in Jordan of late, but so far haven't turned into the thousands-strong demonstrations in other Arab countries.

In Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh told throngs of supporters in the capital, Sanaa, that he'd be willing to give up power but only to "safe hands." It marked the clearest signal yet that Saleh was negotiating the terms of his exit amid reports that he was meeting with opposition leaders and military commanders who defected in recent days.

The bloodshed in Syria, a longtime foe of the U.S. and Iran's closest Arab ally, posed an unprecedented challenge for Assad, who succeeded his late father in an uncontested referendum in 2000. Unless Assad enacts immediate and tangible reforms, political analysts say, he runs the risk of becoming the next Middle Eastern autocrat to lose his grip on power.

"It's moving out, it's gathering momentum and the opposition thinks it's on a roll," said Joshua Landis, a Middle East expert at the University of Oklahoma and author of the Syria Comment blog. "If we look at what happened in other countries, it's hard to stop these things once they get started."



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/25/2134551/more-protesters-shot-as-syria.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on March 25, 2011, 05:48:59 PM

Gee maybe we should offer a NFZ over Syria and Jordan?  Or put troops on the ground?

Or maybe the Ivory Coast; that's terrible too.

In the name of democracy we can be all things to all people...

I'm sure they will thank us...   :?

Can't we just stay home and work on our own problems?  If Israel's survival is threatened; then
yes put troops or whatever it takes.  Until then, I think our plate is full.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 25, 2011, 05:58:01 PM

I was being sarcastic. When Syria shoots the protesters into the ground, just as they have in the past, no one will push for a NFZ.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2011, 06:44:28 PM

Even though that would be better in the Libya thread, that was simply OUTSTANDING!!!

Title: Syrians Gunned Down, International Community Yawns
Post by: G M on March 25, 2011, 07:28:06 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/25/syrians-gunned-down-international-community-yawns/

Syrians Gunned Down, International Community Yawns
Assad’s not going quietly.  This from the Reform Party of Syria:

Dara’a. An eyewitness on BBC Arabic said that armed units speaking only Farsi descended upon Dara’a. They have smothered the walls of the al-Omari Mosque with their graffiti but several of them were captured. Another witness, Omar al-Masri, said that snipers took positions on rooftops and started shooting. He said Syrians converged in large numbers upon the rooftops and five snipers were captured. Al-Masri, confirmed the other eyewitness, and said that non-Syrians wearing all black were captured in al-Omari Mosque. They spoke only Farsi.  The same eyewitness said that 25 Syrians are known to have died today in Dara’a and that many security people have resigned their positions in As-Sanamyn and Inkhil.

(My comment):  For those of you in Rio Linda, Syrians speak Arabic.  Iranians (and some Afghans) speak Farsi.  So the implicit allegation in this update is that Iranians (probably the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards) are killing the protesters.

Title: Stratfor: Dilema
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2011, 07:00:10 AM

The Israeli Dilemma

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak, Thursday. There was no shortage of issues for the defense officials to discuss amid what appears to be an impending Israeli military operation in Gaza; gradually building unrest in Syria; and the fear of an Iranian destabilization campaign spreading from the Persian Gulf to the Levant. Any of these threats developing in isolation would be relatively manageable from the Israeli point of view, but when taken together, they remind Israel that the past 32 years of relative quietude in Israel’s Arab backyard is anything but the norm.

Israel is a small country, demographically outnumbered by its neighbors and thus unable to field an army large enough to sustain long, high-intensity conflicts on multiple fronts. Israeli national security therefore revolves around a core, strategic need to sufficiently neutralize and divide its Arab neighbors so that a 1948, 1967 and 1973 scenario can be avoided at all costs. After 1978, Israel had not resolved, but had greatly alleviated its existential crisis. A peace agreement with Egypt, ensured by a Sinai desert buffer, largely secured the Negev and the southern coastal approaches to Tel Aviv. The formalization in 1994 of a peace pact with Jordan secured Israel’s longest border along the Jordan River. Though Syria remained a threat, by itself it could not seriously threaten Israel and was more concerned with affirming its influence in Lebanon anyway. Conflicts remain with the Palestinians and with Hezbollah in Lebanon along the northern front, but these do not constitute a threat to Israeli survival.

The natural Israeli condition is one of unease, but the past three decades were arguably the most secure in modern Israeli history. That sense of security is now being threatened on multiple fronts.

To its west, Israel risks being drawn into another military campaign in the Gaza Strip. A steady rise in rocket attacks penetrating deep into the Israeli interior over the past week is not something the Israeli leadership can ignore, especially when there exists heavy suspicion that the rocket attacks are being conducted in coordination with other acts of violence against Israeli targets: the murder of five members of an Israeli family in a West Bank settlement less than two weeks ago, and the Wednesday bombing at a bus station in downtown Jerusalem. Further military action will likely be taken, with the full knowledge that it will invite widespread condemnation from much of the international community, especially the Muslim world.

“The natural Israeli condition is one of unease, but the past three decades were arguably the most secure in modern Israeli history. That sense of security is now being threatened on multiple fronts.”
The last time Israel Defense Forces went to war with Palestinian militants, in late 2008/early 2009, the threat to Israel was largely confined to the Gaza Strip, and while Operation Cast Lead certainly was not well received in the Arab world, it never threatened to cause a fundamental rupture in the system of alliances with Arab states that has provided Israel with its overall sense of security for the past three decades. This time, a military confrontation in Gaza would have the potential to jeopardize Israel’s vital alliance with Egypt. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and others are watching Egypt’s military manage a shaky political transition next door. The military men running the government in Cairo are the same men who think that maintaining the peace with Israel and keeping groups like Hamas contained is a smart policy, and one that should be continued in the post-Mubarak era. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, part of an Islamist movement that gave rise to Hamas, may have different ideas about the treaty; it has even indicated as much during the political protests in Egypt. An Israeli military campaign in Gaza under the current conditions would be fodder for the Muslim Brotherhood to rally the Egyptian electorate (both its supporters and people who may otherwise vote for a secular party) and potentially undermine the credibility of the military-led regime. With enough pressure, the Islamists in Egypt and Gaza could shift Cairo’s strategic posture toward Israel. This scenario is not an assured outcome, but it is likely to be on the minds of those orchestrating the current offensive against Israel from the Palestinian territories.

To the north, in Syria, the minority Alawite-Baathist regime is struggling to clamp down on protests in the southwest city of Deraa near the Jordanian border. As Syrian security forces fired on protesters who had gathered in and around the city’s main mosque, Syrian President Bashar al Assad, like many of his beleaguered Arab counterparts, made promises to order a ban on the use of live rounds against demonstrators, consider ending a 48-year state of emergency, open the political system, lift media restrictions and raise living standards – all promises that were promptly rejected by the country’s developing opposition. The protests in Syria have not reached critical mass due to the relative effectiveness of Syrian security forces in snuffing out demonstrations in the key cities of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and Hama. Moreover, it remains to be seen if the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which led a violent uprising beginning in 1976 aiming to restore power to the Sunni majority, will overcome its fears and join the demonstrations in full force. The 1982 Hama crackdown, in which some 17,000 to 40,000 people were killed, forced what was left of the Muslim Brotherhood underground and is still fresh in the minds of many.

Though Israel is not particularly keen on the al Assad regime, the virtue of the al Assads, from the Israeli point of view, is their predictability. A Syria more concerned with wealth and exerting influence in Lebanon than provoking military engagements to its south, is far more preferable than the fear of what may follow. Like in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood branch in Syria remains the single largest and most organized opposition in the country, even though it has been severely weakened since the massacre at Hama.

To the east, Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy has a far better handle on its political opposition (the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Jordan is often referred to as the “loyal opposition” by many observers in the region,) but protests continue to simmer there and the Hashemite dynasty remains in fear of being overrun by the country’s Palestinian majority. Israeli military action in Gaza could also be used by the Jordanian MB to galvanize protesters already prepared to take to the streets.

Completing the picture is Iran. The wave of protests lapping at Arab regimes across the region has created an historic opportunity for Iran to destabilize its rivals and threaten both Israeli and U.S. national security in one fell swoop. Iranian influence has its limits, but a groundswell of Shiite discontent in eastern Arabia along with an Israeli war on Palestinians that highlights the duplicity of Arab foreign policy toward Israel, provides Iran with the leverage it has been seeking to reshape the political landscape. Remaining quiet thus far is Iran’s primary militant proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. As Israel mobilizes its forces in preparation for another round of fighting with Palestinian militants, it cannot discount the possibility that Hezbollah and its patrons in Iran are biding their time to open a second front to threaten Israel’s northern frontier. It has been some time since a crisis of this magnitude has built on Israel’s borders, but this is not a country unaccustomed to worst case scenarios.

Title: Glenn Beck: "Right to Protect" will be used against Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2011, 09:11:09 AM

Glenn Beck connects dots and predicts that the "Right to Protect" doctrine will be used to attack Israel

http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-show-march-29-2011/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 30, 2011, 09:13:11 AM

But Obama wore a kippa at AIPAC!





 :roll:

Title: As predicted by Glenn Beck
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2011, 08:45:26 AM

Pravda on the Hudson:

JERUSALEM — With revolutionary fervor sweeping the Middle East, Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a United Nations vote welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority has been steadily building support for such a resolution in September, a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise. Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, land it has controlled and settled for more than four decades and some of which it expects to keep in any two-state solution.
“We are facing a diplomatic-political tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of and that will peak in September,” said Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, at a conference in Tel Aviv last month. “It is a very dangerous situation, one that requires action.” He added, “Paralysis, rhetoric, inaction will deepen the isolation of Israel.”

With aides to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thrashing out proposals to the Palestinians, President Shimon Peres is due at the White House on Tuesday to meet with President Obama and explore ways out of the bind. The United States is still uncertain how to move the process forward, according to diplomats here.

Israel’s offer is expected to include transfer of some West Bank territory outside its settlements to Palestinian control and may suggest a regional component — an international conference to serve as a response to the Arab League peace initiatives.

But Palestinian leaders, emboldened by support for their statehood bid, dismiss the expected offer as insufficient and continue to demand an end to settlement building before talks can begin.

“We want to generate pressure on Israel to make it feel isolated and help it understand that there can be no talks without a stop to settlements,” said Nabil Shaath, who leads the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority. “Without that, our goal is membership in the United Nations General Assembly in September.”

Israeli, Palestinian and Western officials interviewed on the current impasse, most of them requesting anonymity, expressed an unusual degree of pessimism about a peaceful resolution. All agreed that the turmoil across the Middle East had prompted opposing responses from Israel and much of the world.

Israel, seeing the prospect of even more hostile governments as its neighbors, is insisting on caution and time before taking any significant steps. It also wants to build in extensive long-term security guarantees in any two-state solution, but those inevitably infringe the sovereignty of a Palestinian state.

The international community tends to draw the opposite conclusion. Foreign Secretary William Hague of Britain, for example, said last week that one of the most important lessons to be learned from the Arab Spring was that “legitimate aspirations cannot be ignored and must be addressed.” He added, referring to Israeli-Palestinian talks, “It cannot be in anyone’s interests if the new order of the region is determined at a time of minimum hope in the peace process.”

The Palestinian focus on September stems not only from the fact that the General Assembly holds its annual meeting then. It is also because Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced in September 2009 that his government would be ready for independent statehood in two years and that Mr. Obama said last September that he expected the framework for an independent Palestinian state to be declared in a year.

Mr. Obama did not indicate what the borders of that state would be, assuming they would be determined through direct negotiations. But with Israeli-Palestinian talks broken off months ago and the Middle East in the process of profound change, many argue that outside pressure is needed.

Germany, France and Britain say negotiations should be based on the 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps, exactly what the Netanyahu government rejects because it says it predetermines the outcome.

“Does the world think it is going to force Israel to declare the 1967 lines and giving up Jerusalem as a basis for negotiation?” asked a top Israeli official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “That will never happen.”

While the Obama administration has referred in the past to the 1967 lines as a basis for talks, it has not decided whether to back the European Union, the United Nations and Russia — the other members of the so-called quartet — in declaring them the starting point, diplomats said. The quartet meets on April 15 in Berlin.

Israel, which has settled hundreds of thousands of Jews inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem, acknowledges that it will have to withdraw from much of the land it now occupies there. But it hopes to hold onto the largest settlement blocs and much of East Jerusalem as well as the border to the east with Jordan and does not want to enter into talks with the other side’s position as the starting point.

That was true even before its closest ally in the Arab world, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, was driven from power, helping fuel protest movements that now roil other countries, including Jordan, which has its own peace agreement with Israel.

“Whatever we put forward has to be grounded in security arrangements because of what is going on regionally,” said Zalman Shoval, one of a handful of Netanyahu aides drawing up the Israeli proposal that may be delivered as a speech to the United States Congress in May. “We are facing the rebirth of the eastern front as Iran grows strong. We have to secure the Jordan Valley. And no Israeli government is going to move tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes quickly.”

============

Page 2 of 2)



Those Israelis live in West Bank settlements, the source of much of the disagreement not only with the Palestinians but with the world. Not a single government supports Israel’s settlements. The Palestinians say the settlements are proof that the Israelis do not really want a Palestinian state to arise since they are built on land that should go to that state.

“All these years, the main obstacle to peace has been the settlements,” Nimer Hammad, a political adviser to President Abbas, said. “They always say, ‘but you never made it a condition of negotiations before.’ And we say, ‘that was a mistake.’ ”
The Israelis counter that the real problem is Palestinian refusal to accept openly a Jewish state here and ongoing anti-Israeli incitement and praise of violence on Palestinian airwaves.

Another central obstacle to the establishment of a State of Palestine has been the division between the West Bank and Gaza, the first run by the Palestinian Authority and the second by Hamas. Lately, President Abbas has sought to bridge the gap, asking to go to Gaza to seek reconciliation through an agreed interim government that would set up parliamentary and presidential elections.

But Hamas, worried it would lose such elections and hopeful that the regional turmoil could work in its favor — that Egypt, for example, might be taken over by its ally, the Muslim Brotherhood — has reacted coolly.

Efforts are still under way to restart peace talks but if, as expected, negotiations do not resume, come September the Palestinian Authority seems set to go ahead with plans to ask the General Assembly to accept it as a member. Diplomats involved in the issue say most countries — more than 100 — are expected to vote yes, meaning it will pass. (There are no vetoes in the General Assembly so the United States cannot save Israel as it often has in the Security Council.)

What happens then?

Some Palestinian leaders say relations with Israel would change.

“We will re-examine our commitments toward Israel, especially our security commitments,” suggested Hanna Amireh, who is on the 18-member ruling board of the Palestine Liberation Organization, referring to cooperation between Palestinian and Israeli troops. “The main sense about Israel is that we are fed up.”

Mr. Shaath said Israel would then be in daily violation of the rights of a fellow member state and diplomatic and legal consequences could follow, all of which would be painful for Israel.

In the Haaretz newspaper on Thursday, Ari Shavit, who is a political centrist, drew a comparison between 2011 and the biggest military setback Israel ever faced, the 1973 war.

He wrote that “2011 is going to be a diplomatic 1973,” because a Palestinian state will be recognized internationally. “Every military base in the West Bank will be contravening the sovereignty of an independent U.N. member state.” He added, “A diplomatic siege from without and a civil uprising from within will grip Israel in a stranglehold.”

Title: Hamas Is Moving Toward War With Israel
Post by: G M on April 08, 2011, 07:01:21 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/04/07/schoolbus-attack-is-a-strategic/?singlepage=true

Hamas Is Moving Toward War With Israel

April 7, 2011 - 7:10 pm - by Barry Rubin

Two events show us that an emboldened Hamas in the Gaza Strip is moving toward war with Israel.
 
First, an Israeli school bus, painted bright yellow, was hit by fire from the Gaza Strip and at least one child was seriously wounded. This is not just another terrorist attack but part of a wider strategy. What is strategically significant here is how the bus was attacked. Usually, attacks from the Gaza Strip — either carried out or sanctioned by the Hamas regime there — are by homemade rockets, mortars, or attempted cross-border ground attacks. Deaths and damage are usually random.
 
In this case, though, the attack was carried out with an advanced anti-tank rocket. In other words, a terrorist deliberately aimed at the bus and fired, hoping to kill the maximum number of children.
 
But there’s more. Hamas can fire an advanced anti-tank rocket because the Egyptian revolution has ended a regime that acted in its own interest to block most arms shipments to Hamas. The Egypt-Gaza border is now open. Terrorists and superior weapons are flooding into Gaza.
 
Another demonstration of this fact was the second major incident in which Hamas fired an Iranian-made Grad missile, far superior to the usual homemade rockets, at Israel. In this case, it was shot down by an Israeli anti-missile, part of the new defense system deployed only a few days earlier. A total of 50 rockets and mortars were fired on that one day, equaling the number shot from the Gaza Strip at Israel during the entire month of March. There were also several attempts at cross-border ground attacks, more in one day than at any time in the past.
 
It was clear to the Hamas leadership that this escalation — and probably more to follow — brings the situation closer to another war like the one fought in December 2008-January 2009 after Hamas ended the ceasefire and launched a massive rocket and mortar barrage against Israel.
 
While saved politically by Western intervention — which does not favor the overthrow of the Hamas regime and largely accepted Hamas propaganda portraying Israel as a villain — that war was a bad defeat for Hamas. Its forces fought quite poorly, especially when compared to Hizballah’s units in 2006 in Lebanon.
 
Why, then, is Hamas provoking a new war? Part of the answer, of course, is ideology. Hamas believes that the deity is on its side, that victory is inevitable, and that martyrdom is a substitute for good military strategy and strength. Hamas is also indifferent to casualties, material damage, and the suffering of its own people. Its goal is total victory, Israel’s destruction, and the mass murder of Israeli Jews.
 
But none of that is new. What is new is a shift in the strategic situation. The recent upheavals in the Arab world have emboldened revolutionary Islamists and Hamas most of all. Its close ally, the Muslim Brotherhood, can operate freely in Egypt. There is much support for Islamism in the Egyptian army. And even the “moderate” presidential candidate Muhammad ElBaradei said that Egypt would go to war if Israel attacked the Gaza Strip.
 
Does Egypt want war with Israel? Of course not. But Hamas calculates — and, of course, it often miscalculates — that crisis with Israel will increase its support from Egypt and perhaps even create a situation where Cairo intervenes on its side on some level.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 08, 2011, 09:43:13 AM

"And even the “moderate” presidential candidate Muhammad ElBaradei said that Egypt would go to war if Israel attacked the Gaza Strip."
Well as Soros stated there are "risks" to Israel.  No biggy.

From one of Soro's favorite "puppits":

***Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency who has announced his candidacy for president in Egypt, said on Monday that “if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime.”

The Digital Journal observed: “In the world's first glimpse of the policies that may emerge from the results of the upcoming Egyptian presidential election, one candidate for president outlined his insistence on protecting Palestinians in Gaza from Israeli military assaults. Mohamed ElBaradei's position on the matter is clear: An Israeli military strike against Gaza would result in a declaration of war from Egypt.”

In an interview with the Arab newspaper Al-Watan reported by the ynetnews website, ElBaradei also declared: “In case of any future Israeli attack on Gaza, as the next president of Egypt, I will open the Rafah border crossing and will consider different ways to implement the joint Arab defense agreement.

“Israel controls the Palestinian soil and there has been no tangible breakthrough in the process of reconciliation because of the imbalance of power in the region and the situation there is a kind of one-way peace.”

On Tuesday, Palestinian militants in Gaza launched three mortar shells at Israel, and Israeli forces killed an armed Palestinian near the Israel-Gaza border.

“Pressure has been mounting along Israel’s border with the coastal enclave in recent weeks, as Gaza militants and Israeli forces traded blows in what some fear are signs of a large-scale military escalation,” the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.

Also on Tuesday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Al Arabi said his country is ready to open a “new page” with Iran.

“Egypt has opened a new page with all countries of the world, including Iran,” Al Arabi said. “The Egyptian and Iranian people deserve relations which reflect their history and civilization.”

Al Arabi’s remarks came during a meeting with Iranian official Mojtaba Amani, who gave him a letter from Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, AFP reported.

Salehi urged Egypt to explore ways to improve relations between the two countries.

Iran broke off diplomatic relations with Egypt in 1980 in protest of Egypt’s recognition of Israel.

Salehi also invited Al Arabi to visit Tehran, and expressed a desire to visit Cairo himself***

Title: David Horowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2011, 06:27:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMufgpcdnI

Title: Paging Samantha Power.....
Post by: G M on April 10, 2011, 11:36:43 AM

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=215986&R=R1


Arab League to ask UN to impose no-fly zone over Gaza
By JPOST.COM STAFF
04/10/2011 17:27


Gaza ceasefire brokered by UN official Robert Serry who acts as intermediary between Hamas and J'lem, Ma'an reports.

The Arab League on Sunday announced during a special meeting in Cairo that it plans to press the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza amid an escalation in violence in the area, AFP reported.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said he plans to present the proposal to the UN Security Council, the report said.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 10, 2011, 01:50:01 PM

"impose a no-fly zone over Gaza"


Will this include Palestinian rockets??

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 10, 2011, 03:15:08 PM

Of course not.

Title: Palestinian Birth Certificate?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 14, 2011, 03:28:29 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-hail-international-birth-certificate-of-statehood-1.355821

Title: Glick: Choose!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2011, 02:23:17 PM

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s response to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority’s peace deal with Hamas would be funny if it weren’t tragic. Immediately after the news broke of the deal Netanyahu announced, “The PA must choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace with both.”

Netanyahu’s statement is funny because it is completely absurd. The PA has chosen.

The PA made the choice in 2000 when it rejected Israel’s offer of peace and Palestinian statehood and joined forces with Hamas to wage a terror war against Israel.

The PA made the choice in 2005 again when it responded to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with a tenfold increase in the number of rockets and missiles it fired on Israeli civilian targets in the Negev.

The Palestinians made the choice in 2006, when they elected Hamas to rule over them.

They made the choice in March 2007 when Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal.

The PA made the choice in 2008 when Abbas rejected then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of statehood and peace.

The PA made the choice in 2010 when it refused to reinstate peace negotiations with Netanyahu; began peace negotiations with Hamas; and escalated its plan to establish an independent state without peace with Israel.

Now the PA has again made the choice by signing the newest peace deal with Hamas.

In a real sense, Netanyahu’s call for the PA to choose is the political equivalent of a man telling his wife she must choose between him and her lover, after she has left home, shacked up and had five children with her new man.

It is a pathetic joke.

But worse than a pathetic joke, it is a national tragedy. It is a tragedy that after more than a decade of the PA choosing war with Israel and peace with Hamas, Israel’s leaders are still incapable of accepting reality and walking away. It is a tragedy that Israel’s leaders cannot find the courage to say the joke of the peace process is really a deadly serious war process whose end is Israel’s destruction, and that Israel is done with playing along.

There are many reasons that Netanyahu is incapable of stating the truth and ending the 18- year policy nightmare in which Israel is an active partner in its own demise. One of the main reasons is that like his predecessors, Netanyahu has come to believe the myth that Israel’s international standing is totally dependent on its being perceived as trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

According to this myth – which has been the central pillar of Israel’s foreign policy and domestic politics since Yitzhak Rabin first accepted the PLO as a legitimate actor in 1993 – it doesn’t matter how obvious it is that the Palestinians are uninterested in peaceful coexistence with Israel.

It doesn’t matter how openly they wage their war to destroy Israel. Irrespective of the nakedness of Palestinian bad faith, seven successive governments have adopted the view that the only thing that stands between Israel and international pariah status is its leaders’ ability to persuade the so-called international community that Israel is serious about appeasing the Palestinians.

For the past several months, this profoundly neurotic perception of Israel’s options has fed our leaders’ hysterical response to the Palestinians’ plan to unilaterally declare independence.

The Palestinian plan itself discredits the idea that they are interested in anything other than destroying Israel. The plan is to get the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel. The PA will first attempt to get the Security Council to endorse an independent “Palestine.” If the Obama administration vetoes the move, then the PA will ask the General Assembly to take action. Given the makeup of the General Assembly, it is all but certain that the Palestinians will get their resolution.

The question is, does this matter? Everyone from Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hard-left, post-Zionist retreads like Shulamit Aloni and Avrum Burg says it does. They tell us that if this passes, Israel will face international opprobrium if its citizens or military personnel so much as breathe in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem without Palestinian permission.

These prophets of doom warn that Israel has but one hope for saving itself from diplomatic death: Netanyahu must stand before the world and pledge to give Israel’s heartland and capital to the Palestinians.

And according to helpful Obama administration officials, everything revolves around Netanyahu’s ability to convince the EU-3 – British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – that he is serious about appeasing the Palestinians. If he doesn’t offer up Israel’s crown jewels in his speech before the US Congress next month, administration officials warn that the EU powers will go with the Palestinians.

And if they go with the Palestinians, well, things could get ugly for Israel.

Happily, these warnings are completely ridiculous. UN General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight. Even if every General Assembly member except Israel votes in favor of a resolution recognizing “Palestine,” all the Palestinians will have achieved is another non-binding resolution, with no force of law, asserting the same thing that thousands of UN resolutions already assert. Namely, it will claim falsely that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza are Palestinian territory to which Israel has no right. Israel will be free to ignore this resolution, just as it has been free to ignore its predecessors.

The threat of international isolation is also wildly exaggerated. Today, Israel is more diplomatically isolated than it has been at any time in its 63-year history. With the Obama administration treating the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem as a greater affront to the cause of world peace than the wholesale massacre of hundreds of Iranian and Syrian protesters by regime goons, Israel has never faced a more hostile international climate. And yet, despite its frosty reception from the White House to Whitehall, life in Israel has never been better.

According to the latest data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel’s economy grew 7.8 percent in the last quarter of 2010.

International trade is rising steeply. In the first quarter of 2011, exports rose 27.3%. They grew 19.9% in the final quarter of last year. Imports rose 34.7% between January and March, and 38.9% in the last quarter of 2010.

The Israel-bashing EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner. And even as Turkey embraced Hamas and Iran as allies, its trade with Israel reached an all time high last year.

These trade data expose a truth that the doom and gloomers are unwilling to notice: For the vast majority of Israelis the threat of international isolation is empty.

The same people telling us to commit suicide now lest we face the firing squad in September would also have us believe that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is the single greatest threat to the economy. But that lie was put paid this month with the demise of the Australian town of Marrickville’s BDS-inspired boycott.

Last December, the anti-Israel coalition running the town council voted to institute a trade, sports and academic boycott against Israel. Two weeks ago the council was forced to cancel its decision after it learned that it would cost $3.4 million to institute it. Cheaper Israeli products and services would have to be replaced with more expensive non-Israeli ones.

Both Israel’s booming foreign trade and the swift demise of the Marrickville boycott movement demonstrate that the specter of international isolation in the event that Israel extricates itself from the Palestinian peace process charade is nothing more than a bluff. The notion that Israel will be worse off it Netanyahu admits that Abbas has again chosen war against the Jews over peace with us has no credibility.

So what is preventing Netanyahu and his colleagues in the government from acknowledging this happy truth? Two factors are at play here. The first is our inability to understand power politics. Our leaders believe that the likes of Sarkozy, Cameron and Merkel are serious when they tell us that Israel needs to prove it is serious about peace in order to enable them to vote against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN. But they are not serious. Nothing that Israel does will have any impact on their votes.

When the Europeans forge their policies towards Israel they are moved by one thing only: the US.

Since 1967, the Europeans have consistently been more pro-Palestinian than the US. Now, with the Obama administration demonstrating unprecedented hostility towards Israel, there is no way that the Europeans will suddenly shift to Israel’s side. So when European leaders tell Israelis that we need to convince them we are serious about peace, they aren’t being serious. They are looking for an excuse to be even more hostile. If Israel offers the store to Abbas, then the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy will not only recognize “Palestine” at the UN, (because after all, they cannot be expected to be more pro-Israel than the Israeli government that just surrendered), they will recognize Hamas. Because that’s the next step.

It would seem that Israel’s leaders should have gotten wise to this game years ago. And the fact that they haven’t can be blamed on the second factor keeping their sanity in check: the Israeli Left. The only group of Israelis directly impacted by the BDS movement is the Israeli Left. Its members – from university lecturers to anti-Zionist has-been politicians, artists, actors and hack writers – are the only members of Israeli society who have a personal stake in a decision by their leftist counterparts in the US or Europe or Australia or any other pretty vacation/sabbatical spots to boycott Israelis.

And because the movement threatens them, they have taken it upon themselves to scare the rest of us into taking this ridiculous charade seriously. So it was that last week a group of washed-up radicals gathered in Tel Aviv outside the hall where David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israeli independence, and declared the independence of “Palestine.” They knew their followers in the media would make a big deal of their agitprop and use it as another means of demoralizing the public into believing we can do nothing but embrace our enemies’ cause against our country.

The time has come for the vast majority of Israelis who aren’t interested in the Nobel Prize for Literature or a sabbatical at Berkeley or the University of Trondheim to call a spade a spade. The BDS haters have no leverage. A degree from Bar-Ilan is more valuable than a degree from Oxford. And no matter how much these people hate Israel, they will continue to buy our technologies and contract our researchers, because Cambridge is no longer capable of producing the same quality of scholarship as the Technion.

And it is well past time for our leaders to stop playing this fool’s game. We don’t need anyone’s favors. Abbas has made his choice.

Now it is time for Netanyahu to choose.

Title: Re: Look at Syria
Post by: G M on May 01, 2011, 08:55:40 AM

Quote from: G M on March 24, 2011, 12:56:58 PM

Quote from: G M on March 24, 2011, 10:57:25 AM

I don't think the current offensive against Israel is accidental.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-24-09-07-02

DARAA, Syria (AP) -- The Syrian government pledged Thursday to consider lifting draconian restrictions on political freedom and civil liberties in an attempt to quell a week-long uprising that protesters say has left dozens fatally shot by security forces.

Losing Syria would be very damaging to Iran, so you'll see an offensive against Israel to distract from the protests. Of course, I doubt the chinless one will hesitate to play the Hama card, if needed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/24/syria-cracks-down-on-protesters-37-dead/

Hama card, now in play.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-protests-20110501,0,2884901.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fworld+%28L.A.+Times+-+World+News%29

Syrian forces told to use 'any means necessary' to crush rebellion in Dara
A Syrian military source says President Bashar Assad's security forces have been ordered to quell the uprising in Dara 'even if this means that the city is to be burned down.' Tanks destroy a mosque, witnesses say, and at least four people are killed.

I'm sure Obama will issue a very stern statement.

Title: Have at this One, Palestinian Apologists
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on May 05, 2011, 07:11:19 AM

So much here that's so wrong the mind reels:


MAY 5, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Hamas Mourns Osama
So do the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. But that can’t be an obstacle to the peace process!

It requires a keen sense of irony to write the headline that Newsweek ran last week: “The Wrath of Abbas: Fed up with stalled peace talks, the Palestinian leader defies Israel and vents about Obama.”

Peace talks between Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have stalled for one simple reason: Abbas refuses to attend. He has demanded Israeli concessions in exchange for resuming negotiations. In other words, Abbas is stalling the peace talks — and, by golly, he’s fed up with it!

According to Newsweek, Obama encouraged Abbas to take a hard line but then did not put sufficient pressure on Netanyahu. That’s why Abbas decided to “vent” about Obama to Newsweek reporter Dan Ephron, who boasts that Abbas “let Newsweek into his personal space,” which included a specially fitted-out Airbus A318 borrowed from the United Arab Emirates and suites at the Hotel Le Meurice in Paris. Surprise, surprise: Ephron found Abbas “affable” and “moderate in his approach to Israel and unequivocally against violence.”

Just a few days after the article was published, Abbas announced that Fatah, his political party, which rules the West Bank, had agreed to form a “unity government” with Hamas, which rules Gaza and remains openly committed to the extermination of Israel.

Hamas’s ideology is not markedly different from that of al-Qaeda, as was illustrated this week when Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s prime minister, responded to the death of Osama bin Laden by saying: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”

So, it turns out, Abbas has not just “defied Israel” and “vented” about Obama. He also has put Obama in a bind: Does the president now stop aid to the Palestinians?  Or does he try to convince Congress and the American public that spending taxpayer money to support a terrorist organization that mourns bin Laden as a “holy warrior” and “martyr” is a shrewd policy choice?

To complicate matters further, the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a “military wing” of Fatah that reports to Abbas, called bin Laden’s death a “catastrophe,” adding: “We say to the American and Israeli occupier: the [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad . . . is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah’s oneness, Allah willing.” The “moderate” and “unequivocally against violence” Abbas has not appeared shocked by this expression of jihadism within his organization.

Perhaps that’s because he’s been so busy preparing a “unilateral declaration of statehood” that he wants the U.N. to approve.  He wants the U.N. to say, too, that the borders between this Palestinian state and Israel will be the armistice lines left in place after the first Arab war to eliminate Israel in 1948–49. Those lines remained until 1967 — when Israel’s Arab neighbors made another concerted attempt to wipe Israel off the map.

At the conclusion of that conflict, Israel had taken the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty signed in 1979, and withdrew from Gaza in 2005. (Hamas has been launching missiles at Israel from Gaza ever since.) In the past, Israel also has offered to turn over more than 90 percent of the West Bank, but in exchange, it wants — and has been promised by both American governments and international agreements — “defensible borders,” which means not quite the lines Arab armies crossed in 1967.

The Newsweek article concludes by suggesting that Obama could do more about the “unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” which continues “to be an irritant for Arabs and a source of resentment against the United States.” The reason he isn’t? With elections coming up, he would not want “to risk alienating Israel’s supporters by pressing the peace question.”

Ah yes, it’s “Israel’s supporters” who are the obstacles to peace — not Hamas, not the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, and certainly not the affable Mr. Abbas. It requires a wicked sense of humor — or no sense at all — to write that.

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266446/hamas-mourns-osama-clifford-d-may

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 05, 2011, 07:15:34 AM

It's obviously the Israeli stubborn refusal to commit collective suicide that is preventing the glorious peace that is oh so close at hand.  :roll:

Title: Happy Israel Indepence Day!
Post by: Rachel on May 09, 2011, 09:01:23 AM

Yesterday was Israel's memorial day. Today is its independence day. Israel's founders came from totalitarian countries, surrounded by hostility and sharing no common language. They built a modern, accomplished, imperfect but thriving democracy. As Ben-Gurion said, any Jew who does not believe in miracles isn't a realist. Rabbi Wolpe

Israel Wave Your Flag
Aish.com's New Video Sensation Celebrating Israel's Birthday!
http://www.aish.com/h/iid/Israel_Wave_Your_Flag.html


Israel: Defying all odds
http://www.youtube.com/user/AishVideo#p/u/3/SGUxzISr9Us

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUxzISr9Us&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 09, 2011, 12:38:58 PM

good video. :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 09, 2011, 07:02:36 PM

I'm glad I'm not a woman.

"This picture by [an ultra-Orthodox] newspaper goes a step further by revising history to remove important women leaders from the historic room in which they were present.  It reminds us of how much work is still to be done!"

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/religious-paper-cuts-clinton-from-iconic-photo/?hpt=T2

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 09, 2011, 07:46:20 PM

Never miss a chance to jew-bash, do you? How do women get treated in the surrounding nations? It's more than their photos they have to worry about being clipped.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2011, 10:07:13 AM

e.g. their clitorises and/or their heads.  Nonetheless, doctoring history is quite Orwellian and quite unacceptable.

Anyway, being there for the moment of silence was one of my most moving moments, as was praying at the Wailing Wall.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 10, 2011, 10:31:24 AM

Doctoring history is quite unacceptable. I look forward to the day when the MSM stops doing it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2011, 12:19:38 PM

Amen to that; that said I hold our side to higher standards.

Title: Strat: Gas for Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2011, 09:44:06 AM

Summary
During a meeting between the Israeli and Qatari prime ministers May 8 in London, Doha reportedly offered to sell liquefied natural gas to Israel. The rumored offer comes as Egypt, which supplies Israel with about 40 percent of its natural gas needs, is showing an intention to renegotiate the controversial natural gas deal with Israel that has provided energy to the country at below-market rates. A partnership with Qatar may offer some longer term potential for Israel to reduce its dependence on Egyptian energy, but due to infrastructure limitations, Israel likely will not have any choice but to pay a higher price to Cairo in the interim.

Analysis
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a secret meeting with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani in London on May 8, Ahram Online reported, citing Israel Radio. During the meeting, the Qatari prime minister reportedly expressed Qatar’s willingness to supply Israel with liquefied natural gas (LNG). Israel is becoming increasingly concerned about its energy security amid Egyptian calls to renegotiate the terms of a natural gas deal between the two countries, as well as sporadic attacks on the Egyptian-Israeli natural gas pipeline that have caused two temporary disruptions in delivery since February.

Though Qatar’s offer does have long-term potential to make Israel less dependent on Egyptian energy supplies, in the near term Israel will have little choice but to accede to Cairo’s demands on changes to the natural gas deal.

Egypt currently supplies 40 percent of Israel’s natural gas as part of an agreement signed in 2005. The delivery of natural gas started in May 2008 through an underwater pipeline from the Egyptian city of El Arish on the northern Mediterranean coast to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. The specifics of the deal have long remained unknown, though an addendum was signed to it in 2009 increasing the amount of natural gas exported from 1.7 billion cubic meters (bcm) to 2.1 bcm.

The deal has long been unpopular with the Egyptian public due to the preferential terms under which it sold natural gas to Israel at below-market prices. Following the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, however, the interim government and Supreme Council of the Armed Forces are pushing for a renegotiation of the agreement. Former Oil Minister Sameh Fahmy and five other former officials were detained April 21 for an investigation into the contract. Unconfirmed leaks from the Egyptian Interior Ministry in March indicated that Mubarak’s sons Gamal and Alaa, as well as the former president himself, personally benefited from the deal, which would not be unusual given the nature of the Mubarak regime and Gamal’s extensive ties to businessmen controlling all sectors of the Egyptian economy. By pushing for a revision of the natural gas deal, the Egyptian military aims to both increase its revenue to help pay Egypt’s budget deficit and debt, which could make the Egyptian economy even more vulnerable while it is trying to recover from the ongoing political turmoil, and to legitimize itself in the eyes of the Egyptian public by distancing itself from the former regime. To this end, unnamed Egyptian officials told Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm on May 5 that negotiations with Israel would start by the end of May with the aim of doubling the current price level.

Besides Egyptian demands to revise the current deal, Israeli dependence on Egyptian natural gas is also increasingly questioned due to a series of attacks on the pipeline that twice led to temporary disruptions in supply. The first attack occurred Feb. 5 during the unrest that resulted in Mubarak’s overthrow Feb. 11. Another attempt at sabotage was reportedly thwarted March 27. A second attack succeeded April 27, prompting Israeli officials, such as Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau, to speak out about Israel’s need to find alternative resources to lessen its dependence on Egypt, including accelerating the development of the recently discovered Tamar and Leviathan offshore natural gas fields in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. However, Israel is years away from developing those fields. Therefore, the leak about Netanyahu’s meeting with his Qatari counterpart was likely intended to show Egypt that Israel has other options when it comes to natural gas supply. Qatar is the world’s largest LNG exporter. Even though Israel does not have an LNG import station at present, it announced in February that it would build a floating platform off the northern city of Hadera by the end of 2012.

If the project can be completed as planned, Israel could reduce its dependence on Egyptian natural gas by buying LNG from Qatar, which could be found at lower prices on the spot market. Egypt, for its part, would have a number of options for its reserves: It could still supply Jordan and Syria, two destinations of the Arab Gas Pipeline, with natural gas; it could export natural gas to other clients via LNG facilities; and under a deal signed in March 2006, the pipeline will eventually be extended through Syria to Turkey and Iraq, adding more potential markets. Jordan depends on Egyptian natural gas for 80 percent of its electricity production, so Egypt would likely have a destination for any excess production that had previously been purchased by Israel.

This, however, does not mean that both Egypt and Israel intend to cancel the deal altogether. Egypt and Israel are likely to reach a renewed accommodation that could satisfy Egypt’s demands, at least until Israel develops viable natural gas alternatives. But until that point, Israel has no option but to negotiate a new price with Egypt, and Cairo’s newfound inclination to push for such a renegotiation is a sign of the cooler relations between the two states.



Read more: Israel's Growing Energy Security Concerns | STRATFOR

Title: Gilder on Israel
Post by: ccp on May 11, 2011, 06:48:29 PM

From Wikepedia:

***The Israel Test
Gilder's 2009 book The Israel Test is partly described as follows:

“ Gilder reveals Israel as a leader of human civilization, technological progress, and scientific advance. Tiny Israel stands behind only the United States in its contributions to the hi-tech economy. Israel has become the world's paramount example of the blessings of freedom. ”

—Amazon book description.

Founder of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, says about the book: "Everyone talks about 'free enterprise' but no one understands the entrepeneurial basics of growth better than George Gilder." While conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh says: "My friends, it would behoove you to study everything you can get your hands on by George Gilder, a true American genius."[26]

In an interview for National Review about the book, Gilder says the book is about "the cosmic law between success and envy". He further states Israel's role as:

“ Western civilization, in part, originated in Israel. Now Israel is a crucial source of invention, military intelligence, and entrepeneurial creativity that may yet save the West. I believe Netanyahu is a Churchillian figure emerging at the perfect time to confront the Jihad. ”

—George Gilder, National Review interview July 2009: "Choosing the Chosen People - Anti-Semitism is essentially hatred of capitalism and excellence."[27]***

Title: Eight killed as Israeli troops open fire
Post by: G M on May 15, 2011, 10:18:52 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/15/israeli-troops-kill-eight-nakba-protests?utm_medium=twitter

Eight killed as Israeli troops open fire on Nakba Day border protests

Many more wounded in clashes at Israel's borders with Syria, Gaza and Lebanon, as UN appeals for 'maximum restraint'



 Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 May 2011 15.51 BST




A Palestinian woman and child are helped to safety during Nakba Day violence north of Jerusalem. Photograph: Jim Hollander/EPA


Israeli troops opened fire on pro-Palestinian demonstrators attempting to breach its borders on three fronts, killing at least eight people. Scores more were wounded at Israel's borders with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.

Clashes also erupted in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Palestinians commemorated Nakba Day, the anniversary marking the 1948 war in which hundreds of thousands of people became refugees after being forced out of their homes.

Thousands of Palestinian refugees in Syria marched towards the village of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967. At least four people were killed by Israeli troops as they crossed the border, Israel Radio reported. Up to 20 were injured, according to the Israeli Magen David Adom ambulance service.

A statement from the Israeli military said: "Thousands of Syrian civilians breached the Israel-Syria border near the Israeli village of Majdal Shams.

"IDF forces opened fire in order to prevent the violent rioters from illegally infiltrating Israeli territory. A number of rioters have infiltrated and are violently rioting in the village. From initial reports there are dozens of injured that are receiving medical care in a nearby hospital."

Most of the inhabitants of Majdal Shams, a large village close to the border, hold Syrian citizenship and have family on the other side of the border, from whom they are cut off. The Israeli army declared the area, which is heavily mined, a closed military zone on Sunday.

Despite being occupied by Israel for 44 years, the Golan is usually calm. Syria has repeatedly demanded Israel hand back the area.

A similar Nakba Day protest on the Lebanon border led to four people being killed and around 15 wounded, according to Lebanese media reports. Dozens of protesters approached the border from the Lebanese town of Maroun a-Ras.

Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai, an Israeli military spokesman, said soldiers fired when demonstrators began vandalising the border fence. The army was "aware" of casualties on the other side, he said.

Witnesses said that Israeli troops had fired across the border at protesters throwing stones from within Lebanon, a move that could have serious repercussions and prompt further cross-border incidents.

UN peacekeepers on the Lebanese side of the border appealed for "maximum restraint" to prevent casualties.

In Gaza, around 60 people were injured by shelling and machine-gun fire when protesters approached the heavily fortified Erez border crossing, according to Palestinian medical sources. Israelis living near Gaza were advised to stay inside bomb shelters.

The Israeli security forces were braced for wide-scale protests on Nakba Day – the most highly charged day in the Palestinian calendar – and had deployed around 10,000 troops and police along the country's borders and in the Palestinian territories. The West Bank was subject to a 24-hour closure, with only emergency access permitted.

The Israeli authorities warned that the first Nakba Day following uprisings across the region could herald riots across the Palestinian territories.

In the West Bank, rubber bullets were fired at about 200 Palestinians and supporters who marched towards the Qalandia crossing on the edge of Jerusalem.

There was also unrest in East Jerusalem, fuelled by the death of a 17-year-old Palestinian boy who was shot in the stomach during clashes on Friday. He died in hospital on Saturday.

In Tel Aviv, an Israeli man was killed and 17 injured when a truck ran into vehicles and pedestrians. It was not clear whether the incident was an accident or a deliberate attack. The truck's 22-year-old Israeli-Arab driver said he lost control of the vehicle due to faulty brakes.

Title: Video and Photos of Nakba Day Riots and ‘Terror Truck’ Attack
Post by: G M on May 15, 2011, 10:35:57 AM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144182

Video and Photos of Nakba Day Riots and ‘Terror Truck’ Attack

 
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu




Hundreds of Arabs rioted throughout Israel the past three days in “Nakba Day” protests against the re-establishment of Israel.
 
A video of a massive anti-Israel rally at the Kalandia checkpoint north of Jerusalem shows Arabs hooting at Israeli security forces.

Title: Dershowitz on Bamster and Israel
Post by: ccp on May 19, 2011, 06:13:15 PM

President Obama’s mistake
05/20/2011 03:00   By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
The US President was wrong to insist that Israel give up its card of occupying most of the West Bank without demanding that the Palestinians give up theirs, the so called right of return.
 
Photo by: REUTERS
President Barack Obama should be commended for his emphasis on Israel’s security and his concern about Hamas joining the Palestinian Authority without renouncing its violent charter. But he made one serious mistake that tilts the balance against Israel in any future negotiations. Without insisting that the Palestinians give up their absurd claim to have millions of supposed refugees “return” to Israel as a matter of right, he insisted that Israel must surrender all of the areas captured in its defensive war of 1967, subject only to land swaps.
state should be based on '67 lines

This formulation undercuts Security Council Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role in helping to draft). Resolution 242, passed unanimously by the Security Council in the wake of Israel’s 1967 victory, contemplated some territorial adjustments necessary to assure Israel’s security against future attacks. It also contemplated that Israel would hold onto the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the access roads to Hebrew University, without the need for any land swaps. Land swaps would only be required to make up for any areas beyond those contemplated by Resolution 242. The Obama formulation would seem to require land swaps even for the Western Wall.

Any proposed peace agreement will require the Palestinians to give up the so-called right of return, which is designed not for family reunification, but rather to turn Israel into another Palestinian state with an Arab majority. As all reasonable people know, the right of return is a non-starter. It is used as a “card” by the Palestinian leadership who fully understand that they will have to give it up if they want real peace. The Israelis also know that they will have to end their occupation of most of the West Bank (as they ended their occupation of Gaza) if they want real peace. Obama’s mistake was to insist that Israel give up its card without demanding that the Palestinians give up theirs.

Obama’s mistake is a continuation of a serious mistake he made early in his administration. That first mistake was to demand that Israel freeze all settlements. The Palestinian Authority had not demanded that as a condition to negotiations. But once the President of the United States issued such a demand, the Palestinian leadership could not be seen by its followers as being less Palestinian than the President. In other words, President Obama made it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to be reasonable. Most objective observers now recognize Obama’s serious mistake in this regard. What is shocking is that he has done it again. By demanding that Israel surrender all the territories it captured in the 1967 war (subject only to land swaps) without insisting that the Palestinians surrender their right of return, the President has gone further than Palestinian negotiators had during various prior negotiations. This makes it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to be reasonable in their negotiations with the Israelis.

It is not too late for the President to “clarify” his remarks so that all sides understand that there must be quid for quo - that the Palestinians must surrender any right to return if the Israelis are expected to seriously consider going back to the 1967 lines (which Abba Eban called “the Auschwitz lines” because they denied Israel real security).

If President Obama is to play a positive role in bringing the Palestinians and the Israelis to the negotiating table, he should insist that there be no preconditions to negotiation. This would mean the Palestinians no longer insisting on a settlement freeze before they will even sit down to try to negotiate realistic borders. The President did not even ask the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. Nor did he ask them to drop the condition that he, in effect, made them adopt when he earlier insisted on the freeze.

The President missed an important opportunity in delivering his highly anticipated speech. We are no closer to negotiations now than we were before the speech. My fear is that we may be a bit further away as a result of the President’s one-sided insistence that Israel surrender territories without the Palestinians giving up the right of return. I hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington may increase the chances of meaningful negotiations. I wish I could be more optimistic but the President’s speech gave no cause for optimism. I wish it had been different because I strongly support a two-state solution based on a willingness by Israel to surrender territories captured in 1967 coupled with a willingness of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, to renounce the use of violence and terrorism and to give up any right of return.

The writer's latest novel is The Trials of Zion
   
 

Title: Syrian forces fire into crowds
Post by: G M on May 20, 2011, 05:26:09 AM

You what would fix this? Giving Syria the Golan Heights.    :roll:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4071562,00.html

Syrian forces fire into crowds as thousands protest


Published:  05.20.11, 14:18 / Israel News 



Syrian security forces fired live rounds into crowds gathered for at least two protests in the central city of Homs, an activist in the city said, as pro-democracy demonstrations erupted across the country on Friday.

 

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the coastal city of Banias, which was stormed by the army this month, witnessed the largest demonstration since the uprising began in southern Syria nine weeks ago. (Reuters)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 20, 2011, 07:48:15 AM

It will be interesting to see MSLSD spin the story in a way that shows Bmaster is commited to Israel.
I assume they will have Tom Freidman on giving us a  lecture.  Of course Zakaria on CNN who it was revealed gives advice to the Bamster, the one who "looks like me", stated Zakaria will of course rationalize the brilliance of his Harvard buddy's handling of all foreign policy issues.

Soros of course is probably ecstatic over this.  He clearly blames Israel for the middle east mess. 

Again I am not afraid to say he is one Jew who makes me disgusted.

Like an Italian who feels the mafia gives their people a bad name.

Title: Glick: BO abandons America and Isreal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 20, 2011, 08:38:12 AM

Caroline Glick   
Obama's Abandonment of America


I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today's column for the Jerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama's speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn't want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he'll do by Tuesday?

Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.

Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security. Obama's renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:

First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: "Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace."

Then he said, "Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind."

While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, "a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities."

And you know what that means. If the US doesn't end the "spiral of division," (sounds sort of like "spiral of violence" doesn't it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

How do we know this is Obama's plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the "spiral of division," he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.

And of course, intimations of Obama's plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:

"There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region."

So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.

And he also said that the US will "support the governments that will be elected later this year" in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.

Then there is the way Obama abandoned US allies Yemen and Bahrain in order to show the US's lack of hypocrisy. As he presented it, the US will not demand from its enemies Syria and Iran that which it doesn't demand from its friends.

While this sounds fair, it is anything but fair. The fact is that if you don't distinguish between your allies and your enemies then you betray your allies and side with your enemies. Bahrain and Yemen need US support to survive. Iran and Syria do not. So when he removes US support from the former, his action redounds to the direct benefit of the latter.

I hope the US Navy's 5th Fleet has found alternate digs because Obama just opened the door for Iran to take over Bahrain. He also invited al Qaeda - which he falsely claimed is a spent force - to take over Yemen.

Beyond his abandonment of Bahrain and Yemen, in claiming that the US mustn't distinguish between its allies and its foes, Obama made clear that he has renounced the US's right to have and pursue national interests. If you can't favor your allies against your enemies then you cannot defend your national interests. And if you cannot defend your national interests then you renounce your right to have them.

As for Iran, in his speech, Obama effectively abandoned the pursuit of the US's core interest of preventing nuclear proliferation. All he had to say about Iran's openly genocidal nuclear program is, "Our opposition to Iran's intolerance - as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror - is well known."

Well so is my opposition to all of that, and so is yours. But unlike us, Obama is supposed to do something about it. And by putting the gravest threat the US presently faces from the Middle East in the passive voice, he made clear that actually, the US isn't going to do anything about it.

In short, every American who is concerned about the security of the United States should be livid. The US President just abandoned his responsibility to defend the country and its interests in the interest of coddling the US's worst enemies.

As for Israel, in a way, Obama did Israel a favor by giving this speech. By abandoning even a semblance of friendliness, he has told us that we have nothing whatsoever to gain by trying to make him like us. Obama didn't even say that he would oppose the Palestinians' plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution in support for Palestinian independence. All he said was that it is a dumb idea.

Obama sided with Hamas against Israel by acting as though its partnership with Fatah is just a little problem that has to be sorted out to reassure the paranoid Jews. Or as he put it, "the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel."

Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It's in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, "Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection."

Irrelevant and untrue.

It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don't want peace. That's why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel's destruction.

As for being untrue, Obama's speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.

Then of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:

He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;

He didn't say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;

He again ignored Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;

He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;

He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;

He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley - without which it is powerless against invasion - by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.

Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words - security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it - were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.

Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."

What does that mean "with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?"

It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.

All of this means is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was planning to be nice to Obama, and pretend that everything is terrific with the administration, he should just forget about it. He needn't attack Obama. Let the Republicans do that.

But both in his speech to AIPAC and his address to Congress, he should very forthrightly tell the truth about the nature of the populist movements in the Middle East, the danger of a nuclear Iran, the Palestinians' commitment to Israel's destruction; the lie of the so-called peace process; the importance of standing by allies; and the critical importance of a strong Israel to US national security.

Title: WSJ: Israel's former UN ambassador, Gold
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2011, 11:06:10 AM

By DORE GOLD
It's no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel's boundaries before the Six Day War.

Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel's future borders with a Palestinian state "should be based on the 1967 lines," a position he tried to offset by offering "mutually agreed land swaps." Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule.

Remember that before the Six Day War, those lines in the West Bank only demarcated where five Arab armies were halted in their invasion of the nascent state of Israel 19 years earlier. Legally, they formed only an armistice line, not a recognized international border. No Palestinian state ever existed that could have claimed these prewar lines. Jordan occupied the West Bank after the Arab invasion, but its claim to sovereignty was not recognized by any U.N. members except Pakistan and the U.K. As Jordan's U.N. ambassador said before the war, the old armistice lines "did not fix boundaries." Thus the central thrust of Arab-Israeli diplomacy for more than 40 years was that Israel must negotiate an agreed border with its Arab neighbors.

The cornerstone of all postwar diplomacy was U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967. It did not demand that Israel pull back completely to the pre-1967 lines. Its withdrawal clause only called on Israel to withdraw "from territories," not from all territories. Britain's foreign secretary at the time, George Brown, later underlined the distinction: "The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,' and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

View Full Image

AFP/Getty Images
 
President Obama speaking about Israel Thursday.
.Prior to the Six Day War, Jerusalem had been sliced in two, and the Jewish people were denied access to the Old City and its holy sites. Jerusalem's Christian population also faced limitations. As America's ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, would explain, Resolution 242 did not preclude Israel's reunification of Jerusalem. In fact, Resolution 242 became the only agreed basis of all Arab-Israeli peace agreements, from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

How were Israel's legal rights to new boundaries justified? A good explanation came from Judge Stephen Schwebel, who would later be an adviser to the State Department and then president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Writing in the American Journal of International Law in 1970, he noted that Israel's title to West Bank territory—in the event that it sought alterations in the pre-Six Day War lines—emanated from the fact that it had acted in lawful exercise of its right to self-defense. It was not the aggressor.

View Full Image
...The flexibility for creating new borders was preserved for decades. Indeed, the 1993 Oslo Agreements, signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, did not stipulate that the final borders between Israel and the Palestinians would be the 1967 lines. Borders were to be a subject for future negotiations. An April 2004 U.S. letter to Israel, backed by a bipartisan consensus in both houses of Congress, stipulated that Israel was not expected to fully withdraw, but rather was entitled to "defensible borders." U.S. secretaries of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher reiterated the same point in past letters of assurance.

If the borders between Israel and the Palestinians need to be negotiated, then what are the implications of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that states up front that those borders must be the 1967 lines? Some commentators assert that all Mr. Abbas wants to do is strengthen his hand in future negotiations with Israel, and that this does not contradict a negotiated peace. But is that really true? Why should Mr. Abbas ever negotiate with Israel if he can rely on the automatic majority of Third World countries at the U.N. General Assembly to back his positions on other points that are in dispute, like the future of Jerusalem, the refugee question, and security?


Mr. Abbas's unilateral move at the U.N. represents a massive violation of a core commitment in the Oslo Agreements in which both Israelis and Palestinians undertook that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of Permanent Status negotiations." Palestinian spokesmen counter that Israeli settlements violated this clause. Yet former Prime Minister Rabin was very specific while negotiating Oslo in preserving the rights of Israeli citizens to build their homes in these disputed areas, by insisting that the settlements would be one of the subjects of final status negotiations between the parties.

By turning to the U.N., Mr. Abbas wants to use the international community to change the legal status of the territories. Why should Israel rely on Mr. Abbas in the future after what is plainly a material breach of this core obligation?

The truth is that Mr. Abbas has chosen a unilateralist course instead of negotiations. For that reason he has no problem tying his fate to Hamas, the radical organization that is the antithesis of peace. Its infamous 1988 Charter calls for Israel's complete destruction and sees Islam in an historic battle with the Jewish people. In 2006, Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Hamas leader who attended the recent Cairo reconciliation ceremony with Mr. Abbas's Fatah movement, stated openly that Hamas was still committed to its 1988 Charter, noting, "the movement [would] not change a single word." Hamas's jihadist orientation was reconfirmed when Ismail Haniyeh, its prime minister in Gaza, condemned the U.S. for eliminating Osama bin Laden.

All Israeli prime ministers have spoken about negotiations as a vehicle for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. There would be an end of claims. However, Mr. Abbas has now revealed his intention of using the U.N. for perpetuating the conflict. As he wrote this week: "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one."

Mr. Abbas clearly is not prepared to make a historic compromise. By running to the U.N. and to Hamas, he is evading the hard choices he has to make, and he is leaving any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict far more difficult for future generations.

Mr. Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Title: Obama’s failure to internalize Palestinian intolerance
Post by: Rachel on May 22, 2011, 06:11:29 AM

Obama’s failure to internalize Palestinian intolerance
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=221510
By DAVID HOROVITZ
20/05/2011   
David Horovitz, Comment: The president’s new parameters show him blind to the significance of the demand for a "right of return."
 
Last Sunday, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Palestinian Arabs who had left Israel while the Arab world tried to murder our state at birth, attempted a symbolic “return,” with varying degrees of success, across the Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptian borders, and from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

They were warmly praised in this effort by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the ostensibly moderate successor to Yasser Arafat with whom Israel has been trying for almost eight years to make peace. Abbas -- who later in the week, in a New York Times op-ed, rewrote the history of Israel’s reestablishment to air-brush out the Arabs’ rejection of what would have been their independent state alongside ours -- movingly praised those who had died in Sunday’s “Nakba Day” assault on Israel’s borders (most of them killed by Lebanese Army forces) as the latest “martyrs” to the Palestinian cause.

RELATED:
'Obama says Netanyahu unable to make peace'
Analysis: What rankled Netanyahu in the Obama speech
Netanyahu rejects any Israeli return to the 1967 lines

Sunday’s Nakba onslaught against sovereign Israel, and its moving endorsement by Israel’s putative Palestinian partner, was the latest bleak demonstration of the Palestinians’ insistent refusal, for close to two-thirds of a century, to internalize the fact that the Jews have a historic claim to this sliver of land, and that their demands for statehood cannot be realized at the cost of ours.

Amid all the “differences” that Binyamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama on Friday acknowledged in their visions for the way forward to Israeli-Palestinian peace, it is the president’s evident incapacity to appreciate the uncompromising Palestinian refusal to countenance Israel’s legitimacy that is most damaging the vital American-Israeli relationship and most dooming his approach to peacemaking.

An indication of his failure to internalize that Israel, in any borders, is regarded as fundamentally illegitimate by much of the Palestinian leadership and public was evident in Obama’s 2009 Muslim world outreach speech in Cairo. He failed, before that most vital of audiences, to mention Israel’s historic tie to this land – the fact that this is the only place where the Jews have ever been sovereign, the only place where the Jews have ever sought sovereignty, a place we never willingly left and one to which we always prayed to return.

No Palestinian leader will advocate viable compromise with Israel until this sovereign Jewish connection is accepted, and yet the president opted not to utilize that extraordinary opportunity to emphasize our sovereign rights here, and thus to encourage the necessary compromise.

Two years on, the president all too obviously has not changed. There were positives for Israel in his Thursday speech on the Middle East – including the insistence that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, and the criticism of Palestinian moves to seek UN support for statehood without negotiating peace with Israel. These were outweighed by the negatives, however. And common to those negative formulations -- from a president who may well truly believe that he is being fair to Israel, and that we are hamstrung by a prime minister incapable of taking the decisions necessary to ensure Israel’s Jewish and democratic future – is the refusal to acknowledge Palestinian intolerance for  Jewish sovereignty, and press urgently for the measures needed to reduce and eventually eliminate that intolerance.

It is immensely troubling for many Israelis to recognize that our most important strategic partner is now publicly advocating, before any significant sign of Palestinian compromise on final status issues has been detected, that we withdraw, more or less, to the pre-1967 lines – the so-called “Auschwitz borders” -- from which we were relentlessly attacked in our first two fragile decades of statehood. But only a president who ignores or underestimates Palestinian hostility to Israel could propose a formula for reviving negotiations in which he set out those parameters for high-risk territorial compromise without simultaneously making crystal clear that there will  be no “right of return” for Palestinian refugees.

Obama is urging Israel – several of whose leaders have offered dramatic territorial concessions in the cause of peace, and proven their honest intentions by leaving southern Lebanon, Gaza and major West Bank cities, only to be rewarded with new bouts of violence – to give up its key disputed asset, the biblically resonant territory of Judea and Samaria, as stage one of a “peace” process. But he is not demanding that the Palestinians – whose leaders have consistently failed to embrace far-reaching peace offers, most notably Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer of a withdrawal to adjusted ’67 lines and the dividing of Jerusalem – give up their key disputed asset, the unconscionable demand for a Jewish-state-destroying “right of return” for millions, until some vague subsequent stage, if at all. He merely suggests that the refugee issue, along with Jerusalem, be addressed later on.

Our prime minister and the president of the United States may not get on terribly well. They may mistrust each other. Each may well think that the other is unrealistic, naïve, arrogant or worse. But the common interest and values shared by our two countries ought to dwarf any such antipathies, and bilateral communications should be coherent enough for vital messages and concerns to be effectively conveyed and addressed.

Yet the president’s new formula for Israeli-Palestinian peace is so unworkable and so counter-productive as to indicate a complete breakdown in such communication. No international player, and certainly no Palestinian negotiator, is now going to defy the Obama framework and declare that the Israelis cannot possibly be required to sanction a dangerous pullback toward the ’67 lines unless or until the Palestinians formally relinquish the demand for a “right of return.” And so we can look ahead to another period of diplomatic deadlock, of an Israel appearing recalcitrant in not meeting the publicly stated expectations of its key ally, of the Palestinians garnering ever-greater international legitimacy even as they are freed of the requirement to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel by withdrawing their demand to destroy it by weight of refugee numbers.

Some commentators are suggesting that, in his public remarks alongside Netanyahu at the White House on Friday, Obama was trying to show greater empathy for Israel, attempting to reduce some of the frictions caused by his Thursday speech. The president did move just a little on the matter of the Fatah-Hamas unity deal by invoking the Quartet principles in connection with Hamas’s viability as a partner.


 For the most part, however, Obama returned to the parameters he had set out on Thursday, coming back to some of what he’d said using very similar wording, and declining to introduce elements that he had chosen not to include a day before.

Most gallingly, as on Thursday and now again at this most obvious of opportunities, he chose not to state clearly and firmly – as there can be no doubt predecessors like George W Bush and Bill Clinton would have done in such a context – that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be solved independently of Israel. He did not make clear that just as Israel built a vibrant state absorbing the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa six decades ago, a new “Palestine” would finally have to resolve its assiduously perpetuated refugee crisis and abandon the dream of a “return.” The repeated omission will have delighted all of Israel’s uncompromising enemies. The dream lives on.

Netanyahu, of course, filled the breach. Netanyahu spoke about the impossibility of a “right of return.” “It’s not going to happen,” he said, as the president sat impassive alongside him. “Everybody knows it’s not going to happen.  And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”

But Obama did no such thing. For the second day in succession the president, in the same week as the Nakba assault on Israel’s borders, when it came to this central demand by the Palestinians that simply cannot be accepted because it would spell the demographic demise of our state, was dismayingly, insistently, resonantly silent.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2011, 07:44:49 AM

I know Israel is a heated subject, but I think it's important to present both sides; while I understand the reasons's for Israel's refusal of the Palestinian's demand "right of return" (Israel is for Jews) the concept or "right of return" does have some merit based upon "fairness" and historical perspective.  America and the West support democracy, yet Israel's true concern is that if they let Palestine's return to their home their vote may overwhelm the Jewish vote.  Hardly a democratic reason.  And the fact that other countries may not offer freedom of religion etc. is not relevant.  I don't approve of them either.  As Marc has said, we need to be held to a higher level. 

Of course, one can argue the opposite on many issues. And the issue of security, safety, etc. of Israel are all valid.  Further, all Palestinian's need to acknowledge Israel's legitimacy.  But if you think in terms of fairness and equality, the peaceful "right of return" does have some merit.   Why can't the subject be on the negotiating table?

I think it's important to remember that Obama must do what's best for America's interests not necessarily Israel's.  Further, I think Obama should take into consideration the opinion of our other allies as well; again Israel's opinion, as being only one of many of our allies, may differ.  As CCP acknowledged, Israel's interests and America's interest may not always coincide.   While I think we should support and defend Israel as we have done, and Obama has confirmed his support, America's interests need to be first and foremost.


___
The Palestinian refugee problem started during the 1948 Palestine War, when between 700,000 and 750,000 Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes and the area that became Israel. They settled in refugee camps in Transjordan (including the area now known as the West Bank), Lebanon, Syria and in Egypt (including the area now known as the Gaza Strip).
From December 1947 to March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinians left. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the situation had calmed down.[18] From April to July, between 250,000 and 300,000 fled in front of Haganah offensives, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, that lost more than 90% of their Arab inhabitants.[19] Some expulsions arose, particularly along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem road[20] and in Eastern Galilee.[21] After the truce of June, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees.[22] About 50,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by Israeli forces during Operation Danny,[23] and most others during clearing operations performed by the IDF on its rear areas.[24] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee could remain in their homes.[25] They later formed the core of the Arab Israelis. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to chase Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to chase the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee. This generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinians. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.[26] During Operation Hiram, at least nine massacres of Arabs were performed by IDF soldiers.[27] After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF cleared its borders, which resulted in the expulsion of around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs.[28] The UN estimated the number of refugees outside Israel at 711,000.[29]

The first formal move towards the recognition of a right of return was in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 passed on 11 December 1948 which provided (Article 11):
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Some also regard as a massive injustice the fact that since 1950 Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel under Israel's Law of Return, even if their immediate ancestors have not lived in the area in recent years, while people who grew up in the area and whose immediate ancestors had lived there for many generations are forbidden from returning.[62] -
The Israeli Law of Return grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world and is viewed by some as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left.[63][64][65][66]

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, passed on 22 November 1974 declared the right of return to be an "inalienable right".[14]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2011, 08:34:11 AM

Obama's speech today to the Pro - Israel Lobby seemed very reasonable.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/149789/20110522/obama-s-speech-aipac-may-22-2011.htm

"You also see our commitment to Israel's security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation's last year, "Israel's existence must not be a subject for debate," and "efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2011, 09:11:04 AM

JDN,

Does Mexico have the "right of return" to places that were once Mexico, such as California? Do we have a right to decide who lives in the US  or should we give up any pretence of a border?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2011, 09:41:21 AM

Good questions GM.

I couldn't keep track of the numbers of refugees claimed to the point where I could calculate the total number claimed (and note that it is a claim, not an established fact) but I wonder at the remarkable absence of any mention of all the hundreds of thousands (700,000?) of Jewish refugees from Arab lands to Israel.  Where is there "right of return"?  Where is the outcry for them to be paid for what they had to abandon?

As for the "reasonableness" of BO's speech , , ,

"Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder - without a peace deal - to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state."

True.

"Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace."

True.

"And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders."

True, but lets look at this more clearly.  It is exactly right to question whether the peace with Egypt is going to last.  It is exactly right to question whether Hamas, or the majority that elected it in Gaza and may well may elect it in the West Bank next year will respect a deal made by Abbas. 

"Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained."

Although not stated clearly, it appears that the reference to "millions of Arab citizens" includes other Arabs in the area-- or perhaps throughout the entire middle east?-- not just the Palestinians.  So, exactly with whom is Obama saying Israel must come to terms?  And much more importantly, the entire world has seen that it is possible for peace to be sustained-- look at the deal with Egypt!!! So why the lack of intellectual honesty in saying so???

"Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process - or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world." 

Ummm , , , no, this is not right at all.   The so-called "world community" is perfectly content to trade "Jews for Oil"-- and in the case of demographically imploding Europe, it also is a matter of cravenly seeking to placate the Arabs within its midst.   The Palestinians have elected Hamas, which is dedicated to wiping out the Jews.  Calling any of this "impatience with the peace process" is an Orwellian joke.

"These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate."

And what of candidate Obama's repeated assertions about the status of Jerusalem, now mere dust in the wind-- along with the written commitments of the previous administration.  Does not the written word of the US require continuity across administrations?  Or are we to be held to a lower standard than the one that must be required of a Palestinian nation if/when an agreement is reached?

"Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner - which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric."

No doubt everyone quakes in fear at being held accountable by President Obama, , , Furthermore, it is not enough for Israel to negotiate only with those who recognize its right to exist, it is also a matter of those who do recognize its right to exist controlling those who don't!  And what happens if a majority no longer favors peace?  Does a majority favor peace now?  If so, why is Hamas in power in Gaza?

"But the march to isolate Israel internationally - and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations - will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative."

True.

"For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success."

This is utter gibberish.  The Palestinians can have peace any time they want.  Recognize Israel's right to exist and forget the right of return-- which is synonymous with the destruction of Israel.  Egypt recognized this, and got Sinai back.  This option has been available for decades now and continues to be available.

"So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require."

No, you lying sack of excrement, you did it because Netanyahu was coming to speak to the US Congress.

Then  there is the matter of a "contiguous" Palestine-- does this mean that Gaza and the West Bank are going to become connected?!?!?!?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2011, 09:46:40 AM

Quote from: G M on May 22, 2011, 09:11:04 AM

JDN,

Does Mexico have the "right of return" to places that were once Mexico, such as California? Do we have a right to decide who lives in the US  or should we give up any pretence of a border?

It was not a good question.  GM's analogy is faulty. After being evicted, Palestinians want to return to Israel.  Mexicans were never evicted from California in mass.  No is is questioning Israel's right of existence as a country; the issue on the table is "right of return".  Further, pursuing your analogy, Hispanics now comprise nearly 40% of the population of California and are the fastest growing ethnic group.  One day soon they will probably be the majority.  Does that bother me?  No.  I don't care if whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. are the majority.  We all have equal votes and rights; no group is or should be favored.

Nor do we limit Hispanic immigration at the expense of another ethnic group.  Nor do we expel Hispanics who were born here or deny them any rights or privileges. 

And your point about Hispanics in California versus Palestinians in Israel is?   :?


As a side note, I too think everything is a non starter unless all parties in the Mideast recognize Israel's right to exist (boundaries to be determined).  Without that, how can Israel even sit down at the table.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2011, 09:54:10 AM

I think there is a serious flaw in your lumping Americans of hispanic ancestry in with the illegal invaders from Mexico. It's about national integrity and survival.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2011, 10:03:20 AM

Does a country have the right to make decisions as to who is allowed in and not allowed in? Should a country act in it's own self interest, as you insist we do regarding Israel?

Title: The Middle East Operational Codes
Post by: G M on May 22, 2011, 10:14:39 AM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_middle_east_operational_co.html

May 21, 2011
The Middle East Operational Codes: Five Keys to Understanding
 By David Bukay

 


Understanding the ME, as tumultuous, anarchist, and violent as it is, does not require complicated pundit analyses and convoluted explanations.  Rather, in light of last month's uprisings, simplicity is the key, with five variables serving as instrumental in understanding the ME operational code.

The first key to understanding is that the Middle Eastern state, with its political institutions being a Western import, is weak and ineffective compared to the indigenous Middle Eastern social institutions: the clan, the tribe, and the religious community.  The Arab states have emerged under European imperialistic rule, and their borders have been delineated without political, territorial, or functional logic.  All Arab states comprise violent, hostile tribes and rival religious communities that stick together only by coercion from an oppressive authoritarian regime.  In the absence of institutional legitimacy and participatory systems, order and stability are overturned by political decay and antagonistic politics.  This means that operationally, when there is a crisis and the authority of the patrimonial leader weakens, the tendency is to revert to the secure, well-established frameworks of the tribe, the clan, or the religious community, releasing ancient rivalries that lead to chaotic violence.

The second key to understanding is that Middle Eastern leaders are not secure in their offices.  Threatened by rivals from the political military elite and by Islamist movements (which are the only organized opposition groups), the leaders of authoritarian regimes cannot rule unless they are strong, violent, and patrimonial.  This also means that democracy, as a consensual system with developmental stages, cannot emerge or exist.  Therefore, when the authority of a ME regime disintegrates, the outcome is not democracy, but rather anarchy as the most likely replacement.

The third key to understanding, and perhaps the most important one, is the central role of the army, being the regime's principal power and political supporter.  One can safely adopt the rule: "You tell me what the attitude of the army is vis-à-vis the regime, and I will tell you the longevity and survivability of the regime in power."  This is exactly what is happening in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria.  This is exactly what will determine the fate of other regimes.  Indeed, the Arab military in politics holds the highest importance in the ME.

The fourth key to understanding is that the inhabitants -- the masses -- have never been a sovereign electing people; historically, they have been without influence in the political realm and the decision-making processes.  In the Arab world, there is no social contract based on trust and cooperation, as the foundation of Arab life is suspicion of the other and hatred of the foreigner.  The only thing that binds the population together is fear of and intimidation by the authoritarian ruler.  That is why the role of the ruler is so crucially important; one can say that it is almost demanded of him to conduct a reign of terror and intimidation on the population.  Otherwise, chaos and anarchy prevail.  Thus, when the barrier of fear is broken, as is happening now, the authority of the regime disintegrates.  The central state system is weakened, and the political process turns to the street.

The fifth key to understanding is that the alternative to the current regimes in power are other leaders coming from the same political elite or Islamic groups coming from the opposition.  Both are patrimonial, oppressive, and undemocratic.  It must be clearly stated that aside from anarchy, one of the most likely alternatives to the ME regimes is not democracy, but Islamism.  The Islamic phenomenon is not defensive and passive; it is an aggressive onslaught against modernism and secularism led by urban, educated, secular middle-class groups.  Western permissiveness and materialism are the forces leading to these groups' return to Islam and motivating them to bring the Islamic religion back to a hegemony (al-Islam Huwa al-Hall al-Waheed).

Examining these keys through a macro-level analysis enables us to understand the ME operational codes.  Thomas Friedman has praised the Arab revolution and accused Israel of being detached from the new realities (NYT, February, 2, 8, and 14, 2011).  In his delusions, Friedman has envisioned a revolution of the Facebook generation that leads to democracy and the denial of Islamism.  Likewise, other sources in Western media and many experts have celebrated the "emergence of the New ME," while in fact the opposite situation is the reality.  Now these same sources are lamenting that the democratic revolution went wrong and that all that remains is a violent power struggle.

We are witnessing the same old chaotic, anarchic ME, and the Arab people's uprisings will not lead to democracies and consensual regimes.  In fact, there is a high probability that the outcome of the uprisings will be either more oppressive authoritarian regimes and patrimonial leadership from the military or the emergence of Islamist groups under the Shari'ah.  The latter outcome would ultimately lead to the victory of either Iran and the Shiite version of Islam or al-Qaeda and the Salafi-Sunni version of Islam.

Regarding the ME, the next decade is more likely to witness the emergence of the Sunni Caliphate or the Shiite Imamate struggling for hegemony.  Both outcomes signal an imminent threat to the security of the West.  However, instead of concentrating on understanding the operational code of the ME, and instead of trying to maintain the status quo, Western leaders prefer to operate through delusional wishful-thinking policies.  This pattern is evidenced by Westerners' unwavering focus on the well-used scapegoat, the perhaps unsolvable "Palestinian question."  It is as if regional and international leaders are desperately trying to find comfort in this one easily characterized issue.

There are more than twenty-five current civil wars going on around the world; there are a billion poor, miserable and hungry people who earn a dollar a day; there are deep food crises and water shortages; there are huge unresolved political issues and hosts of nations without the opportunity to form an independent state (James Minahan, Nations without States, Westport, CT, 1996).  But the international community prefers to concentrate on the Palestinian issue.  Indeed, we can draw a direct line between the world's desperation to solve real problems and its eagerness to deliberately concentrate on the Palestine situation.

One can only marvel at how blessed the Palestinians are to have everybody dealing with their issue, as if they are the only orphans of the world.  One can only wonder how much political and financial support they receive at the expense of all those really in need.  One can only be amazed at the stupidity of the false belief that all other regional issues will disappear, will be gone with the wind, if only the Palestinian issue is solved.

The hard truth is that rather than heralding the dawn of democracy and prosperity, this misguided belief and the misunderstanding of the ME operational code are more likely the harbinger of the dark winter of Islam -- a catastrophic set of circumstances that may well lead to the demise of U.S. influence, the destruction of Israel, and general regional chaos besides.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 22, 2011, 10:22:15 AM

Trying to use a poor analogy, you are the one who tried to lump American's of Hispanic ancestry with Palestinians "right to return".  I merely pointed out that Hispanics were not evicted in mass,
those that stayed enjoy full rights and privileges of citizenship, and new legal arrivals and/or Hispanics born here in America also enjoy equal rights to any other group.

Indicative of this truth is California being nearly 40 percent Hispanic (legal immigrants) and growing.  And if legal Hispanic immigrants, i.e. voting immigrants become
the majority, well that is fine with me.  But then if Asians became the legal majority that too would be fine with me.  Regarding religions, if Jews or Buddhists became the majority that too
would be fine with me.  I don't discriminate.

And yes, a country does have the "right to make decisions as to who is allowed in and not allowed in."  But it should be done non discriminatorily.  If we said, only white christians
could immigrate to America, would that be fair?  What would the world's opinion be of America?

Morally, I think as does most of the world think Israel's refusal to even discuss the "right of return" to be wrong.  However, perhaps for their own survival, they have no choice.
That doesn't make it morally right.  And therefore Israel is losing friends in Europe and elsewhere.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2011, 10:27:48 AM

"Morally, I think as does most of the world think Israel's refusal to even discuss the "right of return" to be wrong.  However, perhaps for their own survival, they have no choice.  That doesn't make it morally right. "

JDN, I am sorry, but this is gibberish.  It is precisely the right to survival makes it morally right!!!

"And therefore Israel is losing friends in Europe and elsewhere."

Oh horsefeathers!  Where is the outrage at Saudi Arabia (and and and )for not allowing any of the rights enjoyed by Israeli Arabs?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 22, 2011, 10:29:36 AM

There is a difference in immigrants who enter your country to be a part of it vs. immigrants who enter it to loot it, or destroy it from within, yes?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on May 22, 2011, 04:35:39 PM

Among the short short list of people who know more about the security of Israel than Pres. Obama, this is Gene Simmons of Kiss: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/21/kiss_gene_simmons_obama_has_no_fing_idea_what_the_world_is_like.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2011, 05:50:16 PM

ROTFLMAO :lol:

Title: Bibi and the empty-suit
Post by: G M on May 22, 2011, 09:05:07 PM

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bibi_obama.jpg?w=544&h=500

(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bibi_obama.jpg?w=544&h=500)

I like to call this: The warrior and the affirmative-action assclown.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 04:07:55 AM

A bit of a tangent here, I just learned this about Gene Simmons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Simmons




Chaim Witz (later Gene Simmons) was born in Tirat Carmel, Haifa, Israel in 1949. The family emigrated to Jackson Heights, Queens in New York City when he was eight years old.[2] His mother Flóra Klein ( was born in Jánd, Hungary.[3]). Florence and her brother, Larry Klein, were the only members of the family to survive the Holocaust. His father, Feri Witz, also Hungarian-born remained in Israel. Simmons says the family was "dirt poor," scraping by on bread and milk.[4] In the United States, Simmons changed his name to Eugene Klein (later Gene Klein), adopting his mother's maiden name. He attended Yeshiva in Williamsburg, Brooklyn as a child from 7 in the morning up to 9:30 at night. [5]


Political views

While a self-described social liberal,[12] Simmons was a supporter of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.[13] He supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing on his website: "I'm ashamed to be surrounded by people calling themselves liberal who are, in my opinion, spitting on the graves of brave American soldiers who gave their life to fight a war that wasn't theirs...in a country they've never been to... simply to liberate the people there in".[14] In a follow-up, Simmons explained his position and wrote about his love and support for the United States: "I wasn't born here. But I have a love for this country and its people that knows no bounds. I will forever be grateful to America for going into World War II, when it had nothing to gain, in a country that was far away... and rescued my mother from the Nazi German concentration camps. She is alive and I am alive because of America. And, if you have a problem with America, you have a problem with me".[14]

During the 2006 Lebanon War between Israel and Lebanon, Simmons sent a televised message of support (in both English and Hebrew) to an Israeli soldier seriously wounded in fighting in Lebanon, calling him his "hero."[15]

In 2010, Simmons said he regretted voting for Barack Obama and criticized the 2009 health care reforms.[16]

During his visit to Israel in 2011, he stated that the artists refusing to perform in Israel for political reasons are "stupid," referring to artists who canceled planned concerts in Israel.[17] [18]

Title: WSJ: Misunderstood?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 05:58:24 AM

Several key points not addressed by this piece, but , , ,

By ROBERT WEXLER AND ZVIKA KRIEGER
The reaction to President Barack Obama's speech on Thursday has largely focused on one line: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." News outlets from across the political spectrum ran headlines highlighting Mr. Obama's demand that Israel return to the "1967 borders," referring to Israel's boundaries before it took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the 1967 Six Day War.

Meantime, GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty condemned "President Obama's insistence on a return to the 1967 borders," calling it "a mistaken and very dangerous demand." Rep. Alan West (R., Fla.) described the position as "the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state." The Republican Jewish Coalition deemed a return to such borders "unacceptable."

These individuals are absolutely correct that a return to the 1967 lines would be an unacceptable proposition for Israel. But Mr. Obama never said Israel should return to the 1967 lines. He said the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps should be the basis for negotiations. As Mr. Obama said yesterday at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, "it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinans—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." With this flexibility, Israel could incorporate, in internationally recognized borders, the vast majority of some 500,000 Israelis currently living beyond the 1967 lines. In effect, Mr. Obama met the Israeli demand that a future border reflect Israeli demographic and security concerns.

The concept of land swaps has served as the basis for every serious attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past decade. For every piece of land beyond the 1967 lines that Israel wants to annex, it would give a piece of land to the Palestinians from within Israel proper.

President George W. Bush's 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now insisting that Mr. Obama reaffirm, is based on this premise. Mr. Obama's Thursday speech formalizes into official U.S. policy the working assumption of every U.S. president and secretary of state since the 2000 Camp David negotiations, as well as former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, Israel's most decorated soldier.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
Several riflemen and a machine gunner of the United Arab Republic Army are seen manning a trench somewhere in the Gaza Strip, along the border to Israel, in 1967.
.Since a large proportion of the Israeli settlers live in areas adjacent to and contiguous with the 1967 lines, there are multiple border scenarios that would allow Israel to annex the vast majority of Israelis living beyond the 1967 lines. The president's formulation encompasses solutions ranging from the Geneva Initiative (which brings into Israel 72% of Israelis living beyond the 1967 lines) to maps by David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (which bring into Israel up to 80% of Israelis living beyond the 1967 lines).

There is a finite amount of land that would be reasonable for Israel to swap in exchange for this post-1967 territory. This land should be unpopulated, away from vital Israeli infrastructure, and should not interrupt Israel's geographic contiguity or the living patterns of Israelis. It also shouldn't be near central Israel's "narrow waist," the precariously thin strip of coastal plain—some nine miles wide—between the 1967 lines and the Mediterranean Sea. Fortunately, there is enough land within Israel proper that fits these conditions that would allow the Jewish state to include the vast majority of Israelis living beyond the 1967 lines, as well as to address Israeli security concerns.

By insisting that the 1967 lines be modified, Mr. Obama showed his paramount concern for Israel's security. "Every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself—by itself—against any threat," Mr. Obama said. Furthermore, he went beyond Mr. Bush's 2004 letter to Mr. Sharon by demanding a non-militarized Palestinian state, and conditioning Israeli withdrawal from any post-1967 territory on the demonstrated effectiveness of security arrangements.

He also shared Israel's fears about Hamas's participation in the Palestinian government, legitimizing Israel's reluctance to "negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize [Israel's] right to exist." And by insisting that Israel be recognized as "a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people"—meeting another Netanyahu demand—Mr. Obama effectively renounced any return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

Based on the simplistic media coverage, it's easy to miss the distinction between "return to the 1967 lines" and the president's actual formulation of "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." The truth is that the president's vision ensures that Israel can remain a Jewish and democratic state, include within internationally recognized borders the vast majority of Israelis currently living beyond the 1967 lines, and keep its citizens safe.

Mr. Wexler, a former democratic member of Congress, is president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Mr. Krieger is senior vice president of the center.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 23, 2011, 06:12:16 AM

Every bit of land Israel has given up already has really worked out well, hasn't it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 06:19:54 AM

As I understand the argument by some lucid Isrealis, it is that holding on to Arab populated territory has considerable risks of its own.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 23, 2011, 07:48:57 AM

As I have been saying, no one seems to care  :-)  the world's opinion is turning in favor of the Palestinians.  It will continue to do so unless Israel adjusts.  And one day
America will follow.


Netanyahu's Bizarre Response to Obama's Palestinian Proposal
by Peter Beinart
May 23, 2011 | 3:23am

President Obama’s parameters for a new round of Mideast peace talks were designed to head off U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state based strictly on 1967 borders—which would be catastrophic for Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu’s immediate rejection of the plan suggests he has no grasp of the real world. Plus, Andrew Sullivan on Bibi and Barack's dangerous chess game.

A sailor throws a drowning man a life preserver. How dare you, screams the man. Because of you, people are going to think I can’t swim.
That about sums up the relationship between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. In a few months, the U.N. General Assembly will vote, probably overwhelmingly, to recognize a Palestinian state along Israel’s 1967 borders. No one knows exactly what will happen after that, but from the Israeli government’s point of view, it won’t be good. According to international law, Israel will be occupying a sovereign nation. The result will likely be a bonanza of lawsuits, divestment campaigns and cancelled business deals. Israelis will feel more and more besieged. More and more of the country’s educated, tech-savvy young will realize you can get pretty good falafel in Menlo Park.

Last week, Obama threw Netanyahu a lifeline. He outlined the parameters that should guide Israeli-Palestinian negotiations: the 1967 border, plus land swaps. Obama’s strategy was clear: He promised to veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood at the U.N. Security Council, but also hoped that by getting the Israeli government to endorse a contiguous Palestinian state in almost all of the West Bank, he could persuade the Palestinians to abandon their United Nations strategy in favor of a return to negotiations. And even if the Palestinians wouldn’t budge, Israel’s acceptance of Obama’s guidelines would make it easier to persuade European governments to oppose the Palestinians at the U.N.

Netanyahu’s response was, on its face, bizarre. The 1967 borders, he shot back, were “indefensible.” But Obama had not demanded a return to 1967 borders; he had very explicitly endorsed the 1967 borders with land swaps, which is essentially what Bill Clinton endorsed in late 2000 and Ehud Olmert endorsed in 2008. (In fact, Clinton and Olmert went further than Obama: Both endorsed a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and in different ways, signaled an openness to the return of small numbers of Palestinian refugees to Israel).
• Leslie H. Gelb: Obama’s Historic Mideast GambleBut that was only the beginning of the weirdness of Netanyahu’s response, because if Israel’s 1967 border is indefensible against conventional attack, land swaps of the sort that Clinton and Olmert envisaged actually make the problem worse. The settlement of Ariel, which Olmert hoped to swap for land inside Israel, juts like a bony finger 13 miles into the northern West Bank. According to the 2003 Geneva Initiative, keeping Maale Adumim, another large settlement for which Israel might swap land, requires a thin land bridge across a Palestinian state to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu talks a lot about Palestinian violence, but he seems utterly flummoxed by Palestinian nonviolence.

How on earth would keeping these islands of Jewish settlement make Israel’s borders more defensible? To the contrary, if Israel ever did suffer a conventional attack from the West Bank, one of the first things it would do is evacuate places like Ariel and Maale Adumim, precisely because their location makes them, well, indefensible.
• Leslie H. Gelb: Obama’s Historic Mideast GambleOver the course of his career, Benjamin Netanyahu has written a lot about what he considers “defensible borders” for Israel, and his definition has always included far more than just a few land swaps. Again and again, he has demanded an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, Israeli control of the hills overlooking key Palestinian cities and Israeli access to the major thoroughfares of the West Bank.

In other words, Netanyahu’s long career offers no indication that he would support a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state along 1967 lines even with land swaps. What’s more, he has ruled out negotiating with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, ruled out the return of even one Palestinian refugee, and demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” something Ehud Barak never demanded in 2000. The result is that he has made it easy for the Palestinians to eschew negotiations and stick with their U.N. strategy. Obama threw him a lifeline and he has defiantly tossed it back.

It makes you wonder whether Netanyahu has any grasp of the world in which he is living.
Does he seriously believe that the Obama administration, having ignominiously failed to get Israel to accept negotiations based upon the 1967 lines, can strong-arm the Europeans into opposing a Palestinian state at the U.N.? Does he have any strategy for the “diplomatic tsunami”—in Ehud Barak’s words—that is about to hit? He talks a lot about Palestinian violence, but he seems utterly flummoxed by Palestinian nonviolence. Yes, the Palestinians still produce rockets and suicide bombers. But in the Netanyahu era, their focus has moved decisively toward peaceful marches, boycotts and appeals to international law. They are playing on the world’s sympathy and the world’s impatience, and in that effort, this Israeli prime minister is the best friend they could have.
Over the last few days, Netanyahu has defied the president of the United States and forced him, once again, to retreat. He has won Washington. If only he realized that Washington is no longer the world.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 23, 2011, 07:52:57 AM

"the world's opinion is turning in favor of the Palestinians."

You mean the "palestinian" propaganda construct is looked upon favorably as a fig leaf for the ages old anti-semitism in europe.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 08:43:05 AM

Beinhart has a fair point about the deep implications of the Pal strategy of going to the UN and getting recognized there.  Glen Beck also sees this as highly significant.

Beinhart raises apparently reasonable questions about the defensibility of some of the Israeli West Bank settlements.

That said, some rather large and obvious questions remain.

a) Why was this speech sprung upon the Israelis?  Why did BO not give N. a heads up with sufficient time for some backchannel communications?

b) What the hell does "contiguous" mean in this context?  That Gaza and the West Bank will be connected?!?

c) What about BO going further (last year?) than the Pals in making suspending settlements a pre-requisite for returning to negotiations?  If I have this right, this was something that the Pals had not sought, but now must now that BO has done so.

d)  Beinhart also seems to have little problem with the idea of negotiating with Hamas  :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 23, 2011, 09:50:18 AM

 The Failure of the American Jewish EstablishmentJune 10, 2010Peter BeinartE-mail Single Page Print Share 1 2 3 → 
Benjamin Netanyahu; drawing by John Springs
In 2003, several prominent Jewish philanthropists hired Republican pollster Frank Luntz to explain why American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel. In response, he unwittingly produced the most damning indictment of the organized American Jewish community that I have ever seen.

The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz found that they mostly didn’t. “Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”

That Luntz encountered indifference was not surprising. In recent years, several studies have revealed, in the words of Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis, that “non-Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, feel much less attached to Israel than their elders,” with many professing “a near-total absence of positive feelings.” In 2008, the student senate at Brandeis, the only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored university in America, rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Jewish state.

Luntz’s task was to figure out what had gone wrong. When he probed the students’ views of Israel, he hit up against some firm beliefs. First, “they reserve the right to question the Israeli position.” These young Jews, Luntz explained, “resist anything they see as ‘group think.’” They want an “open and frank” discussion of Israel and its flaws. Second, “young Jews desperately want peace.” When Luntz showed them a series of ads, one of the most popular was entitled “Proof that Israel Wants Peace,” and listed offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land. Third, “some empathize with the plight of the Palestinians.” When Luntz displayed ads depicting Palestinians as violent and hateful, several focus group participants criticized them as stereotypical and unfair, citing their own Muslim friends.

 
Advertisement


Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives.


Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster—indeed, have actively opposed—a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.

Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled. Saving liberal Zionism in the United States—so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel—is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes.


Since the 1990s, journalists and scholars have been describing a bifurcation in Israeli society. In the words of Hebrew University political scientist Yaron Ezrahi, “After decades of what came to be called a national consensus, the Zionist narrative of liberation [has] dissolved into openly contesting versions.” One version, “founded on a long memory of persecution, genocide, and a bitter struggle for survival, is pessimistic, distrustful of non-Jews, and believing only in Jewish power and solidarity.” Another, “nourished by secularized versions of messianism as well as the Enlightenment idea of progress,” articulates “a deep sense of the limits of military force, and a commitment to liberal-democratic values.” Every country manifests some kind of ideological divide. But in contemporary Israel, the gulf is among the widest on earth.

As Ezrahi and others have noted, this latter, liberal-democratic Zionism has grown alongside a new individualism, particularly among secular Israelis, a greater demand for free expression, and a greater skepticism of coercive authority. You can see this spirit in “new historians” like Tom Segev who have fearlessly excavated the darker corners of the Zionist past and in jurists like former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak who have overturned Knesset laws that violate the human rights guarantees in Israel’s “Basic Laws.” You can also see it in former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s apparent willingness to relinquish much of the West Bank in 2000 and early 2001.

But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping for air. To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, it’s worth considering the case of Effi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank. “We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam’s views. In his youth, he briefly joined Meir Kahane’s now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israeli soil. Now Lieberman’s position might be called “pre-expulsion.” He wants to revoke the citizenship of Israeli Arabs who won’t swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed Israel’s 2008–2009 Gaza war from running candidates for the Knesset. He said Arab Knesset members who met with representatives of Hamas should be executed. He wants to jail Arabs who publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day, and he hopes to permanently deny citizenship to Arabs from other countries who marry Arab citizens of Israel.

You don’t have to be paranoid to see the connection between Lieberman’s current views and his former ones. The more you strip Israeli Arabs of legal protection, and the more you accuse them of treason, the more thinkable a policy of expulsion becomes. Lieberman’s American defenders often note that in theory he supports a Palestinian state. What they usually fail to mention is that for him, a two-state solution means redrawing Israel’s border so that a large chunk of Israeli Arabs find themselves exiled to another country, without their consent.

Lieberman served as chief of staff during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister. And when it comes to the West Bank, Netanyahu’s own record is in its way even more extreme than his protégé’s. In his 1993 book, A Place among the Nations, Netanyahu not only rejects the idea of a Palestinian state, he denies that there is such a thing as a Palestinian. In fact, he repeatedly equates the Palestinian bid for statehood with Nazism. An Israel that withdraws from the West Bank, he has declared, would be a “ghetto-state” with “Auschwitz borders.” And the effort “to gouge Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] out of Israel” resembles Hitler’s bid to wrench the German-speaking “Sudeten district” from Czechoslovakia in 1938. It is unfair, Netanyahu insists, to ask Israel to concede more territory since it has already made vast, gut-wrenching concessions. What kind of concessions? It has abandoned its claim to Jordan, which by rights should be part of the Jewish state.

On the left of Netanyahu’s coalition sits Ehud Barak’s emasculated Labor Party, but whatever moderating potential it may have is counterbalanced by what is, in some ways, the most illiberal coalition partner of all, Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party representing Jews of North African and Middle Eastern descent. At one point, Shas—like some of its Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox counterparts—was open to dismantling settlements. In recent years, however, ultra-Orthodox Israelis, anxious to find housing for their large families, have increasingly moved to the West Bank, where thanks to government subsidies it is far cheaper to live. Not coincidentally, their political parties have swung hard against territorial compromise. And they have done so with a virulence that reflects ultra-Orthodox Judaism’s profound hostility to liberal values. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shas’s immensely powerful spiritual leader, has called Arabs “vipers,” “snakes,” and “ants.” In 2005, after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed dismantling settlements in the Gaza Strip, Yosef urged that “God strike him down.” The official Shas newspaper recently called President Obama “an Islamic extremist.”

Hebrew University Professor Ze’ev Sternhell is an expert on fascism and a winner of the prestigious Israel Prize. Commenting on Lieberman and the leaders of Shas in a recent Op-Ed in Haaretz, he wrote, “The last time politicians holding views similar to theirs were in power in post–World War II Western Europe was in Franco’s Spain.” With their blessing, “a crude and multifaceted campaign is being waged against the foundations of the democratic and liberal order.” Sternhell should know. In September 2008, he was injured when a settler set off a pipe bomb at his house.


Israeli governments come and go, but the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism. In 2009, a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 53 percent of Jewish Israelis (and 77 percent of recent immigrants from the former USSR) support encouraging Arabs to leave the country. Attitudes are worst among Israel’s young. When Israeli high schools held mock elections last year, Lieberman won. This March, a poll found that 56 percent of Jewish Israeli high school students—and more than 80 percent of religious Jewish high school students—would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset. An education ministry official called the survey “a huge warning signal in light of the strengthening trends of extremist views among the youth.”

1 2 3 → Also In This Issue

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 23, 2011, 09:55:50 AM

“Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”

I don't see that as a bad thing. If you are an American, you should see other countries, even allies as "them", not "us".

Title: pg2
Post by: ccp on May 23, 2011, 10:06:17 AM

The Failure of the American Jewish EstablishmentJune 10, 2010Peter BeinartE-mail Single Page Print Share ← 1 2 3 → 
Jim Hollander/epa/Corbis

The writer David Grossman, right, protesting with Palestinians and Israelis against the eviction of Palestinian families from the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, April 9, 2010
You might think that such trends, and the sympathy for them expressed by some in Israel’s government, would occasion substantial public concern—even outrage—among the leaders of organized American Jewry. You would be wrong. In Israel itself, voices from the left, and even center, warn in increasingly urgent tones about threats to Israeli democracy. (Former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have both said that Israel risks becoming an “apartheid state” if it continues to hold the West Bank. This April, when settlers forced a large Israeli bookstore to stop selling a book critical of the occupation, Shulamit Aloni, former head of the dovish Meretz Party, declared that “Israel has not been democratic for some time now.”) But in the United States, groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference patrol public discourse, scolding people who contradict their vision of Israel as a state in which all leaders cherish democracy and yearn for peace.

The result is a terrible irony. In theory, mainstream American Jewish organizations still hew to a liberal vision of Zionism. On its website, AIPAC celebrates Israel’s commitment to “free speech and minority rights.” The Conference of Presidents declares that “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace.” These groups would never say, as do some in Netanyahu’s coalition, that Israeli Arabs don’t deserve full citizenship and West Bank Palestinians don’t deserve human rights. But in practice, by defending virtually anything any Israeli government does, they make themselves intellectual bodyguards for Israeli leaders who threaten the very liberal values they profess to admire.

After Israel’s elections last February, for instance, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the Presidents’ Conference, explained that Avigdor Lieberman’s agenda was “far more moderate than the media has presented it.” Insisting that Lieberman bears no general animus toward Israeli Arabs, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “He’s not saying expel them. He’s not saying punish them.” (Permanently denying citizenship to their Arab spouses or jailing them if they publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day evidently does not qualify as punishment.) The ADL has criticized anti-Arab bigotry in the past, and the American Jewish Committee, to its credit, warned that Lieberman’s proposed loyalty oath would “chill Israel’s democratic political debate.” But the Forward summed up the overall response of America’s communal Jewish leadership in its headline “Jewish Leaders Largely Silent on Lieberman’s Role in Government.”


 
Advertisement



Not only does the organized American Jewish community mostly avoid public criticism of the Israeli government, it tries to prevent others from leveling such criticism as well. In recent years, American Jewish organizations have waged a campaign to discredit the world’s most respected international human rights groups. In 2006, Foxman called an Amnesty International report on Israeli killing of Lebanese civilians “bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic.” The Conference of Presidents has announced that “biased NGOs include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Christian Aid, [and] Save the Children.” Last summer, an AIPAC spokesman declared that Human Rights Watch “has repeatedly demonstrated its anti-Israel bias.” When the Obama administration awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, former UN high commissioner for human rights, the ADL and AIPAC both protested, citing the fact that she had presided over the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. (Early drafts of the conference report implicitly accused Israel of racism. Robinson helped expunge that defamatory charge, angering Syria and Iran.)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not infallible. But when groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference avoid virtually all public criticism of Israeli actions—directing their outrage solely at Israel’s neighbors—they leave themselves in a poor position to charge bias. Moreover, while American Jewish groups claim that they are simply defending Israel from its foes, they are actually taking sides in a struggle within Israel between radically different Zionist visions. At the very moment the Anti-Defamation League claimed that Robinson harbored an “animus toward Israel,” an alliance of seven Israeli human rights groups publicly congratulated her on her award. Many of those groups, like B’Tselem, which monitors Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, and the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights, have been at least as critical of Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank as have Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

All of which raises an uncomfortable question. If American Jewish groups claim that Israel’s overseas human rights critics are motivated by anti- Israeli, if not anti-Semitic, bias, what does that say about Israel’s domestic human rights critics? The implication is clear: they must be guilty of self-hatred, if not treason. American Jewish leaders don’t generally say that, of course, but their allies in the Netanyahu government do. Last summer, Israel’s vice prime minister, Moshe Ya’alon, called the anti-occupation group Peace Now a “virus.” This January, a right-wing group called Im Tirtzu accused Israeli human rights organizations of having fed information to the Goldstone Commission that investigated Israel’s Gaza war. A Knesset member from Netanyahu’s Likud promptly charged Naomi Chazan, head of the New Israel Fund, which supports some of those human rights groups, with treason, and a member of Lieberman’s party launched an investigation aimed at curbing foreign funding of Israeli NGOs.

To their credit, Foxman and other American Jewish leaders opposed the move, which might have impaired their own work. But they are reaping what they sowed. If you suggest that mainstream human rights criticism of Israel’s government is motivated by animus toward the state, or toward Jews in general, you give aid and comfort to those in Israel who make the same charges against the human rights critics in their midst.


In the American Jewish establishment today, the language of liberal Zionism—with its idioms of human rights, equal citizenship, and territorial compromise—has been drained of meaning. It remains the lingua franca in part for generational reasons, because many older American Zionists still see themselves as liberals of a sort. They vote Democratic; they are unmoved by biblical claims to the West Bank; they see average Palestinians as decent people betrayed by bad leaders; and they are secular. They don’t want Jewish organizations to criticize Israel from the left, but neither do they want them to be agents of the Israeli right.

These American Zionists are largely the product of a particular era. Many were shaped by the terrifying days leading up to the Six-Day War, when it appeared that Israel might be overrun, and by the bitter aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, when much of the world seemed to turn against the Jewish state. In that crucible, Israel became their Jewish identity, often in conjunction with the Holocaust, which the 1967 and 1973 wars helped make central to American Jewish life. These Jews embraced Zionism before the settler movement became a major force in Israeli politics, before the 1982 Lebanon war, before the first intifada. They fell in love with an Israel that was more secular, less divided, and less shaped by the culture, politics, and theology of occupation. And by downplaying the significance of Avigdor Lieberman, the settlers, and Shas, American Jewish groups allow these older Zionists to continue to identify with that more internally cohesive, more innocent Israel of their youth, an Israel that now only exists in their memories.

But these secular Zionists aren’t reproducing themselves. Their children have no memory of Arab armies massed on Israel’s border and of Israel surviving in part thanks to urgent military assistance from the United States. Instead, they have grown up viewing Israel as a regional hegemon and an occupying power. As a result, they are more conscious than their parents of the degree to which Israeli behavior violates liberal ideals, and less willing to grant Israel an exemption because its survival seems in peril. Because they have inherited their parents’ liberalism, they cannot embrace their uncritical Zionism. Because their liberalism is real, they can see that the liberalism of the American Jewish establishment is fake.

To sustain their uncritical brand of Zionism, therefore, America’s Jewish organizations will need to look elsewhere to replenish their ranks. They will need to find young American Jews who have come of age during the West Bank occupation but are not troubled by it. And those young American Jews will come disproportionately from the Orthodox world.


Because they marry earlier, intermarry less, and have more children, Orthodox Jews are growing rapidly as a share of the American Jewish population. According to a 2006 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey, while Orthodox Jews make up only 12 percent of American Jewry over the age of sixty, they constitute 34 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. For America’s Zionist organizations, these Orthodox youngsters are a potential bonanza. In their yeshivas they learn devotion to Israel from an early age; they generally spend a year of religious study there after high school, and often know friends or relatives who have immigrated to Israel. The same AJC study found that while only 16 percent of non-Orthodox adult Jews under the age of forty feel “very close to Israel,” among the Orthodox the figure is 79 percent. As secular Jews drift away from America’s Zionist institutions, their Orthodox counterparts will likely step into the breach. The Orthodox “are still interested in parochial Jewish concerns,” explains Samuel Heilman, a sociologist at the City University of New York. “They are among the last ones who stayed in the Jewish house, so they now control the lights.”

But it is this very parochialism—a deep commitment to Jewish concerns, which often outweighs more universal ones—that gives Orthodox Jewish Zionism a distinctly illiberal cast. The 2006 AJC poll found that while 60 percent of non-Orthodox American Jews under the age of forty support a Palestinian state, that figure drops to 25 percent among the Orthodox. In 2009, when Brandeis University’s Theodore Sasson asked American Jewish focus groups about Israel, he found Orthodox participants much less supportive of dismantling settlements as part of a peace deal. Even more tellingly, Reform, Conservative, and unaffiliated Jews tended to believe that average Palestinians wanted peace, but had been ill-served by their leaders. Orthodox Jews, by contrast, were more likely to see the Palestinian people as the enemy, and to deny that ordinary Palestinians shared any common interests or values with ordinary Israelis or Jews.

Orthodox Judaism has great virtues, including a communal warmth and a commitment to Jewish learning unmatched in the American Jewish world. (I’m biased, since my family attends an Orthodox synagogue.) But if current trends continue, the growing influence of Orthodox Jews in America’s Jewish communal institutions will erode even the liberal-democratic veneer that today covers American Zionism. In 2002, America’s major Jewish organizations sponsored a large Israel solidarity rally on the Washington Mall. Up and down the east coast, yeshivas shut down for the day, swelling the estimated Orthodox share of the crowd to close to 70 percent. When the then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the rally that “innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying as well,” he was booed.

← 1 2 3 → Also In This Issue
‘

Title: part 3
Post by: ccp on May 23, 2011, 10:12:00 AM

The Failure of the American Jewish EstablishmentJune 10, 2010Peter BeinartE-mail Single Page Print Share ← 1 2 3 
Mohammed Saber/epa/Corbis

Palestinian boys standing on the rubble of buildings demolished by the Israeli army near the Israeli settlement of Netzarim, Gaza Strip, July 2004. The settlement was the last to be emptied as part of Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan in August 2005.
America’s Jewish leaders should think hard about that rally. Unless they change course, it portends the future: an American Zionist movement that does not even feign concern for Palestinian dignity and a broader American Jewish population that does not even feign concern for Israel. My own children, given their upbringing, could as easily end up among the booers as among Luntz’s focus group. Either prospect fills me with dread.


In 2004, in an effort to prevent weapons smuggling from Egypt, Israeli tanks and bulldozers demolished hundreds of houses in the Rafah refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. Watching television, a veteran Israeli commentator and politician named Tommy Lapid saw an elderly Palestinian woman crouched on all fours looking for her medicines amid the ruins of her home. He said she reminded him of his grandmother.

In that moment, Lapid captured the spirit that is suffocating within organized American Jewish life. To begin with, he watched. In my experience, there is an epidemic of not watching among American Zionists today. A Red Cross study on malnutrition in the Gaza Strip, a bill in the Knesset to allow Jewish neighborhoods to bar entry to Israeli Arabs, an Israeli human rights report on settlers burning Palestinian olive groves, three more Palestinian teenagers shot—it’s unpleasant. Rationalizing and minimizing Palestinian suffering has become a kind of game. In a more recent report on how to foster Zionism among America’s young, Luntz urges American Jewish groups to use the word “Arabs, not Palestinians,” since “the term ‘Palestinians’ evokes images of refugee camps, victims and oppression,” while “‘Arab’ says wealth, oil and Islam.”

Of course, Israel—like the United States—must sometimes take morally difficult actions in its own defense. But they are morally difficult only if you allow yourself some human connection to the other side. Otherwise, security justifies everything. The heads of AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference should ask themselves what Israel’s leaders would have to do or say to make them scream “no.” After all, Lieberman is foreign minister; Effi Eitam is touring American universities; settlements are growing at triple the rate of the Israeli population; half of Israeli Jewish high school students want Arabs barred from the Knesset. If the line has not yet been crossed, where is the line?

 
Advertisement


What infuriated critics about Lapid’s comment was that his grandmother died at Auschwitz. How dare he defile the memory of the Holocaust? Of course, the Holocaust is immeasurably worse than anything Israel has done or ever will do. But at least Lapid used Jewish suffering to connect to the suffering of others. In the world of AIPAC, the Holocaust analogies never stop, and their message is always the same: Jews are licensed by their victimhood to worry only about themselves. Many of Israel’s founders believed that with statehood, Jews would rightly be judged on the way they treated the non-Jews living under their dominion. “For the first time we shall be the majority living with a minority,” Knesset member Pinchas Lavon declared in 1948, “and we shall be called upon to provide an example and prove how Jews live with a minority.”

But the message of the American Jewish establishment and its allies in the Netanyahu government is exactly the opposite: since Jews are history’s permanent victims, always on the knife-edge of extinction, moral responsibility is a luxury Israel does not have. Its only responsibility is to survive. As former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg writes in his remarkable 2008 book, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes, “Victimhood sets you free.”

This obsession with victimhood lies at the heart of why Zionism is dying among America’s secular Jewish young. It simply bears no relationship to their lived experience, or what they have seen of Israel’s. Yes, Israel faces threats from Hezbollah and Hamas. Yes, Israelis understandably worry about a nuclear Iran. But the dilemmas you face when you possess dozens or hundreds of nuclear weapons, and your adversary, however despicable, may acquire one, are not the dilemmas of the Warsaw Ghetto. The year 2010 is not, as Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed, 1938. The drama of Jewish victimhood—a drama that feels natural to many Jews who lived through 1938, 1948, or even 1967—strikes most of today’s young American Jews as farce.

But there is a different Zionist calling, which has never been more desperately relevant. It has its roots in Israel’s Independence Proclamation, which promised that the Jewish state “will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets,” and in the December 1948 letter from Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and others to The New York Times, protesting right-wing Zionist leader Menachem Begin’s visit to the United States after his party’s militias massacred Arab civilians in the village of Deir Yassin. It is a call to recognize that in a world in which Jewish fortunes have radically changed, the best way to memorialize the history of Jewish suffering is through the ethical use of Jewish power.

For several months now, a group of Israeli students has been traveling every Friday to the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, where a Palestinian family named the Ghawis lives on the street outside their home of fifty-three years, from which they were evicted to make room for Jewish settlers. Although repeatedly arrested for protesting without a permit, and called traitors and self-haters by the Israeli right, the students keep coming, their numbers now swelling into the thousands. What if American Jewish organizations brought these young people to speak at Hillel? What if this was the face of Zionism shown to America’s Jewish young? What if the students in Luntz’s focus group had been told that their generation faces a challenge as momentous as any in Jewish history: to save liberal democracy in the only Jewish state on earth?

“Too many years I lived in the warm embrace of institutionalized elusiveness and was a part of it,” writes Avraham Burg. “I was very comfortable there.” I know; I was comfortable there too. But comfortable Zionism has become a moral abdication. Let’s hope that Luntz’s students, in solidarity with their counterparts at Sheikh Jarrah, can foster an uncomfortable Zionism, a Zionism angry at what Israel risks becoming, and in love with what it still could be. Let’s hope they care enough to try.

—May 12, 2010

Peter Beinart is Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, and Senior Political Writer for The Daily Beast. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published in June.


Letters
'The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment': An Exchange June 24, 2010

← 1 2 3 Also In This Issue
‘

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 23, 2011, 06:07:27 PM

Quote from: G M on May 23, 2011, 09:55:50 AM

“Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”

I don't see that as a bad thing. If you are an American, you should see other countries, even allies as "them", not "us".

GM is right; and that has been my point in this whole discussion.  My grandparents were from Norway on my father's side. 
I still remember my grandfather saying, "Don't speak Norwegian (I wish he did so I knew a little) to the boy (me) this is America!  Speak English, we
are American's now!!!"  When the chips are down, them and "US" is important.  I love immigrants if they truly in their heart and mind
want to be Americans.  You cannot serve two masters. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 11:32:11 PM

I've not had the time to digest CCP's post, but I will note that I get a bit testy on the meme that seems to float on the wind about mixed loyalty and Jews.

==================

Israel and Obama’s Radical Past

www.nationalreview.com

Israel and Obama’s Radical Past

May 20, 2011 10:05 A.M.

By Stanley Kurtz 

Does President Obama’s radical past tell us anything significant about his stance on Israel today? Perhaps more important, do the radical alliances of Obama’s Chicago days raise a warning flag about what the president’s position on Israel may be in 2013, should he safely secure reelection? Many will deny it, but I believe Obama’s radical history speaks volumes about the past, present, and likely future course of his policy on Israel.

The Los Angeles Times has long refused to release a videotape in its possession of a farewell dinner, attended by Obama, for scholar and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Obama spoke warmly of his friendship for Khalidi at that event. Unfortunately, the continuing mystery of that video tape has obscured the rather remarkable article that the LA Times did publish about the dinner — and about Obama’s broader views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In light of the controversy over Obama’s remarks on Israel in his address yesterday on the Middle East, it is worth revisiting that 2008 article from the LA Times.

The extraordinary thing about “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama” is that in it, Obama’s supporters say that in claiming to be pro-Israel, he is hiding his true views from the public. Having observed his personal associations, his open political alliances, his public statements, and his private remarks, Obama’s Palestinian allies steadfastly maintain that Obama’s private views are far more pro-Palestinian than he lets on.

Having pieced together Obama’s history, I make much the same argument about Obama’s broader political stance in my book, Radical-in-Chief. Obama’s true views are far to the left of what he lets on in public. Yet it’s striking to see Palestinian activists making essentially the same point — not in criticism of Obama, but in praise.

Notice also that, in this article, Rashid Khalidi himself claims that Obama’s family ties to Kenya and Indonesia have inclined him to be more sympathetic to Palestinians than other American politicians are. That sort of claim often gets ridiculed when conservatives make it.

The point of all this is not that, as president, Obama is going to make policy exactly as Rashid Khalidi might. Obviously, no American president could take such a position and survive politically. Rather, the point is that Obama’s stance is going to tilt more heavily toward the Palestinians than any other likely American president, Republican or Democrat — just as Obama’s Palestinian allies argued in that LA Times piece.

The entire article is worth a read, but here are some choice excerpts:

A special tribute [at the farewell dinner] came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals provided by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases” . . .

[Obama today] expresses a firmly pro-Israel view. . . .

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed. . . .

“I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates,” said Hussein Ibish…. “That’s my personal opinion, Ibish said, “and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons and what he’s said.”

. . . Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel….

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

Obama, through his aide, Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah’s account could not be independently verified.

In Radical-in-Chief, I show how Obama generally resorts to obfuscation to hide his radical past, saving outright false denial for those few cases where it is absolutely necessary. Is this another such case?

Radical-in-Chief also shows in some detail, with new information, that Obama had to know about Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s intensely anti-Israel views. I also discuss the triangular relationship between Obama, Khalidi, and Bill Ayers. Ayers and Khalidi were extremely close friends and allies, and both were close political allies of Obama as well.

For further evidence that Obama’s early views tell us more about his actions in the present — and future — than his current “pragmatic” statements, see “Obama’s Past Tells the Truth.”

There is also the question of Samantha Power, Obama’s most important foreign policy advisor during his Senate years, and a guiding force behind our current intervention in Libya. I surveyed her views in “Samantha Power’s Power.” Although Power now disavows it, there is persuasive evidence that she once advocated an American military intervention against Israel to impose a two-state solution. It is extraordinary that someone holding that view should have been Obama’s closest foreign-policy adviser for years, and a continuing influence within his administration today.

It is true, of course, that Obama has long maintained close ties to the Jewish community. Yet the depth of his ties to the pro-Palestinian Left is unmatched among major American politicians. It is reasonable to conclude that this is having an effect on Obama’s policies — more than he admits — and will continue to do so, especially should the president secure reelection.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 24, 2011, 07:17:33 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 11:32:11 PM

Obama's Radical Past

The entire LA Times article is worth a read, but here are some choice excerpts:

A special tribute [at the farewell dinner] came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals provided by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases” . . .

[Obama today] expresses a firmly pro-Israel view. . . .

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going away party,

Is there something wrong with this tribute at a famous professor's going away party?  I think not.  You often reference Justice Ginsberg, while you usually don't entirely agree with her viewpoint,
if she had invited you to dinner at her home occasionally with her family when she was your professor and if you had had many talks with her, wouldn't you too say glowing words at her final party?
I think that is what college is all about, to challenge the mind; introduce new thoughts and reasoning.  You don't always have to agree on all issues.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 08:43:05 AM

d)  Beinhart also seems to have little problem with the idea of negotiating with Hamas  :roll:

Understandable; not much good you can say about the Hamas. 

Then again, they did win the free election.  In a democracy, that says something.

And while they are despicable, so are regimes in North Korea, Iran, et all and we do negotiate with them.
Why are Hamas different?


 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 24, 2011, 07:18:48 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2011, 11:32:11 PM

I've not had the time to digest CCP's post, but I will note that I get a bit testy on the meme that seems to float on the wind about mixed loyalty and Jews.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 24, 2011, 07:28:02 AM

Then again, they did win the free election.  In a democracy, that says something.

Yes, it tells you what genocidal scumbags the so-called "palestinians" are. The national socialist party won elections in 1930's Germany as well.

And while they are despicable, so are regimes in North Korea, Iran, et all and we do negotiate with them.

How are those negotiations with the NorKs and Iran working out?

Title: Negotiate with this
Post by: G M on May 24, 2011, 07:59:42 AM

 
May 11, 2011  Clip No. 2934 
 
Hamas MP and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal: The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the "Great Massacre" through which Allah Will "Relieve Humanity of Their Evil" 
 
Following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 11, 2011:



Yunis Al-Astal: The [Jews] are brought in droves to Palestine so that the Palestinians – and the Islamic nation behind them – will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang.



[…]




All the predators, all the birds of prey, all the dangerous reptiles and insects, and all the lethal bacteria are far less dangerous than the Jews.



[…]



In just a few years, all the Zionists and the settlers will realize that their arrival in Palestine was for the purpose of the great massacre, by means of which Allah wants to relieve humanity of their evil.



[…]



When Palestine is liberated and its people return to it, and the entire region, with the grace of Allah, will have turned into the United States of Islam, the land of Palestine will become the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, and all these countries will turn into states within the Caliphate. When this happens, any Palestinian will be able to live anywhere, because the land of Islam is the property of all Muslims.



Until this happens, we must reject all the resettlement plans, naturalization, or even reparations prior to the return of the refugees.
 
So, JDN, where do you start in negotiations with these people?

Title: Re: Negotiate with this
Post by: G M on May 24, 2011, 08:04:48 AM

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by U.S. forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an "Arab holy warrior."
 
"We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood," Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters.
 
Though he noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden's al Qaeda and Hamas, Haniyeh said: "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on May 24, 2011, 08:08:30 AM

I don't know, but my point was that we DO negotiate with North Korea and Iran et al.
Both countries threaten the US security far more than the Hamas and are equally (?) despicable as the Hamas.
And so what is the difference?

Ignoring the Hamas obviously isn't going to work either.  Why not open negotiations?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 24, 2011, 08:11:30 AM

Hey, it's failed so far, let's keep trying it!  :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 24, 2011, 08:45:26 AM

How do you negotiate with someone who stated purpose is serve as Allah's servant by killling you and yours?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 24, 2011, 08:51:29 AM

HAMAS: Death to all Jews!

Obama: Howabout just half of them?

HAMAS: Well, maybe 75%.

Obama: I'll meet you at 60%, not one Hebrew more.

HAMAS: Deal!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on May 24, 2011, 09:28:11 AM

"where do you start in negotiations with these people?"

From a position of strength.  Giving what they want before negotiations and weakening yourself is no place to start.

"And while they are despicable, so are regimes in North Korea, Iran, et all and we do negotiate with them.  Why are Hamas different?"

On trade, we took opposite paths with China and Cuba; neither strategy delivered change inside the repressive regimes.  Note that N.K. has nukes and Iran wields regional power and energy power.  Nothing went well enough in any other example to risk destruction of an ally. The ones who would risk destruction of Israel don't consider it an ally.  Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth so I have no idea what his real view of Israel is.  Mentioned already was that the Palestinian leaders of terror are elected leaders, which takes quick fixes like deposing or regime change off the table, until it comes from within.

"Ignoring the Hamas obviously isn't going to work either."

What does Israel want from them, other than to stop attacking.  Has any previous gift / giveback of land stopped the attacks? (No.)

What I don't get is why all the focus from Obama for a certain failure, does he think he is on the brink of a breakthrough? Is his strategy so deep, clever and well-thought out that no one sees it?  Judging his performance in other areas like our economy, energy supply, budget deficit, etc. I would say no. Was he wishing for the public lecture on Israeli survival he received from Netanyahu as part of some larger strategy or thinking Bibi would roll over when the cameras were on? Quite a naive and stupid misjudgment unless I am missing something.  What point is there in making Israel look bad for choosing survival over destruction?
----
Crafty already asked: "a) Why was this speech sprung upon the Israelis?  Why did BO not give N. a heads up with sufficient time for some backchannel communications? b) What the hell does "contiguous" mean in this context?  That Gaza and the West Bank will be connected?!?..."
----

Great question regarding contiguous! Someone please post Obama's ultimate peace map... seriously, with survival, not just an Jewish-Israeli graveyard.

Per capita income for Palestinians is about $1100 in real purchasing power.  For Israel that is close to $30,000?? (http://palsolidarity.org/2010/01/10761/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel)  Failed state vs. free society.  That looks to me like the place to start.  Maybe thinking outside the box, our leader with all his deep thinking advisers could suggest some humanitarian path for advancement and self sufficiency along these lines instead of just the endless quest for land grab and terror support.

I would think a 10 year waiting period after all the countries in the region drop their destruction of Israel platform and after the last missile is fired on them would be reasonable before we even ask Israel to negotiate or offer concessions.

Has our current leader with his immense knowledge of history ever explicitly articulated what a good thing it is that the bloody tyrant who paid $25,000 per suicide bombing is gone?
--------
"How do you negotiate with someone who stated purpose is serve as Allah's servant by killing you and yours?"

Why wouldn't those people be more comfortable inside an Arab or Muslim land  instead of living with their most hated enemy and waging eternal war.  Why not have American push that direction, while supporting the survival of Israel, our ally.  'Crazy talk.'

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 24, 2011, 11:12:59 AM

"where do you start in negotiations with these people?"

Similar to the Roman general:

"You want peace we will give you peace."   (And I will add: we prefer this.)

"You want war we will give you war."  (And I add: we will wipe you out.)

As Morris said Obama is asking Jews to choose between:

the Democrat party or

another holocaust wherein 6.5 million Jews will be again murdered.

It really is this plain and simple.

Title: Stratfor on Netanyahu's speech
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 24, 2011, 04:05:43 PM

Some points in here with which I distinctly disagree, others make sense:


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to the U.S. Congress on May 24 spending a lot of his time on the threat posed by Iran and explaining the reason why Israel has not been able to proceed on the peace path outlined by U.S. President Barack Obama and the presidents before him.

The gist of Netanyahu’s argument was that, while Israel is ready to make very painful concessions in this peace deal, it is the Palestinians that have been blocking the peace process. He also maintained that Jerusalem will not be divided and that Israel will not make large concessions on its security or on the borders of a future Palestinian state.

A great deal of attention has been paid to a very specific line in Obama’s speech from last week, where he said the borders of Israel and Palestine will be based on the lines of 1967 with mutually agreed swaps. This was portrayed by much of the media as a major U.S. policy shift and led Netanyahu to declare to the Israeli lobby in Washington that those 1967 borders are indefensible.

There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking in what Obama actually said. The 1967 lines refer to the borders before the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and basically went beyond the border outlined in the 1949 armistice between Israel and Arab states.

Obama is not saying that the 1967 lines will be the exact same borders of a two-state solution; he is saying negotiations need to be held for those mutually agreed swaps that would deal with the very contentious issues of East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements. Obama said he was explicit in what he meant, but no matter which way you look at this issue, this is an issue that remains very much clouded in controversy. The only new aspect to Obama’s roadmap for peace was perhaps the urgency in which he is conveying his message. This does not change the fact that Israel is very unlikely to make significant concessions to the Palestinians, especially at a time when the Palestinians are in a fledgling unity government that includes Hamas, which refuses still recognize Israel’s right to exist. As Netanyahu put it, he declared Hamas the Palestinian version of al Qaeda and called on Fatah to rip up its agreement with Hamas if it wants to negotiate seriously with Israel.

Now, the biggest challenge to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in the surrounding environment to the conflict itself. Egypt is undergoing a very shaky political transition, and the military regime there is also trying to keep a lid on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Jordan meanwhile is facing much higher levels of political pressure from its Islamist opposition, and the Syrians are throwing all of their effort into putting down a country-wide uprising. Meanwhile, the threat of a third Palestinian intifada continues to loom.

The past 33 years of Israeli history have been largely quiescent, for Israeli standards. Now, Israel faces threats on nearly all of its frontiers. Obama argued that this very uncertainty in the region is exactly why Israel cannot afford to delay the peace process any longer, and why both Israel and the United States should avoid ending up on the wrong side of history, as he put it. This is a point that Israel will likely strongly disagree with. It also brings up a much more important question, one that we addressed in this week’s “Geopolitical Weekly,” of whether there really is a true “Arab Spring” capable of bringing about democratic revolutions that would be friendly to U.S., much less Israeli, interests.

Meanwhile, as Netanyahu emphasized in his speech, a big focus for Israel, and what arguably should be the focus for the United States, concerns Iran, where the United States has yet to devise and effective strategy to counterbalance the Iranians that are waiting to fill a power vacuum in Iraq following the U.S. withdrawal. That remains a key point the Obama presidency must address, and it is largely one that is ignored by the effects of the Arab Spring.

Title: The strategic importance of Israel to the US
Post by: G M on May 24, 2011, 05:30:39 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13530945

IAEA: Syria site bombed by Israel 'was likely nuclear' The US said Syria's reactor was similar to a North Korean one


A Syrian site bombed by Israeli jets in 2007 was "very likely" a nuclear reactor, the UN's atomic watchdog says.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has been investigating US claims that Syria was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korean help.

The strongest IAEA report yet on Syria came after several years of blocked investigations, and is likely to increase the pressure on Damascus.

Israel bombed the remote desert site of the alleged reactor in September 2007.

Syria says the site - near Deir Alzour in the country's remote north-east - was an unused military facility under construction. It also denied having any nuclear links to North Korea, which has itself denied transferring nuclear technology to Syria.

But the confidential IAEA report, obtained by the BBC, says the bombed building was similar in type and size to a reactor and that samples taken from the site indicated a connection with nuclear activities.

Title: WSJ
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 26, 2011, 07:18:01 AM

By MATT BRADLEY in Cairo and JOSHUA MITNICK in Tel Aviv
Egypt's caretaker government said it will permanently open its border with the Gaza Strip on Saturday, the latest signal that post-revolutionary Egypt is breaking with the past regime's more cooperative policies toward Israel.

Israel relied on the cooperation of Egypt's former President Hosni Mubarak to back up its blockade of Gaza, which began in 2007 after Hamas militants wrested control of the coastal Palestinian enclave from the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Mubarak's policy was extremely unpopular in Egypt. To the consternation of Israel, the military-led government that took over when protests ousted Mr. Mubarak three months ago has taken more populist positions.  Egypt upset Israel last month when it announced it had brokered a unity pact that brought together Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which is led by the more secular Fatah party. A day later, Cairo said it would open the Rafah border crossing, but the move was delayed in what many saw as an incentive for rival Palestinian factions to implement the reconciliation accord.

Egypt's decision to open the border highlighted the growing isolation of Israel, amid new friction between Israel and the U.S. Those tensions broke out last week when President Barack Obama publicly pressed Israel to make concessions on its borders to facilitate a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visiting Washington, promptly rejected that overture.

On Wednesday, Egyptian officials spoke of the plight of the Palestinian people, and the need for Israel to do more to end the conflict.

"The Egyptian side is doing what they see fit for the sufferings of the people in Gaza. And the occupying power, they too have an obligation toward the people in the territory," said Menha Bakhoum, a spokeswoman for Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "This is the only thing we can tell the Israelis: They too have obligation towards [the Palestinians]."

Hamas officials welcomed the move. "We appreciate what the Egyptian government has done,'' said a spokesman for the organization.

Israeli officials said the border opening could erode Israeli security by allowing militants and weapons into the territory. "Israel is concerned with the potential opening of the crossing without proper control monitoring what's going in and what's going out. Even today the situation is not good enough,'' said an Israeli official.

Analysts said Mr. Netanyahu's hard-line stance has intensified popular pro-Palestinian pressure on Egypt's caretaker military government, which will hold power until parliamentary elections in September and the presidential vote that follows.

Members of Egypt's supreme military council, "like all politicians in Egypt, need to demonstrate a lot of daylight between themselves and the policies of the Mubarak era," said Steven Cook, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

View Full Image
.Some of the revolutionary fervor that felled the Mubarak regime in February has since turned against Israel. Several demonstrations have been held in front of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, most recently to commemorate the anniversary of what Palestinians call the nakba, or catastrophe—Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948.

Police arrested nearly 200 protesters and used tear gas and shot live rounds in the air to disperse the crowds.

A Pew Research Center poll published in late April said 54% of Egyptians wanted to cancel Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Egypt is one of only two Arab nations that have formal diplomatic ties with Israel.

Ms. Bakhoum said only Palestinian men between the ages of 18 and 40, with some exemptions, will need visas to cross Egypt's border with Gaza. She said she hadn't been told why there was a visa restriction.

The Israeli government will have no say on who will be granted visas, Ms. Bakhoum said.

In the years after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and before Hamas's takeover in 2007, Israeli security officials were able to veto passage of Gazans at the border under a U.S.-brokered agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

The opening would allow the general public in Gaza to pass without Israeli monitoring.

Palestinians have relied on a network of tunnels under the Gaza border into Egypt to bypass the nearly four-year-old Israeli blockade.

Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt, said that Israel will, at minimum, seek to clarify what security mechanisms will be used at the border. He said he believed Egypt was opening the border to reward Hamas for saying it would reconcile with the Western-backed Fatah party.

"This is a kind of reward for Hamas behaving according to Egyptian expectations," he said. "This is also a kind of leverage over Hamas—an attempt to tell them that they have a lot to lose if they misbehave."

Security for the Palestinian side of the border is a bone of contention between Palestinian factions. While the Palestinian Authority says it is the job of its security forces, Hamas will be reluctant to hand over control of the sensitive crossing point.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 26, 2011, 01:22:24 PM

Egypt has announced that it will be opening up the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip this coming Saturday. The move represents a shift in the attitude of Cairo toward the Palestinian territory and is informed by both domestic and foreign policy needs. More important, the move has the potential to create complications between Israel and Egypt.

Egypt has decided to permanently open the Rafah border crossing, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any restrictions for the flow of Palestinian traffic coming from Gaza into Egypt. For starters, it will only be a daytime thing between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and there will be no border crossing on Fridays and holidays. Then there is a restriction in terms of demographics — women will be allowed to go back and forth without a visa but men between the ages of 18 and 40 will require a visa, while those who are not within this age bracket will be allowed free movement. It’s not clear right now what will be the rules regulating the flow of goods because that’s the big concern in terms of weapons coming in, which is a primary concern for Israel and of course the Egyptians share that concern because they don’t want a spillover of any militant traffic moving back and forth between their country and the Palestinian territory.

There are a number of reasons why Egypt has decided that it will open up the Rafah border crossing. One has to do with the reconciliation that is taking place and is being brokered by Cairo between the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah and the efforts toward the formation of a unity government. One of the ways in which Hamas was brought onto the table was that Cairo allow for the opening of the border crossings so this was an incentive which has resulted in Hamas moving forward on the efforts to reconcile with Fatah. That is very important for Egypt because it wants to be able to take a greater ownership over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially as it is trying to manage a transition at home and given the regional turmoil that is taking place in the form of popular unrest in the other Arab countries.

The biggest implication is the Israeli concern about how the opening of this border crossing is going to impact Israeli security, knowing that while Hamas may be ruling Gaza and may not necessarily have an interest in hostilities with Israel but then Hamas does not have a monopoly over the militant landscape in Gaza. There are many rival factions that engage in unilateral firing of rockets and there are forces within Hamas that are not comfortable with the reconciliation and insist on maintaining the path of militancy. So from an Israeli point of view this isn’t good news, but then again it’s difficult to imagine that Egypt went ahead with this policy shift and did not take Israel into confidence. For Israel, the big problem is they have very little faith in this working such that militants don’t take advantage of the opening of this border crossing.

Click for more videos

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: bigdog on May 26, 2011, 02:09:21 PM

Woof, Guro... This is the movie I told you about elsewhere.  I post here for others to discuss, if they so desire.

http://littletownofbethlehem.org/

Title: Israel's dilema
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 26, 2011, 02:20:13 PM

Thank you BD

My third post of the day:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor speaking to the AIPAC conference, May 22:

The following story illustrates Israel's dilemma. A Palestinian woman from Gaza arrives at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba for lifesaving skin treatment for burns over half her body. After the conclusion of her extensive treatment, the woman is invited back for follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. One day she is caught at the border crossing wearing a suicide belt. Her intention? To blow herself up at the same clinic that saved her life.

What kind of culture leads one to do that? Sadly, it is a culture infused with resentment and hatred. It is this culture that underlies the Palestinians' and the broader Arab world's refusal to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This is the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the '67 lines.

And until Israel's enemies come to terms with this reality, a true peace will be impossible.

And the reality, as we say in Hebrew, is "Ahm Yisrael Chai: The people of Israel live. And what they want is to live in peace. If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state.

To Mr. Abbas, I say: Stop the incitement in your media and your schools. Stop naming public squares and athletic teams after suicide bombers. And come to the negotiating table when you have prepared your people to forego hatred and renounce terrorism—and Israel will embrace you. Until that day, there can be no peace with Hamas. Peace at any price isn't peace; it's surrender. For the survival of Israel, for the security of America and peace of the world, now is that time and right here is the place to begin.

Title: Stratfor: Intra-Hamas feud
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2011, 09:03:36 AM

Thursday, May 26, 2011   STRATFOR.COM  Diary Archives 

Pragmatism Exacerbating Intra-Hamas Fault Lines

A dispute within the Hamas leadership surfaced in the media Wednesday. Hamas’ No. 2 leader in the Gaza Strip, Mahmoud Zahar, reportedly said the central leader of the Palestinian Islamist movement, Khaled Meshaal, did not have the right to say their group was giving Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas another chance to negotiate with Israel. Zahar said Meshaal didn’t consult the entire leadership and that the statements Meshaal made during the May 4 signing of the reconciliation accord with rival secular faction Fatah in Cairo contradicted Hamas’ long-standing opposition to negotiations with Israel. The Gaza-based leader went on to say Hamas needed to review the decision-making process within the movement because “the leadership is here (in the Gaza Strip), and the part (of Hamas) that is abroad is just a part of that.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood cannot move toward a greater political role via elections in Egypt while Hamas (which is an offshoot of the Brotherhood) continues on the path of militancy next door in Gaza.”
These comments clearly show that a major internal schism is under way within Hamas. STRATFOR for a number of years has been identifying several fault lines within the movement: those between the exiled central leadership based in Damascus and the ones based in Gaza; the differences between those in Gaza and the West Bank; and within Gaza between ideological and pragmatic elements. These various schisms have long been kept in check, but Zahar’s remarks represent the first significant sign of serious internal trouble.

At this point, it is difficult to say whether we are looking at the emergence of two rival factions within the movement or if Zahar is speaking for a relatively small group that is at odds with the Meshaal-led central leadership. Nonetheless, this rift is the natural outcome of the current regional situation and its impact on Hamas. The popular unrest in the region has altered the circumstances within the two Arab states that have the most influence over Hamas — Egypt and Syria.

Egypt is in a state of transition from single-party rule toward a multiparty political system — a process overseen by its military. Elections are scheduled for later in 2011, in which the country’s most organized political force, the Muslim Brotherhood, could emerge as the single-largest political bloc in parliament. At a time when it is on a trajectory toward becoming a key stakeholder in the post-Mubarak state, the Muslim Brotherhood has an interest in making sure nothing derails the process, especially the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Therefore, it is very likely that the Brotherhood has been working with the new provisional military authority in Cairo to ensure calm in Gaza and the wider Israeli-Palestinian landscape. The Muslim Brotherhood cannot move toward a greater political role via elections in Egypt while Hamas (which is an offshoot of the Brotherhood) continues on the path of militancy next door in Gaza. There has always been a significant degree of coordination between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its various sister entities in the region; the Egyptian Brotherhood has likely encouraged its Palestinian counterpart to move toward a more political role and work with Fatah in forming a Palestinian national unity government. This could explain why the military, shortly after taking direct power in Cairo, was able to get the two rival Palestinian factions to finally reconcile with each other after years of feuding.

Also shaping the behavior of Hamas is Syria’s growing popular agitation movement, which threatens the stability of the al Assad regime. Damascus for many years has been a major patron of Hamas, given that the movement’s Meshaal-led exiled central politburo is headquartered in the Syrian capital and much of the group’s financing is handled at the exiled headquarters. The public rising in Syria has led to increased tension between Hamas and the Syrian regime, giving surrounding Arab states an opportunity to try to coax Hamas into relocating their headquarters to another Arab capital — one out of reach of Iran.

Regardless of where and when the relocation takes place, it is associated with a desire by Arab states to pull Hamas out of the Iranian orbit. Given the Iranian-Syrian relationship and Hamas residence in Damascus, Tehran was able to exercise a great degree of influence over the Palestinian movement. Therefore, the hope of the Arab states is that relocating away from Syria will help deny Iran the leverage it has over Hamas — and by extension, the ability to exploit the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There are too many moving parts in play, and it is too early to tell exactly how Hamas’ regional realignment takes shape. But it’s clear that the evolving regional circumstances have pushed (at least part of) its apex leadership toward privileging the political path over a militant one. Opposition to the agreement with Fatah coming from Israel and from hard-liners within Hamas speaks volumes about this shift.

It is also difficult to speak about the future of this emerging trend because the internal rift within Hamas threatens the integrity of the movement. Meshaal is likely to have significant support from within the movement for his pragmatism. But there is also no shortage of people within Hamas who agree with the ideological position of Zahar. Thus, this internal rift within Hamas threatens the group with splintering into more radical groups, which could further complicate an already complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Title: Glick: Netanyahu's triumph
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2011, 09:17:33 AM

Caroline Glick   
Lessons of Netanyahu’s Triumph

 
 
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was hoping to avoid his clash with US President Barack Obama this week in Washington.

Four days before his showdown at the White House with the American leader, Netanyahu addressed the Knesset. His speech was the most dovish he had ever given. In it, he set out the parameters of the land concessions he is willing to make to the Palestinians, in the event they ever decide that they are interested in negotiating a final peace.

Among other things, Netanyahu spoke for the first time about “settlement blocs,” and so signaled that he would be willing to evacuate the more isolated Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. He also spoke of a longterm military presence in the Jordan Valley rather than Israeli sovereignty along the militarily vital plain.

Both strategically and ideologically, Netanyahu’s speech constituted a massive concession to Obama. The premier had good reason to believe that his speech would preempt any US demand for further Israeli concessions during his visit to Washington.

Alas, it was not to be. Instead of welcoming Netanyahu’s unprecedented concessions, Obama dismissed them as insufficient as he blindsided Netanyahu last Thursday with his speech at the State Department. There, just hours before Netanyahu was scheduled to fly off to meet him in the Oval Office, Obama adopted the Palestinian negotiating position by calling for Israel to accept that future negotiations will be based on the indefensible – indeed suicidal – 1949 armistice lines.

So, just as he was about to board his plane, Netanyahu realized that his mission in the US capital had changed. His job wasn’t to go along to get along. His job was to stop Obama from driving Israel’s relations with the US off a cliff.

Netanyahu was no longer going to Washington to explain where Israel will stand aside. He was going to Washington to explain what Israel stands for. Obama threw down the gauntlet. Netanyahu needed to pick it up by rallying both the Israeli people to his side and rallying the American people to Israel’s side. Both goals, he realized, could only be accomplished by presenting his vision of what Israel is and what it stands for.

And Netanyahu did his job. He did his job brilliantly.

Israel today is the target of an ever escalating campaign to demonize and delegitimize it. Just this week we learned that a dozen towns in Scotland have decided to ban Israeli books from their public libraries. One Scottish town has decided to post signs calling for its residents to boycott Israeli products and put a distinguishing mark (yellow star, perhaps?) on all Israeli products sold in local stores to warn residents away from them.

Israelis shake their heads and wonder, what did we do to the Scots? In San Francisco, there is a proposition on the ballot for the fall elections to ban circumcision.

The proposition would make it a criminal offense to carry out the oldest Jewish religious ritual. Offenders will be punished by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

Israelis shake their heads and wonder, what did we do to the people of San Francisco? It seems that everywhere we look we are told that we have no right to exist. From Ramallah to Gaza, to Egypt, to Scotland, Norway, and San Francisco, we are told that we are evil and had better give up the store. And then Obama took to the stage on Thursday and told us that we have to surrender our ability to defend ourselves in order to make room for a Palestinian state run by terrorists committed to our destruction.

But then Netanyahu arrived in Washington and said, “Enough already, we’ve had quite enough of this dangerous nonsense.”

And we felt things we haven’t felt for a long time. We felt empowered. We felt we had a voice. We felt proud. We felt we had a leader.

We felt relieved.

The American people, whose overwhelming support for Israel was demonstrated by their representatives in both houses of the Congress on Tuesday, also felt empowered, proud and relieved. Because not only did Netanyahu eloquently remind them of why they stand with Israel, he reminded them of why everyone who truly loves freedom stands with America.

It is true that the American lawmakers who interrupted Netanyahu’s remarks dozens of times to applaud wanted to use his presence in their chamber to send a message of solidarity to the people of Israel. But during the course of his speech, it became apparent that it wasn’t just their desire to show solidarity that made them stand and applaud so many times. Netanyahu managed to relieve them as well.

Since he assumed office, Obama has been traveling the world apologizing for America’s world leadership. He has been lecturing the American people about the need to subordinate America’s national interests to global organizations like the United Nations that are controlled by dictatorships which despise them.

Suddenly, here was an allied leader reminding them of why America is a great nation that leads the world by right, not by historical coincidence.

It is not coincidental that many American and Israeli observers have described Netanyahu’s speech as “Churchillian.” Winston Churchill’s leadership was a classic example of democratic leadership. And Netanyahu is Churchill’s most fervent pupil. The democratic leadership model requires a leader to set out his vision of where his country must go and convince the public to follow him.

That is what Churchill did. And that is what Netanyahu did this week. And like Churchill in June 1940, Netanyahu’s success this week was dazzling.

Just how dazzling was make clear by a Haaretz poll of the Israeli public conducted after Netanyahu’s speech before the Congress.

The poll found that Netanyahu’s approval ratings increased an astounding 13 percentage points, from 38 to 51 percent in one week. Two-thirds of the Israelis who watched his speech said it made them proud.

As for the US response, the fact that leading Democrats on Capitol Hill, House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, felt it necessary to distance themselves from Obama’s statements about Israel’s final borders makes clear that Netanyahu successfully rallied the American public to Israel’s side.

This point was also brought home with Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s interesting request to Republicans during their joint meeting with Netanyahu. In front of the Israeli leader, Wasserman Schultz asked her Republican counterparts not to use support for Israel as a campaign issue. Her request makes clear that following Netanyahu’s brilliant triumph in Washington, Democrats realize that the president’s poor treatment of Israel is an issue that will harm them politically if the Republicans decide to make it an issue in next year’s elections.

While the democratic model of leadership is certainly the model that the founders of most democratic societies have in mind when they establish their democratic orders, it is not the only leadership model that guides leaders in democratic societies. This week, as Netanyahu demonstrated the strength of the democratic leadership model, two other leadership models were also on prominent display. The first was demonstrated by Obama. The second was exhibited by opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

Obama’s leadership model is the model of subversive leadership. Subversive leaders in democracies do not tell their citizens where they wish to lead their societies. They hide their goals from their citizens, because they understand that their citizens do not share their goals. Then once they achieve their unspoken goals, they present their people with a fait accompli and announce that only they are competent to shepherd their societies through the radical shift they undertook behind the public’s back.

Before Obama, the clearest example of subversive leadership was Shimon Peres. As foreign minister under Yitzhak Rabin, Peres negotiated his deal with the PLO behind the public’s back, and behind Rabin’s back – and against their clear opposition. Then he presented the deal that no one supported as a fait accompli.

And as the architect of the deal that put the PLO terror forces on the outskirts of Israel’s major cities, Peres argued that only he could be trusted to implement the deal he had crafted.

Eighteen years and 2,000 Israeli terror victims later, Israel still hasn’t figured out how to extricate itself from his subversive legacy. And he is president.

Today, Obama recognizes that the American public doesn’t share his antipathy towards Israel, and so as he adopts policies antithetical to Israel’s security, he waxes poetic about his commitment to Israel’s security. So far his policies have led to the near disintegration of Israel’s peace with Egypt, the establishment of a Fatah-Hamas unity government in the Palestinian Authority, and to Iran’s steady, all but unimpeded progress towards the atom bomb.

As for Livni, her model is leadership from behind. Although Obama’s advisers claimed that this is his model of leadership, it actually is Livni’s model. A leader who leads from behind is a follower. She sees where her voters are and she goes there.

In Livni’s case, her supporters are on the Left and their main spokesman is the media. Both the Left and the media oppose everything that Netanyahu does and everything he is. And so, as Livni sees things, her job as the head of the opposition is to give voice to their views.

As Netanyahu stared Obama down in the Oval Office and reminded Israelis and Americans alike why we have a special relationship, Livni was telling audiences in Washington and Israel that Netanyahu is a warmonger who will lead us to devastation if we don’t elect her to replace him soon. With Obama adopting the Palestinians’ negotiating positions and with Fatah embracing Hamas rather than honestly admitting that all hope for peace is dead for the duration, Livni said that Netanyahu is leading us to war by defending the country.

Netanyahu’s extraordinary leadership this week has shown that when used well, the democratic model of leadership trumps all other models. He also showed us that he has the capacity to be the leader of our times.

In the coming weeks and months, the threats to Israel will surely only increase. And with these escalating threats will come also the escalating need for strong and certain leadership.

Netanyahu should realize what his astounding success means for him as well as for Israel.

The people of Israel and our many friends around the world will continue to stand behind him proudly if he continues to lead us as well and wonderfully as he did this week. And we will admire him. And we will thank him.

Title: Stratfor: Friedman on Israel's borders
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 31, 2011, 04:57:20 AM

Not sure that I agree with all of this , , ,

===========

By George Friedman

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said May 30 that  Israel could not prevent the United Nations from recognizing a Palestinian state, in the sense of adopting a resolution on the subject. Two weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama, in a speech, called on Israel to return to some variation of its pre-1967 borders. The practical significance of these and other diplomatic evolutions in relation to Israel is questionable. Historically, U.N. declarations have had variable meanings, depending on the willingness of great powers to enforce them. Obama’s speech on Israel, and his subsequent statements, created enough ambiguity to make exactly what he was saying unclear. Nevertheless, it is clear that the diplomatic atmosphere on Israel is shifting.

There are many questions concerning this shift, ranging from the competing moral and historical claims of the Israelis and Palestinians to the internal politics of each side to whether the Palestinians would be satisfied with a return to the pre-1967 borders. All of these must be addressed, but this analysis is confined to a single issue: whether a return to the 1967 borders would increase the danger to Israel’s national security. Later analyses will focus on Palestinian national security issues and those of others.


Early Borders

It is important to begin by understanding that the pre-1967 borders are actually the borders established by the armistice agreements of 1949. The 1948 U.N. resolution creating the state of Israel created a much smaller Israel. The Arab rejection of what was called “partition” resulted in a war that created the borders that placed the West Bank (named after the west bank of the Jordan River) in Jordanian hands, along with substantial parts of Jerusalem, and placed Gaza in the hands of the Egyptians.



(click here to enlarge image)
The 1949 borders substantially improved Israel’s position by widening the corridors between the areas granted to Israel under the partition, giving it control of part of Jerusalem and, perhaps most important, control over the Negev. The latter provided Israel with room for maneuver in the event of an Egyptian attack — and Egypt was always Israel’s main adversary. At the same time, the 1949 borders did not eliminate a major strategic threat. The Israel-Jordan border placed Jordanian forces on three sides of Israeli Jerusalem, and threatened the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. Much of the Israeli heartland, the Tel Aviv-Haifa-Jerusalem triangle, was within Jordanian artillery range, and a Jordanian attack toward the Mediterranean would have to be stopped cold at the border, since there was no room to retreat, regroup and counterattack.

For Israel, the main danger did not come from Jordan attacking by itself. Jordanian forces were limited, and tensions with Egypt and Syria created a de facto alliance between Israel and Jordan. In addition, the Jordanian Hashemite regime lived in deep tension with the Palestinians, since the former were British transplants from the Arabian Peninsula, and the Palestinians saw them as well as the Israelis as interlopers. Thus the danger on the map was mitigated both by politics and by the limited force the Jordanians could bring to bear.

Nevertheless, politics shift, and the 1949 borders posed a strategic problem for Israel. If Egypt, Jordan and Syria were to launch a simultaneous attack (possibly joined by other forces along the Jordan River line) all along Israel’s frontiers, the ability of Israel to defeat the attackers was questionable. The attacks would have to be coordinated — as the 1948 attacks were not — but simultaneous pressure along all frontiers would leave the Israelis with insufficient forces to hold and therefore no framework for a counterattack. From 1948 to 1967, this was Israel’s existential challenge, mitigated by the disharmony among the Arabs and the fact that any attack would be detected in the deployment phase.

Israel’s strategy in this situation had to be the pre-emptive strike. Unable to absorb a coordinated blow, the Israelis had to strike first to disorganize their enemies and to engage them sequentially and in detail. The 1967 war represented Israeli strategy in its first generation. First, it could not allow the enemy to commence hostilities. Whatever the political cost of being labeled the aggressor, Israel had to strike first. Second, it could not be assumed that the political intentions of each neighbor at any one time would determine their behavior. In the event Israel was collapsing, for example, Jordan’s calculations of its own interests would shift, and it would move from being a covert ally to Israel to a nation both repositioning itself in the Arab world and taking advantage of geographical opportunities. Third, the center of gravity of the Arab threat was always Egypt, the neighbor able to field the largest army. Any pre-emptive war would have to begin with Egypt and then move to other neighbors. Fourth, in order to control the sequence and outcome of the war, Israel would have to maintain superior organization and technology at all levels. Finally, and most important, the Israelis would have to move for rapid war termination. They could not afford a war of attrition against forces of superior size. An extended war could drain Israeli combat capability at an astonishing rate. Therefore the pre-emptive strike had to be decisive.

The 1949 borders actually gave Israel a strategic advantage. The Arabs were fighting on external lines. This means their forces could not easily shift between Egypt and Syria, for example, making it difficult to exploit emergent weaknesses along the fronts. The Israelis, on the other hand, fought from interior lines, and in relatively compact terrain. They could carry out a centrifugal offense, beginning with Egypt, shifting to Jordan and finishing with Syria, moving forces from one front to another in a matter of days. Put differently, the Arabs were inherently uncoordinated, unable to support each other. The pre-1967 borders allowed the Israelis to be superbly coordinated, choosing the timing and intensity of combat to suit their capabilities. Israel lacked strategic depth, but it made up for it with compact space and interior lines. If it could choose the time, place and tempo of engagements, it could defeat numerically superior forces. The Arabs could not do this.

Israel needed two things in order to exploit this advantage. The first was outstanding intelligence to detect signs of coordination and the massing of forces. Detecting the former sign was a matter of political intelligence, the latter a matter of tactical military intelligence. But the political intelligence would have to manifest itself in military deployments, and given the geography of the 1949 borders, massing forces secretly was impossible. If enemy forces could mass undetected it would be a disaster for Israel. Thus the center of gravity of Israeli war-making was its intelligence capabilities.

The second essential requirement was an alliance with a great power. Israel’s strategy was based on superior technology and organization — air power, armor and so on. The true weakness of Israel’s strategic power since the country’s creation had been that its national security requirements outstripped its industrial and financial base. It could not domestically develop and produce all of the weapons it needed to fight a war. Israel depended first on the Soviets, then until 1967 on France. It was not until after the 1967 war that the United States provided any significant aid to Israel. However, under the strategy of the pre-1967 borders, continual access to weapons — and in a crisis, rapid access to more weapons — was essential, so Israel had to have a powerful ally. Not having one, coupled with an intelligence failure, would be disastrous.


After 1967

The 1967 war allowed Israel to occupy the Sinai, all of Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. It placed Egyptian forces on the west bank of the Suez, far from Israel, and pushed the Jordanians out of artillery range of the Israeli heartland. It pushed Syria out of artillery range as well. This created the strategic depth Israel required, yet it set the stage for the most serious military crisis in Israeli history, beginning with a failure in its central capability — intelligence.



(click here to enlarge image)
The intelligence failure occurred in 1973, when Syria and Egypt managed to partially coordinate an assault on Israel without Israeli intelligence being able to interpret the intelligence it was receiving. Israel was saved above all by rapid rearmament by the United States, particularly in such staples of war as artillery shells. It was also aided by greater strategic depth. The Egyptian attack was stopped far from Israel proper in the western Sinai. The Syrians fought in the Golan Heights rather than in the Galilee.

Here is the heart of the pre-1967 border issue. Strategic depth meant that the Syrians and Egyptians spent their main offensive force outside of Israel proper. This bought Israel space and time. It allowed Israel to move back to its main sequential strategy. After halting the two attacks, the Israelis proceeded to defeat the Syrians in the Golan then the Egyptians in the Sinai. However, the ability to mount the two attacks — and particularly the Sinai attack — required massive American resupply of everything from aircraft to munitions. It is not clear that without this resupply the Israelis could have mounted the offensive in the Sinai, or avoided an extended war of attrition on unfavorable terms. Of course, the intelligence failure opened the door to Israel’s other vulnerability — its dependency on foreign powers for resupply. Indeed, perhaps Israel’s greatest miscalculation was the amount of artillery shells it would need to fight the war; the amount required vastly outstripped expectations. Such a seemingly minor thing created a massive dependency on the United States, allowing the United States to shape the conclusion of the war to its own ends so that Israel’s military victory ultimately evolved into a political retreat in the Sinai.

It is impossible to argue that Israel, fighting on its 1949 borders, was less successful than when it fought on its post-1967 borders. What happened was that in expanding the scope of the battlefield, opportunities for intelligence failures multiplied, the rate of consumption of supplies increased and dependence grew on foreign powers with different political interests. The war Israel fought from the 1949 borders was more efficiently waged than the one it fought from the post-1967 borders. The 1973 war allowed for a larger battlefield and greater room for error (errors always occur on the battlefield), but because of intelligence surprises and supply miscalculations it also linked Israel’s national survival to the willingness of a foreign government to quickly resupply its military.

The example of 1973 casts some doubt around the argument that the 1948 borders were excessively vulnerable. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but it is not a clear-cut position. However, we need to consider Israel’s borders not only in terms of conventional war but also in terms of unconventional war — both uprisings and the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons.

There are those who argue that there will be no more peer-to-peer conflicts. We doubt that intensely. However, there is certainly a great deal of asymmetric warfare in the world, and for Israel it comes in the form of intifadas, rocket attacks and guerrilla combat against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The post-1967 borders do not do much about these forms of warfare. Indeed, it can be argued that some of this conflict happens because of the post-1967 borders.

A shift to the 1949 borders would not increase the risk of an intifada but would make it moot. It would not eliminate conflict with Hezbollah. A shift to the 1949 line would eliminate some threats but not others. From the standpoint of asymmetric warfare, a shift in borders could increase the threat from Palestinian rockets to the Israeli heartland. If a Palestinian state were created, there would be the very real possibility of Palestinian rocket fire unless there was a significant shift in Hamas’ view of Israel or Fatah increased its power in the West Bank and was in a position to defeat Hamas and other rejectionist movements. This would be the heart of the Palestinian threat if there were a return to the borders established after the initial war.

The shape of Israel’s borders doesn’t really have an effect on the threat posed by CBRN weapons. While some chemical artillery rockets could be fired from closer borders, the geography leaves Israel inherently vulnerable to this threat, regardless of where the precise boundary is drawn, and they can already be fired from Lebanon or Gaza. The main threat discussed, a CBRN warhead fitted to an Iranian medium-range ballistic missile launched from a thousand miles away, has little to do with precisely where a line in the Levant is drawn.

When we look at conventional warfare, I would argue that the main issue Israel has is not its borders but its dependence on outside powers for its national security. Any country that creates a national security policy based on the willingness of another country to come to its assistance has a fundamental flaw that will, at some point, be mortal. The precise borders should be those that a) can be defended and b) do not create barriers to aid when that aid is most needed. In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon withheld resupply for some days, pressing Israel to the edge. U.S. interests were not those of Israel’s. This is the mortal danger to Israel — a national security requirement that outstrips its ability to underwrite it.

Israel’s borders will not protect it against Iranian missiles, and rockets from Gaza are painful but do not threaten Israel’s existence. In case the artillery rocket threat expands beyond this point, Israel must retain the ability to reoccupy and re-engage, but given the threat of asymmetric war, perpetual occupation would seem to place Israel at a perpetual disadvantage. Clearly, the rocket threat from Hamas represents the best argument for strategic depth.



(click here to enlarge image)
The best argument for returning to the pre-1967 borders is that Israel was more capable of fighting well on these borders. The war of independence, the 1956 war and the 1967 war all went far better than any of the wars that came after. Most important, if Israel is incapable of generating a national defense industry that can provide all the necessary munitions and equipment without having to depend on its allies, then it has no choice but to consider what its allies want. With the pre-1967 borders there is a greater chance of maintaining critical alliances. More to the point, the pre-1967 borders require a smaller industrial base because they do not require troops for occupation and they improve Israel’s ability to conduct conventional operations in a time of crisis.

There is a strong case to be made for not returning to the 1949 lines, but it is difficult to make that case from a military point of view. Strategic depth is merely one element of a rational strategy. Given that Israel’s military security depends on its relations with third parties, the shape of its borders and diplomatic reality are, as always, at the heart of Israeli military strategy.

In warfare, the greatest enemy of victory is wishful thinking. The assumption that Israel will always have an outside power prepared to rush munitions to the battlefield or help create costly defense systems like Iron Dome is simply wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe this will always be the case. Therefore, since this is the heart of Israeli strategy, the strategy rests on wishful thinking. The question of borders must be viewed in the context of synchronizing Israeli national security policy with Israeli national means.

There is an argument prevalent among Israelis and their supporters that the Arabs will never make a lasting peace with Israel. From this flows the assumption that the safest course is to continue to hold all territory. My argument assumes the worst case, which is not only that the Palestinians will not agree to a genuine peace but also that the United States cannot be counted on indefinitely. All military planning must begin with the worst case.

However, I draw a different conclusion from these facts than the Israelis do. If the worst-case scenario is the basis for planning, then Israel must reduce its risk and restructure its geography along the more favorable lines that existed between 1949 and 1967, when Israel was unambiguously victorious in its wars, rather than the borders and policies after 1967, when Israel has been less successful. The idea that the largest possible territory provides the greatest possible security is not supportable in military history. As Frederick the Great once said, he who defends everything defends nothing.

Title: Israel - US relations
Post by: DougMacG on June 03, 2011, 04:17:36 PM

This Thomas Sowell column is more about Glibness but the quoted shows his (lack of) respect and commitment to Israel.

First my question/request.  While I was distracted with tornadoes impending I missed all coverage of the state dinner held in honor of Netanyahu's visit.  Could someone please post the details.
------------------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/31/seductive_beliefs_part_ii_110015.html

The only thing surprising about Barack Obama's latest blow against Israel is that there are people who are surprised. As for a Palestinian homeland, that was never a big issue when the Arabs controlled that land, up to 1967.

Obama's declaration that Israel must give up the land it acquired, after neighboring countries threatened its survival in 1967, is completely consistent with both his ideology of many years and his previous actions as President of the United States.

Whether as a radical student, a community organizer or a far left politician, Barack Obama's ideology has been based on a vision of the Haves versus the Have Nots. However complex the ramifications of this ideology, and however clever the means by which Obama has camouflaged it, that is what it has amounted to.

No wonder he was moved to tears when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright summarized that ideology in a thundering phrase-- "white folks' greed runs a world in need."

Israel is one of the Haves. Its neighbors remain among the Have Nots, despite their oil. No wonder that Barack Obama has bent over backward, in addition to bowing low forward, to support the side that his ideology favors.

Whether at home or abroad, Obama's ideology is an ideology of envy, resentment and payback.

Israel is not simply to have its interests sacrificed and its security undermined. It is to be brought down a peg and-- to the extent politically possible-- insulted. Obama has already done all these things. His latest pronouncement is just more of the same.

One of the first acts of Barack Obama as president was to send money to the Palestinians, money that can be used to buy rockets to fire into Israel, irrespective of the rationale for the money.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. A photograph that should tell us a lot about Barack Obama shows him on the phone, talking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama was seated, leaning back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk, and the soles of his feet pointed directly at the camera. In the Middle East, showing the soles of your feet is an insult, as Obama undoubtedly knows.

This photograph was no accident. Photographers cannot roam around White House, willy-nilly, taking snapshots of the President of the United States as he talks to leaders of foreign nations.

It was a photograph with a message. No one would have known who was on the other end of the line, unless Obama wanted them to know -- and wanted to demonstrate his disdain.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's visits to the White House have been unlike previous Israeli leaders' visits to the White House, and certainly unlike the pomp and circumstance accompanying other nations' leaders' visits to the White House over the years.

After one of his meetings with Netanyahu, Barack Obama simply told the prime minister that he was going upstairs to have dinner. You wouldn't say that to an ordinary neighbor visiting in your home, without inviting him to join you.

Obama knew that. Netanyahu knew that. It was a calculated insult. And the American public would have heard about it, if so much of the media didn't have such a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil and speak-no-evil attitude in its coverage of Barack Obama.
---------------
Whoops, no state dinner?

Title: How unlike him
Post by: G M on June 03, 2011, 04:28:06 PM

"Obama was seated, leaning back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk, and the soles of his feet pointed directly at the camera. In the Middle East, showing the soles of your feet is an insult, as Obama undoubtedly knows."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhkq11UExcw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Title: George Friedman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2011, 10:03:24 AM

Colin: Attempts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict have hit another brick wall. Nothing really new at that, but with instability all around Israel’s neighborhood, where does that leave Israel’s future?

Colin: Welcome to this special edition of Agenda on Israel. With me is George Friedman. George, picture a typical young couple who’ve just visited their siblings in Israel and finding a country that’s alone in a region of increasing turmoil and, to some extent, isolated from its traditional friends. After talking to strategists and having read a lot, including your book, what would they see as its medium-term future?

George: Well, in the medium term Israel is a very secure country. Its greatest threat of a full peripheral war in attacks of the Jordan River line and from Egypt aren’t there, even though there’s unrest in Egypt, even though it’s possible Egypt might up abrogate peace treaty. Egypt isn’t about the surge into the Sinai because they can’t. They’re heavily dependent on American contractors to maintain their military. They have primarily American military equipment; the Americans will turn off the spigot very quickly if the Egyptians become aggressive; Egypt can’t wage war I suspect for a generation. There could be an uprising in Israel but the Israelis are ultimately able to handle that. There have been two intifadas. A third is not to destabilize them. They had trouble dealing with Hezbollah to the north but they could manage them in the end. There is increasing diplomatic isolation but to a great extent that’s more paper than reality, so whether someone recognizes the Palestinian state or not doesn’t change the reality on the ground.

It’s in the long run, the very long run, that Israel has its greatest problem, which is that, in the end, Israel is exactly what it says it is - a very small country surrounded by enemies. Many Israelis draw from this conclusion that they must be vigilant, which is true, and fairly rigid in their foreign policy. The problem is that, as a small country surrounded by enemies, there may arise circumstances in which they will be unable to resist. They are heavily dependent on the United States to be willing to support them because in the end Israel’s national security requirements outstrip their national security capabilities. The United States must support them in an extreme case. Any country that’s dependent on another country for their long-term survival is always vulnerable to shifts in that country’s policy. The United States at the moment shows no inclination to shift its underlying policy toward Israel, but in any worst-case scenario, which is what military planning is about, you really can’t tell. You therefore have a situation in which, if the conservatives in Israel are correct and they say the Palestinians will never make peace, Israel is a small country and it is surrounded by enemies, you have now described a long-run picture of extreme danger.

Colin: Extreme danger?

George: Here is the paradox in Israel: those who feel that the Arabs are absolutely implacable and that Israel is small and vulnerable and therefore it must not change are really the ones who were painting the bleakest picture of the future of Israel because they’re simply asserting that in the long-run, no matter how weak they are and how implacable their enemies, they can resist and win. That’s an improbable outcome. And therefore the real problem that Israel has is this: in the long-run, if it reaches no accommodation with the Palestinians either because they won’t or because the Palestinians won’t, Israel faces an existential threat. Israel, as the Israelis like to say, has very little room for error, to which the answer is always inevitable that Israel will commit an error, either an error as being too weak or an error of being too assertive. The real crisis that Israel has is if you accept the premise that they are weak, small and surrounded by enemies, you have also basically said that given the margin of error, Israel is in mortal danger in the long-run. Therefore Israel must somehow redefine the game either becoming more powerful, and many point to its nuclear capability as being that power, although I don’t see it as useful as others do, or reaching some sort of more dynamic diplomatic relationship. Can Israel do that? It’s a question of domestic political politics. But again, and this is really important point I want to make, if you believe the position of someone like Avigdor Lieberman, who was the foreign minister and the most aggressive, if you will, who asserts most vigorously the implacability of the Arabs and the vulnerability of Israel, it seems to me that his foreign policy of rigidity is ultimately, at some point, going to get Israel in deep trouble.

Colin: You say the United States at present shows no inclination to shift its policy towards Israel, but in your new book, you say the two countries’ interests are diverging.

George: The United States has interests in the Middle East beyond Israel and that includes good relations with Muslim countries. And the United States sees what the administration wrongly calls the Arab Spring as an opportunity. Israel has a very different set of interests in terms of establishing their position on the West Bank and in building settlements. These are two countries with different interests; they have an underlying interest in common in resisting certain tendencies in the Islamic world but not in others. It’s a complex relationship. The United States has already pulled away from Israel, as president Obama’s speech really made clear, whatever he said afterwards. The Israelis certainly have pulled away from the United States. They are not prepared to follow the American lead on a whole bunch of issues. This is a divergent relationship and it has to be recognized.

In the end, I think the divergence in a relationship puts Israel in substantial danger. I think that in the end Israel is the lesser power that is going to have to accommodate itself to the United States. But Israel, on the one hand, seems not to think that it’s in that much danger and can afford this and, on the other hand, thinks it is in so much danger that it can’t afford any flexibility whatsoever. Either one of Israel’s positions leads it to the same place: a fairly inflexible foreign policy, which is a perfectly good idea unless you hit the margin of error and something goes terribly wrong. It’s interesting that those who believe that there’s a margin of error, a very small margin of error, for Israel are those who argue that they’re the safest by being the most rigid and assertive. That may be true but small margin of error could exist on both sides of the equation. It’s hard to predict where it is. The key is that there is a small margin of error and Israel, I think, makes it smaller by taking positions that alienate it from the United States, no matter how unreasonable the United States appears to be. Ultimately Israel needs the strategic reserve that the United States represents.

Colin: Is it then inevitable Israel has to resolve the Palestinian question or could it find some accommodation elsewhere?

George: Israel has reached an accommodation with its neighboring countries in spite of its inability to settle the Palestinian dispute. Egypt has a peace treaty, has had a peace treaty for over 30 years, and that’s a very viable one. Israel has a very close working relationship with a Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Israel has many allies inside of Lebanon. Israel even has a quiet understanding with the Syrians, or has had one, concerning Lebanon and Syria’s assertion of control over Hezbollah. It’s been a complex relationship. It’s not really a question of Israel not having decent relations with its neighbors. But the real problem is these relationships change. We have the possibility of Egypt changing its foreign policy. Many things can shift. The worst-case scenario for Israel would be a conventional war along its frontiers and simultaneously an uprising among the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and perhaps in Israel itself. That’s the worst-case scenario and a scenario that really is frightening because it’s one that is difficult for Israel to survive and certainly difficult to stop with nuclear weapons. What are you going to do with nuclear weapons? Even if you wipeout Cairo or Damascus, it’s very difficult to use them against armies because your own armies are so close to them. You really are in an interesting situation and that’s why the Palestinian issue, if it can be settled, needs to be settled. Israel is in the potential position, it’s not there now but in the potential position, where it’s facing significant foreign threats and a massive uprising simultaneously. It’s hard to imagine anything worse than that, and therefore finding some settlement with the Palestinians is in their interests. Of course it has to be remembered that for all the discussion of a settlement with the Palestinians, a substantial number of Palestinians adhere to Hamas. Hamas opposes the existence of the state of Israel. Hamas’ position on any sort of a settlement is that it’s only an interim settlement and in the long-run the conflict will continue. So it’s very difficult to understand how Israel creates a peace treaty with the Palestinians when the Palestinians are so widely divided between Fatah and Hamas and where Hamas commands so much respect among the Palestinians and where Hamas simply opposes the existence of Israel. In looking at all of this, whereas you can point to what Israel should do, you also have to point at what can it do when the question of the survival of Israel is not a principle that the Palestinians will accept. This does not mean that Israel doesn’t have a problem, that the solution is not a Palestinian state. The problem is that the Israelis have is the danger that arises if the Palestinians are as implacable as they appear to be. And if you have a massive political shift over the next generation in the states bordering Israel, then Israel is truly in a strategic bind.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 05, 2011, 12:08:54 PM

Interesting thought piece with in depth philosophying about Israel's position short and long term.

Yet he keeps pointing out how Israeli conservatives are inflexible while at the same time saying "if" they are correct that for at least many Muslims the ultimate goal is to destroy the "Jewish" state.  If this is true and certainly appears this way then any real attempts at the accomodation he is calling for is no more than a mirage.

By thinking it through as he has he inadvertantly, I think, has expressed the dilema which faces Israel and about which there is NO good answer.

So then what does Israeli leaders, or better stated what CAN Israeli leaders do?

"The United States has interests in the Middle East beyond Israel and that includes good relations with Muslim countries. And the United States sees what the administration wrongly calls the Arab Spring as an opportunity."

First.  Why must the US throw the Jews under the bus in order to have "good relations" with Muslims?

The first part of the above quoted sentences makes this essentially a prerequisite; that is that the US must take sides with the Palestinians in order for  good relations with the Arabs, Persains etc.

Second I wonder more in detail what he means by Obama *misreading* the Arab "spring" as it is so called.   How so? And how should they read it?

After reading this I cannot change my agreement with Dick Morris' conclusion that liberal Jews can either choose between the Democratic party, or risk the mass slaughter of Jews in Israel..  The liberal demo(socialist)crats including those like Soros and his funded lobbying groups are absolutely risking the existence of Israel.  The support of all liberal Jews for Obama is taking this risk.

As I have posted for years on this board.  Liberal Jews hate Republicans more than Hitler.  They will do anything to defeat the Republican party.  Even risk the existence of their fellow Jews in Israel.

I don't know how to see it any other way.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2011, 12:47:46 PM

CCP said, "As I have posted for years on this board.  Liberal Jews hate Republicans more than Hitler.  They will do anything to defeat the Republican party.  Even risk the existence of their fellow Jews in Israel."

CCP, i'm not sure I agree.   :-)

Even I hate/despise what Hitler did and stood for and I'm not a Jew.  I think liberal Jews, Jews in general believe (hopefully) in America first, then Israel. I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat issue.

CCP said, "First.  Why must the US throw the Jews under the bus in order to have "good relations" with Muslims?"

I don't think Jews need to be "thrown under the bus", but to have "good relations" with Muslims, I think we should lean toward impartiality and therefore
focus on what's good for America first; Israel second. 

Israel does have a dilemma, but I don't understand why it has to be America's dilemma.  Problems exit between Taiwan and China, Japan and China, South Korea and North Korea, etc. but we try negotiation with China and North Korea and while we promise to defend our allies, we keep in mind what is good for America first.  It should be the same with Israel.  No more no less.  As an American, I do not feel a greater obligation to Israel than I do to Taiwan or South Korea or any other good ally.  We can agree to disagree on many issues; that does not mean we are throwing them under the bus.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2011, 01:44:03 PM

"Problems exit between Taiwan and China, Japan and China, South Korea and North Korea, etc. but we try negotiation with China and North Korea and while we promise to defend our allies, we keep in mind what is good for America first.  It should be the same with Israel.  No more no less.  As an American, I do not feel a greater obligation to Israel than I do to Taiwan or South Korea or any other good ally."

The threats each of those face is different.  In each or in all of them it would be better to help in a small way now than to fight a regional or world war on their behalf later.  Managing different threats requires different strategies.  In all cases the underlying theme is peace through strength, not through giveaways.  What part of Taiwan do we propose to give back?

Title: Speaking of Taiwan
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 02:11:56 PM

It is the policy of the United States--


http://www.ait.org.tw/en/taiwan-relations-act.html

1.to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other peoples of the Western Pacific area;

 2.to declare that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of international concern;
 3.to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
 4.to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
 5.to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
6.to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.

Title: The audacity of jihad
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 02:18:20 PM

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/06/obama-inspired-ship-sets-sail-to-join-leftist-islamist-gaza-flotilla-ii/

OBAMA INSPIRED SHIP, Funded By Obama’s Pals, Sets Off to Join Jew-Hating Leftist-Islamist Gaza Flotilla II

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, June 4, 2011, 9:32 AM

Title: Still waiting, JDN
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 02:22:27 PM

What's the negotiating point for those who want to kill all the Jews? How exactly do you wish to meet them halfway?

Title: Re: Still waiting, JDN
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 05:45:11 PM

Quote from: G M on June 05, 2011, 02:22:27 PM

What's the negotiating point for those who want to kill all the Jews? How exactly do you wish to meet them halfway?

A decent, rational people, with a unique religious ontology, so I'm told.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5331.htm

At Gaza Rally: "America is the Enemy of Allah"

Crowds: "There is no god but Allah.

"America is the enemy of Allah." […]

At Rafah Rally: "Osama Destroyed America"

Crowds: "Our souls and our blood we will give for you, oh Osama.

"Our souls and our blood we will give for you, oh Osama.

"Our souls and our blood we will give for you, oh Osama."

Demonstrator: "There is no god but Allah."

Crowds: "There is no god but Allah."

Demonstrator: "Sheikh Osama is loved by Allah."

Crowds: "Sheikh Osama is loved by Allah."

Demonstrator: "There is no god but Allah."

Crowds: "There is no god but Allah."

Demonstrator: "Sheikh Osama is loved by Allah."

Crowds: "Sheikh Osama is loved by Allah."

Demonstrator: "Osama destroyed America…"

Crowds: "Osama destroyed America…"

Demonstrator: "…using a civilian plane."

Crowds: "…using a civilian plane."

Demonstrator: "Say: 'Allah Akbar.'"

Crowds: "Allah Akbar!"

Demonstrator: "Beware, oh Pakistan…"

Crowds: "Beware, oh Pakistan…"

Demonstrator: "…of the soldiers of Taliban."

Crowds: "…of the soldiers of Taliban."

"Khaybar, Khaybar, Oh Jews, the Army of Muhammad Is Returning"

Demonstrator: "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews…"

Crowds: "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews…"

Demonstrator: "…the army of Muhammad is returning."

Crowds: "…the army of Muhammad is returning." […]

Sheikh Munir Al-'Aydi: "This blessed man, Osama, Allah's mercy upon him, has given his money and his soul for the Jihad for the sake of Allah. At a time when real men are few, he united the nation around monotheism. Allah's mercy upon you, oh Osama. You were good in your life, and you were good in your death. That man Osama thwarted the American plan in this region, and did what no man has ever done before, especially in our times. He is not a man like all men. He is a man who was true to the pledge he made before Allah.

"That is the man who said: 'I pledge before Allah that America and its people will enjoy no security before we enjoy true security in Palestine.' He was always devoted to the land of Palestine. He was always devoted to the liberation of the holy places. He was always devoted to the instating of the law of Allah. […]

"Today, this proud lion has been dumped in the sea by the country of heresy and prostitution, America. They wanted him dead or alive. […]

"That is the man who brandished his weapon to fight the enemies of Allah. He led the Global Front for Jihad against America and its allies, the worshippers of the cross. He rightfully earned the title of the imam of our times."

Sheikh Munir Al-'Aydi: Bin Laden Is "The Man Who Shattered the Crosses"

Demonstrator: "Say: 'Allah Akbar.'

Crowds: "Allah Akbar!"

Demonstrator: "Say: 'Allah Akbar.'"

Crowds: "Allah Akbar!"

Demonstrator: "Say: 'Allah Akbar.'

Crowds: "Allah Akbar!"

Sheikh Munir Al-'Aydi: "That is the man who shattered the crosses. That is the man who brought the Americans to their knees. That is the man who humiliated the hypocrites in the East and West. That man through whom Allah distinguished men of truth from men of falsehood.  […]

"In the days of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, when there were claims that the Koran was man-made, the scholars of those times would say that you could distinguish between a man of truth and a hypocrite by his love for Imam Ahmad. In our times, we too say that you can tell a believer from a hypocrite by his love for Osama bin Laden."

Crowds: "Allah Akbar!

"Allah Akbar!

"Allah Akbar!

"Allah Akbar!"

Sheikh Munir Al-'Aydi: "You are not dead, oh Osama. You live on in the hearts of us all. Osama lives on in the heart of every man. All our sons are Osama. Our entire nation is Osama." […]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2011, 07:54:56 PM

Quote from: G M on June 05, 2011, 02:11:56 PM

It is the policy of the United States--

http://www.ait.org.tw/en/taiwan-relations-act.html

1.to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other peoples of the Western Pacific area;

 2.to declare that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of international concern;
 3.to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
 4.to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
 5.to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
6.to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.

I like your analogy.  As far as I'm concerned you can absolutely substitute, no more, no less, the word Israel for Taiwan above.   :-D

1.   promote good relations between the US and Israel AND Arab countries
2.   we want peace and stability in the Middle East
3.   maybe we should recognize Palestine based upon the EXPECTATION (no promises) that Israel's future will be determined by peaceful means
4.   we should be CONCERNED (that's it-no promise to act) if Arab countries impose a threat to the peace of the Middle East or to Israel
5.   We already do sell/give arms to Israel
6.   We do have the capacity to resist force against Israel.  NOTE it does NOT say we would defend.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 08:08:07 PM

Both the PRC and the ROC expect that the US would defend the ROC, although with this president, there are serious doubts on both sides.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2011, 08:19:29 PM

Are you crazy?  You expect that we would go to full all out war with China over Taiwan?  I hope not.  Sorry....
This President has it right...  It's a dance until one day Taiwan becomes part of China whether Taiwan likes it or not.

However, that being said, I do think we should defend Israel if they are about to be over run.  But short of that,
let's follow your points in your analogy, point by point, ok?   No more, no less.   :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 08:25:26 PM

Obama's weakness encourages aggression, makes military conflict more, not less likely.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/01/20/2003493940


Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) once said that “all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Whether his apostolic successor, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), who is visiting US President Barack Obama this week in Washington, believes this particular line in Mao’s catechism is unclear. Completely clear, however, is that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) not only believes it, but is implementing it.

Systematic expansion of China’s strategic nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities; rapid growth in submarine and blue-water naval forces; substantial investments in anti-access and area-denial weapons such as anti-carrier cruise missiles; fifth--generation fighter-bomber platforms and sophisticated cyber-warfare techniques all testify to the PLA’s operational objectives.

Western business and political leaders have chattered for years about China as a globally “responsible stakeholder” enjoying a “peaceful rise.” This is the acceptable face Hu will present in Washington. However, just because the musclemen aren’t listed on the Chinese leader’s passenger manifest doesn’t mean they aren’t flying the plane. The Chinese Communist Party remains unquestionably dominant and the PLA remains its most potent element.

During US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ Beijing meetings last week, China tested its stealthy new J-20, a prototype combat aircraft. Many scoffed at the notion that Hu seemed surprised when Gates raised the test and at the Chinese leader’s explanation that the timing was coincidental. Was the J-20 flight intended to embarrass Gates and Obama prior to Hu’s Washington visit or was it a signal to China’s civilian leadership about who is actually in charge? In truth, both seem likely.
 
Both Hu and the PLA undoubtedly understand that China is dealing with the most left-wing, least national--security-oriented, least assertive US president in decades. This matters because China will be heavily influenced by its perception of US policies and capabilities. Obama’s extravagant domestic spending, and the consequent ballooning of US national debt, has enhanced China’s position at the US’ expense. Indeed, the only budget line Obama has been interested in cutting, which he has done with gusto, is defense.

Sensing growing weakness, therefore, it would be surprising if Beijing did not continue its assertive economic, political and military policies. Thus, we can expect more discrimination against foreign investors and businesses in China, as both the US and EU chambers of commerce there have recently complained. Further expansive, unjustifiable territorial claims in adjacent East Asian waters are also likely. While the Pentagon is clipping coupons and limiting its nuclear capabilities in treaties with Russia, the PLA is celebrating Mardi Gras.

Consider two further important issues: Taiwan and North Korea. When Beijing threatened Taipei in 1996, then-US president Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait, demonstrating the US’ commitment to Taiwan’s defense. Does anyone, particularly in Beijing, believe Obama would do anything nearly as muscular faced with comparable belligerence today? On the North Korean menace, meanwhile, Obama is conforming to a 20-year pattern of US deference to China that has enabled a bellicose, nuclear Pyongyang.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 08:29:44 PM

"Are you crazy?  You expect that we would go to full all out war with China over Taiwan?  I hope not.  Sorry....
This President has it right...  It's a dance until one day Taiwan becomes part of China whether Taiwan likes it or not."

And our defense treaty with Japan? The Chinese want Taiwan under their control, but they really HATE the Japanese.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 05, 2011, 09:19:31 PM

At the current time we DO NOT have a Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan.  So AGAIN, what is your point?   :?

Nor, I might point out do we have a Mutual Defense Treaty with Israel.   :-o

We do have a Mutual Defense Treaty with Japan.   :-)

You are not doing well tonight.   :evil:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 05, 2011, 09:55:19 PM

You do realize that the American Institute in Taiwan is a US Embassy with a different name, just as the Taiwan Relations Act is a defense treaty with a different name.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2011, 06:15:39 AM

Gentlemen:  Please take this to the US-China thread.  Thank you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 06, 2011, 07:41:33 AM

"Even I hate/despise what Hitler did and stood for and I'm not a Jew.  I think liberal Jews, Jews in general believe (hopefully) in America first, then Israel. I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat issue."

Liberal Jews live like capitalists with all its luxury and advantages but speak like socialists.  I call that a fork tongue.  They are wedded to the Democrat party.
Party politics certainly is a big issue here.  That is why 75% are die hard Democrats and do all they can do to keep a President in power who clearly tilts away from the Jews and towards the Muslims.   Do you think they would have been as kind to a Republican who sat for twenty years in an anti-semite's church?

"CCP said, "First.  Why must the US throw the Jews under the bus in order to have "good relations" with Muslims?"

*I* didn't say we need to.  George Friedman was clearly implying that in *his* statements.

Bottom line.  Jews can choose the Democrat party and risk the existence of several million Jews or not.  That is the way the Democrat party is tilting at least since we have the abomination called Obama there.

Title: We have heard this before/ rumors?
Post by: ccp on June 06, 2011, 10:38:20 AM

Certainly, it is just a matter of time.  The US has already decided against anything other than diplomacy.

***Researcher: Iran can produce nuke within 2 months

Airstrikes can no longer stop nuclear program, US can do nothing short of military occupation, says report

The Iranian regime is closer than ever before to creating a nuclear bomb, according to RAND Corporation researcher Gregory S. Jones.

At its current rate of uranium enrichment, Tehran could have enough for its first bomb within eight weeks, Jones said in a report published this week.***

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2011, 11:26:50 AM

Although this is obviously of intense interest to Israel, would you please post this in either the Iran thread or the Nuclear War thread?  TIA

Title: Stratfor: The Palestinian Move
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2011, 08:55:43 AM

   
The Palestinian Move
June 7, 2011


By George Friedman

A former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, has publicly criticized the current Israeli government for a lack of flexibility, judgment and foresight, calling it “reckless and irresponsible” in the handling of Israel’s foreign and security policies. In various recent interviews and speeches, he has made it clear that he regards the decision to ignore the 2002 Saudi proposal for a peace settlement on the pre-1967 lines as a mistake and the focus on Iran as a diversion from the real issue — the likely recognition of an independent Palestinian state by a large segment of the international community, something Dagan considers a greater threat.

What is important in Dagan’s statements is that, having been head of Mossad from 2002 to 2010, he is not considered in any way to be ideologically inclined toward accommodation. When Dagan was selected by Ariel Sharon to be head of Mossad, Sharon told him that he wanted a Mossad with “a knife between its teeth.” There were charges that he was too aggressive, but rarely were there charges that he was too soft. Dagan was as much a member of the Israeli governing establishment as anyone. Therefore, his statements, and the statements of some other senior figures, represent a split not so much within Israel but within the Israeli national security establishment, which has been seen as being as hard-line as the Likud.

In addition, over the weekend, when pro-Palestinian demonstrators on the Golan Heights tried to force their way into Israeli-held territory, Israeli troops opened fire. Eleven protesters were killed in the Golan, and six were killed in a separate but similar protest in the West Bank. The demonstrations, like the Nakba-day protests, were clearly intended by the Syrians to redirect anti-government protests to some other issue. They were also meant to be a provocation, and the government in Damascus undoubtedly hoped that the Israelis would open fire. Dagan’s statements seem to point at this paradox. There are two factions that want an extremely aggressive Israeli security policy: the Israeli right and countries and militant proxies like Hamas that are actively hostile to Israel. The issue is which benefits more.


3 Strategic Phases

Last week we discussed Israeli strategy. This week I want us to consider Palestinian strategy and to try to understand how the Palestinians will respond to the current situation. There have been three strategies on Palestine. The first was from before the founding of Israel until 1967. In this period, the primary focus was not on the creation of a Palestinian state but on the destruction of Israel by existing Arab nation-states and the absorption of the territory into those states.

Just a few years before 1967, the Palestine Liberation Army (PLO) came into existence, and after Israel’s victory in the June 1967 war, the Arab nations began to change their stance from simply the destruction of Israel and absorption of the territories into existing nation-states to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The PLO strategy at this time was a dual track divided between political and paramilitary operations and included terrorist attacks in both Israel and Europe. The political track tried to position the PLO as being open to a negotiated state, while the terrorist track tried to make the PLO seem extremely dangerous in order to motivate other nations, particularly European nations, to pressure Israel on the political track.

The weakness of this strategy was that the political track lost credibility as the terrorist track became bound up with late Cold-War intrigues involving European terrorist groups like Italy’s Red Brigade or Germany’s Red Army Faction. Their networks ranged from the Irish Republican Army to the Basque terrorist group ETA to Soviet bloc intelligence services. The PLO was seen as a threat to Europe on many levels as well as a threat to the Arab royal houses that they tried to undermine.

For the Palestinians, the most significant loss was the decision by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to shift from the Soviet alliance and make peace with Israel. This isolated the Palestinian movement from any significant regional support and made it dependent on the Soviets. With the Cold War winding down, the PLO became an orphan, losing its sponsorship from the Soviets as it had lost Jordanian and Egyptian support in the 1970s. Two main tendencies developed during this second phase. The first was the emergence of Hamas, a radically new sort of Palestinian movement since it was neither secular nor socialist but religious. The second was the rise of the internal insurrection, or intifada, which, coupled with suicide bombings and rocket fire from Gaza as well as from Hezbollah in Lebanon, was designed to increase the cost of insurrection to the Israelis while generating support for the Palestinians.

Ultimately, the split between Hamas and Fatah, the dominant faction of the PLO that had morphed into the Palestinian National Authority, was the most significant aspect of the third strategic phase. Essentially, the Palestinians were simultaneously waging a civil war with each other while trying to organize resistance to Israel. This is not as odd as it appears. The Palestinians had always fought one another while they fought common enemies, and revolutionary organizations are frequently split. But the Hamas-Fatah split undermined the credibility of the resistance in two ways. First, there were times in which one or the other faction was prepared to share intelligence with the Israelis to gain an advantage over the other. Second, and more important, the Palestinians had no coherent goal, nor did anyone have the ability to negotiate on their behalf. Should Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas engage in negotiations with Israel he could not deliver Hamas, so the whole point of negotiations was limited. Indeed, negotiations were likely to weaken the Palestinians by exacerbating intra-communal tensions.


Post Cold-War Weakness

One of the significant problems the Palestinians had always had was the hostility of the Arab world to their cause, a matter insufficiently discussed. The Egyptians spent this period opposed to Hamas as a threat to their regime. They participated in blockading Gaza. The Jordanians hated Fatah, having long memories about the Black September rising in 1970 that almost destroyed the Hashemite regime. Having a population that is still predominantly Palestinian, the Hashemites fear the consequences of a Palestinian state. The Syrians have never been happy with the concept of an independent Palestinian state because they retain residual claims to all former Syrian provinces, including Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. When they invaded Lebanon in 1976, they were supporting Maronite Christians and trying to destroy the PLO. Finally, the constant attempts by Fatah and the PLO to overthrow the royal houses of Arabia — all of which failed — created massive mistrust between a number of Arab regimes and the fledgling Palestinian movement.

Therefore, the strategic position of the Palestinians has been extremely weak since the end of the Cold War. They have been able to put stress on Israel but not come anywhere close to endangering its survival or even forcing policies to change. Indeed, their actions tended to make Israel even more rigid. This did not displease the Palestinians as an outcome. The more rigid the Israelis were, the more intrusive they would be in the Palestinian community and the more both Fatah and Hamas could rely on Palestinian support for their policies. In a sense, the greatest threat to the Palestinian movement has always been the Palestinians losing interest in a Palestinian state in favor of increased economic wellbeing. The ability to force Israel to take aggressive measures increased public loyalty to each of the two groups. During a time of inherent civil conflict between the two, provoking Israel became a means of assuring support in the civil war.

From Israel’s point of view, so long as the suicide bombings were disrupted and Gaza was contained, they were in an extraordinarily secure position. The Arab states were indifferent or hostile (beyond public proclamations and donations that frequently wound up in European bank accounts); the United States was not prepared to press Israel more than formally; and the Europeans were not prepared to take any meaningful action because of the United States and the Arab countries. The Israelis had a problem but not one that ultimately threatened them. Even Iran’s attempt to meddle was of little consequence. Hezbollah was as much concerned with Lebanese politics as it was with fighting Israel, and Hamas would take money from anyone. In the end, Hamas did not want to become an Iranian pawn, and Fatah knew that Iran could be the end of it.

In a sense, the Palestinians have been in checkmate since the fall of the Soviet Union. They were divided, holding on to their public, dealing with a hostile Arab world and, except for the suicide bombings that frightened but did not weaken Israel, they had no levers to change the game. The Israeli view was that the status quo, which required no fundamental shifts of concessions, was satisfactory.


A New 4th Phase?

As we have said many times, the Arab Spring is a myth. Where there have been revolutions they have not been democratic, and where they have appeared democratic they have not been in any way mass movements capable of changing regimes. But what they have been in the past is not necessarily what they will be in the future. Certainly, this round has bought little democratic change, and I don’t think there will be much. But I can make assumptions that the Israeli government can’t afford to make.

One does not have to believe in the Arab Spring to see evolutions in which countries like Egypt change their positions on the Palestinians, as evidenced by Egypt’s decision to open the Rafah border crossing. In Egypt, as in other Arab countries, the Palestinian cause is popular. A government that would make no real concessions to its public could afford to make this concession, which costs the regime little and is an easy way to appease the crowds. With the exception of Jordan, which really does have to fear a Palestinian state, countries that were hostile to the Palestinians could be more supportive and states that had been minimally supportive could increase their support.

This is precisely what the Palestinians want, and the reason that Hamas and Fatah have signed a grudging agreement for unity. They see the risings in the Arab world as a historic opportunity to break out of the third phase into a new fourth phase. The ability to connect the Palestinian cause with regime preservation in the Arab world represents a remarkable opportunity. So Egypt could, at the same time, be repressive domestically — and even maintain the treaty with Israel — while dramatically increasing support for the Palestinians.

In doing that, two things happen: First, Europeans, who are important trading partners for Israel, might be prepared to support a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders in order to maintain relations in the Arab and Islamic world on an issue that is really of low cost to them. Second, the United States, fighting wars in the Islamic world and needing the support of intelligence services of Muslim states and stability in these countries, could support a peace treaty based on 1967 borders.

The key strategy that the Palestinians have adopted is that of provocation. The 2010 flotilla from Turkey presented a model: select an action that from the outside seems benign but will be perceived by the Israelis as threatening; orchestrate the event in a way that will maximize the chances for an Israeli action that will be seen as brutal; shape a narrative that makes the provocation seem benign; and use this narrative to undermine international support for the Israelis.

Given the rigid structure of Israeli policy, this strategy essentially puts the Palestinians or other groups in control of the Israeli response. The Palestinians understand Israeli limits, which are not dynamic and are predictable, and can trigger them at will. The more skillful they are, the more it will appear that they are the victims. And the conversation can shift from this particular action by Israel to the broader question of the Israeli occupation. With unrest in the Arab world, shifting evaluations of the situation in the West and a strategy that manages international perceptions and controls the tempo and type of events, the Palestinians have the opportunity to break out of the third phase.

Their deepest problem, of course, is the split between Hamas and Fatah, which merely has been papered over by their agreement. Essentially, Fatah supports a two-state solution and Hamas opposes it. And so long as Hamas opposes it, there can be no settlement. But Hamas, as part of this strategy, will do everything it can — aside from abandoning its position — to make it appear flexible on it. This will further build pressure on Israel.

How much pressure Israel can stand is something that will be found out and something Dagan warned about. But Israel has a superb countermove: accept some variation of the 1967 borders and force Hamas either to break with its principles and lose its support to an emergent group or openly blow apart the process. In other words, the Israelis can also pursue a strategy of provocation, in this case by giving the Palestinians what they want and betting that they will reject it. Of course, the problem with this strategy is that the Palestinians might accept the deal, with Hamas secretly intending to resume the war from a better position.

Israel’s bet has three possible outcomes. One is to hold the current position and be constantly manipulated into actions that isolate Israel. The second is to accept the concept of the 1967 borders and bet on the Palestinians rejecting it as they did with Bill Clinton. The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders.

In the end, this is not about the Israelis or the Palestinians. It is about the Palestinian relationship with the Arabs and Israel’s relationship with Europe and the United States. The Israelis want to isolate the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are trying to isolate the Israelis. At the moment, the Palestinians are doing better at this than the Israelis. The argument going on in Israel (and not with the peace movement) is how to respond. Benjamin Netanyahu wants to wait it out. Dagan is saying the risks are too high.

But on the Palestinian side, the real crisis will occur should Dagan win the debate. The center of gravity of Palestinian weakness is the inability to form a united front around the position that Israel has a right to exist. Some say it, some hint it and others reject it. An interesting gamble is to give the Palestinians what the Americans and Europeans are suggesting — modified 1967 borders. For Israel, the question is whether the risk of holding the present position is greater than the risk of a dramatic shift. For the Palestinians, the question is what they will do if there is a dramatic shift. The Palestinian dilemma is the more intense and interesting one — and an interesting opportunity for Israel.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 07, 2011, 12:31:16 PM

Accomodation, or appeasement, whatever one wants to call it - giving in to the demand to go back to '67 borders.
I get Freidman's arguments. 
By doing what he calls accomodation he feels Israel can then say look we have given in to all requests and if Palestinians still don't accept our right to exist than the honus is on them.

"But Israel has a superb countermove: accept some variation of the 1967 borders and force Hamas either to break with its principles and lose its support to an emergent group or openly blow apart the process. In other words, the Israelis can also pursue a strategy of provocation, in this case by giving the Palestinians what they want and betting that they will reject it. Of course, the problem with this strategy is that the Palestinians might accept the deal, with Hamas secretly intending to resume the war from a better position.

Israel’s bet has three possible outcomes. One is to hold the current position and be constantly manipulated into actions that isolate Israel. The second is to accept the concept of the 1967 borders and bet on the Palestinians rejecting it as they did with Bill Clinton. The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders.

In the first part of this he assumes that Israel can use a "superb countermove by accepting some version of /67 borders and that this will put all of the pressure on the Arabs. 

My question is how do we know this and why is he so sure this will stop the pressure on the Jews?

"One is to hold the current position and be constantly manipulated into actions that isolate Israel."

Well if the US is going to abandom them aka Obama....

"The second is to accept the concept of the 1967 borders and bet on the Palestinians rejecting it as they did with Bill Clinton."

In that case we have already gone down that road.  What makes anyone think it will be different now?

"The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders."

That is if the Israelis are not wiped out first.

If I were Netenyahu I would not give in till there is another US President.  He cannot count on Bama.
If the US had a President (as well as both houses) who really would be committed to helping Israel in an existential crises, and the Israelis went back to close the '67 borders as they could reasonably do safely and with a timetable by which Arabs have to commit and recognize the right of a Jewish state then maybe this would be a way to go.




 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 07, 2011, 02:45:42 PM

"The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders."

That is if the Israelis are not wiped out first.

That's the key problem. Israel has no strategic depth. They have no margin of error. Losing a battle can mean losing everything. It's easy to try to impose ivory tower solutions from the safety of the US, another from the hard realities of a nation on the razor's edge.

Title: Gilder
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 08, 2011, 06:45:01 AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/08/the-economics-of-settlement
 
 
By George Gilder from the June 2011 issue

The root cause of Middle Eastern turmoil, according to a broad consensus of the international media and the considered cerebrations of the deepest-thinking movie stars, is Israeli settlers in what are described as the "occupied territories" on the West Bank of the Jordan River. Even such celebrated and fervent supporters of Israel as Alan Dershowitz and Bernard-Henri Lévy put the settlers beyond the pale of their Zionist sympathies. Remove the settlers, according to these sage analyses of the scene, and the problems of the region become remediable at last............................

Title: Israel, and its neighbors - Terrorist video
Post by: Spartan Dog on June 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM

On behalf of Crafty Dog - a video of an execution...Hamas vs Fatah is the title.

Video Clip

Title: Hamas vs. Fatah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2011, 06:59:43 AM

My point of course being that when folks are asking Israel to negotiate with Hamas, give land up up front, etc. this is with whom they are being asked to negotiate.  In addition to the killings/executions/murders seen here, there were many others that were accomplished to the Fatah folks simply being thrown from the roofs of tall buildings.

Title: Re: Hamas vs. Fatah
Post by: G M on June 13, 2011, 07:03:06 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2011, 06:59:43 AM

My point of course being that when folks are asking Israel to negotiate with Hamas, give land up up front, etc. this is with whom they are being asked to negotiate.  In addition to the killings/executions/murders seen here, there were many others that were accomplished to the Fatah folks simply being thrown from the roofs of tall buildings.

It's a unique religious ontology! Your ethnocentrism is obviously blinding you to the sublime beauty of islamic culture and sharia.

Do I get an A, Andrew?

Title: Re: Hamas vs. Fatah
Post by: G M on June 13, 2011, 07:18:18 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2011, 06:59:43 AM

My point of course being that when folks are asking Israel to negotiate with Hamas, give land up up front, etc. this is with whom they are being asked to negotiate.  In addition to the killings/executions/murders seen here, there were many others that were accomplished to the Fatah folks simply being thrown from the roofs of tall buildings.

This wouldn't happen if the Israelis were only nicer! Am I right, JDN?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on June 13, 2011, 03:49:21 PM

Before you bombard me with videos of palestinian violence, dont take this as a pro or contra anything.

Just, the level of one sided narrowmindedness and conclusion skipping around here is sometimes mindboggling.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVeeanP5Jto&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpw-h6WY8As&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA&feature=fvwrel

mind the brick bashing against skull and limbs on a downed civilian at 0:47 and 1:02


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZqd0NYEE8I&feature=related


http://www.btselem.org/maps

map of settler outgrowth

http://www.btselem.org/video/2011/05/soldier-assaults-btselem-worker-latters-land

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT0f9lk63YY&feature=related
orthodox jewish rabbis, calling for reducing the killings of women and children in gaza. Mind the presence of police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bdbA2Ka3Bo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7SVaJLuNSo&feature=related


http://www.tc.umn.edu/~fayxx001/truth/img/palestinians_020330.jpg

palestinian police uniforms. Headshots from point blank. Execution.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~fayxx001/truth/img/israeli-soldiers.jpg

cool scenery bro.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8dPGiOTGs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk0GITe7Oto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_CRzdlA5To&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDKRubPjgAI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKA3W_0T4iE&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKq38COoTG8


Your ethnocentrism is obviously blinding you to the sublime beauty of islamic culture and sharia.

Yes, blind as a bat in daylight. Nothing to see here, move along.

Do I get an A, Andrew?

Hmmmm. We learned alot about reading several sides of the picture, havent we GM ? Id say F for reason, and A for ignorance.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 13, 2011, 05:54:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVeeanP5Jto&feature=related

Citing Noam Chomsky again? Talk about ignorant. You do realize that he's a lunatic anti-semite and Cambodian holocaust denier, right? Another fraud who's only credential is leftist orientation. It's sad that someone with a post graduate education has only deluded indoctrination to show for it.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_urbanities-americas_dumbe.html

Chomsky, now a 73-year-old grandfather living in suburban Massachusetts, has worked for decades to win that cachet. Avram Noam was born in Philadelphia in 1928. His parents, William and Elsie Chomsky, had fled from czarist oppression in Russia to the City of Brotherly Love, where William established himself as a Hebrew scholar and grammarian. Radical politics aroused the young Noam—at ten, he wrote a school newspaper editorial on the Spanish Civil War, lamenting the rise of fascism, and two years later he embraced the anarchism that he still adheres to today. By the age of 16, the bright, ambitious youth had enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, where he eventually earned a Ph.D. in linguistics. Passed over for a teaching position at Harvard, he landed in 1955 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has remained ever since.

Most linguistics professors would have toiled in obscurity in a science-and-industry school like MIT. Not Chomsky. In the 1950s, he brashly challenged psychologist B. F. Skinner’s theory of language as a learned skill, acquired by children in a process of reward and punishment. Chomsky claimed instead that when we learn a language as children, we can articulate and understand all sorts of sentences that we’ve never actually come across before. “What we ‘know,’ therefore,” Chomsky held, “must be something deeper—a grammar—that makes an infinite variety of sentences possible.” In Chomsky’s view, the capacity to master the structures of grammar is genetically determined, a product of our evolutionary development. This idea—that grammar is hardwired in the labyrinth of DNA—shook the walls of linguistics departments across the globe. Chomsky promoted his theory tirelessly, defending it in countless symposia and scholarly reviews. By the mid-sixties, he was an academic superstar; in the seventies, researchers at Columbia University even named a chimpanzee trained to learn 125 words “Nim Chimpsky” in his honor.

With this fame as a base, the professor proceeded to wander far from his area of expertise. Such uses of fame, ironically, are common in the country Chomsky attacks so relentlessly. In America, you come across two kinds of fame: vertical and horizontal. The vertical celebrity owes his renown to one thing—Luciano Pavarotti, for example, is famous for his singing, period. The horizontal celebrity, conversely, merchandises his fame by convincing the public that his mastery of one field is transferable to another. Thus singers Barbra Streisand and Bono give speeches on public policy; thus linguistics professor Chomsky poses as an expert on geopolitics.

Chomsky first employed his horizontal celebrity during the 1960s, when he spoke out forcefully against the Vietnam War. His 1969 collection of agitated writings, American Power and the New Mandarins, indicted the nation’s brainwashed “elites”—read: government bureaucrats and intellectuals who disagreed with him on the morality of the war. But Vietnam was only the beginning: over the next three decades, Chomsky published a steady stream of political books and pamphlets boasting titles like What Uncle Sam Really Wants and Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies—all of them filled with heated attacks on American policies, domestic and foreign.

Those attacks would be laughable if some people didn’t take them seriously. Here’s a small but representative sample. The goal of America, Chomsky charges, “is a society in which the basic unit is you and your television set. If the kid next door is hungry, it’s not your problem. If the retired couple next door invested their assets badly and are now starving, that’s not your problem either.” Prisons and inner-city schools, Chomsky maintains, “target a kind of superfluous population that there’s no point in educating because there’s nothing for them to do. Because we’re a civilized people, we put them in prison, rather than sending death squads out to murder them.” Another example: “When you come back from the Third World to the West—the U.S. in particular—you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other.”

Goodness. But if America is all about ignoring hungry children, why does the country spend billions in public and private funds every year on the poor? Does America deliberately seek to mis-educate and send to prison a “superfluous” population? Wouldn’t today’s knowledge-based economy benefit from as many decently educated people as it could find? What Third World countries does Chomsky have in mind where the discussion is more freewheeling and open than in the U.S.? Algeria? Cuba? Such puerile leftism is scarcely worthy of a college sophomore.

If possible, however, Chomsky’s assessment of U.S. foreign policy is even more absurd. The nightmare of American evil began in 1812, he thinks, when the U.S. instigated a process that “annihilated the indigenous [American] population (millions of people), conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world.” That the U.S. saved the Philippines during World War II, that Hawaiians voted to become the fiftieth state, that every day Mexicans pour across the border to take part in the economy of the hated United States—all of that is irrelevant to Chomsky. He believes in the Beaumarchais mode of political debate: “Vilify, vilify, some of it will always stick.”

For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence.

The Chomskian rage hasn’t confined itself to his native land. He has long nourished a special contempt for Israel, lone outpost of Western ideals in the Middle East. The hatred has been so intense that Zionists have called him a self-hating Jew. This is an unfair label. Clearly, Chomsky has no deficit in the self-love department, and his ability to stir up antagonism makes him even more pleased with himself. No doubt that was why he wrote the introduction to a book by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. Memoire en Defense maintains that Hitler’s death camps and gas chambers, even Anne Frank’s diary, are fictions, created to serve the cause of American Zionists. That was too much for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who challenged fellow leftist Chomsky to a debate. In the debate, Dershowitz keyed in on the fact that Chomsky had described Faurisson’s conclusions as “findings,” and claimed that they grew out of “extensive historical research.” But as numerous scholars had shown, Faurisson was not a serious scholar at all, but rather a sophist who simply ignored the mountain of documents, speeches, testimony, and other historical evidence that conflicted with his “argument.” Dershowitz noted that Chomsky also wrote the following: “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.”

Just recently, Chomsky spearheaded a group pressuring universities to divest themselves of any stock connected with the Jewish state: Israel equals South Africa in the Chomskian universe of moral equivalence. Here, happily, Chomsky got nowhere. He obtained 400 signatures for his movement; opposing him, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, gathered 4,000 signatures in support of Israel. The controversy set Dershowitz off again. This time, he said, he wanted the MIT prof to debate him “on the morality of this selective attack against an American ally that is defending itself—and the world—against terrorism that targets civilians.” He pointed out that universities have always invested in companies head-quartered in foreign nations with unsavory reputations—countries whose citizens don’t have the freedom the Israelis enjoy or suffer the terror they endure. “Yet this petition focused only on the Jewish State, to the exclusion of all others, including those which, by any reasonable standard, are among the worst violators of human rights. This is bigotry pure and simple.” Chomsky declined the challenge.

Interesting that one so ignorant as myself keeps having to school you on the academic frauds you cite as sources, eh Andrew?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2011, 06:19:17 PM

When I was about 16 as part of an audience of about 250 I once heard NC speak against the War in Vietnam at the Ethical Culture Society on Central Park West in Manhattan against the War in Vietnam.  I thought he was very bright, and shared his anger about the War and since them have kept an eye on him from time to time over the years.  My thinking about many things since I was 16 has changed a lot.  NC's thinking?  Not so much :lol:  Indeed I wonder how he can be so specious on so many points yet be taken seriously by obviously bright and educated people such as our AB.

I think GM's article gets him about right; that point about horizontal fame is dead on. 

I have not had a chance yet to go through all the clips that AB posted, and while I indeed find a few of them interesting and reflection provoking in a mournful "the tragedy of it all" kind of way, I find more of them deceptive in what is left out.  What is the barrier that the Israelis are defending for example?  I note how much trust there is in the ultimate decency of the Isreali soldiers.  I don't think any of those croweds trying to force their way through checkpoint (across Israeli border?) would be doing the same against those Hamas fellows who gunned down the prone hog tied Fatah people!  I find others to be such wild Orwellian Big Lie bullexcrement that I scarcely know where to begin.  In additional but smaller import I saw one famous picture of a man huddling with a boy who was shot; alleged to a great hue and cry to have been shot by the Israeli soldiers-- of course once the howling press mob had moved on there was no coverage of the careful analysis which showed that it was a propaganda fraud.  I saw assertion od data whose provencance was  completely unknown. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on June 13, 2011, 08:02:25 PM

Interesting that one so ignorant as myself keeps having to school you on the academic frauds you cite as sources, eh Andrew?

meh, frauds ? Like the Said "fraud" that i wrote some 600 words about how it was fabricated and devoid of any proof from the side that attacked him ? Counter proof from 5 different sources, forgot to read that I presume ?

Ah, so how exactly is chomsky a "fraud" ? By the geometrical standards from the article, every single one of us on this forum, we are all frauds. "Experts" on whole spectres of experties, horizontal, vertical, spherical, you name it. From war, to religion to economy and government and beyond, we all know what to do. Bedroom strategos.

I wrote a mastodon of an essay again, but just deleted it.

Just read a book from someone you dont agree with once in a while. Not shun it. Read it, study it. With the same glasses you read what you go to bed with every night.

HUMANISTICS IS NOT EXACT SCIENCE WITH MEASURABLE DIFFERENCES AND PERMANENT TRUTHS. IT IS A CONSTELATION OF OPINIONS. LEARN THEM ALL.

thats all,

cheers.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 13, 2011, 08:56:39 PM

Defaulting to the "fake but true" defense, Andrew? The points you tried to raise for Fast Eddie Said were taken apart. The fact that academia still ignores his stunning lack of integrity shows the depth of corruption. As you yourself point out, Chomsky is a linguistics professor and yet his anti-western, pro-communist diatribes are treated by the left/and the leftist academic indoctrination complex as the gold standard for geopolitics. Just as with the global warming frauds, the left won't let the truth get in the way of their agenda. Just as the left has destroyed journalism, it's destroying academia with leftist corruption such as postmodernism and marxism (the flat-earther-ism of economics), yet because Marx is the pseudo-god of the left's Marxist belief system, the fact that Marxism has resulted in nothing but horrific oppression, poverty and mass graves is ignored because you so want to believe in the same tragic lies that always end with the same tragic results.

Let me explain something about a cultural difference between europeans and Americans. Americans fought so we don't have to bow before titles. Europe has never gotten past the idea of the "elites" who should rule over the ignorant masses. Today, the left fancies it's self as the "elite" who should rule while it pays lip service to "the people". There is a common joke here about "B.S., M.S. and then Piled higher and Deeper".

America was supposed to be run by the people who have the freedom of speech to exchange ideas. The disfunction in the US we see today is because of citizens who have neglected their due dilligence responsibilities and the cultural damage from the marxist influences that have crept in since the 60's.

I've spent plenty of time reading and listening to leftist ideas, it's why I'm so well versed in the frauds you like to cite to support your position.

Title: A simple question, Andrew
Post by: G M on June 13, 2011, 09:20:46 PM

Please point out where Said was lying and where he was telling the truth. Thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/10/03/specials/said-commentary.html

August 26, 1999

Israeli Says Palestinian Thinker Has Falsified His Early Life
By JANNY SCOTT

Edward W. Said, the literary critic and intellectual who has long been one of the most eloquent proponents of the Palestinian cause, has been accused by an Israeli scholar of misrepresenting his early childhood in order to lend poignancy and power to his political stance.

In an article in the September issue of Commentary, which Mr. Said disputes, Justus Reid Weiner accuses him of cultivating a moving personal story of an idyllic childhood spent in Palestine that was abruptly shattered by exile to Cairo shortly before Israeli independence in 1948. In fact, Mr. Weiner says, Mr. Said's childhood home was Cairo. Although Mr. Said was born and baptized in Jerusalem, Mr. Weiner says he found no evidence that Mr. Said's parents owned the house there that he has reminisced about living in and no record that he attended fulltime the school he seemed to suggest he had.

In an interview late Tuesday, Mr. Said denied ever having misrepresented his past. He insisted he had always made it clear that he had grown up not only in Jerusalem but also in Egypt and Lebanon. He said his family had frequently traveled between Cairo and Jerusalem.

He said his father, Wadie Said, ran the Cairo branch of a family business; his cousin, Boulos Said, ran the Jerusalem branch. He said his father was a ''partner'' in the house in Jerusalem where Boulos Said lived with his wife, who was Wadie Said's sister, and where Wadie Said's family often stayed.

As for the school, St. George's preparatory school -- where a profile of Mr. Said in Current Biography Yearbook said his extracurricular activities included riding, boxing, gymnastics and piano -- he said Tuesday that he was enrolled there ''for a few months in 1947.'' Otherwise, he was in school in Egypt.

''I have never said I am a refugee,'' said Mr. Said, a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and the author of more than a dozen books. ''Never in my life. On the contrary, I go out of my way to say I had a very privileged life, we had a house in Cairo.''

On the other hand, he added, ''The fact is that of the rest of my family -- not my immediate family but all of my cousins and aunts and uncles -- not a single member of my family remained in Palestine after 1948. They were all, without exception, evicted. That's the central point.''

However, in an article published in 1998 in The London Review of Books quoted by Mr. Weiner, Mr. Said wrote, ''I was born in Jerusalem and had spent most of my formative years there and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt.''

Mr. Said, who is 63, is widely admired as one of the most influential literary critics alive. He is also despised by many conservatives. He writes frequently about the Palestinian cause, was a member of the Palestinian National Council until 1991 and is a relentless critic of Israeli policy on the Palestinians and of the Oslo peace accords.

Mr. Weiner is a lawyer and scholar in residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which describes itself as an independent think tank. He emigrated from the United States to Israel in 1981 and spent 12 years working in the human rights department of the Israeli Ministry of Justice.

In an interview, Mr. Weiner said he spent three years investigating Mr. Said's life, looking through everything from baptismal and tax records and business directories to student registration books in Jerusalem and Cairo. He even toured the Jerusalem house to see whether two large families could fit.

He did not interview Mr. Said. He said he left one message with Mr. Said's assistant at Columbia two and a half years ago, explaining what he had found and asking Mr. Said to call. When Mr. Said did not call, he said, he never tried again. Mr. Said says he never received any such call.

Mr. Said's memoir, ''Out of Place,'' in which he describes his childhood in Cairo in great detail, is scheduled to be published by Alfred A. Knopf next month. Mr. Weiner suggests Mr. Said, who learned in 1991 that he had leukemia, wrote the memoir to ''camouflage and backfill,'' having caught wind of Mr. Weiner's research -- a suggestion Mr. Said dismissed as ''rubbish.''

In the article in Commentary, a neoconservative magazine that has an interest in Jewish affairs and that once published an article on Mr. Said entitled ''Professor of Terror,'' Mr. Weiner cites numerous instances in which Mr. Said seems to have left the impression that he had spent his early years in Jerusalem.

For example, Mr. Weiner describes a 1998 documentary entitled ''In Search of Palestine'' that Mr. Said helped make for the BBC, which included recent footage of him and his son outside the house in Jerusalem and footage of Mr. Said touring St. George's preparatory school.

But Mr. Weiner says the title deed of the house listed only the family of Boulos Said. He says he found no listing of Wadie Said in Jerusalem's telephone and commercial directories. Having gone in and measured the house, he says it was too small to house two large, prosperous families together.

Asked whether his time in Jerusalem might have been overstated, Mr. Said said, ''I had a very itinerant life.''

''And I don't think it's that important, in any case. It doesn't make that much difference to the case I'm representing. I never have represented my case as the issue to be treated. I've represented the case of my people, which is something quite different.''

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 14, 2011, 08:08:44 AM

I'm surprised at you GM.  You can't seem to challenge much of Andrew's logic or references (it's nice to read two sides to the story although I don't always agree) so you attack his sources.  Didn't you once before criticize me for attacking one of your sources, saying that was the mark of someone who has nothing to say?   :-o 

In contrast, Mr. Weiner's (a nobody) rants sound like he is is on a witch hunt; much more credible is Dr. Edward Said who was an esteemed professor at Columbia.  The man is absolutely brilliant.  The fact that he is "despised by many conservatives" well that's just jealousy for his ability to convey the Palestinian cause.  Weiner is the one who will be ignored, Dr. Said's place in history will be remembered for a long time.

http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Said-Edward-W.html

The fact that Edward Said, a Christian is "eloquent proponent of the Palestinian cause" bothers you to no end.   :-)

GM, you said, "There is a common joke here about "B.S., M.S. and then Piled higher and Deeper".  Where is "here".  A place where people are petty and simply jealous?  A place where
people don't even have a four year college degree?  Much less a Phd degree?

Most of the Phd's I know here in LA are quite smart; that doesn't mean I always agree with them, but they are usually bright and well read and often/usually add to the conversation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 14, 2011, 08:26:24 AM

As usual JDN, you miss the point. Said is a fraud. The fact that despite his lies he is still lauded in academia demonstrates the intellectual and ethical rot that has settled so deeply within much of modern scholarship. "Piled higher and Deeper" refers to the difference between being educated and being credentialed. As an example, the buffoon we have in white house is the product of such a system. He has never held a real job and has no real accomplishments and can't understand why everything he halfway payed attention to in his leftist indoctrination program doesn't work in the real world. He did however learn, like Said and Ward Churchill that as long as you fabricate a narrative that pleases the leftist paradigm in academia, you can coast along on that alone with all the rewards the system can confiscate from those that actually do tangible work.

Title: More "fake but true" goodness!
Post by: G M on June 14, 2011, 08:32:46 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg-gaygirl-20110614,0,2236395.column?track=rss

Jonah Goldberg: Taken in by 'Gay Girl'
The 'Gay Girl in Damascus' hoax is worse than a lie. It's propaganda.
     ShareNew(0)
By Jonah Goldberg
 
June 14, 2011
I'd barely followed "A Gay Girl In Damascus" until last week, when Daily Beast columnist Peter Beinart posted something to Twitter: "This is really important — this woman is a hero," with a link to a story about Amina Abdallah Arraf, a Syrian American woman and the author of the blog "A Gay Girl In Damascus." According to the story, Amina had been seized by Syrian security forces for her dissident writing.

Quickly, Amina's arrest became a new Internet cause. Even the U.S. State Department joined the effort.


And soon thereafter, the whole thing fell apart. Amina never existed. The author of "A Gay Girl In Damascus" was in fact a 40-year-old straight dude from Georgia living in Scotland. Rather than the sexy young lesbian in the photos (stolen from the Facebook page of a Croatian expat living in London), the photo of him in the Washington Post shows a man who looks like the bearded comic-actor Zach Galifianakis — in a Che Guevara T-shirt, naturally.

Tom MacMaster was raised to be a peace activist. When he was a kid, the family trekked to the Pentagon to hand out origami doves to commemorate the bombing of Nagasaki. He's the co-director of Atlanta Palestine Solidarity and claims to have visited Baghdad on a "student peace mission" to deter the Iraq war.

In an "Apology to Readers" posted on June 12 from his vacation in Istanbul, MacMaster writes, "While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground."

He explains that as a white guy with an Anglo name, people wouldn't take him seriously in online discussion groups. So he made up Amina and her countless fictional experiences in Syria and America.

**Read it all!

Title: "Fake but true" birds of a feather
Post by: G M on June 14, 2011, 09:40:32 AM

November 4, 2009
Obama Pal Edward Said Another Fraud
By Jack Cashill

Friend and foe alike have wondered how Barack Obama wangled a seat next to Edward Said (pronounced sigh-EED), at an Arab-American community dinner in Chicago in 1998 on the fiftieth anniversary of the Palestinian nakbah, or disaster. 


At the time, Obama was an obscure state senator and Said, according to the Nation, was "probably the best-known intellectual in the world."


It is possible that the pair had met when Obama was a student and Said a professor at Columbia University. The Los Angeles Times has reported that Obama took at least one course taught by Said.


It is possible, too, that Said and Obama ran in the same radical New York circles. Among Said's friends and allies on the America-phobic, Arafat-loving left was none other than Bill Ayers. When Ayers published his memoir Fugitive Days in 2001, Said was happy to provide a blurb. "For anyone who cares about the sorry mess we are in," wrote Said, "this book is essential, indeed necessary reading."


Whatever their prior relationship, photos of the 1998 event show Obama and Said immersed in deep conversation. As to its content, Said might have been reassuring the newly minted author that yes, if you can trace your ancestors' roots to the third world, and yes, if you toe the progressive line, you can make up your whole life story and get away with it. Said knew.  He had been there, done that, gotten the T-shirt.


Twenty years earlier, Said had published his masterwork, Orientalism, a book so influential that it changed the very direction of Middle Eastern studies. The book's thesis was a bold one in 1978. Writing in full postmodern patois, then still cutting-edge, Said argued that the Western study of the Middle East was inherently corrupted by the position of power from which the observer wrote. In other words, westerners had no right to even think of writing Middle Eastern history.


Said's identity as a Palestinian and a refugee informed everything he wrote, Orientalism most certainly. "Orientalism is written out of an extremely concrete history of personal loss and national disintegration," Said observes in the Afterword of the book's 1994 edition. It is this sense of loss that gives the book its spirit of righteous certainty.


Said's Palestinian childhood became the central, compelling metaphor for his significant life work. "Mr. Said was born in Jerusalem and spent the first twelve years of his life there," confirms the New York Times in a flattering 1998 article. His family left the house and "fled" Palestine for Cairo in late 1947, "five months before war broke out between Palestinian Arabs and Jews over plans to partition Palestine."


Said set out to right past wrongs and succeeded brilliantly. His timing was impeccable. Multiculturalism was still in its embryonic stages, and by fusing it to postmodernism, Said helped to define it. For someone who allegedly did "not exist," Said did a masterful job of making his presence felt.


For fourteen years, he served on the Palestine National Conference, a kind of Parliament-in-exile alongside the likes of the PLO's Yassir Arafat and still-harder-core radicals from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the terrorist group that hijacked the MS Achille Lauro.


Although he denounced violence, Said was forever rationalizing its use and was once photographed on the Lebanese border throwing a rock at Israel as "a symbolic gesture of joy."


Throughout his career, Said returned again and again to the source of his own moral power -- his forced exile from "my beautiful old house" in Jerusalem. So central was the house at 10 Brenner Street to his identity that the Palestinian Heritage Association presented him with a portrait of it during a ceremony in his honor.


In early 1992, Said paid a nostalgic visit to this house, a visit that was celebrated in a Harper's Magazine and eventually in a BBC documentary, In Search of Palestine. One scene in the film shows Said and his son in front of the house "my family owned" while Said angrily talks about getting the house back from the Israeli authorities.


Whether Said knew it or not, however, time was running out on the compelling saga of his own life that he had gone to such pains to shape and share with the world.


By 1998, the year the documentary aired, an Israeli scholar named Justus Reid Weiner had already done two years of hard-nosed, boots-on-the-ground background research on Said's life, and he was about to deconstruct the heck out of it. "Virtually everything I learned," Weiner wrote, "contradicts the story of Said's early life as Said has told it."


Weiner released his findings a year later in the September 1999 issue of the influential Jewish magazine, Commentary. In truth, Said had better establishment credentials than anyone suspected, right down to his Episcopalian upbringing.


The son of an affluent, American immigrant father who had fought under General Pershing in World War I, Said attended the Mount Hermon School in Massachusetts and Princeton University before moving on to Harvard. It was the first twelve years of his life, however, that would truly raise eyebrows.


"I was born, in November 1935," Said wrote in Harper's in 1992, "in Talbiya, then a mostly new and prosperous Arab quarter of Jerusalem. By the end of 1947, just months before Talbiya fell to Jewish forces, I'd left with my family for Cairo." After their forced departure, he wrote in a 1998 London Review of Books, "... my entire family became refugees in Egypt."


Yes, Said was born in Jerusalem in 1935. He was born there because his mother had had a tragic experience with Egyptian health care -- her first son, Gerald, died during childbirth. After Edward's birth, the family returned to Cairo, where his father had been living for the last decade.


There, Said's father continued to expand his extremely successful office supply business and moved the family through an increasingly luxurious series of apartments. A Christian and an American citizen from birth, Said attended the best British schools in Cairo before leaving for a pricey American prep school as a teenager.


The famed house, Weiner learned, belonged not to Said's parents, but to his Jerusalem relatives. During almost all of the years Said was alleged to be living there, the Said relatives rented the upstairs apartment to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for a consulate's use. In a truly odd twist of fate, they rented the downstairs apartment of the renowned Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, who moved there after fleeing Nazi Germany in 1938. In 1942, the Said relatives forced Buber out in a rent dispute and occupied the apartment themselves.


One would think that in all his public recollections of this house, Said might have remembered sharing it with Buber or the Yugoslav consulate, but he did not. It is possible, in fact, that he never even stayed there. The apartment would have been too small for his Jerusalem relatives to share with their prosperous Cairo cousins if they had come to visit.


Said was busted big time. Weiner had proved beyond all doubt that America's most celebrated Palestinian refugee was not really a Palestinian or a refugee, let alone a Muslim. Indeed, during the century's most turbulent years, 1935-1947, years that witnessed the death and dispossession of scores of millions of innocent people, Said had been living high on the hog in Cairo. The whole moral basis for his post-colonial posturing as a victim of western injustice seemed shot.


Although its headline suggests a nationalist bias on Weiner's part -- "Israeli Says Palestinian Thinker Has Falsified His Early Life" --  the New York Times gave his exposé decent coverage. If Said could ignore Weiner, he could not ignore the Times. His comments are instructive and all too typical. "I have never said I am a refugee," he told the Times. "Never in my life. On the contrary, I go out of my way to say I had a very privileged life, we had a house in Cairo."

Just a year earlier, remember, the Times had interviewed Said and written, "Mr. Said was born in Jerusalem and spent the first twelve years of his life there." Until caught by Weiner, this is what Said had told everyone.


By the time Said died four years later, however, the controversy had died as well. The Guardian of London does not even hint at one. Its obituary closed with a tribute from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saying, "Both the Middle East and the United States will be the poorer without his distinctive voice."


The New York Times raised the Weiner objection, but it did so dismissively, 2,000 words into a glowing 2,600-word obituary. In the beginning of the obituary, the "paper of record" had already decided to revive Said's imaginary past.


Edward Said was born in Jerusalem on Nov. 1, 1935, and spent his childhood in a well-to-do neighborhood of thick-walled stone houses that is now one of the main Jewish districts of the city. His father, a prosperous businessman who had lived in the United States, took the family to Cairo in 1947 after the United Nations divided Jerusalem into Jewish and Arab halves.


Say what one will about Said, but at least he wrote his own fictions.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2009/11/obama_pal_edward_said_another.html at June 14, 2011 - 11:34:30 AM CDT

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 14, 2011, 09:57:27 AM

Sour grapes of jealous little men.

Weiner is a minor footnote at best.  A ignored ranting lunatic that no one gives credit to.
Dismissed by nearly all except the fringe right. 

As for this article, "Is it possible..."  "might have been reassuring..."  All conjecture....

In contrast, Dr. Said is a giant and will be read by generations to come.

I too wish I had taken a class taught by Dr. Said or had had the opportunity to have a "deep conversation" with him.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 14, 2011, 10:02:10 AM

So, was Said lying when he said he was a refugee or lying when he said he wasn't? Or does that matter?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2011, 10:10:19 AM

It should matter that Said lied about his personal history, but ultimately for me the larger point is the hatred to be found within the Muslim Arab mindset.  When there are no Jews to hate, then the next handy non-Muslim target will do just fine, see e.g. what is happening to the Coptic Christians right now in Egypt.   

There is also a , , , words fail me here , , , sociopathic inability to understand that one's own actions may have something to do with how people act towards you.  For example, in one of Andraz's videos there is footage of the wall that Israel built as an example of terrible Israeli oppression, but no sense that all the suicide murder terror attacks that were being launched from the West Bank caused it nor apparently is there any awareness that the wall has pretty much succeeded in stopping them.

Title: Hoo-ray for Pallywood!
Post by: G M on June 14, 2011, 10:23:01 AM

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/pallywood-a-history/

Pallywood: A History


For more on Pallywood, including extensive raw footage revealing some of its most pervasive activity, see The Second Draft’s dossier.
 
PALLYWOOD: HISTORY
 
DEFINITION
 
The term “Pallywood” refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression. They are able to succeed in this endeavor in large part due to the credulity and eagerness of the Western press to present these images, which reinforce the image of the Palestinian David struggling valiantly against the overpowering Israeli Goliath. Pallywood has led to astonishing lapses in Western journalistic standards in which badly staged scenes regularly appear on the news as “real events.” This page attempts to outline how such lapses could have come about, producing the current situation.
 
MAJOR STAGES IN THE EMERGENCE OF PALLYWOOD
 
1982: Lebanon invasion
 
The earliest clear signs of an emerging Pallywood come from the Lebanese invasion of 1982. There, for the first time, the media seems to have embraced an openly hostile stance towards Israel, which led to a widely discussed article entitled “J’Accuse” (Commentary, September 1983), by Norman Podhoretz who charged America’s leading journalists, newspapers and television networks with “anti-Semitism.” The alleged hostility was characterized by the following incidents:
 
- Using Arafat’s brother, Fathi Arafat, head of the Palestinian Red Crescent, Palestinian sources claimed 10,000 dead and 600,000 refugees from the Israeli onslaught. Without checking to see how many people lived in southern Lebanon (300,000), the media repeated these figures constantly (pp. 300-301), until they became widely accepted.
 
- Reporters comparing the siege of Beirut with the Nazi siege of Warsaw. Of all the sieges of cities in 20th century warfare, it would be harder to find a more inappropriate one, and yet the analogy between Israelis and Nazis seems to have had an almost irresistable lure to some journalists. Among the most aggressive reporters was Peter Jennings. For a discussion of his work, see here and here.

- The use of clearly false images by a press eager to believe the worst of the Israeli army, including images of areas devastated in the civil war between Palestinians and Lebanese, dead babies that were not dead, etc (pp. 353-389).
 
- Coverage of Sabra and Shatilla massacres that left many under the impression that Israeli soldiers had massacred Palestinian refugees, and failed to inform people of why the Phalange wanted to take vengeance. Everyone has heard of Sabra and Shatilla; Only recently have people started to hear of Darfur. The stark contrast between the hundreds of dead at Sabra and Shatilla and the over ten thousand dead at Hama, a town in the heart of Syria, the same year, illustrates both the medias penchant for reporting any Israeli misdeed no matter how removed direct culpability, and the power of intimidation and (no) access journalism to silence them on matters of Arab misdeeds (see Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalém, chap. 4.)
 
- Use of streaming text below footage informing the viewer that the footage had been viewed by “Israeli military censors.” No similar indication of the role of Palestinian “authorities” in controlling the images emanating from areas under their control ever appeared. For a discussion of the press’s differential treatment of formal Israeli military censorship and informal but pervasive Palestinian censorship via intimidation and violence, (see pp. 353-387).
 
- Reluctance of the press – especially the “resident” reporters to reveal the extent of PLO brutality in the “state within a state” in southern Lebanon (see pp 219-278).
 
Given the eagerness of the Western press to report the worst of the Israelis, to avoid reporting on the worst of the Palestinians, their susceptibility to intimidation and the murder of journalists who displeased the PLO, and their remarkably shoddy standards in sifting real from confected evidence, Palestinians clearly understood that they had a valuable ally in the Western media based at the Commodore Hotel – “Chairman Yasser’s Best Battalion” (Chafets, Double Vision, chap. 6).
 
Poisoning of Palestinian Schoolgirls, Jenin (West Bank), March, 1983
 
A year after the Lebanese media debacle, Israel found itself the object of an extensive, premeditated fraud in which a number of Palestinian girls at middle school claimed to have been poisoned by “the Israelis.” The story immediately became an international scandal, with each nation reporting such a variety of details that the tale ended up resembling a version of Rashoman. None, however, questioned the veracity of the reports of poisoning, nor of the accusations of Israeli guilt. Only after a lengthy investigation did it turn out that there were no girls poisoned, and that PLO operatives had encouraged and bullied the girls and the hospital officials into cooperating.
 
The most interesting element of the story from the perspective of the media coverage reveals the following breakdown:
 
- The Israeli press took the accusations seriously and only after a medical investigation did they conclude that these were false.
 
- The Palestinian and Arab press immediately assumed they were true and used them to incite hatred and fear of Israelis. No amount of counter-evidence brought a change in coverage.
 
- The Western press presented the accusations as probable if not true (Europeans far more aggressive than Americans), and when the evidence of staging emerged, ceased to cover the incident, leaving the Israelis between libel and silence.
 
The accusations of Poison constitute the first clear-cut case of Pallywood: atrocities staged by Palestinian activists, depicting the Israelis poisoning innocent Palestinians, done for the sake of – and embraced by – both local and foreign press.
 
The First Intifada, 1987-91?
 
During the first Intifada, the media turned the West Bank into a feeding frenzy of Israeli brutality against what was often characterized as non-violent resistance. Here for the first time, we find an open collaboration between cameramen who were either informed of the imminent occurrence of, or had paid for, action sequences that they could photograph.
 
Staggering from the negative press, and uncertain as to how to quell the violence, Israeli authorities sometimes closed the territories to foreign press. These latter often supped drinks at the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem while they gave cameras to Palestinian stringers to bring them action footage. This probably marks the first time that Palestinians with Western equipment were able to feed the news agencies images that they and the “street” staged. For an interesting analysis of the media’s handling of the first Intifada and the ways in which, focused on a particular story line (the Israeli Goliath vs. the Palestinian David), see Jim Lederman, Battle Lines.
 
There has also been in recent times an increasing number of web/newspaper articles that have described and denounced the manipulation of the media by Palestinians, and the anti-Israel bias of many in the western media.
 
- Recently a Palestinian filmmaker, producer of “Jenin, Jenin” admitted falsifying scenes in order to make Israelis look bad.
 
- Jeff Helmreich has documented a pattern of violation of professional journalism codes that dominate the reporting of Israel and the Palestinians.
 
- In an interview media analyst David Bedein has argued that for the past twenty years, the Palestinians have outmaneuvered the Israelis in framing the conflict for the world media.
 
- Josh Muravchik denounced the lousy job of the Western media covering the intifada and denounced the mechanical even handedness in reporting the conflict that gives the upper hand to authoritarian societies.
 
- Stephanie Gutmann, in “The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media supremacy” argues that Israel has floundered on the battlefield of editorial pages, television screens and the Internet.
 
The second “Al Aqsa” Intifada, October 2000-2004?
 
The outbreak of the second round of Palestinian violence against Israel came, ironically, in the wake of peace negotiations in which, according to the most credible sources, the Israelis offered the vast majority of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip (including the evacuation of settlements) in exchange for an end to the war between the Israelis and the Arabs. For a brief moment Barak and the Israelis actually got some sympathy in the world arena, and Arafat was weathering a rare period of disapproval from the world community. But once the violence broke out, and Israel could be blamed, and especially once pictures of Muhamed al Durah showed on TVs around the world, opinion shifted dramatically and decisively.
 
Perhaps the best way to understand how Pallywood was able to have such success at this juncture is to examine what happened on September 29, the day after Sharon visited the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif. That day, news agencies reported violent clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinians enraged by Sharon’s visit. AP published a photograph of a young man, bloodied and kneeling in front of an angry Israeli brandishing a baton.
 
Now it doesn’t take an insider to know that something is wrong here. There are no gas stations anywhere near the Temple Mount, so the location is clearly mistaken. But the mistakes far exceed mere location, and a closer look suggests that the Israeli soldier seems to be yelling at people beyond the wounded man. The man wounded in the picture is not a Palestinian, but an American Jew, a seminary student, who was dragged from his car by an angry mob of Palestinians and almost beaten and stabbed to death. (It took him months in the hospital to recover.) Read Tuvya Grossman’s personal account here. The Israeli is then not beating the boy, but protecting him from the mob, which is the object of his anger and attention. Among other papers, the New York Times, without checking any of these facts, ran the picture with the caption.
 
Nothing illustrates better the problem of paradigmatic expectations influencing what we see and how we register it. The Palestinians are the victims, the Israelis the victimizers. The picture illustrates JP: aggressive Palestinians initiating violence against civilians in Israel, and Israeli restraint (the soldier does not even use a gun to chase the murderous crowd). The caption re-reads the photo so it accords with PCP: aggressive Israelis viciously attacking unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the third holiest site in Islam.
 
It took the NYT 4 days to acknowledge the error identifying the victim as “Tuvya Grossman of Chicago” and a week to do a story on the beating. But by then the damage had been done. Not only was the PCP firmly set in place, but also the picture had become an emblem of Palestinian victimization. Despite this subsequent retraction, therefore, as in the case of the poison accusations of 1983, Palestinian and Arab media and their PCP2 supporters have continued to use the picture as part of their Palestinian victim narrative. To this day, Tuvya Grossman’s picture adorns a poster calling on everyone in the world to boycott Coca Cola in order to stop Israelis from killing Palestinians like this man.
 
With such a powerful storyline affecting (and transforming) the very nature of the evidence that our MSM presented to us at the outbreak of the violence in the Fall of 2000, is it surprising that the following day, they responded so eagerly to yet another piece of evidence that supported their PCP grand narrative – the case of Muhamed al Durah?
 
IS THERE AN ISRAELI EQUIVALENT TO PALLYWOOD?
 
“Don’t the Israelis also do fictional news?”
 
Every country’s media spins the news in its defense, and plays with a margin of judgment in what it may present to the public.
 
There are analysts who argue that Israel is far superior in manipulating the media:
 
- Delinda C. Hanley, News Editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, argues that Israeli spin-doctors have been successful in portraying in the American media the victims (the Palestinians) as the aggressors in the conflict.

- Alison Weir, founder of If Americans Knew argues that the Western media, particularly American, have been consistently pro-Israeli in their coverage of the conflict. She calls it a “pervasive pattern of distortion.”
 
- Daniel Dor, from Tel Aviv university, in “Intifada Hits the Headlines,” (2004) argues that the Israeli press has aligned itself with the propaganda coming from the Israeli establishment. To him, in times of conflict the press in liberal democracies plays a “role not totally dissimilar to that of the press in non-democracies.” (Page 168) For a brief excerpt of his book read here.
 
But the differences here are so large as to demand particular attention to this issue:
 
- The Israelis do not fake images of injury; on the contrary, deep taboos prevent the Israeli press from showing pictures of dead bodies.
 
- Nor do the Israelis constantly show images designed to arouse hatred, unlike Palestinians. Compare the coverage given in Israel to the stunning footage from the Ramallah lynching of Oct. 12, 2000 with the constant repetition on TV and in the school curriculum of the footage and of reenactments of the Muhamed A Durah affair two weeks earlier.
 
- The Israeli press constitutes one of the most self-critical presses in the world. Mistakes rarely pass undetected and undenounced. When the IDF accused the UN of using their ambulances to move Kassam rockets and the evidence failed to provide proof, the Israeli press denounced the mistake sharply: “Israel behaved with reckless haste and injured its pretensions to superiority over the Palestinians with regard to credibility.”
 
There is no equivalent in the Palestinian – or Arab – press of Gideon Levy and Amirah Hass, journalists for Ha-Aretz. This element of self-criticism is, for the most part, absent in the Arab media. For an enlightening example, read here and here.
 
- Even organizations denounced by the other side as “propaganda” sites, like Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI, are scrupulously honest in the material they post from the Arab world, in their translations, even careful not only to post the negative comments in the Arab press, but also the positive ones.
 
- To make the facile, “even-handed” comparison misses a major distinction between the rough and tumble criticisms of a free press in Israel and the intimidation and high propaganda content of the press in Arab authoritarian societies. If one cannot understand these differences, one cannot understand the value and importance of self-critical free press sustaining civil society. Tolerance for criticism and for variant viewpoints marks the commitment to civil society.
 
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO DENOUNCE PALLYWOOD?
 
- Pallywood distorts Western and Middle Eastern public opinion.
 
- Aggravates the narrative victim/victimizer, dominant in both Western and Middle East Media, that prolongs the conflict
 
- Perpetuates the David (Palestinians) Vs Goliath (Israel) narrative.
 
- Contributes to the demonization of Israel/rise of anti-Semitism
 
- An accurate and fair MSM are crucial for a healthy civil society.
 
- By its sheer drama Pallywood leads to Western romantization of the Palestinian struggle and justification of the most atrocious methods to achieve their aims.
 
“They’re beautiful, highly trained and deadly. They are the female suicide bombers.” Australia’s New Idea magazine, April 7, 2003.
 
To Be Continued …

Title: "Fake but true" Mohamed al-Durah
Post by: G M on June 14, 2011, 10:37:46 AM

http://www.seconddraft.org./index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=616:the-evidence-for-staging&catid=87:aldurah-the-evidence&Itemid=277

Pallywood.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 14, 2011, 10:58:01 AM

This is a good point by Crafty: "When there are no Jews to hate, then the next handy non-Muslim target will do just fine, see e.g. what is happening to the Coptic Christians right now in Egypt."  And if there was no Israel, the target becomes Europe and the USA.  You don't have to be Jewish or Israeli when you know the term infidel simply means not one of them.  The context of the wall is also an important point, as is the point that the hiding of military inside of civilian locations for photo drama is a particularly cruel strategy.

Saddam used to call his enemy "the Zionists and the Imperialists", **  but he wasn't attacked and pushed back from Kuwait by Israel, and the Americans weren't there to take land, they were there to help other Arab-Muslims take back their land and to contain his own imperialism.  When the anti-Iraq war crowd claimed that Saddam had no ties to terrorism, they didn't count direct financial support for suicide bombing of Jews in Israel as terrorism, because... attacks against Jews in Israel don't constitute terrorism??

(** I asked previously if someone could come up with the actual Saddam surrender statement of 1991. The 'Zionists' are mentioned often in it.  GM came back with something else, but I thought maybe Andrew as a historian might be able to help to re-locate that document.)

I have a friend of years past with views similar to what I read in Andrew's view.  I didn't view the videos, but this friend maintained that the Israeli Defense forces are the meanest SOBs on the planet.  In the context that the entire region supports their destruction and Israel is still standing, that accusation doesn't seem misplaced.  Then he would point out examples of Israel responding disproportionately to the attacks against them.  I don't find that to be out of place either.  The point is to stop the attacks.  I don't know of any additional lands or anything else Israel's neighbors have that Israel wants, just that the attacks against them would cease.

The only terms of a possible peace settlement come down to what Netanyahu spelled out.  Besides life, all Israel wants is defensible borders.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on June 14, 2011, 06:30:22 PM

Im sorry I dont know what you mean with the „fake but true“ phrase.


Depth of corruption, lack of integrity, anti western, pro communist, frauds, agenda...

These are all words I read and hear all the time in the media. Usually the type of media that wants to divert the attention to something else, and creating an elevated state of panic. This point and curse maneuvre seems to have some universaility to it. Shock and awe, hell yeah.

You speak of Academia like its a coherent whole, „us against the world“ type of an institution, that holds its own in a sea of predators. Well here is some first hand insight : even at hardline scientific cathedras, you would be hard pressed to find phds that agree on something. Viscious competition and backstabbing is common just as it is common in management or sports.

These delusions you have about a leftist communist hidden agenda rising from the bowels of the academia and eating up what good is left, is a hardcore anachronism. One that kindly shows your age. This left-right, us-them, red-blue dichotomy portrayed here, is long gone in university circles and otherwise. Dont overjudge the thinkers circuit. Dont fall in the same old trap, when discussing theory. Know the place of theory and know the pople whos job it is to study it. It is its role to be brutally to the point, agressive, unorthodox and radical. It is intentionally contraveresed, and split from practice. Academia, coming from the ancient greek Akademeia, is supposed to be, what it literally means, the cultural accumulation of knowledge, its development and transmission across generations and its practitioners and transmitters. What you do with the gained knowledge, is another thing.

But the spectres of communism still haunt old cellars I see. Here I am afraid, I will just have to let it go, as your ways may just be too ingrained to accept anything else.

I love it how you write about postmodernism and marxism like they have anything to do with todays left.Or how you brace them aside like noones business. Ironically, it was a neocon pioneer who skyrocketed the idea of post-modernism (which as an idea, is about 150 years old, the father being no other than G.W Hegel) into the scope of the world, his name was Francis Fukuyama.

Dont act like you have seen the light. You are no different to any other leftist or rightist or whatever you want to call it, who reads a book or two, and thinks everyone else is stupid and blind. Dont be so naive. It used to be enough to be an ideologically biased, info stuffed hardliner. Not anymore. Nowadays, if you want to get heard, you need to read everything, fullstop.

If there is a lecture to be had from todays time and age, if there is a lecture to be had from post-modern crisis of human thought, its that today there is no one true light that illuminates the blind anymore. There are only different stories. Only shades.

But I presume to understand, you were coming up in a time where stories were taken literally and the light was still one and true (for both sides).


I hate to be an old trumpet, and hate it even more to disprove this dubious attempt yet again, but necessity prevails. GM makes things sound so simple. Now its my sacred duty to complicate them and carve the way forth for truth, so it may never rest buried under piles of rubble.

Lovely article. Very nice rhetoric used, again. Weiner is such a gentleman.

http://www.counterpunch.org/said1.html

Be especially mindful of the reply an Egyptian jew whom Weiner had interviewed, named Andre Sharon sent to Weiner himself, and the Times editorial, after the published article. Cannot quote in full, too long.


Said had been a fellow student but that because St George's was closed for two years after l948, Said had graduated from Victoria school in Cairo. Boyadjian emphasizes to CounterPunch that he most explicitly told Weiner that Said had been a fellow student, and that he finds it "unbelievable" that Weiner should have suppressed their conversation in his Commentary article, adding that "people like Weiner have an agenda but no principles".

….we talked to Michael Marmoura, now emeritus professor at the University of Toronto, who well remembers teaching Said at St. Georges, saying he was ''a bit of a rascal, very naughty,'' and whose father baptized the infant Said in an Anglican church in Jerusalem. Yes indeed, Marmoura says, the Saids were well-known as an old Palestinian family.

http://www.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/10/weiner/

Charles Lane, editor of the New Republic, confirms rumors that his magazine was offered Weiner's essay before Commentary. Lane says that Weiner had refused to "look at the galley of Said's memoir and take it into account. Discussions broke off at that point." Weiner then brought the story to Commentary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/aug/23/israel

Israel Shahak - who is a Holocaust survivor and an Israeli human rights activist - said: "Commentary is a monthly of the most rightwing Jewish views, and the most conservative views in America, so I am not surprised by this attack."
Mr Shahak said that the argument over how the Said family left did not affect Prof Said's status as a refugee. "This is like saying the Jews who escaped from Germany before the war were not kicked out," Mr Shahak argued. "The main argument is that they were prevented from returning to their land. This is what it is about."

And the response from Said himself :

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/444/op2.htm

The only problem with the current hullabaloo, at the outset, is that during his three years of assiduous research Weiner never once contacted or in any way spoke to me, an extraordinary omission by a man who pretends that he is both a scholar and a journalist but actually uses the methods of neither one nor the other. Another fact about his method is that he did not properly consult my memoir, Out of Place, completed in September 1998, and to appear next month.

I have never claimed to have been made a refugee, but rather that my extended family, all of it -- uncles, cousins, aunts, grandparents -- in fact was.


By the spring of 1948, not a single relative of mine was left in Palestine, ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces. Commentary's Weiner does not mention that, allowing himself the preposterous claim that my memoir (begun in 1994 and completed in 1998) was written to refute him in 1999.

Weiner says that we didn't try for reparations, thereby deliberately obfuscating two facts: that my father did in fact try to sue the Israeli government for reparations and, second, that by l950 the law of absentee property passed by Israel had converted all Palestinian property into Israeli property, illegally of course. No wonder our efforts were unrewarded. He says that I didn't attend St George's School. This is an outright lie. He does not admit that the school's records end in l946 and I was there in 1947, or that my father and cousins had attended the school starting in 1906. Had he been a decent researcher, he might have sought out one of my classmates

In the body of his article, he does not name the people he allegedly talked to "on four continents" or the documents he consulted, what exactly they said, or when, and in answer to what question.  
 
If someone like Edward Said is a liar, runs the argument, how can we believe all those peasants who say they were driven off their land? The Likud argument (Weiner's) is that the land all belongs to the people of Israel, since it was given to them by God. All the other claimants are therefore prevaricators and pretenders.

Luckily, several survivors of 1948 from my family are still alive and well. My oldest cousin, the last person to leave our Talbiyeh house, is 80 years old now and lives in Toronto. Why was he not contacted? As my widowed aunt's oldest son, he negotiated with Martin Buber and took him to court when he refused to leave the house after his lease was up and our family returned from a year in Cairo. What about our neighbours, other relatives, friends, members of the church community? They were never contacted. Several children of the pastor who baptised me are still alive also: they could have been contacted. No: what Commentary wants is not the truth but the Big Zionist Lie



And of course, the elegant finish, proving only what JDN already said about Said (pun intended) and why the Annales will know the bigger man.

I have always advocated the acknowledgement by each other of the Palestinian and Jewish peoples' past sufferings. Only in this way can they coexist peacefully in the future. Weiner is more interested in using the past -- either an individual or collective past -- to prevent understanding and reconciliation. It is a pity that so much time and venom as he has expended couldn't have been used for positive purposes.



You prove time and again you havent actually read a WORD from Said himself. God forbid reading something and expanding your arsenal and getting a glimpse of something different. Only the dubious attacks on his crediblity from an interview. Burn the heretic.

He did however learn, like Said and Ward Churchill that as long as you fabricate a narrative that pleases the leftist paradigm in academia, you can coast along on that alone with all the rewards the system can confiscate from those that actually do tangible work.

Said hasnt pleased anyone in the "academia". If anything he was a radical loose cannon and a controversial persona, causing uproar everywhere he went and with anything he has written.You speak so foul of the academia like its supposed to be gulity of something, but you havent a slightest clue as to what it is and what it does. And here a 25 something year old European has to tell you about it. Its precicesly THIS FACT alone, that someone like Said got a permanent seat at Columbia, which truly shows that America still is one of the greatest countries in the world to live in.

That it still cherishes and nurtures radical views, para-doxa intellectual insight and isnt afraid of challenging thoughts, shows and tells me everything I need to know.

They value knowledge, new ideas and openminded spirit. This is the true gem of America, for me. Not some opportunistic, free, economical safeheaven mumbo jumbo. Why do you think most of the elite, influential thinkers in America arent American at all ? Because they can excell there, and nowhere else.

In Europe, with all its pompous noise and noble stance, a black president, sadly, cannot happen yet. That alone, should make you feel proud to be American.




@Crafty

I agree with your doubts about the intent of the media. The vids may very well be staged. Apart from the few ones, where IDF soldiers shoot tied civilians point blank range, with high ranking officers present. Even that, I guess, we could put up for scrutiny. But then again, how do we know that Fatah vs Hamas tragedy from the vid Kostas posted really is what you are saying ?


@Doug

I havent forgotten about your idea of the Saddam surrender statement, mate. The actual document would be next to impossible to find I think, since if indeed it does exist it should be located in the Iraqi national archives in Baghdad.If they still stand. Or maybe in America somewhere. Ill ask around a bit.

Keep in mind though, I am not speaking my personal stance here, I have attenuated this several times. I just hate it when information is presented one dimensionally, forfeit and out of context. This is the sole reason of all my posts on this forum.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 14, 2011, 08:43:43 PM

"@Doug  I havent forgotten about your idea of the Saddam surrender statement, mate. The actual document would be next to impossible to find I think, since if indeed it does exist it should be located in the Iraqi national archives in Baghdad.If they still stand. Or maybe in America somewhere. Ill ask around a bit."
-----
Thanks. I just mean a copy - an English translation. I had it in my hand at the time from one of the online services of 1991 and saved it - who knows where.  Nothing earthshaking in it, just a glimpse into his mind and his propaganda.  The detachment from reality was startling to me.  Four pages of flowery BS as I recall, congratulating Iraqis all the way through for their victory over the Zionists and the Imperialists, victory because they stayed proud, victory because they proved this and proved that.  At the very end he accepts UN resolutions xxx... Nothing close to the word surrender is hinted. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2011, 09:40:01 PM

I'm off to spend some time with my wife, but first a few comments:

1) "You speak of Academia like its a coherent whole, „us against the world“ type of an institution, that holds its own in a sea of predators. Well here is some first hand insight : even at hardline scientific cathedras, you would be hard pressed to find phds that agree on something. Viscious competition and backstabbing is common just as it is common in management or sports."

I am reminded of Harvard Prof, Nixon cabinet member, and later US Senator from NY, Daniel Moynihan who commented that Washington politics was child's play to that at Harvard -- working from memory here-- "precisely because so little of import was at stake". 

That said, IMHO it is a simple fact that US academia is overwhelmingly leftist and much of it is dedicated to propagation of leftist ideology and not a search for the Truth.

2) Concerning the description of the video that Kostas posted at my request, I regret my lack of citations, but I do remember receiving it from various places and with considerable certainty I regard my description of it to be quite true.

3) "where IDF soldiers shoot tied civilians point blank range, with high ranking officers present."  Working from memory here again because I am too lazy to go surf through all those videos to double check, but IIRC the shooting was in the leg with a rubber bullet-- in which case your description here leaves a very misleading impression.

There's more, but my wife is cuter than all of you guys put together :-)

Title: Jerusalem: 4000 Years in 5 Minutes
Post by: Rachel on June 15, 2011, 05:55:51 AM

Jerusalem: 4000 Years in 5 Minutes
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mR2W43t6tI&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Title: Taken in by Gay Girl
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2011, 06:11:13 AM

Nice summary Rachel!

Another example of dishonesty:

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/06/15/taken_in_by_gay_girl


Which brings me to this by Andraz:

" if there is a lecture to be had from post-modern crisis of human thought, its that today there is no one true light that illuminates the blind anymore. There are only different stories. Only shades.  But I presume to understand, you were coming up in a time where stories were taken literally and the light was still one and true (for both sides).  I hate to be an old trumpet, and hate it even more to disprove this dubious attempt yet again, but necessity prevails. GM makes things sound so simple. Now its my sacred duty to complicate them and carve the way forth for truth, so it may never rest buried under piles of rubble."

As I think you already know about me Andraz, I fully get the point about shades and different stories, that we are all blind men grasping a different part of the elephant and so forth.  That said, IMHO you seem to go substantively further to a dimension where there is no true and false, no right and wrong.  Posting clips which you admit "very well may have been staged" does not serve to free Truth from under piles of rubble; rather it ADDS rubble and hides it amongst the smoke of obfuscation-- which serves to cause of those who seek to push the Jews into the sea. 

This is the sort of thing that leads to very bright, very well educated academics (i.e. you  :lol: ) speaking such foolishness as Israel "surrounding the Palestinians" and unwilling to notice the clear simple implications of Muslim treatment of the Coptics in Egypt for the nature of Islam in this part of the world.   As Rachel's clip nicely shows, it is the Jews of Israel who have Jerusalem open to all.  It was (and is) the Muslims who seek to deny the history of the Jews there.  Even today they burrow under their mosque seeking to remove the physical evidence that our temple was there before their mosque.

This is the sort of thing that leads to an inability to see that the underlying fundamental problem is not the Jews, it is that the other side contains percentages of those who seek to remove us altogether.

NEVER AGAIN. 

Title: "Patriarchal age"
Post by: ccp on June 15, 2011, 09:00:03 AM

I've tried to get a better handle on when Abraham lived.  When one looks up his name one gets around 1100 BC.
As per below, "Contemporary archaeologists have given up the attempt to find a historical reality behind the Patriarchs as individuals, and it is now generally accepted that "it is not possible to demonstrate the historical existence of the figures in Genesis."[4]":

***Wikepedia on the Patriarchs:
Patriarchal age
The Patriarchal Age is the era of the three biblical Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, according to the narratives of Genesis 12-50. (These chapters also contain the history of Joseph, although Joseph is not one of the Covenantal Patriarchs).

The bible contains an intricate pattern of chronologies from the creation of Adam, the first man, to the reigns of the later kings of ancient Israel and Judah, at which point the bible makes contact with known and dateable history. From these it is possible to calculate (strictly within a biblical frame of reference) that the birth of Abraham, the first of the Patriarchs, 1,948 years after the Creation, corresponded to 1812 BC.[1]

Prior to the 19th century there was little interest in questioning the biblical chronology, but with the growth of biblical criticism and the wide popularity of the documentary hypothesis - the theory that the Pentateuch, including the Book of Genesis, was composed not by Moses but by unknown authors living at various times between 950 and 450 BC - it became increasingly urgent both to supporters of the traditional view (i.e., that Genesis was an accurate historical record written by Moses under the direct guidance of God) and the new (the documentary hypothesis) to find concrete arguments to support their respective views. Thus was born biblical archaeology, a form of archaeology different from all others in that it sought, not to discover and interpret mute evidence, but to validate (or for some, invalidate) a written book.

The most eminent of early biblical archaeologists was William F. Albright, who believed that he had identified the Patriarchal age in the period 2100-1800 BC, the Intermediate Bronze Age, the interval between two periods of highly developed urban culture in ancient Canaan. Albright argued that he had found evidence of the sudden collapse of the previous Early Bronze Age culture, and ascribed this to the invasion of migratory pastoral nomads from the northeast whom he identified with the Amorites mentioned in Mesopotamian texts. According to Albright, Abraham was a wandering Amorite who migrated from the north into the central highlands of Canaan and the Negev with his flocks and followers as the Canaanite city-states collapsed. Albright, E. A. Speiser and Cyrus Gordon argued that although the texts described by the documentary hypothesis were written centuries after the Patriarchal age, archaeology had shown that they were nevertheless an accurate reflection of the conditions of the 2nd millennium BC: "We can assert with full confidence that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were actual historical individuals."[2]

But in the last quarter of the 20th century Albright's interpretation became increasingly untenable. Archaeology, far from reinforcing the reliability of Genesis, has demonstrated that it is rife with anachronisms. For example, the Philistines whom Abraham encounters did not settle in the Middle East until the 12th century BC, camels were not in general use as beasts of burden until the 7th century BC, and the genealogies of the Patriarchs and the nations supposedly derived from them represent "a colorful human map of the ancient Near East from the unmistakable viewpoint of the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah in the eighth and seventh centuries BC".[3] Contemporary archaeologists have given up the attempt to find a historical reality behind the Patriarchs as individuals, and it is now generally accepted that "it is not possible to demonstrate the historical existence of the figures in Genesis."[4]

[edit] References
^ The situation is not quite so clear-cut as this implies, as there are variant manuscripts of the bible giving variant chronologies, differing by thousands of years: the description given here is from the Masoretic text, the basis of most modern English translations.
^ John Bright, "History of Israel", 1972, p.91.)
^ Sarah Belle Dougherty, Fiat Lux: Archeology and the Old Testament (review of Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed", 2003).
^ See review of Terrance Fretheim, "The New Interpreter's Bible", 1994.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchal_age"
Categories: Jewish history***

Title: Fake but true
Post by: G M on June 15, 2011, 09:01:27 AM

"Im sorry I dont know what you mean with the „fake but true“ phrase."

Here is the origin of the phrase:


http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040916.asp

Dan Rather Showcases Secretary Who Says Memos Fake But True

     The secretary to the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian told the Dallas Morning News that the memos touted by CBS in its effort to discredit President Bush are forgeries, but since she decided their content matched the thoughts expressed by Killian, 60 Minutes showcased her Wednesday night, thus setting a new journalistic standard: Use phoney evidence to smoke out support for your otherwise uncorroborated theory. Dan Rather trumpeted how the 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox "flew to New York this afternoon to tell us she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic. But there's yet another confusing twist to this story. She told us she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported."

     That's not a "confusing twist." That's a clear rejection of the basis of CBS's sleazy reporting.

     Rather highlighted how she addressed a reference in one of CBS's forged memos "to retired General Staudt pushing for a positive officer training report on Lieutenant Bush. 'And Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it.' Does that sound like Colonel Killian? Is that the way he felt?" Knox, sitting in a chair facing Rather, affirmed: "That's absolutely the way he felt about that." Rather emphasized that in the case of another memo, "she doesn't believe the memo is authentic, but she says the facts behind it are very real."

Title: Academic con-men
Post by: G M on June 15, 2011, 09:18:41 AM

Ward Churchill played the same con game as Fast Eddie Said. Create a bogus identity that makes you a hot prospect in academia and no one will question your credentials and lack of actual scholarship because they want to BELIEVE.

March 24, 2005, 8:01 a.m.
The Seven Faces of “Dr.” Churchill
Academia’s everyman.



Does Ward Churchill even exist?

Dr., Native American, original artist, serious scholar, combat veteran, highly recruited and sought-after academic, ex-Weatherman mentor: How many — if any — of these seven faces of our real-life Dr. Lao are true?

Professors outside the arts at major research universities are supposed to have Ph.D.s. The phantom Ward Churchill does not. How he was hired, promoted, and tenured without a doctorate is a mystery — the equivalent of a high-school teacher credentialed with an AA degree, or a medical doctor operating without an M.D.

Ward Churchill proclaimed that he is a Native American of various tribal affiliations; he is not. Even his ridiculous costumes, occasional threats, and puerile rants cannot disguise that fact.

He seems to be a pop artist of sorts, but his canvasses are not quite his own either. Those of like political mind have praised his scholarship, but much of what he writes seems derivative, or misrepresents or outright plagiarizes others.

Churchill has spoken of the firsthand trauma of battle service as a combat veteran, both as a paratrooper and as a sniper — among the most hazardous of corps in the United States military. Once again, there is no such evidence that he served in any capacity other than what his official duties in a motor pool and as a projectionist entailed.

Embarrassed officials claim Churchill was sought after by other universities — so they had to reel in this trophy catch before he got away — but no one can find any proof other than Churchill’s own mendacious claims.

No one knows what to make of his various arrests, boasts of bomb-making, trip to Libya, angry and traumatized ex-wives, braggadocio about petty vandalism, tales of phone threats, and the variety of other sordid stories that surround this fabricated man. Churchill’s presence on campus is like the weaving driver who is pulled over by the state police, who quickly find no license, registration, or insurance, but plenty of warrants — and thus wonder how many other paroled miscreants they’ve missed out there, one accident away from being a public-relations nightmare.

So, again, does this Ward Churchill even exist?

Of course not: His faces are made up of whole cloth.

Yet instead of seeing Churchill as no man, it is better to envision him as an academic everyman. In the alternate universe of the modern campus, any collective imbalance of wealth, education, health, happiness, or almost anything is explicable only in terms of deliberate present discrimination and systematic past oppression.

Any other exegesis — cultural attitudes, individual preferences, bad personal choices and behaviors, time off for child-rearing, bad luck — is irrelevant. Indeed, to raise them is prima facie evidence of one’s own discrimination, intolerance, and racism, and can lead to the academic guillotine. Ask Harvard president Larry Summers.

Instead, equality of result is to be mandated by a government that in turn is to be instructed on how to do so by the university. Its cadres of subsidized social scientists and humanists provide both the rigged diagnosis and the lucrative therapy. Thus, to succeed on campus without a degree or talent or much of anything, it is absolutely critical to be an ideologue of the first order.

Churchill’s rantings are full of leftist hyperbole, vicious Nazi allusions, and calls for violence against the United States (“more 9/11s are necessary”) and an end to America itself (“There’s no U.S. in America anymore”). Should Churchill have been such a vicious court jester of the Right and slurred gays and minorities as he did the victims of mass murder, he would have been fired long ago.

Rule 1: Profess to be as far left as possible, understanding that extremism in the service of utopian virtue is no vice.

Most academics are retiring sorts. They enjoy the tranquility of the campus and its isolation from the conundrum of society at large. But like peaceful sheep grazing in green pastures, they are easy prey for rapacious wolves. Professors are especially vulnerable to a bully and showman like Churchill, whose record of both oral and written intimidation leaves most disturbed, frightened, or at least convinced to steer clear of this loose loud popgun when he goes off.

Note then his evocation of past bomb-making, his photo-ops in fatigues with obligatory machine gun, and his occasional brushes with the law.

Rule 2: Among the nerds and dorks, act a little like a Brando, Che, or James Dean, a wild spirit that gives off a spark of danger, who can at a distance titillate Walter Mitty-like admirers and closer up scare off the more sober censors.

Victimization is essential to academic man. Under the warped tenets into which affirmative action has devolved and the existing protocols of the blame industry, at first glance this put a pink heterosexual American male like Churchill in a seemingly tough bind. What cover or exemption, after all, is there when his scholarship, teaching, or academic citizenship is found wanting?

That dilemma Churchill solved brilliantly when he endowed himself with two new unimpeachable personas: the noble but victimized Native American, and the half-noble but nevertheless traumatized Vietnam veteran.

Both costumes were eerie in their cleverness: In Colorado, with its Western heritage and abundance of Native Americans, the frontier past is especially touchy and ripe for exploitation. And while it is harder for a pale white man to simply declare himself one day black or Hispanic, fraudulently identifying oneself as a quarter, eighth, or sixteenth American Indian has been a roguish American pastime since the onset of affirmative action. Even before that, 1950s Hollywood showed how quite a lot of white people like Ward Churchill can indeed pass as Indians, if they grow their hair long, get a beaded headband, and put on some tassels and buckskins. But instead of the 1950s Kemosabe lingo, by 2005, the script had evolved to add shades and scream about massacres, genocide, and getting even.

If Malibu and Burbank actors playing braves and chiefs once taught suburban Americans how to reinvent themselves as Nez Perce warriors, so too Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Rambo reinvented the Vietnam veteran as the misunderstood anti-hero. Under the changed protocols, the once-slurred “war criminal” of the 1960s was in the ‘70s and ‘80s reinvented as a sympathetic “victim” who was “used” by the military-industrial complex.

Indeed, the only other persona more faked by American con artists than the Native American is the tortured Vietnam War combat veteran — especially on the campus, where military service is rare and first-hand revelations of its horror are at a premium, lending a hard masculine edge felt to be sometimes lacking in the world of Volvo fender-benders, elbow-patched tweed, and seminar droning.

In short, Churchill’s Indian and Vietnam-veteran pseudo-affiliations — replete with long hair, camouflage, and sunglasses getup — were worth at least a Ph.D. from Harvard.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, reinvent yourself as anything but a white, straight American male. (GM-Like a "Palestinian" refugee)

The short resurrected career of Bill Ayers, the former 1960s terrorist, showed how nostalgic the tenured class is for the barricades of the 1960s. The only thing that cut short Ayers’s glitzy book tour in autumn 2001 was the catastrophe of 9/11. That coincidence unfortunately reminded even the most diehard SDS fans that terrorist killers and bombers are hardly idealists but rather repulsive thugs and two-bit murderers.

Although most American males at the plant and office nearing their 60s are thinking of grandchildren, Social Security, paying off the mortgage, and Vioxx and Viagra, a post-menopausal Churchill sensed the romanticism of the 1960s that lingered among his colleagues and the mystery the period connoted for a new generation of upscale, rite-of-passage college students.

Recalcitrant, unbending, immobile, a throw-back to a better, more idealistic age — this is the rock-cut image that the perpetual ‘60s professor taps into. And Churchill, with his photo-studio manufactured profile, pageboy locks, occasional fake Indian name, hip street lingo, and sassy banter did it better than any we’ve seen in quite a while — or at least well enough to wow the flabby university committees that allowed him to cash in.

Rule 4. Don’t worry about the anti-capitalist’s embarrassing six-figure salary, plush job, lifelong guaranteed employment, and fondness for jet travel and hotels. Just keep acting like an ageless denizen of the Woodstock nation, professing to be a timeless dagger pointed at the heart of money-grubbing square America.

So who really is this strange creature who calls himself Keezjunnahbeh? The Paris Hilton of the campus, a Peter Sellers-like fraud in his own Being There, or a Tony Randall turning into all sorts of strange beasts in Dr. Lao’s circus? He is nobody in fact, but also everybody in theory.

Perhaps it is best to think of Churchill as our aging portrait of an academic Dorian Gray, in whom all the once-hallowed university’s vices and sins of the last half-century are now so deeply etched and lined.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.

Title: What Edward Said Knows
Post by: G M on June 15, 2011, 09:55:35 AM

 http://www.wernercohn.com/Said.html

 

What Edward Said Knows

 

 

Did you know that the Chmielnicki pogroms of the 17th century that killed so many Jews were really very "progressive" events ? No, you didn't know that ? Well, Edward Said knows.

And did you know that the Talmud teaches hatred toward Gentiles ? Edward Said knows.

Did you know that Jewish children are taught to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery? Edward Said knows.

Or that when orthodox Jews wash two hands, one is to worship Satan ? Or that Orthodox Jews frequently kill those with whom they disagree, for instance liberal rabbis ? Or that the Jews, spurred on by their religious traditions, oppress and kill the Palestinians ? You didn't even know THAT ? Well, Edward Said knows all this, and more. The Arab-American professor of literature at Columbia University not only knows all these things but he also wishes to share them with you.

The outlandish assertions that I have listed, and many more that are even more preposterous, are contained in a scurrilous little anti-Semitic pamphlet by one Israel Shahak, entitled "Jewish Religion, Jewish History." The French edition of Shahak was published in 1996 by La Vieille Taupe, a neo-Nazi sect in Paris that publishes books denying the Holocaust. And the French edition (but not the English) contains a remarkable eight-page introductory essay ("avant propos") by Edward Said.

Shahak is an eccentric Israeli chemist who, aged fifty-three in 1988, retired to devote himself full time to plagiarizing Nazi and other anti-Semitic writers. I had occasion to review his "Jewish History" when it appeared in English. This English edition (but not the French) bore an urgent recommendation by Noam Chomsky ("Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value"). Gore Vidal, outdoing both Said and Chomsky, contributed his Foreword to both editions.

Said's essay in praise of Shahak, in the French edition, runs into a little problem. While the Holocaust never happened as far as La Vieille Taupe is concerned, Said has on more than one occasion spoken out against Holocaust-denying in the Arab world. So what to do when Said mentions, in passing, that Shahak is a survivor of the Holocaust ? La Vieille Taupe inserts a little footnote there, showing that Said is mistaken on this point (p. 12).

But for the rest, Said is right on board. He praises Shahak for the latter's felicity in describing Israel as "Judeo-Nazi" (p. 11). He appreciates Shahak's criticism of Arafat whenever Arafat showed himself conciliatory toward Israel (p. 13). And Said also approves of Shahak's opposition to Peace Now, since Peace Now, according to Said, is "shameful" in demanding peaceful actions from Palestinians (pp. 13-4). In short, Said finds in Shahak a kindred spirit in demanding, in effect, the complete dismantlement of Israel.

But these political points are completely overshadowed by what can only be considered the bad faith of Edward Said when he praises Shahak's "scholarship." Said says that Shahak is the greatest scholar he has ever known ("le plus grand érudit que j'aie jamais connu" -- p. 15). The book at hand, says Said, is a powerful study of Judaism, of its rabbinic and Talmudic traditions: "It is nothing less than a concise history of classic and modern Judaism insofar as these are relevant to the understanding of modern Israel" (p. 16).

So we see that Said of Columbia is at one with Chomsky of MIT : endorsing "scholarship" in fields in which he is not expert, in this case the "scholarship" of a shoddy, disreputable propaganda tract. It seems that two of the most distinguished American universities cannot guarantee the moral or indeed the intellectual integrity of what goes on within their walls.

Finally, it is an interesting fact that Said's praise of Shahak and his "scholarship" is effectively hidden from the public. It is not mentioned in the comprehensive bibliography of Said's writings, nor is Said's name mentioned in La Vieille Taupe's own on-line catalog. The book cannot be bought from the American or French amazon.com, it is not listed in the Library of Congress catalog nor in other standard catalogs that are available to the public. I myself became aware of it only when I visited the neo-Nazi Librairie du Savoir in Paris, which in fact is the book's distributor. It requires a professional librarian to verify the very existence of this item in the OCLC world catalog (not available to the public), or in the catalogue of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (which, to be sure, is available to anyone). It is here, in this official French source, that Said's dirty little secret -- his collaboration with the Nazis -- is laid open for all to see. The item is duly listed, as is Said's introduction to it.

 

Werner Cohn, April 2001

 

PS (June 2001): It appears that there is an English edition of the Shahak book that also contains the Said introduction. The edition of Shahak's book advertised by amazon.com says, on its cover, that it has a forword by Said. WC

 

Some further reading

The classic study of Arab anti-Semitism, published some thirty years ago, is, alas, as valid today as it was in the 1970's: Y. Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel, Jerusalem, 1972

"'My Beautiful Old House' and Other Fabrications by Edward Said," by Justus Reid Weiner, Commentary, September 1999; available for purchase on line through the archives service of Commentary magazine. This article examines Said's claims to be a "Palestinian."

"Said's Splash," Chapter Two of Ivory Towers on Sand, by Martin Kramer, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001. This chapter summarizes the criticisms that scholars have made of Said's book Orientalism, and describes how, despite its intellectual weakness, this work by Said has become a powerful influence on the American academic establishment.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2011, 10:28:55 AM

Andraz:

Looks like he's read a bit more than one or two books :evil:

Title: Chomsky, Shahak and friends
Post by: G M on June 15, 2011, 11:00:41 AM

The Pathology of Jewish Anti-Semitism

Posted By Steven Plaut On February 16, 2010 @ 12:28 am In FrontPage | 103 Comments



 
Jewish anti-Semitism. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron or a Jackie Mason joke.  If only this were the case.
 
Jewish anti-Semitism is all around us, part of the political air we breathe, a modern disease.  In the twenty-first century the world is experiencing an explosion of it, a virtual plague.  Among the most malicious and venomous of all bigots, the Jewish anti-Semites are at the forefront of every smear campaign against Israel and every attempt to cow Jews of America and the West into guilty support for those in the Middle East who would like to annihilate them.  Jews today are leaders in the campaigns to boycott and “divest from” Israel, and in the leadership of the “Solidarity with Terrorists” groups.  They make pilgrimage to the camps of Hamas and the Hezb’Allah, cheering on terrorists and their atrocities against Jews.  They pioneered the smear campaigns to paint Israel as an apartheid regime and to stigmatize it as the moral equivalent to Nazi Germany.
 
Western campuses are crawling with Jewish anti-Semites. Some even hold leadership positions in Hillel houses.  Many others are tenured professors.  An anti-Semitic Jewish judge (Richard Goldstone) chaired a UN commission demonizing Israel. A Jewish member of Britain’s Parliament (Gerald Kaufman) compared Hamas terrorists to Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and denounced Israel as a Nazi entity.  Nor is this only an American phenomenon: a shockingly large number of Jewish anti-Semites are Israelis or ex-Israelis.
 
Most Jews dismiss such people as “self-hating,” but this term is misleading at best. These rogues do not hate themselves.  Indeed they are narcissistic to the core.  They hate other Jews and wish them harm. Nor are these Jewish anti-Semites simply assimilationists of Jewish descent who have lost interest in their heritage, become indifferent towards the history of their people and therefore casually alienated from Israel and its travails. On the contrary, anti-Semitic Jews are intensely involved in their “roots” and use them adroitly as protective coloration from which they advance their treasonous notions. In some extreme cases they collaborate with Neo-Nazis, Islamist terrorists, and even Holocaust Deniers.
 
Jewish anti-Semitism was once considered a bizarre irrelevance.  It was touched upon gingerly in the ground breaking 1947 film, “Gentleman’s Agreement,” but long ignored as a marginal psychological disorder by the organized Jewish community.  Modern Zionists expected that the very creation of Israel would put an end to any neurotic self-hatred that afflicted Diaspora communities.  It was expected to end not only Jewish physical insecurity but also spiritual pathology. A strong and proud Israel, in other words, would shield Jews from a sense of vulnerability and empower them to throw off self denial. Alas, history had a surprise up its sleeve: the growth of a powerful and determined Israel committed to never again allowing Jews to become victims has also enabled some of the very worst Jewish anti-Semites on the planet, all of whom shelter in the radical fringes of the Israeli Left, its academic institutions and its “intelligentsia,” thriving under the protective umbrella of the Israeli Defense Force.
 
Among the most open Israeli promoters of anti-Semitic mythology today is Professor Shlomo Sand, a hardcore communist on the history faculty of Tel Aviv University.  Sand last year published a book with a far-left anti-Israel publisher claiming to prove that Jews are not and never have been a “people.” Recycling myths popularized by Neo-Nazi web sites, Sand’s entire book is a sort of Protocols of the Elders of Anti-Zion, a pseudo-analysis that claims that most Jews today are frauds, converts from the Khazar Turkic tribe, impersonators of Jews.  All real Jews, according to the learned professor, became Palestinian Arabs centuries ago.  Hence Israeli “Jews” are not Jews at all, certainly none that have a right to their own state.
 
Sand travels the globe with Tel Aviv University funding to tout his book and advocate the extermination of Israel.  He is surpassed in his anti-Semitism only by one other Israeli professor, now retired, named Ariel Toaff, who claimed to have evidence that Jews use gentile blood in religious ritual.  Blood libel: one of the foundations of traditional anti Semitism now embraced by Jewish anti Semites.  The concept of irony is not spacious enough to encompass such a development. (Other anti-Semitic Israeli academics are cataloged on the web site Isracampus.org.il.)
 
Just what makes Jewish anti-Semites tick is hard to explain.  One of the few people to take a serious stab at doing so is Kenneth Levin, a psychiatrist at Harvard and an occasional contributor to these pages.  He thinks of Jewish anti-Semitism in part as an attempt by some Jews to gain social acceptance in an environment that is hostile towards Jews.  He also understands it as an infantile attempt to rectify a menacing situation by self-blame, a response seen in small children who have been abused. And he also considers it a kissing cousin to the notorious “Stockholm Syndrome,” whereby victims adopt the outlook and agenda of their victimizers.
 
Anti-Semitism is today the main common denominator that unites the far-Left with the Neo-Nazi Right in the United States and in Europe.  Jewish anti-Semites thrive in the shadowy areas found at both ends of the political spectrum.  In the American ultra-Left many serve as columnists for the extremist “Counterpunch” web magazine, published by the ex-Brits Alexander and Andrew Cockburn, sons perpetuating the work of their Stalinist father (and George Orwell enemy) Claud Cockburn.   Counterpunch is so openly anti-Semitic these days that it goes well beyond merely calling for Israel’s extermination.  It endorses anti-Semitic conspiracy “theories” (such as the morally imbecilic idea that Jews were behind the 9-11 attacks!) and increasingly publishes Holocaust Denier columnists.  Some of its columnists moonlight as writers for Neo-Nazi web sites and organizations. Almost every literate Jewish anti-Semite writes for this publication.

On the cyber-pages of Counterpunch, Jewish anti-Semites cheer on the jihad and endorse anti-Jewish terrorism. It would be difficult to find Jewish writers in Counterpunch who are not making the de rigueur comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany.  The University of Wisconsin’s Jennifer Loewenstein, for instance, published “Gaza Holocaust,” in which she writes:  “Israel and its US Master have long since resided in the lowest circle of Hell for betraying the name of humanity.”  She adds that Israel treats Palestinians as subhuman “Untermenschen,” reminiscent of German treatment of Jews in the Holocaust.  Then, in a quote that could easily have been printed by the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer in the 1930s, she adds:  “The Neo-Jewish Masters and their allies in the United States… have no intention of making a just peace with the lower forms of life in their midst.”  In Loewenstein’s take on reality, Israel can engage in state terror because it operates a sinister cabal that enslaves the American government and dictates its policies.  A new postmodern take on the old racist stereotype of Jews as cagey intriguers.
 
Another Counterpunch anti-Semite is Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton best known for serving on the UN commission that condemned Israel for “genocidal war crimes” even before it began its investigation of Israel’s Gaza operations.   Falk is not only one of the worst collaborators in the academics warring against the Jews, he is also America’s leading practitioner of the Orwellian inversion of reality in which Israel is a terrorist aggressor, while the Arab terrorist aggressors are innocent victims and peace-loving progressives.  For him, Israel is a Nazi-like country seeking genocide, while the Islamofascists of the Hamas and their backers are merely protesters against social inequality inside Israel.  For him, terrorist aggression against Jews is really the pursuit of peace, while self-defense by Israel is genocide.
 
In 2007 Falk published, “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust,” in which he wrote that it was not an “irresponsible overstatement to associate [Israel’s] treatment of Palestinians” with the Nazi extermination of Jews:
 
“The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy.”


 




One of the regular contributors to Counterpunch is an ex-Israeli named Gilad Atzmon.  He is a saxophone player living in the UK and closely associated with Neo-Nazi groups in Europe.  While active in pro-terror organizations, Atzmon is so openly anti-Semitic that some of these anti-Israel groups shun and refuse to have anything to do with him.  The well-known British writer Oliver Kamm has denounced Atzmon as an open Holocaust Denier.  Atzmon has called not only for Israel to be annihilated but also for synagogues to be burned down.  He heads a small clique of Neo-Nazi followers, mainly in Italy, for whom he serves as cult leader.  Atzmon has repeatedly asserted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a historically accurate documentation of the crimes by the Jewish people.
 
Paul Eisen, another anti-Israel Jewish extremist in the UK, is also an open Holocaust Denier.  He has distributed an essay endorsing Holocaust Denial entitled “Holocaust Wars,” which claims – among other things – that the gas chambers of Auschwitz could not possibly have worked to the degree that they did.  Among its “sources” are David Irving and the Neo-Nazi crank Ernst Zundel, deported by Canada and now in prison in Germany.
 
Several Jewish anti-Semites engaged in a bizarre form of Holocaust Denial on the anti-Semitic “ALEF” chat list that operates under the auspices of the University of Haifa in Israel.  Members of that list debated at length whether Hitler was actually guilty of anything, concluding that he was probably not.  Shraga Elam, a Swiss-based ex-Israeli and a member of the same “ALEF” list, published a sycophantic letter praising Holocaust Denier David Irving as a “brilliant researcher.”
 
The most venomous Jewish-born Holocaust Denier of all is Israel Shamir.  An émigré from the Soviet Union, “Shamir” moved to Israel and later left for Sweden, where he changed his name to Adam Ermash and reportedly converted to Christianity. A vulgar Jewbaiter, he regularly attends Holocaust Denial conferences.  As just one example of his poison, in an interview with the Islamist Mohamed Omar in August 2009, Shamir said:
 
“I think it is the duty of every Muslim and Christian to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just like Abraham and Moses rejected idolatry. Every person who profess [sic] their [sic] faith to God should deny the Holocaust. I think it’s much more serious that people deny God, isn’t it?”
 
Within Israel, one of the most openly anti-Semitic Jews was the late Professor Israel Shahak, who taught chemistry for decades at the Hebrew University.  He insisted that Judaism teaches Jews to worship Satan, to connive against non-Jews and to murder them.  He stopped just millimeters short of saying that Jews use gentile blood for ritual purposes.  He claimed that the Talmud is filled with calls to murder gentiles, and that Jews regard gentiles as subhuman.  He collaborated with Neo-Nazis all over the world.  Naturally he wanted Israel to be speedily destroyed, and he was one of the first Israelis to openly collaborate with Palestinian terrorism, long before the Oslo “process” commenced and produced so many others who have emulated him.
 
In an analysis of Shahak, the British writer Paul Bogdanor notes: “According to Shahak, the Jews think of nothing but making money for the benefit of the Jewish state …  According to Shahak, the Jews plan to dominate much of the world through an Israeli empire …“extending [in Shahak’s words] from ‘Algeria or Morocco’ from the west to China in the east, and from Kenya or even South Africa in the south to the USSR in the north…  According to Shahak, the Jews facilitate the spread of vice in order to enslave the masses (“Part of the motivation” must be “encouraging drug addiction and thus promoting political apathy”)….”
 
In other cases prominent Jews endorse Holocaust Deniers while carefully tiptoeing around explicitly endorsing Holocaust Denial itself.  The best known of these is Noam Chomsky, an extremist anti-American and anti-Israel professor of linguistics at MIT.
 
Son of a Hebrew teacher at Gratz College in Philadelphia, Chomsky despises Israel almost as deeply as he hates America.  He considers both countries worse than Nazi Germany.  Chomsky has campaigned on behalf of the French Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson and other European Neo-Nazis. He has said in his own defense that he only wants this hate to be protected under laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, but as Professor Werner Cohn has proven, Chomsky also endorses the contents of their speech: “But in fact we saw that [in addition to justifying] …Faurisson’s Holocaust-denial, we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky’s books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels. It is this complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations, not his professed ideas alone, that constitutes the Chomsky phenomenon.”

Only marginally less openly anti-Semitic is Norman Finkelstein, who had been on the faculty of DePaul University until he was fired three years back (and has been unemployed ever since).  Finkelstein has built an entire career out of smearing Holocaust survivors as frauds and liars, and cheering on Islamofascist terrorism against Jews.  His personal web site is a vulgar gutter of juvenile anti-Semitic catcalls.  He claims that Zionists exaggerate the dimensions of the Shoah to steal money and invent Holocaust survivors to exploit Germany.  He has made pilgrimage to the Hezb’Allah terrorists and was denied entry into Israel on grounds that he is a terrorist agent.  Finkelstein’s book “The Holocaust Industry” has become a basic text used by all Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Deniers.  He has praised Holocaust Denier David Irving as a great and reliable historian.  (Irving, in turn, claims the entire Holocaust is a Zionist hoax and that no Jews were murdered in Auschwitz.)
 
While Finkelstein is a pseudo-academic and a fraud, dismissed as a crackpot by all serious historians, he is nevertheless celebrated by all other Jewish Anti-Semites.  One Israeli academic in particular, Neve Gordon, an Israel-hating extremist who teaches political science at Ben Gurion University, has devoted much of his career to celebrating Finkelstein and his “ideas.”   When he is not denouncing Israel as a fascist apartheid terrorist regime that needs to be eliminated, Gordon has even compared Finkelstein to the Prophets of the Bible.
 
The psychosis of Jewish anti-Semitism has no comparable analogue among the nations, making the Jews a therapist’s sui generis.   The disease of Jewish anti-Semitism not only illustrates the absence of “normality” among 21st century Jewry, it threatens the very survival of Israel and of Jewish communities around the world. It is a growth industry and it puts a perverse stamp of approval on every genocidal plan conceived by every terrorist sect contemplating the glory that awaits those who murder Jews.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/16/the-pathology-of-jewish-anti-semitism/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 16, 2011, 09:09:57 AM

GM,

Thanks for the post.

Well this same group of Jews are also the ones who are staunch Democrats, down not only Israel,  also the United States, Christianity, capatilism, and at the same time love the concept of big government controlling everything in society and daily life, and are generally marxist, socialist, communist and the rest.  Yet many of these same people love money, live like capatilists, and spend their entire lives making sure they "get their pile" (using a description from George Gilder).

Item number one -> George Soros.

I am proud of being Jewish.  Yet I despise the political thinking, hypocracy, and naricissism of this particular group of Jews.
And I am not afraid to say it.  There are other Jews like me including Horowitz, Goldbergs (Bernie and Jonah), Mason etc who know exactly what I am talking about.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2011, 11:19:39 AM

I hear there is also this Jewish fellow with Wolverine sideburns who waves around sticks , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 11:55:34 AM

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=33676

Born In The USA
…or at least, if not there, bin Laden’s ideas were born in the West.

Not surprising, really. Most ideas that kill millions were born in the West. The West has nurtured both great good, and great evil.

For example, where do you think that Pol Pot got his ideas? In Cambodia? Nope. In Paris. Just the place to marinate in the moldering monstrous themes of Rousseau and the Terror.

While Marx was a westerner, he fermented his deadly memes and wrote his most damaging works in London, a city that has had Marxists as mayor in recent history. Even Mao, perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, was influenced by him.

What is particularly poisonous about radical Islam is how it has wed the ancient warmongering of Mohammed with more modern totalitarianism (though in a sense, you could say that Mohammed, with his intrinsic melding of religion and state, invented totalitarianism), and how comfortable the left seems to be with it, decrying “apartheid” in Israel, a nation that has Arabs in its legislature, while ignoring the true gender apartheid of the Arab culture. The alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and national socialism in Germany during the war was not isolated, or a coincidence.

Title: Scholars for sale
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 12:19:43 PM

Follow the money......

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anti-american-foreign-donors-are-paying-off-our-profs-shouldnt-we-address-this/?singlepage=true



Anti-American, Foreign Donors Are Paying Off Our Profs. Shouldn’t We Address This?

Adversaries have been buying sway in Congress and the public eye by funding American professors who advocate for them, to the tune of $600M.

March 25, 2011 - 12:31 pm - by Clarice Feldman


When educators who are identified as professors from prestigious universities testify before Congress, write op-eds, and appear on public or media sponsored panels, most readers and listeners value their words more than those of others less credentialed. Perhaps this is especially the case when the subject is foreign affairs, which — without warrant — is generally treated as an arcane subject requiring considerable specialized study to fully comprehend.
 
For this reason, concern is growing that our universities, especially those highly regarded, have been receiving very large sums of cash from abroad, often from countries or citizens of countries which hold positions antithetical to our interests or engage in conduct shocking to our values. This matter is receiving critical attention from both sides of the political spectrum.
 
The fact of these large gifts is no secret. 20 USC 1011-Sec. 1011f requires colleges and universities to disclose foreign donations and contracts valued at $250,000 or more, and the Department of Education annually posts them online on its website.
 
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article by Scott Carlson on the subject (subscription only). Reviewing the latest such report from the DOE (the next is due next month), he notes:
 

Over the past 10 years, gifts from and contracts with governments, companies, and individuals [in the Middle East] have amounted to more than $600 million.
 
Qatar is the largest contributor, donating almost half of the total. It is followed by Saudi Arabia, which donated $77 million. I suspect that with the downturn in the American economy these large foreign gifts are being more aggressively sought out and constitute a larger and larger portion of university revenues.

How much of this is known to alumni and students is unclear. If you recall, the videos of the NPR fundraisers (both former university fundraisers) and the make-believe Arabs revealed that they were very willing to do what they could to keep the proposed gift anonymous. They said they had done this before, and even mentioned an $80 million dollar gift — apparently from a domestic giver with a feminist bent — to a number of universities which had successfully been kept under wraps by all the schools concerned. I suspect that a great deal of the foreign funding, though reported as the law requires to the federal government, may not be fully known in university communities.
 
In any event, word is getting out. As Carlson observes, the initial complaints came from conservatives and those who support Israel, but now the left — which is expressing concern about human rights issues — has joined in. Some of the most well-publicized of these disputes here and in the UK involve unseemly conduct on the part of university officials, but incidents which undermine scholarship are not as well-known.
 
We may know of Lawrence Tech’s grant of a doctorate to Bahrain’s prime minister, who in turn donated $3 million to the university; or we may know of the scandal at the London School of Economics — the university trained Libyan officials and granted an apparently unearned doctorate to one of the dictator’s sons. (Subsequently, it was learned that Michigan State was also training Gaddafi’s men, and prominent Harvard professors — through a public relations firm of their creation, Monitor — were hiring professors in part to burnish the dictator’s image.) However, although these incidents have had higher profiles, I believe these acts are far less insidious and detrimental to our interests and to the universities’ basic functions than is so much else that this largesse creates on a regular, lower-profile basis.
 
First, these gifts cannot but distort the research and classroom work of a university. Professors, universities, and the entire university food chain (graduate students, assistant professors, students) all know who has money, and naturally gravitate to those studies and projects for which there is funding. If there is no money to support research in a given area, there can be no fellowships or grants to sustain the scholarship. So teachers read, teach, and write about topics for which funding is available, and students make such topics the object of their study. Time is a scarce resource even in the groves of academe, and smart people do not wish to waste theirs pursuing subjects for which there will be no ability to finance and publicize their endeavors.
 
Second, can one doubt that there will be a tendency not to offend the donors? It’s possible that Stephen Walt (professor of international relations at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government), a man who was hired to tart up Gaddafi in the public view, might have written this drivel on his own without the money, but one doubts it despite his strong anti-Israel, pro-Arab views:
 

First, although Libya is far from a democracy, it also doesn’t feel like other police states that I have visited. I caught no whiff of an omnipresent security service — which is not to say that they aren’t there — and there were fewer police or military personnel on the streets than one saw in Franco’s Spain. The Libyans with whom I spoke were open and candid and gave no sign of being worried about being overheard or reported or anything like that. The TV in my hotel room featured 50+ channels, including all the normal news services (BBC World Service, CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, etc.) along with contemporary U.S. sitcoms like “2-1/2 Men,” shows like “Desperate Housewives,” assorted movies, and one of the various “CSI” clones. A colleague on the trip told me that many ordinary Libyans have satellite dishes and that the government doesn’t interfere with transmissions. I tried visiting various political websites from my hotel room and had no problems, although other human rights groups report that Libya does engage in selective filtering of some political websites critical of the regime.  It is also a crime to criticize Qaddafi himself, the government’s past human rights record is disturbing at best, and the press in Libya is almost entirely government-controlled.  Nonetheless, Libya appears to be more open than contemporary Iran or China and the overall atmosphere seemed far less oppressive than most places I visited in the old Warsaw Pact.
 
Benjamin R. Barber, then a senior fellow at Demos (a New York-based think tank focused on the theory and practice of democracy) and now at Rutgers, was also hired by the Harvard-related group to buff up the Libyans. He wrote this bit of treacle:
 

Written off not long ago as an implacable despot, Gaddafi is a complex and adaptive thinker as well as an efficient, if laid-back, autocrat. Unlike almost any other Arab ruler, he has exhibited an extraordinary capacity to rethink his country’s role in a changed and changing world.
 
On the other hand, Joseph Nye of Harvard’s Kennedy School didn’t act as a Gaddafi promoter. Upon returning from a trip to Libya, he disclosed his consulting arrangement with Monitor and reported critically on what he saw there. It could well be that the funders — like those who fund two Georgetown University centers run by Professors John L. Esposito and Michael Hudson, two men instinctively critical of the U.S. and Israel and indulgent of the Arabs — are often merely putting money in the pockets of those who already take their side, and are not buying their approval. Mutual attraction, not prostitution, may explain the grants on one side and the product on the other.
 
Still, by funding these professors the donors are assuring that these professors gain power and prominence within their university and the academic community.

This problem is not confined to foreign gifts. Those who follow the latest politically popular trends — like global warming — get funded by the government; those academics skeptical of it do not. Similarly, when the Annenberg Foundation funds went from that foundation, through Obama, to Bill Ayers, Ayers’ power within the University of Illinois undoubtedly increased, along with his sway in the national educational establishment itself. Still, the notion of foreign governments, especially those who pose national security issues for this nation, buying up or paying off like-minded professors or directing undue scholarship towards a benign reading of matters in their interest is especially troubling.

Aside from monitoring what information is made public, is there anything else that can be done? I think a first step would be for universities to adopt a code of conduct, requiring professors who speak publicly before Congress, in the media, and before public audiences to disclose any foreign funding of which they are the recipients. This hardly seems to be asking a great deal. I believe it is a policy in ordinary use respecting scientific research — I can’t see why this policy merits objection from academia. Increasingly the public is used to and demanding transparency in all our institutions — why should universities and those who run them and work there be exempt? They have a unique ability to shape public opinion, and with that comes a special obligation to be candid about who’s footing the bills.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 16, 2011, 01:45:10 PM

Well I lived in DC area during the Iran hostage crises and there were thousands of Iranian students in DC at the time.  On one side of the streets they would demonstrate "down with the USA" and the other side of the street Americans would scream back at them.  I was told the engineering building at GW University was "built" with Iranian money.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 16, 2011, 02:59:21 PM

And if Iranian money didn't build the GW University engineering building, who would?

Also, as a side note, being an optimist, I like to think foreign students who come here see and hopefully learn
to appreciate the freedom and greatness of America; if they only take a few of our ideas home
the world will be better off.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 03:20:25 PM

Quote from: JDN on June 16, 2011, 02:59:21 PM

And if Iranian money didn't build the GW University engineering building, who would?

Also, as a side note, being an optimist, I like to think foreign students who come here see and hopefully learn
to appreciate the freedom and greatness of America; if they only take a few of our ideas home
the world will be better off.

The problem is, how rarely American ideas are taught in American universities. Instead we have the left's indoctrination machine churning out propaganda more often than not.

Title: Jihadists buying Georgetown U
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 06:55:06 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjm-exclusive-georgetown-u-received-325000-funneled-through-terror-front-group/?singlepage=true

PJM Exclusive: Georgetown U. Received $325,000 Funneled Through Terror Front Group

Internal emails and faxes document the university’s collusion with the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference to promote criminalizing “Islamophobia.”

June 14, 2011 - 12:10 am - by Patrick Poole

Georgetown University has some explaining to do based on documents obtained exclusively by PJM from a confidential law enforcement source. The documents reveal a scheme to pass $325,000 through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been identified by the FBI as a front for the Hamas terrorist organization. The money was paid to Georgetown by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to promote its “Islamophobia” agenda, which includes its stated international objective of criminalizing any criticism of Islam.
 
Even more troubling: evidence that Georgetown is not the only American university to cooperate with CAIR and the OIC in their joint plan to subvert the First Amendment right to free speech.
 
The plot was apparently initiated in 2006 by discussions between the OIC, CAIR, and Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU). An email dated November 20, 2006, sent from OIC permanent observer to the UN Abdul Wahab to Nihad Awad and Hadia Mubarak — a CAIR board member and Georgetown CMCU “senior researcher” — urged them to expedite arrangements. The email also promised that funds would be transferred to Georgetown as soon as the OIC received a letter from John Esposito, director of Georgetown’s CMCU.
 
Abdul Wahab’s email was followed up with a January 11, 2007, joint letter from CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and John Esposito, which is referenced in a January 15, 2007, letter of reply from OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (the letter is misdated as 2006). The letter offered $325,000 in cash from the OIC to finance an “Islamophobia” symposium to be convened at Georgetown University.
 
The OIC is the second largest intergovernmental body in the world behind the United Nations. It comprises every Islamic country in the world at the head of state level. OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu said last year that the OIC functions as the Islamic global caliphate and embodies the “Islamic solidarity” of the ummah. Included as an agenda item in the OIC’s 10 year plan — stated in English on their own website — is to push for the international criminalization of Islamophobia (1.VII), in defiance of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights protections of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
 
Georgetown’s CMCU was endowed in December 2005 by a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world, who also gave another $20 million for a similar center at Harvard. Back in February 2008, I wrote about the extremist Wahhabi agenda that the center actively promotes. Congressman Frank Wolf has also written to Georgetown President John DeGioia expressing concerns about the potential Saudi influence of U.S. government foreign service personnel trained at the university. Wolf also queried whether the CMCU had ever written anything critical of the Saudis’ abysmal record on human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women’s rights, minority rights, protection of foreign workers, due process, and the rule of law. Needless to say, they haven’t.
 
John Esposito, the CMCU’s director, described Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian at an August 2007 CAIR fundraiser in Dallas as “a good friend of mine,” even hiring Al-Arian’s son Abdullah as a researcher for the center. Esposito’s protégé, Hadia Mubarak, who now operates as a researcher at the Gallup Poll’s Muslim World project, is a virulent bigot who has gone so far as accusing other Muslims as having “a deep hatred of Islam” for daring to criticize American Islamic organizations and institutions that are Saudi-financed and promote their extremist Wahhabi agenda — such as the Georgetown CMCU.
 
During the period when this scheme came together, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case — the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. Not coincidentally, Esposito served as a defense witness in that trial. His testimony was apparently unpersuasive, as the defendants were convicted on all 108 charges and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. During that trial, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group Hamas. Admittedly mirroring the agenda of the OIC, and presumably its aim to criminalize the defamation of Islam, CAIR has established an observatory for “Islamophobia.” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad spoke last year at an OIC conference on Islamophobia held in Brazil. Nihad Awad was personally named an unindicted co-conspirator, along with his organization, in the Holy Land Foundation trial and is identified in federal wiretaps of a top-level Hamas meeting held in Philadelphia in 1993.
 
This symbiotic relationship between the OIC, Georgetown, and CAIR is expressed in their unity to promote the OIC’s “Islamophobia” agenda. But the attempts to pull off the Georgetown conference to that end experienced some setbacks, according to additional documents obtained from our law enforcement source.
 
A letter dated July 19, 2007, from OIC official Sukru Tujan to Nihad Awad and then-CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed directed them to transfer $62,100 to Georgetown for costs associated with a scheduled September 20, 2007, workshop and speech at the university by OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu (his speech can be found on Georgetown’s website). The letter also asked for the prompt return of the remainder of the $325,000 to the OIC, as the conference could not be organized in 2007. The letter notes this arrangement had previously been discussed, probably at the meeting between Awad and Ihsanoglu in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, at OIC headquarters two weeks before where they discussed joint OIC-CAIR projects.
 
But CAIR chairman Ahmed replied with a letter to Ihsangolu dated July 27, 2007, complaining that returning the remainder of the $325,000 to the OIC would hinder their efforts to organize a joint symposium at a later date. He also noted that they already incurred $19,700 in expenses for the event. A faxed reply from Ihsangolu dated July 20, 2007, cited auditing requirements for the return of the money and concerns that another partner may need to be found, possibly due to CAIR’s legal and media troubles at the time.
 
Notwithstanding that dispute and the delay in organizing the proposed “Islamophobia” symposium, the three organizations continue to jointly push their shared agenda. Both John Esposito and CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab were scheduled to speak at an OIC conference held at the American Islamic College in Chicago last September.
 
And other American universities have lined up to promote the OIC “Islamophobia” agenda, most recently the University of California, Berkeley, which hosted the “Islamophobia Production and Redefining the Global ‘Security’ Agenda for the 21st Century” just this past April. That UC Berkeley conference was co-sponsored by the OIC’s Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IESCO) and CAIR, and featured IESCO representative Papa Toumane Ndiaey and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad as speakers.
 
The documents we are presenting here for the first time put the lie to CAIR’s repeated claims that they have never received foreign funding, and their denials that they promote the extremist agenda of hostile foreign nations. This, however, is hardly breaking news.
 
That some of America’s top universities are actively colluding with the Islamic foreign governments — most of whom have refused to sign the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights — is troubling enough. But signing onto and openly promoting the OIC’s stated agenda of criminalizing “Islamophobia” puts them in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections, and raises serious questions about their eligibility for public funding.
 
This is clearly an issue for Congress to investigate immediately.
 
Patrick Poole is a regular contributor to Pajamas Media, and an anti-terrorism consultant to law enforcement and the military.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 16, 2011, 08:16:16 PM

 :?

Let me get this straight.  Someone gives you millions upon millions of dollars, especially in this economy.

And all they want is for you to organize a conference on Islamophobia?  Yet this IS a very real problem in America.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/09/opinion/la-oew-esposito-islamophobia-20100909

"But signing onto and openly promoting the OIC’s stated agenda of criminalizing “Islamophobia” puts them in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections, and raises serious questions about their eligibility for public funding."    :?  I thought hate crimes were illegal and not protected by the first amendment....
 
As for the money....
But no, you are saying you should refuse the money right?   :-o
Huh?  These are our "allies" giving us this money.  And the schools are desperate.  Who else is going to fund them?

Or maybe "This is clearly an issue for Congress to investigate immediately."

What a joke.  UCLA and Berkeley are taking MORE foreign students because they need the money versus CA students.
I think it's wrong, but where is Congress?  And this is far more important than big donations in exchange for a "conference". 

But then I guess if it was a Conservative Republican Conference it would ok?   :?

And they would NEVER donate money to help their cause....   :-o
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 08:34:01 PM

 :?

Let me get this straight.  Someone gives you millions upon millions of dollars, especially in this economy.

Just out of pure goodness, right?

And all they want is for you to organize a conference on Islamophobia?  Yet this IS a very real problem in America.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/09/opinion/la-oew-esposito-islamophobia-20100909

Very smart JDN, quote from John Esposito,. Did you think this might be relevant? "John Esposito, the CMCU’s director, described Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian at an August 2007 CAIR fundraiser in Dallas as “a good friend of mine,” even hiring Al-Arian’s son Abdullah as a researcher for the center. Esposito’s protégé, Hadia Mubarak, who now operates as a researcher at the Gallup Poll’s Muslim World project, is a virulent bigot who has gone so far as accusing other Muslims as having “a deep hatred of Islam” for daring to criticize American Islamic organizations and institutions that are Saudi-financed and promote their extremist Wahhabi agenda — such as the Georgetown CMCU."

"But signing onto and openly promoting the OIC’s stated agenda of criminalizing “Islamophobia” puts them in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections, and raises serious questions about their eligibility for public funding."    :?  I thought hate crimes were illegal and not protected by the first amendment....

Although "hate crimes" are another debate, the OIC wants to outlaw "thought crimes" and institute sharia speech laws.
 
As for the money....
But no, you are saying you should refuse the money right?   :-o
Huh?  These are our "allies" giving us this money. 

HAMAS is our ally?

And the schools are desperate.  Who else is going to fund them?

Or maybe "This is clearly an issue for Congress to investigate immediately."

What a joke.  UCLA and Berkeley are taking MORE foreign students because they need the money versus CA students.
I think it's wrong, but where is Congress?  And this is far more important than big donations in exchange for a "conference". 

But then I guess if it was a Conservative Republican Conference it would ok?   :?

And they would NEVER donate money to help their cause....   :-o

Yes, HAMAS and Saudi money is exactly the same as a conservative republican conference.  :roll:

The diference being that the left tolerates and encourages jihadists on campus while working to prevent conservatives from having access.
 

Title: Inventing moderate islam
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 08:59:33 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy

August 24, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Inventing Moderate Islam
It can’t be done without confronting mainstream Islam and its sharia agenda.

‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah, an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.
 
This was Qaradawi the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.” (G M- I guess we could call this "Manufacturing dissent", right?)
 
And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Feisal Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, this promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.
 
It is also worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. The excerpt from his book continues:
 

As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.
 
Apostasy is an explosive accusation. On another occasion, Sheikh Qaradawi explained that “Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished.” He further acknowledged that the consensus view of these jurists, including the principal schools of both Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence, is “that apostates must be executed.”
 
Qaradawi’s own view is more nuanced, as he explained to the Egyptian press in 2005. This, I suppose, is where his vaunted reformist streak comes in. For private apostasy, in which a Muslim makes a secret, personal decision to renounce tenets of Islam and quietly goes his separate way without causing a stir, the sheikh believes ostracism by the Islamic community is a sufficient penalty, with the understanding that Allah will condemn the apostate to eternal damnation at the time of his choosing. For public apostasy, however, Qaradawi stands with the overwhelming weight of Islamic authority: “The punishment . . .  is execution.”
 
The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position — the mainstream Islamic position — that sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between sharia societies and Western societies.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 16, 2011, 08:59:50 PM

I think conservatives SHOULD have equal access.  And equal opportunity to donate money (I hope they do)
to our underfunded colleges.  Prohibiting either the left or the right is wrong.  I LIKE to hear both sides.

So bring on the money, bring on the right, the left, and let the students learn and the college benefit.

And yeah, if I donated 77 million, I expect a say on how it's used.  So what else is new?

But don't be absurd and say Congress should investigate because a respected individual or Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or whomever donates
millions of dollars to a college.  If China donated millions for a Chinese studies program, I'm sure the college would take it too.  But some
strings would be attached.  That's life.

Or is Congress going to make up the severe money gap at many colleges today?    :?

Title: Double standard
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 09:13:25 PM

May 12, 2010
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'... Anything about Shariah Law
By Alan Foster

Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General of The United States and former Dean of the Harvard Law School, exemplifies selective outrage. She knows a lot about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when it comes to ROTC on the Harvard Campus, but wears official blinders when it comes to Islamic treatment of homosexuals.


When Professor Kagan ascended to the position of Dean of the Law School, Harvard was in a quandary over military recruitment. Long opposed to the military's policy towards openly gay men and women but ever solicitous of the greenbacks offered by the federal government, the school tried to hedge its bets on the Solomon Amendment, passed in 1994, which required the Secretary of Defense to deny federal grants to institutions of higher learning that prohibited or prevented ROTC or military recruitment on campus. And who better to circumvent the law's intent than the serried ranks of lawyers in Cambridge, Massachusetts? They argued that Washington money should still flow because even though the college placement office was barred to recruiters, ROTC courses could be offered by the Harvard Law School Veterans' Association. 


Training on campus was still verboten for Harvard ROTC candidates, and they were forced to travel down the road to MIT to fulfill their training obligations. Too clever by half? Some congressmen thought so, and they responded by fortifying the act in 2001 by passing an amendment that denied all funding -- not just to law schools, but to the entire institution that prohibited or prevented recruiting. Although Dean Kagan did not sign a petition along with many of Harvard's Law School faculty opposing the Solomon Amendment, she did join two amicus briefs in that regard, one submitted to the Supreme Court.


In 2006, The Supreme Court upheld the law, and only two schools refused to comply, thus forfeiting federal largesse. Now, these facts are widely known to the legal community and to many in the country at large. What is not so well-known is Dean Kagan's contemporaneous approval of and promotion of a little-known but richly endowed Harvard Law School program called The Islamic Legal Studies Program. What does all this have to do with Elena Kagan and her principled stand on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" It has a lot to do with honesty, integrity, and Harvard's vaunted advocacy for human rights.


The Harvard Islamic Legal Studies Program was made part of Harvard Law School in 1991 with significant funding from distinctly undemocratic sources, mainly from the Gulf States. The program purports to be a research program "that seeks to advance knowledge and understanding of Islamic law." The program works closely with the Harvard Islamic Finance Project, which became an official part of the Law School in 2003, the same year Professor Kagan was awarded the title of Dean. 


But is it strictly a "research program"? A few times a year, the directors of the Finance Program take groups of promising Law School and Harvard Business School students to the Middle East on junkets to learn the intricate and arcane practices of Sharia Compliant Finance. Many of these promising students go on to work for such banks and investment firms as the Kuwait Finance House, HSBC Amanah Bank, and the Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank. The intertwined programs, it would seem, go far beyond mere "research" projects.  Shariah Finance, it should be noted, is the Islamic approach to investing, mortgage lending, and a host of other money-related practices. Along with its prohibitions on interest accrual and trading in commodities such as pork, alcohol, and gambling is an overarching negative view of homosexuality. Negative, that is, to the point of advocating violence against gays. 


Whatever dim views one may hold on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. Military, the policy pales in comparison to the outright calls to violence enunciated by some of the Islamic world's most prestigious and powerful Shariah advisors.


Case in point: Meet Sheikh Muhammed Taqi Usmani, former appellate court judge in Pakistan, a Deobandi (one of the most extreme Pakistani schools of Islam, associated with the Pakistani Taliban)-trained jurist and chief Shariah advisor to the HSBC Amanah Bank, one of the world's largest and richest banks and one of the sponsors of Harvard's Islamic Finance Project. Among other delightful quotes from Sheikh Usmani:


For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad (from Islam and Modernism)


Also from Usmani's book: "Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered."


Apparently, these kinds of medieval barbarities did not rise to the level of immorality embodied in the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. At any rate, Dean Kagan never objected to the underlying principles of the program at her law school. Perhaps topics from the program like "Recent Trends and Innovations in Islamic Debt Securities" distracted her from the fundamental discriminatory underpinnings of Sharia Law.


The idea that Harvard Law School would abide such opinions emanating from less well-heeled spokesmen is not even worthy of consideration. Imagine the nation's preeminent law school hosting a program on "white supremacist law and finance." It's all about the money, of course. In addition to the funding of the Islamic Legal Studies Program, other Muslim plutocrats like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who dropped twenty million dollars into Harvard's coffers a few years ago, have had a tremendous influence on the university and its culture.

If Sheikh Usmani's views on jihad were not repellent enough, keep in mind that homosexuality has been a crime under Shariah Law in his native Pakistan since 1860. According to that country's penal code, enforced by Judge Usmani, Article 377 states:


Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.


And here, the chief Shariah Adviser to the sponsors of Harvard's program writes:


It is the same modernity that has engulfed the whole world in the tornado of nudity and obscenity, and has provided an excuse for fornication, and moreso it has led under thunderclaps to the passage of a bill in the British House of Commons to legalize homosexuality (Islam and Modernism).


Suddenly "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" seems pretty benign. 


Not only does the Harvard program feature homophobic and "homicidal" clerics, but even the Harvard Muslim Student Chaplain, Taha Abdul-Basser, who has lectured regularly at the Islamic Finance Project, declared apostasy from Islam a capital (not the finance kind) offense:

Abdul-Basser wrote that there was "great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand (The Harvard Crimson April 14, 2009).


Dean Kagan's reticence about these programs at her own law school should raise serious questions of integrity, sincerity, forthrightness, and ultimately, honesty.

Alan Foster is a pseudonym.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2010/05/dont_askdont_tell_anything_abo_1.html at June 16, 2011 - 11:07:38 PM CDT

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2011, 09:17:33 PM

I interrupt GM's schooling of JDN to express a moment of exasperation. (sorryJDN, that's how I see it  :lol:)  GM, I love you man, but does this series of posts really belong in this thread?  Hint: the correct answer is NO. :lol:  This could properly belong in the Educatin thread on SCH forum or Cog. Dis. of the Left on this forum, or Ialam in America , , , but it really does not belong here.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 09:29:45 PM

Well Crafty I think there is a continuity to this thread, meaning that the anti-Israel indoctrination you find in academia isn't accidental. Although the left hates Israel as it hates the rest of the west, the jihadist money buying scholars has a real impact on Israel along with the "Pallywood" propaganda mindlessly parrotted by the global media.

Look at all the praise for Noam Chomsky from Andrew, who I'm guessing was utterly unaware of the ugly truths about this very influential figure in academic circles. And he's supposed to be the scholar.

Title: More Pallywood goodness
Post by: G M on June 16, 2011, 09:37:11 PM

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-pallywood.html

Thursday, June 16, 2011
More Pallywood
This photo of an Israeli soldier standing on a young Palestinian girl is making the rounds on the internet and evoking enormous anti-Israel vitriol:

Read it all.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2011, 09:43:39 PM

GM:

I get the connection, but if someone were looking for Arab Muslim money corrupting the integrity of US higher education, they would not be looking for it on this thread.

BTW, I aboslutely LOVE the Pallywood material!!! It most certainly DOES belong here.

Title: WSJ: The Jewish Right of Return
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 20, 2011, 06:48:42 AM

By WARREN KOZAK

It is doubtful that there has ever been a more miserable human refuse than Jewish survivors after World War II. Starving, emaciated, stateless—they were not welcomed back by countries where they had lived for generations as assimilated and educated citizens. Germany was no place to return to and in Kielce, Poland, 40 Jews who survived the Holocaust were killed in a pogrom one year after the war ended. The European Jew, circa 1945, quickly went from victim to international refugee disaster.

Yet within a very brief time, this epic calamity disappeared, so much so that few people today even remember the period. How did this happen in an era when Palestinian refugees have continued to be stateless for generations?

In 1945, there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors living in DP Camps (displaced persons) across Europe. They were fed and clothed by Jewish and international relief organizations. Had the world's Jewish population played this situation as the Arabs and Palestinians have, everything would look very different today.

To begin with, the Jews would all still be living in these DP camps, only now the camps would have become squalid ghettos throughout Europe. The refugees would continue to be fed and clothed by a committee similar to UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (paid for mostly by the United States since 1948). Blessed with one of the world's highest birth rates, they would now number in the many millions. And 66 years later, new generations, fed on a mixture of hate and lies against the Europeans, would now seethe with anger.


Sometime in the early 1960s, the Jewish leadership of these refugee camps, having been trained in Moscow to wreak havoc on the West (as Yasser Arafat was) would have started to employ terrorism to shake down governments. Airplane hijackings in the 1970s would have been followed by passenger killings. There would have been attacks on high-profile targets as well—say, the German or Polish Olympic teams.

By the 1990s, the real mayhem would have begun. Raised on victimhood and used as cannon fodder by corrupt leaders, a generation of younger Jews would be blowing up buses, restaurants and themselves. The billions of dollars extorted from various governments would not have gone to the inhabitants of the camps. The money would be in the Swiss bank accounts of the refugees' famous and flamboyant leaders and their lackies.

So now it's the present, generations past the end of World War II, and the festering Jewish refugee problem throughout Europe has absolutely no end in sight. The worst part of this story would be the wasted lives of millions of human beings in the camps—inventions not invented, illnesses not cured, high-tech startups not started up, symphonies and books not written—a real cultural and spiritual desert.

None of this happened, of course. Instead, the Jewish refugees returned to their ancestral homeland. They left everything they had in Europe and turned their backs on the Continent—no "right of return" requested. They were welcomed by the 650,000 Jewish residents of Israel.

An additional 700,000 Jewish refugees flooded into the new state from Arab lands after they were summarily kicked out. Again losing everything after generations in one place; again welcomed in their new home.

In Israel, they did it all the hard way. They built a new country from scratch with roads, housing and schools. They created agricultural collectives to feed their people. They created a successful economy without domestic oil, and they built one of the world's most vibrant democracies in a region sadly devoid of free thought.

Yes, the Israelis did all this with the financial assistance of Jews around the world and others who helped get them on their feet so they could take care of themselves. These outsiders did not ignore them, or demean them, or use them as pawns in their own political schemes—as the Arab nations have done with the Palestinians.

I imagine the argument will be made that while the Jews may have achieved all this, they did not have their land stolen from them. This is, of course, a canard, another convenient lie. They did lose property all over Europe and the Mideast. And there was never an independent Palestine run by Palestinian Arabs. Ever. Jews and Arabs lived in this area controlled first by the Turks and then by the British. The U.N. offered the two-state solution that we hear so much about in 1947. The problem then, and now, is that it was accepted by only one party, Israel. No doubt, the situation of Arab residents of the Middle East back then may have been difficult, but it is incomprehensible that their lot was worse than that of the Jews at the end of World War II.

We don't hear about any of this because giving human beings hope and purpose doesn't make great copy. Squalor, victimhood and terror are always more exciting. Perhaps in the end, the greatest crime of the Jews was that they quietly created something from nothing. And in the process, they transformed themselves.

Golda Meir is credited with having said that if the Jews had not fought back against the Arab armies and had been destroyed in 1948, they would have received the most beautiful eulogies throughout the world. Instead, they chose to stand their ground and defend themselves. And in winning, they received the world's condemnation. Meir said she would take the condemnation over the eulogies.

Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).

Title: Commerce, not Conquest
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on June 21, 2011, 09:09:02 AM

Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel
The real history of Israel’s founding, and why it matters

Zionists stole Palestinian land: That’s the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance, as Palestinian Media Watch explains: “Presenting the creation of the [Israeli] state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA’s non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” The accusation of theft also undermines Israel’s position internationally.

But is this accusation true?

No, it is not. Ironically, the building of Israel represents almost the most peaceable in-migration and state creation in history. Understanding why requires seeing Zionism in context. Simply put, conquest is the historical norm. Governments everywhere have been established through invasion and nearly all states came into being at someone else’s expense. No one is permanently in charge; everyone’s roots trace back to somewhere else.

Germanic tribes, Central Asian hordes, Russian tsars, and Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors remade the map. Modern Greeks have only a tenuous connection to the Greeks of antiquity. Who can count the number of times Belgium was overrun? The United States came into existence after the defeat of Native Americans. Kings marauded in Africa, Aryans invaded India. In Japan, Yamato-speakers eliminated all but tiny groups such as the Ainu.

The Middle East, due to its centrality and geography, has experienced more than its share of invasions, including the Greek, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Seljuk, Timurid, Mongolian, and modern European. Within the region, dynastic froth caused the same territory — Egypt for example — to be conquered and re-conquered.

The land that now makes up Israel was no exception. In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: “No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history.” He backs up that claim, counting “at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past four millennia.” He calculates Jerusalem to have been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The PA fantasizes that today’s Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, they are overwhelmingly the offspring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities.

Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.

Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine “to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry,” was the key institution — and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.

Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom, but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.

Only when the British Mandate of Palestine gave up power in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self-defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

This history contradicts the Palestinian account that “Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people” which led to a catastrophe “unprecedented in history” (according to a PA twelfth-grade textbook) or that Zionists “plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people” (writes a columnist in the PA’s daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.

Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine. Merchants purchased Israel.

— Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270064/not-stealing-palestine-purchasing-israel-daniel-pipes

Title: Flotilla 2, the prequel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2011, 09:34:49 AM

http://townhall.com/news/world/2011/06/30/gaza_flotilla_organizers_2nd_ship_sabotaged

Title: ICE adds Israel to list
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 02, 2011, 12:29:03 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-adds-israel-to-promoter-producer-or-protector-of-terrorists-list/

==============

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ry-tends-promo

"As a matter of policy, according to the inspector general’s report, citizens of Israel and other “specially designated countries” are subjected to a special security screening called a “Third Agency Check” (TAC) when they are actually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing the immigration laws. ICE officers are supposed to check all aliens they take into custody against the Terrorist Watchlist, which includes the identities of individuals the U.S. government knows or reasonably suspects to be terrorists. When ICE holds a citizen from a “specially designated country” in its own detention facilities, according to the agency’s standing policy, the individual is also supposed to be run through a TAC. In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist screening, ICE uses a Third Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from specially designated countries (SDCs)...The purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien,” says the report."


Israel has a substantial Arab population which is obviously a terrorist threat. The only thing this designation means is that if an Arab Israeli on our terror watchlist gets caught, instead of being handled solely by ICE, other agencies, like State, CIA or FBI, will be notified about the detainee. Why?


“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” Christensen said in a written statement. “Countries may have been included on the list because of the backgrounds of arrestees, not because of the country’s government itself. The United States maintains close intelligence-sharing relationships with many of these countries in order to address security issues within their own borders and in our mutual pursuit of safety and security around the globe,” said Christensen."


The ultimate purpose is to HELP Israel by insuring that if we snag one of their Arab citizens on a terror watchlist, intelligence will be shared. It does NOT mean that Israelis in general are going to be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Please note the obvious fact that Israel HAS NOT ISSUED ANY FORMAL PROTEST. Bibi was more than willing to bitch-slap Obama when he was here; if this was something Israel didn't want, we would have heard about it by now. The website for the Isreali Ministry of Foreign Affairs, complete with up to the minute press releases, is here;


http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA

==================

Marc:  By this logic Great Britain and its Copmmonwealth should be on the list too.   Why would North Korea be removed?   Seems like somebody is up to something nefarious. 

Title: Taglit-Birthright Israel
Post by: JDN on July 05, 2011, 07:47:59 AM

I came across this comment while reading something completely off topic, I was reading about international trade and business, yet the author found Taglit-Birthright interesting and successful so
I checked into it further.  I had never heard of it, but it seems like a great program for many reasons.  See link below.

From the article I read.
"A good model could be Taglit-Birthright Israel, a private organization funded by private and public donors and overseen by a board of directors including many business heavyweights. Taglit-Birthright Israel organizes trips for young Jews to spend 10 days in Israel every summer. The program is open to virtually any non-Israeli Jewish young person at no cost (even airfare is included!). The program is intended to engender solidarity with Israel and surely is also subtly geared toward encouraging participants to settle in Israel and contribute their talents to the economic development of the state."

http://www.birthrightisrael.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Title: Experts call Israel a ‘laboratory’ for eco-innovation
Post by: Rachel on July 13, 2011, 05:43:11 AM

Experts call Israel a ‘laboratory’ for eco-innovation
http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=229096
By SHARON UDASIN
13/07/2011   
Statements come at UN Economics Commission conference in TA; "Israel good at doing more with less," says chief economic adviser to PM.
 
Strategists from around the world agreed that “Israel is a laboratory” for eco-innovation and can serve as a platform for larger countries looking to harness sustainable technology during a special conference held by the United Nations Economics Commission in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.

The meeting, called “Promoting Eco-Innovation: Policies and Opportunities, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,” included members of the commission, Israeli contributors and other experts from across the globe, who strategized about how to generate policies and achieve cooperation to further the spread and efficiency of green technology tools.

“Israel is a laboratory of innovative policies and practices in many areas, including technologies, financing and project management,” said Jan Kubis, UN under-secretary general and executive secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Europe.

“Perhaps such a laboratory could serve as a training center that could share its experiences gained here and help other countries.”

Eugene Kandel, head of the Israel Economic Council and chief economic adviser to the prime minister, agreed with Kubis, adding, “We see Israel as a global lab.”

“We’re pretty good at inventing innovative solutions that are applicable and can be put together pretty quickly,” Kandel said.

As a culture of immigrants who have historically tackled difficult issues, said Kandel, Israel is particularly suited to battle global sustainability challenges, such as food, water and energy.

“What characterizes [immigrants] is that they can’t do things the way their ancestors did,” he said, noting that even when he came to Israel in 1977, it was an entirely different country.


 But by the 1980s, solar water heaters were a regular on Israeli residences, and today the country has become a major exporter of eco-technologies, he added.

“We are able to not only feed the population but export,” Kandel said. “We are leaders in the world of reusage of water and are probably the leaders in desalination as well. Within three years, Israel won’t be dependent on nature for its water needs.”

In addition to water desalination tools, Kandel mentioned agricultural technology, irrigation and livestock farming as some of Israel’s exportable strengths.

“We are looking to develop these ideas in Israel, try them out here and then globally expand them,” Kandel said.

Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan said that the challenge after inventing such solutions, however, is the responsibility “to translate the success in areas such as information technology, agricultural production and medical breakthroughs into workable ecological and environmental innovations.”

Such solutions are crucial across the globe, Erdan said, stressing that economist Thomas Malthus’s prediction that a population explosion would wipe out the food supply was wrong.

“He could not foresee the technological development of the 20th century,” Erdan said. “Technological development of the 20th century will need to be superseded by eco-innovation of the 21st century, all of this to prevent and minimize environmental contamination and halt natural resource degradation.”

In order to really push forward eco-innovation, citizens everywhere must aim to “reduce environmental impact of any activity,” agreed Salvatore Zecchini, vicechair of UN Economic Commission for Europe Committee on Economic Cooperation and Integration and chair of OECD Working Party on Small to Medium Enterprises and Entrepreneurship. According to Zecchini, environmental advances can rarely occur successfully without the cooperation of neighboring states.

“Eco-innovation is doing more with less,” Kandel added.

“The only reason that Malthus is being proven wrong again and again [is] because people are learning to do much more with much less. And I think Israel is a great example of this.”

Title: Re: Experts call Israel a ‘laboratory’ for eco-innovation
Post by: G M on July 13, 2011, 05:50:13 AM

Quote from: Rachel on July 13, 2011, 05:43:11 AM

Experts call Israel a ‘laboratory’ for eco-innovation
http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=229096

This is part of Israel's problem. In our post-modern, post-moral world, innovation and accomplishment is to be punished while pathology is rewarded.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2011, 08:16:35 AM

GM:

I'd suggest you search "Gilder" here and read his pieces which I have posted on the subject of Israel.  There is quote a story there.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 13, 2011, 09:38:40 AM

Going off on a tangent, I believe one of the main reasons for Israel's success IS it's immigration policy openly accepting/inviting
Jews from all over the world.  They bring vibrancy, creativity, and positive "can do" attitude.  Immigration gets panned on this forum, but
without it, I think countries stagnate. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 13, 2011, 09:48:44 AM

Quote from: JDN on July 13, 2011, 09:38:40 AM

Going off on a tangent, I believe one of the main reasons for Israel's success IS it's immigration policy openly accepting/inviting
Jews from all over the world.  They bring vibrancy, creativity, and positive "can do" attitude.  Immigration gets panned on this forum, but
without it, I think countries stagnate. 

It does? I doubt many here have any problem with LEGAL immigration.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 13, 2011, 09:56:48 AM

We are going off on a immigration tangent here, but Israel's open and successful policy of accepting/inviting anyone (if they are a Jew) is quite a contrast to our immigration policy.  Others on this Forum have suggested not only clamping down on illegal immigration, but also limiting legal immigration.  While I too think illegal immigration is an issue, I think we should vastly open up legal immigration. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2011, 10:38:58 AM

I think you misapprehend the general view around here.  I, and most here I think, would be delighted to have hard working educated investor entrepeneurial type people who want to learn English and become Americans coming here.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 13, 2011, 12:35:59 PM

Actually, there have been posts saying we should cut back legal immigration.

Further, while it is easy to accept only those who are "educated or the investor" ....... Israel accepts everyone and anyone (who is a Jew) whether they be
educated, rich or poor, young or old.  Israel seems better off for it.  Just a thought. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2011, 01:52:13 PM

Well, we've been doing the same thing too; as a matter of fact we've been so strict about it there somewhere between 12,000,000 and 20,000,000 of them.

OTOH, the investor class, the educated, the rules following, the English speaking, seem to have a harder time of it , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 13, 2011, 02:01:32 PM

Quote from: JDN on July 13, 2011, 12:35:59 PM

Actually, there have been posts saying we should cut back legal immigration.

Further, while it is easy to accept only those who are "educated or the investor" ....... Israel accepts everyone and anyone (who is a Jew) whether they be
educated, rich or poor, young or old.  Israel seems better off for it.  Just a thought. 

And Israel has had problems as a result. Lots of Russian/eastern european immigrants to Israel had little to no attachment to any Jewish identity, some in fact weren't Jewish in any way, but saw opportunity in claiming an Israeli passport. You have places in Israel where 2nd. generation immigrants speak only Russian and self-identify as Russia. Israeli law enforcement struggles to deal with both the jihadist threat and the eastern european organized crime cartels that have set up shop in Israel.

Title: Flotilla 2, the tune-up?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 19, 2011, 04:40:48 PM

Dispatch: Israel Intercepts Ship Bound for Gaza
July 19, 2011 | 2232 GMT
Click on image below to watch video:



Though a recent interception and boarding of a French-flagged yacht bound for Gaza occured without incident, military analyst Nate Hughes says Israel’s relationships with regimes around the region remain troubled by the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ and the potential for a resurgence of pro-Palestinian sentiment.


Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

A single ship associated with the so-called second flotilla bound for Gaza was intercepted and boarded by the Israeli navy, but what’s important about this is not this minor incident — the Israelis regularly intercept ships attempting to breach the blockade into Gaza — but that so far, the incident has failed to achieve any sort of notoriety that was found in 2010 with the Mavi Marmara flotilla.

In this most recent incident, the Israeli navy first intercepted and then boarded a French-flagged yacht attempting to breach the blockade and make a run to Gaza. This is the only ship of the larger flotilla that has been able to leave Greek port. The rest are bound up there for varied administrative and bureaucratic reasons, deliberately so, but have been unable to leave port.

Tactically, this is a much more manageable problem. The problem for the Israelis in 2010, with the big flotilla incident, was that the Mavi Marmara was a large ferry, overloaded and carrying over 1,000 people and there were a number of ships in company with it that the Israelis had to manage, essentially all at once. In that incidence, the Israelis attempted to board and scuffles with the passengers led to a number of injuries among the Israeli commandos and ultimately resulted in nine dead Turkish citizens. That incident sparked an enormous political backlash against the Israelis. The Israelis learned a great deal from that raid and were certainly prepared at this point to deal with whatever the flotilla activists attempted to push through the blockade, but they have obviously made great strides in preventing the flotilla from forming in the first place.

But the important thing about the current time is the context of the so-called Arab Spring. Where as in 2010 the Israelis were in a very strong position. The Arab Spring has changed the context a little bit. Israel has sort of gotten to the point where it was taking for granted its relationship with, for example, the Mubarak regime in Egypt. While that regime is still in place, minus Mubarak, the problem is that Cairo is walking a much finer line with its own people than it has been in the past and it is very focused on containing the unrest. What this means is that if the unrest in Egypt and in the wider region were to take on, not just the current Democratic and disaffected nature, but took on a more pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli line, that would put a number of regimes in the region upon which Israel relies for, if not overt, at least covert and clandestine coordination assistance, in a much more difficult place and could make Israel’s immediate neighborhood a lot more difficult to manage.

Title: Understanding UN Bias Against Israel
Post by: Rachel on July 20, 2011, 05:33:53 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8&feature=youtu.be

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Title: The Truth About the West Bank
Post by: Rachel on July 22, 2011, 02:50:55 PM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo&feature=player_embedded#at=129[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo&feature=player_embedded#at=129

Uploaded by DannyAyalon on Jul 12, 2011
Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms "West Bank", "occupied territories" and "67 Borders" originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied. Also follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DannyAyalon and http://facebook.com/DannyAyalon

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 23, 2011, 08:38:44 AM

"The truth about The West Bank"?  In the interest of equal time and fairness, let's hear from another Jewish man. The viewpoint of most of the world, including most of our allies, in contrast to Minister Ayalon's opinion.

"So why are the pro-Israel organizations talking about it? The answer is simple: They are trying to divert attention from the intensifying world opposition to the occupation of the West Bank and to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, both of which, by almost any standard, are illegitimate. They are trying to divert attention from the ever-expanding settlements, which are not only illegitimate but illegal under international law. They are trying to divert attention from the ever-louder calls for Israel to grant Palestinians equal rights."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rosenberg-israel-20110717,0,2484770.story

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 23, 2011, 12:23:04 PM

Quote from: JDN on July 23, 2011, 08:38:44 AM

"The truth about The West Bank"?  In the interest of equal time and fairness, let's hear from another Jewish man. The viewpoint of most of the world, including most of our allies, in contrast to Minister Ayalon's opinion.

"So why are the pro-Israel organizations talking about it? The answer is simple: They are trying to divert attention from the intensifying world opposition to the occupation of the West Bank and to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, both of which, by almost any standard, are illegitimate. They are trying to divert attention from the ever-expanding settlements, which are not only illegitimate but illegal under international law. They are trying to divert attention from the ever-louder calls for Israel to grant Palestinians equal rights."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rosenberg-israel-20110717,0,2484770.story

Let me do a quick translation of the above:

"As anti-semites spread jew-hatred thinly disguised as a "concern for the arabs with the manufactured "palestinian" identity, they cite imaginary standards that no other country in the region is held to."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 23, 2011, 12:48:59 PM

GM,  Thank you for the helpful translation.  :-)

I took this: "[illegitimate] by almost any standard" to mean totally illegitimate, except if judged in the context of their silly fascination with survival.

Once again, if others would end their pledge to annihilate them, maybe we talk to Israeli about lightening up on these survival strategies that annoy everyone.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 23, 2011, 10:11:27 PM

 :lol:

Title: What do ‘Flotilla Folk’ do?
Post by: Rachel on July 28, 2011, 08:33:23 AM

What do ‘Flotilla Folk’ do?
By ROZ ROTHSTEIN AND ROBERTA SEID
07/25/2011 22:21
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=230957
Who are these people whose hatred of Israel makes them blind to reality?

Talkbacks (39)
When news emerged that “Freedom Flotilla 2” was tied up in Greece for weeks and unable to carry out its plan to breach Israel’s blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, a song from Camelot came to mind. Queen Guinevere asks, “What do the simple folk do... when they are blue?” and King Arthur tries to explain.

You have to ask the same question about the Flotilla Folk. Who are they, what do they do and why do they do it? Almost 1,500 of them from around the world planned to fly to Greece, board ships and sail across the Mediterranean to the Gaza Strip in July.

The Flotilla Folk say they are just ordinary folk committed to human rights. But how do ordinary folk have time for the complicated preparations necessary for such an adventure, and for spending weeks in Greece and Gaza? Don’t they have jobs? Or do they get their summers off? And how do ordinary folk have the funds to buy ships, fly to Greece, and spend weeks in hotels waiting to launch the latest publicity stunt they have concocted to smear Israel?

How do they pay for their expensive human rights hobby? Apparently they don’t have to do much preparing. Established radical groups affiliated with Hamas take care of all the details, like the Union of Good (UoG), a coalition of European charities affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM has praised Palestinian suicide bombing as “noble,” spent the last 10 years training international volunteers to sabotage Israel’s security, and received official invitations from Hamas to come to Gaza.

These groups raise the money through their various affiliated “charities,” which sometimes generate funds through mainstream businesses. Or they raise money by misinforming well-meaning people about their purposes, as the US delegation to Gaza did by having the audacity to name its boat after President Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope.

But why would Flotilla Folk spend their vacations trying to violate Israel’s legal naval blockade of Gaza in order to visit and embrace Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls the territory? Flotilla Folk leaders like UoG and ISM support Hamas and its battle against Israel’s existence. Others, like Medea Benjamin, Col.

Ann Wright and Hedy Epstein have turned activism against Israel into full-time careers. Some Flotilla Folk are well-meaning people who simply accept, uncritically, the distorted facts used to demonize the country. Still others were once on the front lines of the battle for civil rights and against Apartheid.

BUT WHAT do such idealistic folk do when the problems they once fought have been resolved? Many, like Alice Walker, try to recapture those idealistic, heady times and camaraderie by seeing the same injustices even where they don’t exist, and ignoring them where they do exist. They gullibly accept the misinformation propagated by the UoG and ISM, and superimpose the lens of the civil rights or anti-Apartheid movements on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are entirely unaware that the multicultural Jewish state is among the most progressive in the world and has sought peace with its Arab neighbors since it was reestablished in 1948.

Many are journalists just looking for another great story about Israeli brutality. It always sells.

But Flotilla Folk want to be human rights heroes without really putting themselves in harm’s way. So they don’t go to help the victims of the brutal regimes in Syria, Iran, the Congo or Darfur.

Instead, they choose to fight Israel because they know it strictly follows Western humanitarian standards and the rule of law. They get to pretend they are brave warriors, when in fact, they are only play-acting on a safe stage.


 Whatever they do in their private lives and whatever lens they use, Flotilla Folk share a basic philosophy. They believe that the way to bring peace to the Middle East is through acts of civil disobedience that will get media attention, not through encouraging negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

They aren’t like ordinary people. They think it is okay to ignore terrorism against Israelis, to overlook the 8,000 rockets Hamas has fired from Gaza into Israeli communities over the past five years, turning everyday life into a lethal game of Russian roulette. They think it is okay to ignore the fact that Hamas is an Iranian proxy, and that Hamas’s founding document calls for the murder of Jews, the “obliteration” of Israel and its replacement with a fundamentalist theocracy that opposes all the freedoms and social justice values for which the Flotilla Folk claim to stand. And they think it’s okay to embrace Hamas, even though its founding document cites the anti-Semitic Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – a racist tract that was once called a “warrant for the genocide” of Jews.

They think it is okay to ignore terrorism from the West Bank – even the murder of the Fogel family, including a three-month-old infant, and the fact that the murderers showed no remorse for their savage act. And they act as though it is okay to ignore the hate-filled incitement that saturates Palestinian society and creates people like the Fogels’ murderers.

The Flotilla Folk are not like other people. They use repressive methods and manipulate information. Dutch journalists who had been part of the flotilla abandoned it in disgust after seeing these methods used. The one small boat that did finally attempt to sail to Gaza didn’t have any humanitarian goods on board – only Israel-haters. These flotilla folk spread hate, not hope. They support repressive forces in the Middle East, like Hamas, not the moderates seeking peaceful coexistence. They abuse and pervert human rights values instead of upholding them. They are enemies, not friends, of Palestinians and Israelis, and of the brave demonstrators in Syria, Iran and elsewhere, whom they ignore.

Fortunately international leaders, especially those in Greece, exposed the hypocrisy of the Flotilla Folk and their false pretenses, and stopped them. But Flotilla Folk don’t give up. With their zealotry, they will try to devise other media ops to destroy Israel’s international image. It is time to denounce these destructive campaigns and get serious about promoting peace. Anyone who truly yearns to see Israelis and Palestinians living in peaceful coexistence should stop indulging in disingenuous stunts and urge Palestinians to return to the negotiating table.

Roz Rothstein is the co-founder and CEO of StandWithUs, and Roberta Seid, PhD, is the director of education and research for StandWithUs.
Download JPost's iPhone application

Title: Where are they?
Post by: G M on July 28, 2011, 03:14:40 PM

Where are the flotillas to Syria? Iran?



Silly me. Flotillas to those places do nothing for jew-haters.

Title: Global Outrage!
Post by: G M on August 01, 2011, 10:37:36 AM

**Israeli tanks kill 80, world condemns Israel. Oh, Syria, not Israel. Nevermind.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/31/us-syria-idUSTRE76T02020110731

(Reuters) - Syrians began the Muslim Ramadan fast in somber mood on Monday after troops stormed into Hama, scene of a 1982 massacre, in one of the bloodiest days in a five-month-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

Rights activists said 80 civilians were killed in Sunday's tank-backed assault on the central Syrian city where Assad's father crushed an armed Muslim Brotherhood revolt 29 years ago, razing neighbourhoods and killing many thousands of people.

Security forces had besieged the Sunni Muslim city of 700,000 for nearly a month before the crackdown on the eve of Ramadan, a holy month when Muslims fast in daylight hours.

Many flock to mosque prayers at night, occasions which may provide opportunities for protests to multiply across Syria.

The Syrian state news agency said the military entered Hama to purge armed groups terrorising citizens, an account dismissed as "nonsense" by a U.S. diplomat in Damascus.

U.S. President Barack Obama said he was appalled by the Syrian government's "horrifying" violence against its people in Hama and promised to work with others to isolate Assad.

"Syria will be a better place when a democratic transition goes forward," Obama said in a statement on Sunday. (G M-Any minute now, right?)

Britain and France condemned the Hama assault. Italy urged a tough statement by the U.N. Security Council, where Russia and China have previously opposed any condemnation of Syria.

The European Union plans to extend sanctions on Monday by slapping asset freezes and travel bans on five more Syrians. EU sanctions already target Assad and at least two dozen officials, as well as Syrian firms linked to the military. (Wow, the EU will bring Assad to his knees, just like they did to Ka-daffy.)

Turkey, one of Assad's main allies until the uprising, said it and the rest of the Muslim world were "deeply disappointed" by the violence that belied Assad's earlier reform pledges.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on August 08, 2011, 08:19:24 AM

Public relations and public perception does matter.


"You've said recently that you think Israel's international reputation is at a low point. How do you quantify that?

It's low and will move even lower after September. I can't measure it, but I feel it was never as bad. I remember when we were the underdogs and the world embraced us. Even during the [2005 Gaza Strip] disengagement, the world loved us. Now I have the feeling that we are seen more like South Africa once was. It frustrates and upsets me because I know Israel is different from the way it's perceived. This is a wonderful country. But people don't understand what is going on."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-shalev-qa-20110808,0,2358239.story

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 08, 2011, 09:58:10 AM

Yes, JDN. Just like the anti-semetic propaganda from the nazi party in the 30's affected public perception.

Title: Historic
Post by: G M on August 08, 2011, 11:04:48 AM

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=115&x_article=522

The more things change.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 08, 2011, 01:22:26 PM

It seems legitimate to ask is it really in the US interest to defend Israel to the point of using military force?

Should US men and women be asked to die for Jews in Israel?

That said I don't understand why it seems the entire world is against Israel.

It must be the oil money behind this.

I just don't know.  What is so unreasonable about Jews wanting a secure homeland?

Just look any map at the pittance of the size of Israel to the land mass controlled by Muslims.

Clearly the world is following the lead of Obama who has shifted the US position in the Middle East.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 08, 2011, 01:32:54 PM

"It seems legitimate to ask is it really in the US interest to defend Israel to the point of using military force?"

You are supposed to defend your friends. That means Israel, it means Taiwan, it means Japan, it means the UK, Australia, Canada and so on.

Israel is a tiny speck of freedom and civilization in an ocean of savagery. Slogans mean nothing, it's the things we do or don't do that make us what we are, on both an individual level and on a national level as well. Abandoning Israel either out of some "realpolitik" strategy, or as in Obama's case, a dislike of the west and an alliance with the west's enemies is a disaster for us.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 08, 2011, 03:16:51 PM

Speaking of realpolitik , , , it is, or can be, our only remaining reliable outpost in the entirety of the mid-east , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 08, 2011, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on August 08, 2011, 03:16:51 PM

Speaking of realpolitik , , , it is, or can be, our only remaining reliable outpost in the entirety of the mid-east , , ,

It is in our interest from a "realpolitik" perspective to defend Israel. Those who insist otherwise use "realpolitik" as a fig leaf for their real motivation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on August 08, 2011, 07:37:59 PM

Quote from: ccp on August 08, 2011, 01:22:26 PM

It seems legitimate to ask is it really in the US interest to defend Israel to the point of using military force?

Should US men and women be asked to die for Jews in Israel?

That said I don't understand why it seems the entire world is against Israel.

It must be the oil money behind this.

I just don't know.  What is so unreasonable about Jews wanting a secure homeland?

Just look any map at the pittance of the size of Israel to the land mass controlled by Muslims.

Clearly the world is following the lead of Obama who has shifted the US position in the Middle East.

 

I think you raise good points.

However, I Obama is not leading; he is following the rest of the world.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 08, 2011, 07:43:44 PM

Quote from: JDN on August 08, 2011, 07:37:59 PM

Quote from: ccp on August 08, 2011, 01:22:26 PM

It seems legitimate to ask is it really in the US interest to defend Israel to the point of using military force?

Should US men and women be asked to die for Jews in Israel?

That said I don't understand why it seems the entire world is against Israel.

It must be the oil money behind this.

I just don't know.  What is so unreasonable about Jews wanting a secure homeland?

Just look any map at the pittance of the size of Israel to the land mass controlled by Muslims.

Clearly the world is following the lead of Obama who has shifted the US position in the Middle East.

 

I think you raise good points.

However, I Obama is not leading; he is following the rest of the world.

Where is the rest of the world on the people being butchered in Syria? Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd think there was some sort of double standard.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on August 09, 2011, 08:29:57 AM

Israel seems to be changing; for the better.  Back to it's roots.

___

Israel protests show nation's beating heart

Protests led by the young have rekindled the spirit that built the nation.

Amos Oz

August 9, 2011   L.A. Times


Israel has never been an egalitarian state. But in its heyday, it was more egalitarian than most states in the world. The poverty wasn't acute and the wealth wasn't ostentatious, and social responsibility toward the poor and needy was shown not only on the economic level but on the emotional level too.

In the earlier Israel, those who worked — and almost all the women and men worked very hard — could make a modest but respectable living for themselves and their families. The new immigrants, the refugees, the immigrant camp dwellers all received public education, health services and housing. Young, poor Israel was a master social-entrepreneur.

But all that has been destroyed in the past 30 years, as a succession of Israeli governments encouraged and inflamed the economic jungle laws of grab as grab can.

Many Israelis are now saying they've had enough. Last month, thousands of people took to the streets to protest soaring housing prices, setting up a tent encampment along upscale Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv. And their dissatisfaction has proved infectious. Parents have rallied against the high cost of child care; doctors have marched to protest hospital overcrowding.

The protest washing over Israel's streets and squares today has long ceased to be merely a protest over housing distress. The heart of this protest is the affront and outrage over the government's indifference to the people's suffering, the double standard against the working population and the destruction of social solidarity.

The heartwarming sights of the tent cities and demonstrations spreading through Israel's cities are in themselves a delightful revival of the kind of mutual fraternity and commitment that built the nation.

After all, the first thing these demonstrators are saying, even before "social justice" and "down with the government," is: "We are brethren."

The resources required for reestablishing social justice in Israel are located in three places:

First, the billions Israel has invested in the settlements, which are the greatest mistake in the state's history, as well as its greatest injustice.

Second, the mammoth sums channeled into the ultra-Orthodox yeshivas, where generations of ignorant bums are nurtured, filled with contempt toward the state, its people and the 21st century reality.

And third, and perhaps foremost, the passionate support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and its predecessors for the unbridled enrichment of various tycoons and their cronies, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Let us not forget where the wealth pouring into the settlements, the yeshivas and the tycoons' accounts comes from. It comes from the labor and creative talents of millions of Israelis who are carrying on their back a unique economic wonder of a state poor in natural gifts (we haven't started counting the natural gas yet), and rich in human resources.

Neither the parties nor the veteran opposition organizations generated this protest. It was born out of the devotion and enthusiasm of hundreds and thousands of young people who swept along in their wake the best people in the country.

It is profoundly moving to see the protest veterans of all generations, who for years were a voice calling in the wilderness, spending time in the tents of the youngsters, who are wisely leading the new protest.

People like me, who have protested for many years against the policy of Israel's governments, embrace this new generation, which surpasses the previous ones, with love and wonderment.

Israeli writer Amos Oz is the author of "Rhyming Life and Death," "A Tale of Love and Darkness," and many other works of fiction and nonfiction.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Title: Baraq Administration: Jerusalem not in Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2011, 05:58:33 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-the-white-house-cleanse-references-to-jerusalem-israel-from-its-web-site/

Title: Re: Baraq Administration: Jerusalem not in Israel
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 06:00:33 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2011, 05:58:33 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-the-white-house-cleanse-references-to-jerusalem-israel-from-its-web-site/

Wow. Good thing he wore a kippa at AIPAC. Otherwise some might question his commitment to Israel's survival.

Title: IS.REAL is a docu-reality web series which follows the lives of 4 young Israelis
Post by: Rachel on August 12, 2011, 05:07:21 PM

IS.REAL is a docu-reality web series which follows the lives of 4 young Israelis.
The project was initiated by students from the Tel Aviv University. The "Is.Real"series will cover the lives of four young Israelis from diverse social and ethnic backgrounds.
Through documenting their daily lives, their exposure will
provide a fresh new insight into the "real Israel" that isn't shown in news stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Auo2YCPuO8&feature=player_embedded


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Auo2YCPuO8&feature=related[/youtube]


 Here is the youtube page http://www.youtube.com/user/IsReal2011TLV    and here is the website http://www.isreal2011.com/

Title: Israel and its neighbors: Top Hamas engineer tells all
Post by: DougMacG on August 13, 2011, 10:50:21 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4107803,00.html

Top Hamas engineer tells all

Nabbed engineer Abu Sisi provides Israel with invaluable information about Hamas' operations, newly released documents reveal; terror group's military academy operated in Gaza mosques, he says

By Ilana Curiel  08.11.11, Israel News

Hamas engineer Dirar Abu Sisi, nabbed by Israeli security forces earlier this year, provided interrogators with priceless information on Hamas' modus operandi, the terror group's readiness for a clash with Israel and attempts to improve its rocket range.

According to interrogation excerpts, cleared for publication Thursday by the Beersheba District Court following Ynet's appeal, the Hamas engineer described the terror group as an orderly hierarchical organization that aims to learn from its mistakes and adapt to changing regional realities.

The engineer told interrogators that following Operation Cast Lead Gaza, top Hamas terrorist Mohammed Deif and the group's military wing commander Ahmed Jabari found Hamas' operations to be lacking and decided to make Abu Sisi in charge of establishing the organization's new military academy.

"An analysis of the war with Israel was undertaken. It found that a large number of Hamas activists ran away from their positions. A failure occurred in decision-making coupled with an inability to use arms during the battle – because of fear," he said. "A program of study had to be created, in order to improve the situation."

The new academy was tasked with imparting combat methods and tactics to Hamas terrorists, Abu Sisi said. Hamas men were undertaking their studies at mosques, while passing their final exams in known Gaza universities or in mosques.

"The books and academic materials did not bear the Hamas name or logo," he said. Instructors include university lecturers, education ministry officials, merchants and others.
 
Abu Sisi is believed to be Hamas' rocket expert. He joined the terror group in 2002, despite working for the Palestinian Electric Company, which forbade its employees from joining any group.

"I assisted Hamas in developing their missile capabilities, by identifying and handing over mathematical equations that improve the metal pipe's ability to withstand pressure and heat," he said. "I was present when a missile was test-fired at the sea in Khan Younis."

The terror group was lacking materials that could improve their rocket range and later smuggled it in from Egypt through tunnels, he said.

Abu Sisi's interrogation revealed that he acquired plenty of information on improving rocket range via the Internet, including the YouTube website.

 "I know nothing about explosives. I only calculated the pressure and heat…I downloaded the formula from the Internet," he said, adding that he also downloaded software pertaining to the rocket's structure.

Hamas would send its activists for further instruction overseas, Abu Sisi said. Selected graduates of the academy reached military academies in foreign countries, he said, including Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Iran.

During his interrogation, Abu Sisi expressed his regret for joining Hamas.

"I greatly regret my affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas Movement, my work to develop the missile range, my part in establishing Hamas' military academy, and all the information I handed over to Hamas that can threaten the security of Israel and its citizens," he said.

"I know the missiles are lethal and take the lives of others, without distinguishing between Arabs and Jews," he said.

Abu Sisi was kidnapped in Kiev and brought to Israel in February. His indictment sheet comprises nine counts, including membership in a terror organization, murder, attempted murder and arms production.

Title: European-Based US Marines Visit Israel for Training with IDF
Post by: Rachel on August 14, 2011, 02:53:58 PM

http://idfspokesperson.com/2011/08/14/european-based-us-marines-visit-israel-for-training-with-idf/

European-Based US Marines Visit Israel for Training with IDF
Posted on August 14, 2011
Last week, a company of US Marines conquered a module city in Israel’s Negev desert, the final act in a month-long tactical training session with Israel Defense Forces (IDF) infantry instructors. At the IDF Urban Warfare Training Center, the US Marines were instructed to conquer the module city in a methodically selective and surgical manner while minimizing harm to uninvolved civilians.

US Marines Visit Israel for Training with IDF. Photo: Cpl. Florit Shoihet, IDF Spokesperson Unit

(http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/m1.jpg?w=640&h=480)
The US Marines left their European base and flew to Israel for a joint US-Israeli infantry exercise, receiving training in urban warfare, reconnaissance, and more. In addition to the IDF Urban Warfare Training Center, the US Marines also visited other IDF facilities.
Platoon Sergeant Robert Hattenbach comments on training with Israeli soldiers:
The [Israeli] instructors…took the time to explain to us what’s been going on in Israel and we realized that Israeli people are just like us.

US Marines Visit Israel for Training with IDF. Photo: Cpl. Florit Shoihet, IDF Spokesperson Unit
(http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/m2.jpg?w=640&h=544)

The IDF Engineer Corps built the module city with a city center, hospital, grand mosque, local shops, paved roads and hundreds of structures, including doorways. Constructed to simulate an urban battle environment, the force-on-force training facility provides Israeli soldiers and visiting armed forces with realistic training that is needed to prepare soldiers for potential urban scenarios.
In the last couple of years, a record number of US troops participated in a series of joint military exercises in Israel, an important component in the close strategic cooperation between the Israeli and US militaries.

Title: 6 killed near Egytian border
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 18, 2011, 06:50:22 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/18/israel.shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Jerusalem (CNN) -- At least six people were killed and more than two dozen others were injured in southern Israel when attackers fired shots at a bus, assaulted Israeli soldiers, and fired mortars and an anti-tank missile.

 

The assault occurred about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the Israeli city of Eilat -- close to the Israeli-Egyptian border. Israeli soldiers exchanged gunfire with the assailants.

 

"This is a serious terrorist attack in a number of locations," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

 

"The event reflects the weakening of Egyptian control over Sinai and the expansion of the activity of terrorist forces. The origin of these acts of terror is in Gaza and we will act against them in our full force and determination."

Title: Stratfor: Sinai, Egypt & Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 19, 2011, 09:53:15 AM

The  series of armed assaults that took place Aug. 18 in Israel underscores the dilemma Cairo is facing in trying to simultaneously  manage a shaky political transition at home and its increasingly complicated relationship with Israel. Egypt hopes to address this dilemma by bringing Hamas under its direct influence. The Egyptian military-intelligence elite sees such a move — which could be facilitated by the crisis in Syria — as increasingly necessary, but it still carries substantial risk.


Security Concerns Building Again in the Sinai

Israel claimed the Aug. 18 attackers had infiltrated southern Israel from the Sinai Peninsula, where the Egyptian army on Aug. 12 launched Operation Eagle and deployed around 1,000 troops backed by armored vehicles and commandos to contain a rise in jihadist activity in the region. The Egyptian security and military presence in the Sinai is regulated by the Camp David Accords, and any shift in this presence must be negotiated with Israel — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly approved the latest Egyptian military deployment to the Sinai. Israel’s concern over jihadist activity in the Sinai spreading to Israel currently outweighs its concern over Egypt’s military presence in the Sinai buffer region.

Egypt has faced a jihadist threat in the Sinai region for years, but the regime of ousted President Hosni Mubarak was largely successful in keeping this threat in check. However, the instability that began in Egypt this past January and led to Mubarak’s ouster created a security vacuum in the Sinai when police forces abruptly withdrew from the area, allowing smugglers and Salafist-jihadist groups to strengthen their foothold in the desert region. Such groups, whose ability to operate in this area depends heavily on cooperation from local Bedouins, have been suspected of responsibility for attacks on police stations and patrols as well as most if not all of five recent successful attacks on the El Arish natural gas pipeline that runs from Egypt to Israel.

Along with this rise in militant activity, a previously unknown al Qaeda franchise calling itself al Qaeda in the North Sinai started promoting itself with fliers posted in mosques in the Egyptian Sinai city of El Arish following the first evening of Ramadan. The group proclaimed a campaign to transform the Sinai into an Islamic Emirate, address the injustices suffered by Bedouins, lift the blockade on Gaza and dissolve the Camp David agreements. The group said it was planning attacks on Egyptian police stations and security forces and notably pitted itself against Hamas in accusing the organization of not respecting Shariah in Gaza.

The main and immediate strategic intent of this group is to create an Egyptian-Israeli crisis that will undermine Cairo’s influence in the Sinai and give militant groups room to expand. This supposed new al Qaeda franchise is most likely another name for Takfir wal-Hijra, a Sinai-based Salafist group that has been able to expand its operations in the current security vacuum. It may be operating independently or following recent calls by new al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri for jihadists to get more active in Egypt, or even maintaining sporadic contact with the al Qaeda core.

As Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak articulated Aug. 18 following the attacks, the “incident reflects the weakness of the Egyptian hold on Sinai and the expansion of activity there by terror elements.” The question now is how Egypt plans to address this growing threat.


Egypt’s Islamist Militant Management

Egypt’s military regime is already facing a significant challenge in trying to manage a political transition at home among varied opposition groups. Its strategy so far to contain the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has been to allow the emergence of various Islamist actors, including Salafist groups, to broaden competition in the political arena. Sowing divisions among political Islamists can be a tricky process (and one that is extremely worrying for Israel), especially as Egypt also has to worry about preventing coordination between these groups and militant factions in nearby Gaza, such as Hamas. The security vacuum in the Sinai is now compounding these concerns as the Egyptian regime has been struggling to reassert its influence over groups operating in the Sinai-Gaza borderland. As a recent example, Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm reported Aug. 15 that the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip has refused multiple Egyptian requests to hand over Palestinian militants that were suspected of having participated in a recent attack on a police station in El Arish and who allegedly escaped back into Gaza via tunnels.

Egypt’s growing frustration over Hamas has led some leading members of the Egyptian security establishment to make the case that Cairo needs to do more to bring Hamas under its control. According to a STRATFOR source, the director of the Egyptian intelligence service, Maj. Gen. Murad Mi’rafi, has been trying to convince Supreme Council of the Armed Forces leader Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi to allow Hamas to move its headquarters from Damascus to Cairo. Mi’rafi’s reasoning is that by allowing Hamas to set up its headquarters in Cairo, it will reciprocate by doing more to cooperate with Egyptian authorities to stem the activities of Salafist-jihadists in the Sinai, primarily by denying them sanctuary in Gaza and by sharing information on their operations. After all, the Salafist-jihadists are a direct threat to Hamas’ ability to dominate the Palestinian Islamist landscape.

Talks between Egypt and Hamas over relocating Hamas offices to Cairo have been in the works since at least early May, when rumors first started circulating that the Hamas politburo, led by Khaled Meshaal, might be moving its headquarters from the Syrian capital. Hamas’ relationship with the Syrian regime has deteriorated significantly in recent months as Hamas has found itself in the awkward position of being politically pressured by Damascus to defend the Syrian regime in the face of widespread protests and intensifying crackdowns. Hamas’ refusal to issue statements or organize demonstrations in support of regime of President Bashar al Assad has created a great deal of friction between the Syrian government and Hamas leadership, leading the Syrian army to attack the al-Raml Palestinian refugee camp in Latakia on Aug. 13. The Syrian army offensive in Latakia was perceived by the Hamas politburo in Damascus as a direct attack on the organization and, according to a Hamas source, was one of the main reasons Meshaal decided to visit Cairo on Aug. 17 to discuss the relocation proposal. It should be noted that Hamas official Salah al-Badawil on Aug. 17 denied the talks in Cairo dealt with the politburo relocation issue and instead downplayed the talks as dealing primarily with Hamas’ efforts to improve cooperation with Egypt in managing the  Rafah border crossing into Gaza.

The Egyptian regime seems to still be considering welcoming Hamas. Having the Hamas politburo based in Cairo creates a dependency relationship in which Hamas will be beholden to the Egyptian authorities for the free flow of money and goods to sustain its operations. This level of clout has proved highly useful to Syria and Iran, which are pressuring Hamas to remain in Damascus for fear of losing this leverage in the Palestinian territories to Egypt and its Arab allies.

By hosting the Hamas politburo, Egyptian authorities would also have much deeper insight into the group’s activities to keep Hamas and its proxies contained in Gaza. Egypt could use a tighter relationship with Hamas for intelligence sharing on the jihadist presence in the Sinai and Gaza, as neither Cairo nor Hamas wants to see such groups expanding their influence at the expense of known groups with narrow militant goals like Hamas. Egypt, in turn, could use an intelligence boost with Hamas to further its security relationship with Israel and reassume its position as the primary mediator between Israel and Palestinian armed groups.

The Egyptian MB, which has made a conscious effort to cooperate with the ruling military council during Egypt’s political transition, also seems to be in favor of the Hamas politburo move to Cairo. A Hamas political presence in Cairo would theoretically provide the MB with foreign policy leverage once it becomes a domestic political force via elections, as it would be the Egyptian political entity with the closest ties to the Islamist Palestinian organization. Moreover, as the MB tries to navigate the post-Mubarak landscape, it wants to ensure its colleagues in Hamas do not engage in actions that could undermine the Muslim Brotherhood’s political agenda and give the military regime the excuse to crack down. From the MB’s point of view, the more influence the Egyptian security apparatus has over Hamas, the less likely Hamas will become a point of contention in the MB’s delicate negotiations with the military. Notably, Meshaal also met with MB leader Mohammed Badie and other members at the group’s Cairo headquarters during his visit.

Hosting Hamas in Cairo would not come without risks, however. With more influence over the group comes responsibility, and Egypt would have to accept that tighter control over Hamas means Israel will hold Egypt accountable for Hamas’ actions. Egypt would thus be gambling that it will be able to sufficiently influence the group to contain its militant activity and resolve the issue of rival jihadist groups eroding Hamas’ clout in Gaza. It is also unclear whether such a move would exacerbate existing fault lines in the Hamas leadership. The question moving forward is whether Syria’s rapidly deteriorating relationship with Hamas along with a growing threat of jihadist activity spreading from the Sinai will be enough to drive Cairo and Hamas together.

Title: From Ethiopia to the Knesset
Post by: Rachel on August 25, 2011, 07:48:25 AM

http://unitedwithisrael.org/from-ethiopia-to-the-knesset/

Follow Shlomo’s story as he leaves his home in a little Ethiopian village and eventually makes his way to the Israeli Knesset.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY6uBQppQvc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY6uBQppQvc&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 25, 2011, 09:19:12 AM

Nice one Rachel.

Title: This reads rather forbodingly to me.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 25, 2011, 11:15:03 PM

Deciphering the Public Relations Game in Israeli-Palestinian Politics

Israeli Minister for Home Front Defense Matan Vilnai said on Israel Radio Aug. 25 that Israel is “not fighting Hamas, but Islamic Jihad, which is even more radical than Hamas, and is acting like a terrorist organization.” Vilnai called Islamic Jihad trigger happy, adding that Hamas is not responsible for everything that happens in the Gaza Strip. His statement concerned the stream of artillery rocket and mortar fire that emanated from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel over the past week. The rocket fire has significantly increased in frequency since the Aug. 18 attacks in Eilat, where armed groups launched a coordinated assault on civilian and military targets in southern Israel, near the Sinai border. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have responded to these attacks with air strikes on Gaza, first targeting senior members of the Palestinian Resistance Committees (PRC), and more recently targeting senior members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a group that has claimed responsibility for recent rocket fire into Israel.

“The fundamental question that needs to be answered is what Hamas’ intentions are for the months ahead.”
We find Vilnai’s comments, which seemingly exonerate Hamas of any responsibility in the recent militant activity in Gaza, extremely noteworthy. The jury still appears to be out on who committed last week’s deadly attacks in Eilat. Those attacks coincide with a rise in Salafist-jihadist activity in the Sinai Peninsula over the past several months, raising the possibility that groups like the newly proclaimed al Qaeda in the Northern Sinai carried out the attacks with the possible cooperation of Palestinian militants in Gaza and with the strategic intent of instigating a crisis between Egypt and Israel.

However, a number of IDF assessments of the Eilat attacks, selectively distributed to groups like STRATFOR (with the likely presumption they would then be distributed more widely), did not address the Salafist-jihadist threat in the Sinai Peninsula. The IDF assessments focused the blame on the PRC, with the insinuation that the group was likely acting as a front for Hamas. IDF thus focused its airstrikes on PRC targets, while the Israeli government publicly warned Hamas against breaking a de facto cease-fire. Even as rocket attacks claimed by PIJ have escalated in recent weeks, Israeli officials like Vilnai are going out of their way to distinguish a “trigger happy” PIJ from Hamas, thereby allowing the latter a large degree of plausible deniability.

By no means does Israel believe Hamas is losing its grip in Gaza while groups like PRC and PIJ run rogue and provoke Israel. On the contrary, even as the exact identities of the attackers may not be fully known, Israel likely still considers Hamas the ultimate authority of Gaza, able to influence operations against Israel one way or another. In the past, Hamas has used other groups within Gaza — including PRC and PIJ — to fire on southern Israel when it was politically inconvenient for Hamas to do so directly. Even if Hamas publicly announces its commitment to the cease-fire (and gets other groups to do the same), it could be as part of an attempt to portray Hamas as the victim being provoked by Israeli aggression.

One could be spun in a thousand different directions following the various claims, counterclaims and denials on all sides of this conflict. The fundamental question that needs to be answered is what Hamas’ intentions are for the months ahead.

As we discussed in this week’s Geopolitical Weekly, Hamas likely shares a strategic intent with a number of jihadist and Palestinian militant factions in the region to create a crisis between Egypt and Israel. As the September United Nations General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood approaches, Hamas is searching for a way to distinguish itself in the short term from its secular rivals in Fatah. Hamas regularly accuses Fatah of colluding with Israel against the interests of the Palestinian people, and claims to represent the legitimate resistance. In the longer term, Hamas could be looking for a way to sever the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and to further a political evolution in Cairo that would result in an Egyptian government friendly to Hamas interests.

These may sound like ambitious goals, but the regional conditions have arguably never been better for Hamas to pursue such an agenda. Egypt is in a state of high political uncertainty. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is preparing to enter the government, the Syrian regime is atrophying, the “Arab Spring” protest sentiment is spreading and Israel, unprepared to deal with these growing foreign policy challenges, is coming under heavy domestic political pressure. Provoking Israel into a military confrontation in Gaza, with the help of militant affiliates like PRC and PIJ, could bolster Hamas’ credibility at home while, more importantly, stripping away the foundation of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty at a time of great political uncertainty in the region.

It is within this context that Vilnai’s comments distinguishing PIJ aggression from Hamas can be understood. Israel does not want to be lured into Operation Cast Lead II, and so is trying to give Hamas room to back down and rein in its affiliates. At the same time, Israel can see a significant threat building to its west. The threat goes beyond Palestinian militancy in Gaza and the inability of the Egyptian government to contain jihadist activity in the Sinai. Israel sees the potential for Egypt to fail to honor the peace treaty. Under the doctrine of pre-emption, an argument is building among some Israeli political and defense circles, pushing for Israel to absorb the risk of international condemnation and extend an Israeli military presence into the Sinai, with or without a treaty with Egypt. The other side of the debate argues that the cost of re-entering the Sinai is simply too high — all efforts must therefore be made to preserve the treaty and hope that the tradition of Egyptian-Israeli cooperation against regional militant threats will endure.

This debate is naturally of great concern to Egypt, which since the Eilat attacks has tried to negotiate with Hamas, while creating incentives for Bedouins to cooperate with the Egyptian state and deny access to militants in the Sinai buffer between Egypt and Israel. If Egypt wants to avoid giving Israel a reason to extend Israeli security into the Sinai, it needs to contain the militant threat itself. But Egypt is already concerned with managing a shaky political transition at home. In addition, an increase in Egyptian troops in the Sinai may lead to Israeli nervousness over a possible remilitarization of the region.

Israel has a number of growing and dynamic threats to game out, but for now is likely to avoid any drastic moves in the Sinai. Instead, Israel can be expected to try to avoid a major ground incursion into Gaza. This entails taking care not to directly blame or provoke Hamas, while applying pressure on Hamas affiliates in hopes that the group will choose to ultimately avoid the cost of inviting IDF troops into its territory. Israel’s ability to avoid such a conflict will depend greatly on Egypt’s ability to rein in Hamas. What no one can be sure of at this point is whether Hamas is quietly creating the conditions for the very conflict that both Israel and Egypt are desperately hoping to avoid.

Title: OMG! Good news from Baraq!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2011, 09:19:28 AM

Stratfor:

The United States will stop providing financial aid to the Palestinian Territories if it attempts to upgrade its position at the U.N. General Assembly, U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Daniel Rubinstein told Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat on Aug. 26, DPA reported. The United States would also veto a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for recognition of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and U.N. membership for the state.

Title: Stratfor: The upcoming UN vote
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2011, 09:55:07 AM

The upcoming vote in the U.N. General Assembly on full recognition of the Palestinian National Authority as a nation state could give Hamas the perfect opportunity to provoke Israel and test Egypt’s support for the present military government, says George Friedman.


Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Colin: The Middle East continues to occupy much of our attention. Gadhafi’s compound may be in rebel hands but fighting continues. In Syria a famous cartoonist is beaten up as President al Assad continues his crackdown, and violence of one kind or another continues in Gaza and Iraq. Soon there will be another political development to throw into the melting pot.

Welcome to Agenda with George Friedman. That development will be the upcoming vote in the United Nations [General] Assembly on whether to admit Palestine as an independent sovereign state. George, given the divisions amongst the Palestinians, how will this impact the region?

George: Well, it is a terrific problem. If the Palestine National Authority is admitted to the United Nations, essentially Fatah dominates that and is being challenged by Hamas. The United Nations vote will basically empower Fatah and will challenge Hamas. Hamas will find this a problem, it will find this strengthening its opposition. It will make its own alliance with Fatah more difficult and Hamas, I suspect, is going to try in some ways to not so much undermine the vote but to change the political realities surrounding the vote, both by placing Fatah on the defensive and from its point of view hopefully placing Israel on the defensive.

Colin: That will create a lot of problems for Israel but also for Egypt.

George: Well there are two things Hamas wants to achieve. First from a strategic point of view, its basic problem is not Israel, it is Egypt. Egypt is the problem because Egypt, so long as it is hostile to Hamas’ interests or only neutral, really prevents Hamas from developing. If Egypt were to become pro-Hamas, it would completely change Hamas’ position vis-a-vis Israel and also change it vis-a-vis Fatah and the Palestine National Authority.

Therefore it would very much like to influence events inside of Egypt to create a government that is favorable, to undermine the military regime that is in place right now and end any sort of interdiction that is going on of Gaza. And so it would be interesting to do something to undermine Egypt. One of the solutions to that is to create a crisis with Israel, a crisis that would compel Israel to act militarily, to re-enter Gaza and carry out as aggressive a policy as could be made. Hamas would actually benefit in this sense. First, it would change the internal Egyptian dialogue away from the dispute between secularists and the Muslim Brotherhood and military, toward the the one thing that they all agree on, which is the dubious nature (I leave the military out of this), the dubious nature of its treaty with Israel. If it could stage round two of the uprising, if you will, then Hamas would be in a position to potentially install a government in Egypt that would be pro-Hamas. That would benefit it tremendously. Secondly, if that were to happen, its relationship with the Palestine National Authority would change dramatically. And thirdly, the vote in the United Nations, if Israel were at that time engaged in combat operations in Gaza, would reshape the meaning of the vote, the vote would still happen but it would be a vote that would be as much about empowering Hamas as about Fatah.

Therefore, Hamas right now seems to have an interest in drawing Israel into conflict. We saw the attacks along the Eilat highway, and in that attack there has been a great deal of dispute as to who carried it out. But very frankly, I think it came out of Gaza, and it is very hard to believe that Hamas’ intelligence organization, which is quite good in Gaza, did not know that it was being planned. It is very hard to do anything like that without it being known and even if it was beyond the borders of Gaza, I suspect they would have known, they could have certainly stopped it. They are also firing a lot of rockets into Israel right now, several hundred have landed there. Again, their claim is that it is not Hamas, it is another group or this group, but it is being fired from Gaza, and Hamas has control over that. But we can understand what it is trying to do. On the one hand, it is trying to entice Israel into combat, on the other hand it wants to be in a position to deny that it was itself responsible for any of those things and thereby paint Israel’s response by attacking Hamas as both overreaction and unjust. Israel is doing everything it can not to be drawn into this, not to blame Hamas for this, to say it is not Hamas, not to create the situation where it has to in the context of the September vote be engaged in combat operations in Gaza. And oddly enough, Israel has an interest in not having this happen, and Hamas has an odd interest in making it happen.

Colin: We will come back to Israel in a moment because it is key of course, but how strong will the current military regime in Egypt be in maintaining the status quo?

George: The military clearly has maintained power and has a great deal of power. The question is: what is the military going to have to do to continue holding that position. So, the opposition is divided, as I said, between two groups, secular and religious, in turn each of these groups are divided among themselves. The opposition to the military is there, but it is very weak and incoherent and is unlikely to change the military’s position. The question from an international point of view is whether or not the military, which clearly wants to maintain the peace treaty with Israel and does not want to get involved in conflicts at this time in any way, will find it necessary in the face of circumstances to either spend or jettison the treaty in order to maintain its position. Right now this is not something that the Egyptian military has to do, but there are those in the opposition and those in Hamas who would like to see that happen and forcing the military to do that is something they want, and that is more important to some people than a shift in the government. In many senses we have very strong military government and we expect that to stay there.

Colin: Another bit player in all this if I can call them that is Hezbollah, now in a tricky position because of what is happening in Syria.

George: Syria’s al Assad is clearly on the ropes, he has a very strong force supporting him otherwise he would have fallen long ago, but there is a possibility that it would fall. Syria is one of Hezbollah’s major supporters. Iran is another supporter, but Syria is much closer and much of the sport flows through Syria. So if Syria were to fold to a Sunni government, and that Sunni government has other people to support in Lebanon aside from Hezbollah. Hezbollah obviously is very concerned about what is happening but not nearly as much as al Assad. And again if we simply speculate here, Hezbollah might find that it is in its interests to engage in any conflict that might occur between Hamas and Israel on the northern frontier, both to re-energize its own position, but also perhaps to draw some of the venom from the opposition that is attacking al Assad. One of the issues is that once there is conflict with Israel, al Assad can make the claim that this is no time for this internal stuff, you have got to really deal with Israel. All of this is speculation, there is no evidence, unlike with Hamas and the firing of rockets, there is no evidence that Hezbollah is preparing for immediate combat in this circumstance, but it is certainly something that just speculatively would be an interesting possibility for them.

Colin: Now coming back to Israel, what are Israel’s options? Because at some point they would be drawn back in if attacked.

There is a certain point at which the level of damage being caused in Israel by rockets, by terrorist acts or something else, simply must be responded to for very rational reasons. And so, the point here is: is Hamas engaged in this preliminary action in order to raise the stakes so high that Israel cannot refuse combat? Is this simply a probe in Israel for reasons that are not altogether clear? And secondly, how much pain can Israel endure before it finds itself eager to respond? It really does not want a repeat of Operation Cast Lead of 2008. That ended very badly politically and with minimal military success although it had some, it really does not want to do that again and it is going to try to do everything it can to avoid it. But at a certain point, the decision for war or not war is not simply Israel’s, it is if the other side gets a vote, and it is very important to watch if Hamas’ rocket fire increases dramatically and becomes more effective. At that point Israel will have to do something.

Colin: Where do rich countries like Saudi Arabia, that have funded the Palestinians, stand on all this?

George: The Saudis really do not want this sort of instability right now. They have just gotten through the Bahrain crisis and other instabilities in their region. On the one hand they do not want to do anything to strengthen Iran and they would not really mind al Assad falling. On the other hand, they really do not want to create a situation where they are forced to come in and support, at least financially and rhetorically, Hamas in a war against Fatah. The Saudis right now are not looking for trouble, that really is pretty much Saudi Arabia’s position prices and other of his disabilities in the region of other one hand they don’t do anything to strengthen Iran and they would not really mind as I saw it falling on the other hand they really do not want to create a situation where they are forced to come in and support me financially rhetorically Hamas in a war against what the Sally’s right now are not looking for trouble that really is pretty much Saudi Arabia’s position, and it frequently gives money in order to avoid trouble.

Colin: Finally, there is not much doubt about the outcome of this vote is there? It is going to happen.

George: That seems to be certainly the case, the only question is by how much, and that is one of the reasons why the Israeli’s really do not want to go to war right now, they do not want to do anything to increase the margin.

Colin: George, thanks. George Friedman there ending Agenda this week. Thanks for being with us. I’m Colin Chapman, have a good weekend.

Title: Gas pipeline attack stopped
Post by: ccp on August 27, 2011, 10:37:36 AM

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Did Israel just stop 'spectacular' terror attack?
Sources say it would have devastated both Jewish state and Gaza population

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 12, 2011
1:00 am Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

Israeli troops on Gaza border
 
TEL AVIV – Israel stopped what would have been a spectacular border terrorist attack planned from inside the Gaza Strip, according to Egyptian security officials.

The Egyptian officials said there is information the attack Tuesday was aimed at the sole pipeline that supplies Gaza with gas. The pipeline, located at the Israeli town of Nahal Oz, is manned and provided by Israel.

Israeli security officials would not comment on the matter.

In a rare incident, on Tuesday all electricity, phone and Internet service was suspended for about 18 hours in the Gaza Strip.

The blackout was reportedly caused by Israeli military bulldozers operating near the fuel pipeline in the Israeli town of Nahal Oz, which is close to the Gaza Strip.

At about the same time the electricity went out in Gaza, the Egyptian officials said Israel passed a message for Egypt to be on high alert for possible attacks from inside the Gaza Strip.
The Egyptian officials said they have information that Israel was actually working to stop a cross border attack aimed at the fuel pipeline. The officials said the downing of communications inside Gaza was central to halting the attack.

The Egyptian officials said members of Jihadiya Salafiya, an al-Qaida-allied group in Gaza, are suspected of attempting the major attack along with elements of the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad.

An attack on Gaza's pipelines would be devastating for both Israel and the Gaza population, which relies on the supply lines for its fuel.

Since the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February, similar attacks have been carried out three times now on an Egyptian pipeline located in the Sinai desert that supplies Israel with about 35 percent of its gas needs. All three attacks have been blamed on Jihadiya Salafiya and likeminded Islamist jihad groups.

Hamas telecommunications officials said yesterday an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer damaged a communications cable and cut all phone and Internet networks in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip the day before.

The IDF spokesman's office denied the army was "responsible for the incident" but added it was willing to "help restore communications."

An attack on Gaza's fuel pipelines could have negative implications for Gaza's Hamas rulers.

While both Hamas and al-Qaida are offshoots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the groups often clash over a difference in tactics.

In August 2008, Jihadiya Salafiya announced it established an armed wing, which it called the Damascus Soldiers, brandishing weapons in a public display in Gaza while openly identifying with al-Qaida ideologically.

Unlike other radical Islamic organizations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which have demonstrated some pragmatism in aspects of political life while still holding an Islamist worldview, the new al-Qaida organization believes in a strict interpretation of the Quran and that only the Quran can dictate how to act.

The Islamist group believes violent jihad is the primary way to spread Islam around the world, including jihad against secular Muslim states.

Hamas has worked with the al-Qaida-allied groups in Gaza. It took credit along with Jaish al-Islam for the kidnapping in June 2006 of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

But Jihadiya Salifiya has been regularly publishing pamphlets labeling Hamas as "non-Muslim" since the terror group ran in 2006 democratic elections, which the Islamist organizations see as an expression of Western values.

Also, for the past two years, al-Qaida leaders themselves have released audio tapes blasting Hamas for participating in elections and in the democratic process.

Hamas several times has engaged in heavy fire clashes with the Islamist organizations in Gaza, including Jihadiya Salafiya.

Read more: Did Israel just stop 'spectacular' terror attack? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=332373#ixzz1WFg9Fhx2

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 27, 2011, 12:25:08 PM

I'll point out that Aaron Klein is a good reporter with lots of time on the ground in the middle east, and much more a journalist than much of what else is found at World Nut Daily.  :wink:

Title: Give Two Minutes to Gilad Shalit
Post by: Rachel on August 28, 2011, 06:22:37 AM

Give Two Minutes to Gilad Shalit - Today August 28th, is Gilad's birthday. He is now 25 years old, and spent a quarter of his life in captivity.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQasaWh9Gqc&feature=player_embedded
[/youtube]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQasaWh9Gqc&feature=player_embedded

Title: Iron Dome works
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 28, 2011, 06:45:27 AM

Sorry, no citation here but it comes from a reliable source.
=================


A radical Salafi Islamist group affiliated with the international Al Qaeda terrorist organization has taken responsibility for launching Sunday morning's Grad rocket attack at southern Israel.

 

The Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (JTJ) jihadist organization (Group of Monotheism and Jihad) allegedly issued a statement claiming “credit” for the attack on Be'er Sheva, the largest city in Israel's southern region.

 

The missile was intercepted and neutralized by the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system at about 7:15 a.m. local time. Residents were warned by the Color Red air raid alert siren before the missile arrived in Be'er Sheva's air space.

 

Salafi groups have slowly grown to be a major power in Gaza in the past several years, with thousands of Hamas members switching sides to join the more radical Islamic factions, all of which are linked to Al Qaeda and many of which operate in Judea and Samaria as well.

Title: South Tel Aviv: 8 hurt in terror attack outside nightclub
Post by: Rachel on August 29, 2011, 05:08:09 AM

South Tel Aviv: 8 hurt in terror attack outside nightclub
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
08/29/2011 09:11
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=235802
Police: Nablus resident commandeers cab, rams Border Police road block, gets out, begins stabbing people; police officers among injured.

Talkbacks (113)
Eight people were injured in south Tel Aviv early Monday morning, when a terrorist from the West Bank carjacked a taxi and rammed it into a police road block protecting a Tel Aviv nightclub, before going on a stabbing spree.

Police said the terrorist, a 20-year-old Nablus resident, entered a taxi near the beginning of Salameh Street, and hijacked the vehicle, stabbing the driver in the hand. He then drove for approximately a kilometer down Salameh Street towards the Haoman 17 nightclub, which was filled with high school children at an end-of-summer party. At the time of the attack, almost all of the teenagers were inside the club.

RELATED:
Click for timeline of Monday's attack
DJ at Tel Aviv club: I was told to keep playing
Background: Ramming terror attacks in recent years

Border Police had set up a precautionary road block ahead of time at the entrance to the club on Abarbanel Street, in Tel Aviv's Florentine neighborhood. The terrorist rammed the road block, and struck a number of civilians and a border policeman.

"He then got out of the car, screamed Allah Akbar [God is Great], and went on a knife attack," a police spokeswoman said.

The suspect was tackled to the ground by Border Police officers and taken into custody. He was taken to the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon after being lightly injured. He was later released and was taken in for questioning under heavy security.

The eight people injured in the attack were all Border Police officers and club security guards. One was seriously injured, two were moderately injured and three were lightly injured. The remaining casualties were released from hospital after receiving medical treatment.

The cabdriver whose taxi was hijacked, Nachman Azi, said that the Palestinian man got in his cab at the start of Salameh Street and asked to be taken to the Central Bus Station, moments later, said Azi “he pulled out a knife and told me to get out of the cab. I grabbed the knife and started to fight him, but it cut my hand very bad and I told him he could take the car.”

Azi, his hand heavily bandaged and his shirt splotched with blood, said that the terrorist let him take some of his personal belongings, and that he believed he only wanted to steal the car.

A police source said that the road block had prevented a far worse outcome.

Israel Radio reported that the attack was coordinated to strike a large youth party being held in the area.

Police Insp.-Gen. Yochanan Danino said Monday morning that over 1,000 teenagers were inside the club which was targeted. He said Border Police  preparations "were extraordinary and prevented a big disaster."

Ben Hartman and JPost.com staff contributed to this report.

Title: Accentuate the positive
Post by: Rachel on August 29, 2011, 05:10:26 AM

Accentuate the positive
By SUZANNE SELENGUT
04/08/2011   


(http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=171364)
http://www.jpost.com/JerusalemReport/Israel/Article.aspx?id=231940
The first female Ethiopian physician in Israel is not only healing, but inspiring young people across the country
 
DR. HADAS MALADA-Matsree, 26, an intern at Soroka Medical Center and the first female Ethiopian-Israeli doctor, is slowly getting used to being seen as a role model.

“At first, I did not feel the need to do anything special as a result of the title, but the more I saw that people cared about it, especially young kids, the more I realized I do have a special role and I can have a positive influence,” she said in a lengthy telephone interview with The Jerusalem Report.

Presently on maternity leave to care for four-month-old baby Tamar, Malada- Matsree’s life is a balancing act involving career, family and a major commitment to community service. For the past two years, she has lectured to students about her own experience of success. She travels throughout the country for the lectures, organized by the Education Ministry. For many young Ethiopian-Israelis, in particular, she has become a symbol of what is possible.

“After I speak, they come up and ask me a lot of questions. Sometimes the questions are really basic, like ‘How do I apply to university?’ But they have no one to ask. I try to support them and help them along,” she says.

Her message to young Israelis is twofold.

First, she tries to show immigrant students that despite the hardships brought on by aliya – and the perception many immigrants kids have of being abandoned – their parents do care about them. Second, she tries to inspire young people to dream big. “I find, generally, they either don’t know how to dream at all, or if they dream, they set their sights very low. I want to show them how to believe in themselves and not give up on their dreams,” she says.

Soft-spoken and self-effacing, Malada- Matsree’s polite manner seems to coexist with a palpable inner strength. Her core of confidence is the likely result of a lifetime of surmounting challenges.

THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF HER life, a period she no longer remembers, were spent in a rural farming community in Ethiopia. The family sustained itself with agriculture as well as by raising sheep and cattle.

Her mother, married by 12, was busy raising the growing brood, while her father became active in working with Israeli officials to help the Ethiopian Jewish community immigrate to Israel. At one point, he was sent to jail for his activism.

At 4, she immigrated to Israel with her parents and six siblings; four more were born in Israel. On the journey, Malada-Matsree contracted malaria, measles and a third mystery illness that caused all her hair to fall out.

When the family reached Israel, she had to be hospitalized for five months. By the time she was healthy again, she had also found her life’s calling.

“I said to my mother: ‘I want to be like the people in white.’ I meant the doctors and nurses,” she explains. “Since then, it’s been obvious.

It’s what I’ve always wanted to do.”

She says that her parents, neither of whom finished high school, believed completely in her ability to reach her goal. Although they supported the family through manual labor – cleaning, construction, washing dishes – they were adamant that their children aim for a different life.

They would often use their own financial struggles as a cautionary tale. “They would say to us: ‘Study. Do your schoolwork, or you’ll end up doing the kind of work we have to do.’” Malada-Matsree credits a large part of her success to her parents’ active involvement in her life. Although they had no time to study Hebrew formally, as they had to work to support the large family, they declared that Hebrew was the official language at home, so that they could be fully integrated in their children’s lives. They even attended parentteacher meetings, despite not always understanding everything.

She contrasts her family situation to the situations of other Ethiopian immigrants to Israel.

Like her family, they, too, faced the pressures of moving from a rural, agrarian culture to a technologically advanced one. They had to learn basic domestic chores, like using an oven or gas stove, and also had to acquire skills to organize a modern household – opening a bank account, for example. The children, who learn the language and pick up cultural clues more quickly, became the experts at home, while their parents, once revered as decision-makers, were reduced to the role of dependents.

Additionally, most social programs target Ethiopian-Israeli youth, leaving older adults out, further compounding an already tough situation, she says.

“Children sometimes begin to feel that their parents don’t care about them or what they are doing at school,” she adds. She explains that the desire to strive for achievement at school goes together with knowing that someone at home cares and knowing that someone is tracking their academic progress. When that feeling is absent, the children often start to act out, finding the sense of caring and belonging from their peers instead of from their elders.

Malada-Matsree believes she was lucky; she experienced a caring family as well as a supportive community.


Arriving in Israel, the Malada family settled in an absorption center in the southern town of Arad, where they lived until moving to Beersheba, when she was 9. “In both places we lived in diverse communities. In the absorption center, we were together with immigrants from Russia, France, America, and other places.” She points out that a sense of isolation can make it more difficult for Ethiopian-Israeli youth to find their way within Israeli culture. “All they see is other kids going through the same thing, with nothing to do after school hours.”

In contrast, Malada-Matsree’s school years were marked by a growing sense that her dream of being a doctor was achievable. Her favorite subject was science, with bible and literature coming in second. She is quick to note, however, that for her, “literature is a hobby but medicine is a love.”

EVENTUALLY, WITH EXCELLENT test scores, she began studying medicine at Ben-Gurion University as part of a government scholarship program that covers many of her medical studies expenses in exchange for a commitment of five years of service as a doctor in the IDF. Supporting herself financially while studying has been an ongoing challenge. Time spent working has meant less time to study, which in turn initially made it more difficult for her to excel, despite her talents.

A$3,000 a year stipend has made a big difference.

“When I received a stipend from the ENP (Ethiopian National Project, a non-profit funded by the government, global Jewry and the Ethiopian-Israeli community), things became a lot easier. My grades went from 70s and 80s to 90s and 100s, and I was cited for excellence,” she says, adding that the handful of other Ethiopian-Israeli medical students she knows all benefit from the program, supported primarily by the Jewish Federation of Lehigh Valley, as well as other charities.

She is firmly in favor of programs that level the playing field and also says she’s not averse to affirmative action, although she’s not sure if it should be awarded based solely on ethnic background. She points out that a high school student who can’t afford NIS 6,000 to pay for tutoring for the college entrance tests, or a medical student who is unable to take time off from work to study for qualifying exams is at a distinct disadvantage. “The only affirmative action I’m aware of at Ben-Gurion is for Bedouin students. So why not for Ethiopian- Israelis, as well?” she asks.

Yet she earned her own medical education without such benefits. Currently in the last few months of her year-long internship, Malada- Matsree has navigated the system of higher education largely on her own. And she can still remember feeling particularly disturbed when she first entered medical school and realized there were rumors that her ethnicity had helped her win a spot in the class. “One ‘brave’ person even asked me to my face,” she says.

“My first real encounter with racism happened in an academic setting,” she adds with irony.

Although the members of her family have all experienced incidents of racism, it is something she chooses not to dwell on. “If you spend too much time involved in it, it just brings you down,” she says.

The rumors ended as soon as it became clear that she was indeed a gifted student, but her encounter with bigotry had a deep effect on her, ultimately helping to bring her closer to her Ethiopian heritage. When she realized that no matter how Israeli she was, people saw her as different, she decided to learn more about her tradition.

In 2004, she traveled to Ethiopia for a closer look at her roots. Later, as a medical student, she chose to do her pediatric medicine elective in Ethiopia, traveling to Black Lion Hospital in Addis Ababa, in April 2010, to work with Ethiopian children. While there, she also improved her command of Amharic, with a special focus on learning medical terms and understanding more about Ethiopian cultural approaches to medicine and healing.

For example, she explains, when an Ethiopian patient says his stomach hurts, it may mean that he’s experiencing physical pain, but it may also mean that he is feeling worried or distraught. The seemingly lyrical statement “my heart has spilled” actually just means the person is experiencing heartburn.

She points out that making the effort to understand the meaning behind such terminology can help Israeli doctors to bridge a significant cultural divide with their patients. She is now at work on a dictionary of Amharic medical terminology, which she has already begun sharing with some of her peers.

Her Ethiopian heritage also plays a key part in her personal life. Although her husband, architect Yonatan Matsree, is not Ethiopian, the young family keeps the community’s traditions alive at home. “People always say that he’s more Ethiopian than me,” she says, giggling and adding that she and her husband make an effort every year to travel to Jerusalem for the main ceremony of the Sigd, the Ethiopian Jewish holiday that commemorates those who died on their way to Israel. Since many of her siblings live nearby, she remains in close contact with family and community.

And while baby Tamar doesn’t speak yet, when she’s ready, Malada-Matsree has already enlisted her mother to teach her Amharic. “I would do it, but my accent is too Israeli,” she says. She says she is also looking forward to teaching Tamar the Ethiopian children’s stories she grew up on.

Yet she also emphasizes that her heritage as an Ethiopian-Israeli is just one facet of her life.

When not working, she tries to find the time to read, catch a yoga or spinning class, and travel, “preferably in Israel,” she says.

And like the young people she inspires, she too has big dreams. She wants to spend as much time as possible with her family and to eventually take time to practice medicine in the developing world.

She is proud of her own success, but says that she is not alone in being an Ethiopian- Israeli who is contributing to Israeli society. In addition to herself, she knows of at least two other Ethiopian-Israeli doctors and six medical students. On the lecture circuit, she also meets many Ethiopian-Israeli high school students who are choosing challenging coursework and excelling.

“The press is very critical of the Ethiopian aliya. But if you look at how long it takes to become a doctor – 12 years of primary and secondary schooling, four to seven years of medical school, army service – it adds up to 20 years, and that’s as long as we’ve been here.

People need to see the positive accomplishments too. We need to focus on the success stories.” ✡

Title: The day after Palestine
Post by: Rachel on August 30, 2011, 06:04:51 AM

The day after Palestine
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4115514,00.html
Op-Ed: UN recognition of Palestinian state a flawed international effort to shirk responsibility
Avi Yesawich

In three weeks, a sovereign Palestinian state will almost certainly be welcomed into the United Nations – if not by the UN Security Council then as a “non-member state” by the General Assembly. Worldwide celebrations in honor of the new Palestinian state will undoubtedly take place. Unfortunately, this festival will be honoring a superficial development; an illusion of achievement. In reality, recognition of a Palestinian state in the current political climate will not resolve any of the outstanding issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only exacerbate them.
 
Here is an ominous reminder: the UN will be recognizing a state whose government(s) maintains questionable legitimacy among its own population, is maligned by deep corruption and internal fighting, lacks control over terror cells that undermine all peace efforts, is depressingly mismanaged and is completely dependent on Israeli industry. The world will be voting int
Prelude?
Central America 'battles' over PA's UN bid  / Ronen Medzini
Recent regional summit of Latin America, Caribbean nations becomes stage for diplomatic squabble over future Palestinian bid for statehood
Full story
o existence a welfare state that currently owes much of its sustenance to the donations of the international community and Israeli tax transfers.
 
The Fatah- Hamas reconciliation agreement has proven to be a failure and never came close to being implemented – and it may never be. Abbas recently rejected the recognition of Israel as the Jewish State. The recent terror attacks and rocket fire emanating from Gaza have shown that terrorist groups other than Hamas hold considerable political and military sway in the Gaza Strip. Israeli security cooperation with Fatah has minimized similar developments in the West Bank, although that certainly didn’t prevent the Itamar massacre or other recent murders. Are these positive signs that point to a nation ready for statehood?
 
Anyone who endeavors to predict the consequences of the Palestinian bid is imprudent, yet media commentators and politicians are shuffling through the foreseeable scenarios. Large-scale riots, peaceful protests, violent confrontations, and regional war - anything is possible. The Arab Spring’s results (or lack thereof) already showed us that the Middle East is volatile, erratic and largely unpredictable. Yet one thing is clear: The vote will do nothing to further the interests of Israelis or Palestinians, and can only serve as a critically divisive moment within an already less than stellar period of Israeli-Palestinian relations.
 
Although defining “statehood” by standards of international law can be problematic, the four main criteria are (a) permanent population, (b) defined borders, (c) effective government and (d) ability to maintain relations with other states. The PA fails to fulfill at least two, if not three, of these criteria.
 
Fictitious solution
The Palestinians deserve freedom, justice, security and self-determination. However, a Palestinian state should only be established through a comprehensive and viable peace agreement. We need negotiations that offer real solutions to the intractable issues that statehood is meant to alleviate. Contrarily, the current UN bid looks to shirk responsibility for resolving internal and external Israeli-Palestinian issues of significant magnitude, issues that must be resolved before statehood can be bestowed upon a population who, as of now, seems woefully unprepared for it.
 
Some observers argue that UN recognition will force Israel to finally realize its West Bank presence is unacceptable to the international community. Yet the real consequences of such recognition vary considerably depending on who you ask. Many analysts seem to agree that the current bid will likely have no practical implications. It is reasonable to assume that UN recognition will provoke confrontations between Palestinian nationalists, settlers and Israeli soldiers.
 
Of course, the threat of further international isolation and boycotts against Israel is also reasonable, but authentic progress won’t - and never has - come from unilateral action or power plays in this conflict, but through mutual agreements and meaningful negotiations.
 
Many nations around the world understandably want to wash their hands of the Israeli-Arab conflict and rid themselves of a problem that has been a source of immense political tension and violence for more than four decades. However, the current UN bid will not wash away the blood of thousands of Jewish and Palestinian lives that have been lost in this conflict, and the fictitious solution of declared statehood certainly won’t prevent further blood from being spilled. It may in fact encourage it.
 
The upcoming vote on a Palestinian state in September is an attempted quick fix, an example of the international community dodging responsibility in order to force progress on an intractable conflict. This approach will be a serious mistake. Fortunately for those countries, the implications of such recognition probably won’t result in violence, bombings, shootings or the loss of innocent life in their respective countries like it will here in our region.
 
Abbas, Erekat and others have claimed that the current UN bid is not meant to isolate Israel. However, unless the UN bid is retracted - which several senior leaders of the PA have recommended – both countries will be isolated: Israel from the international community and Palestine from realizing its true aspirations of sovereignty and self-determination.
 
The right of return, Jerusalem, recognized borders, freedom of movement, settlements, security and commerce issues will only be resolved through negotiations, not symbolic recognition or empty declarations. As long as both parties are guilty of refusing to return to the negotiating table, it will be to the detriment of all of us who desire to see a peaceful end to this conflict.
 
Avi Yesawich is an independent journalist and political commentator. He holds degrees from Cornell University and Tel Aviv University, is an IDF combat reservist and co-founder of Israeli Centrism , a social/political blog focusing primarily on Middle Eastern affairs

Title: Third Iron Dome deployed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2011, 05:20:55 AM

Israel: Third Iron Dome Deployed Outside Ashdod
August 31, 2011 2123 GMT
The Israeli air force deployed a third Iron Dome battery outside Ashdod on Aug. 31, The Jerusalem Post reported. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli air force for deploying the rocket defense system sooner than he expected. Earlier in 2011, the United States provided $205 million for Israel to purchase four Iron Dome batteries, each consisting of three launchers with 20 Tamir interceptors. Each battery is capable of protecting about 150 square kilometers.

Title: Turkey/Israel
Post by: ccp on September 02, 2011, 10:27:49 AM

 
Turkey expels Israeli ambassador

Ankara follows through on threat to impose independent sanctions on Jerusalem following its refusal to apologize for deadly Marmara raid: Top-level diplomatic staff expelled, key military contracts suspended. Turkish FM: Time for Israel to pay the price

News agencies Latest Update:  09.02.11, 15:06 / Israel News 

Israel-Turkey relations sink to a new low: Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu announced on Friday that following Jerusalem's adamant refusal to apologize over the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid, Ankara will be downgrading its diplomatic relations with Israel and suspending key military agreements.

 
In a dramatic turn of events, Turkey announced that it was expelling Israeli Ambassador Gabby Levy from Ankara. Davutoglu said Turkey's diplomatic representation in Israel would be further reduced to second-secretary level. In accordance, all lower Israeli diplomatic personnel above the second-secretary level have also been expelled. 

More on Israeli-Turkish diplomatic crisis:

Israel defiant: No apology to Turkey
Palmer Report fails main objectives
Will Palmer Report lead to legal onslaught?
UN report: Israel should compensate Turkey
Turkey rebuffs Palmer findings   

The announcement followed a press conference, in which Davutoglu said that some of the UN's Palmer Report findings on the raid were "unacceptable," adding that it was "time for Israel to pay the price... The highest price it can pay is losing our friendship."   

"Today, we reached a point where Israel has, in fact, spent all of the chances that were given to them. The Israeli government, on the other hand, see themselves (as being) above international laws and human conscience," the Turkish FM said.

Turkey withdrew its own ambassador to Israel immediately after last year's raid.

Davutoğlu's stated that Ankara views the Israeli government as responsible for the situation, and that Turkey will not revise its position on the matter until Israel reconsiders its stand on the flotilla incident. Davutoğlu added that despite the Palmer Report findings, Turkey does not recognise the legality of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. 

Turkish President Abdullah Gul reportedly said Friday that as far as Turkey was concerned, the Palmer Report was "null and void." Ankara is also said to be exploring its options against Israel with the International Court of Justice.

 Earlier Friday, Turkey vowed that its demand for an apology from Israel would remain unchanged, stating that it is powerful enough to protect the rights of its citizen. The statement was made in Ankara's first official reaction to a leaked United Nations panel report on the Mavi Marmara incident.
Israel remains adamant over its decision not to offer Turkey an official apology. A senior official told Ynet that while Israel is aware of the implications of its decision to refrain from issuing an apology, "we cannot conduct ourselves based on ultimatums."

The Palmer Report does not demand an Israeli apology, establishing instead that Israel should express regret and pay reparations, the official said, adding that Jerusalem still hoped that the two countries could "return to the cooperation that was a cornerstone of regional stability." Another senior official added that "the severing of ties goes against Turkey's strategic interests."

Jerusalem sources were unfazed by the move, saying that Israel's military agreements with Turkey had previously been suspended – by Israel. "Military trade with Turkey was suspended a while ago… we didn’t want to risk any weapons made in Israel falling into the wrong hands," a diplomatic source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Other sources hedged that while Turkey may downgrade its ties with Israel, the US is likely to stop Ankara from severing its ties with Jerusalem completely.

 Foreign Ministry Director-General Rafael Barak called for a situation assessment on Friday afternoon, following Turkey's decision. The meeting was called after he conferred with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is currently on an official visit to Moldova.

Meanwhile, Turkey's Zaman news site reported Friday that Davutoğlu had spoken with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and that he raised The New York Times issue with him. Davutoğlu added that UN’s Ban was also surprised to hear about the publication of the leaked report.

 AP, Reuters, AFP and Ronen Medzini contributed to this report

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on September 03, 2011, 06:50:57 PM

 
 ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkey is preparing to challenge Israel's blockade on Gaza at the International Court of Justice, the foreign minister said Saturday, ratcheting up tensions between the once close allies.

Ahmet Davutoglu's comments came a day after Turkey expelled the Israel's ambassador and severed military ties with the country, angered over its refusal to apologize for last year's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that killed nine pro-Palestinian activists.

In an interview with Turkey's state-run TRT television, Davutoglu dismissed a U.N. report into the raid that said Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a legal security measure. Davutoglu said the report — prepared by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, and presented to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — was not endorsed by the United Nations and was therefore not binding.

"What is binding is the International Court of Justice," Davutoglu said. "This is what we are saying: let the International Court of Justice decide."

"We are starting the necessary legal procedures this coming week," he said.

But Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said his country has nothing to apologize for and that it has done all it could to avoid a crisis with Turkey. He said the Turks apparently intended to raise tensions with Israel for its own reasons.

"The problem here is on the Turkish side. ... They were not ready for a compromise and kept raising the threshold," Ayalon said on Israeli TV Saturday. "I think we need to say to the Turks: as far as we are concerned, this saga is behind us. Now we need to cooperate. Lack of cooperation harms not only us, but Turkey as well."

Davutoglu said the U.N. report released Friday contradicted an earlier report on the Gaza flotilla incident which found that Israeli forces violated international law when they raided the flotilla. That report was prepared in September by three human rights experts appointed by the U.N.'s top human rights body.

He also warned Israel that it risks alienation among Arab nations by resisting an apology.

"If Israel persists with its current position, the Arab spring will give rise to a strong Israel opposition as well as the debate on the authoritarian regimes," Davutoglu said.

On Friday, Turkey downgraded its diplomatic ties with Israel to the level of second secretary and gave the ambassador and other high-level diplomats until Wednesday to leave the country. In other measures against Israel, Turkey suspended military agreements, promised to back legal actions against Israel by the raid victims' families, and vowed to take steps to ensure freedom to navigate in the eastern Mediterranean.

Turkish officials refused to elaborate on their government's latest move, but some analysts suggested Turkey could send navy vessels to escort aid ships in the future.

Turkey's main opposition party on Friday warned that such a step could lead to confrontation between Turkish and Israeli forces. "The probability that (Turkey's ruling) party has carried Turkey to the brink of a hot conflict is saddening and unacceptable," said Faruk Logoglu, a deputy chairman of the opposition Republican People's Party.

On Saturday, Ban urged Turkey and Israel to mend ties for the good of the Middle East peace process. "I sincerely hope that Israel and Turkey will improve their relationship," Ban told reporters during a visit to Australia.

"Both countries are very important countries in the region and their improved relationship — normal relationship — will be very important in addressing all the situations in the Middle East, including the Middle East peace process," he said, referring to a negotiated Palestinian-Israeli peace pact.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's spokesman said the U.N. committee's report concluded that Israel had acted within its rights and said he hoped it would help "put the relationship between Jerusalem and Ankara back on the right track."

"The U.N. commission clearly states that Israel acted legally in imposing the naval blockade to protect our people from the smuggling of rockets and weapons that are fired at our civilians," the spokesman, Mark Regev, said.

The U.N. report released Friday called the May 31, 2010 Israeli raid "excessive and unreasonable." The U.N. panel also blamed Turkey and flotilla organizers for contributing to the deaths.

Israel insists its forces acted in self-defense and says there will be no apology. Israeli officials pointed out that the report does not demand an apology. Rather, it says "an appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences."
                                           P.C.

Title: WSJ: Turkey-Israel relations continue to worsen desepite UN report
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2011, 06:09:35 AM

By MARC CHAMPION in Istanbul and JOSHUA MITNICK in Tel Aviv
ISTANBUL—Turkey said Monday it would do nothing "for now" to change its economic relationship with Israel as a rift between Washington's two closest allies in the Middle East deepened.

What appeared to be a veiled threat from Turkish economy minister Zafer Caglayan came just hours after the governor of Israel's central bank warned that the cost of losing trade with Turkey would be far-reaching for the Jewish state.

Ties between Turkey and Israel, once strategic partners, reached a new low Friday when Ankara downgraded diplomatic relations and canceled all military agreements between the two states.

Turkish officials said they were responding to Israel's continued refusal to apologize for the deaths of eight Turkish citizens and an American of Turkish descent on board a Gaza-bound aid ship in May last year.

But tensions continued to escalate Monday when tourist groups from both countries were held temporarily for questioning at airports in Tel Aviv and Istanbul in apparent tit-for-tat actions. Meanwhile, Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, pledged at a news conference with a senior Palestinian official to secure the needed votes in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state at the United Nations this month.

Both Israel and the U.S. oppose such a U.N. recognition of Palestine, setting the scene for a potential diplomatic confrontation in New York.

Mr. Davutoglu's statement Friday said nothing about the growing trade relationship between the two countries—valued at nearly $3.5 billion last year and up by more than a quarter in the first half of 2011 from a year earlier. But reports in Turkish and Israeli media said economic sanctions would follow. "For now, there is no change in economic relations," Mr. Caglayan said Monday.

A spokesman for Mr. Davutoglu declined to comment on the media reports but noted that Friday's statement stressed that the measures it announced were only those to be taken "at this stage." Turkish leaders have said more punitive action will come unless Israel delivers an apology for the nine deaths, as well as compensation.

Speaking to a conference on regional cooperation in Tel Aviv, Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer said the deterioration of ties with Turkey could hurt Israel, noting that Turkey's $700 billion economy was the largest in the region. "The consequences of not having trading relations with Turkey would be potentially expansive, particularly for us, because in terms of sophisticated economies in the region—which is where we export most successfully—[Turkey] is the most important," he said.

Mr. Caglayan acknowledged there also would be costs to Turkey in losing the relationship. Israel is one of the few significant trading partners with which Turkey enjoys a surplus, a boon at a time when Ankara is struggling to control a ballooning trade deficit.

Still, the potential economic impact of the rift appeared to be on display already Monday. Businesswoman Hayuta Leibovitch was among some 40 Israelis who landed in Istanbul in the morning and reported being detained by border police at the airport without explanation. Ms. Leibovitch, who imports fashion products from Turkey, told Israel Radio that the group had their passports taken away for 90 minutes before being allowed to proceed.

"I feel this is a point of no return. I am going to do what I've been mulling over for two years, and look for alternatives. This won't be easy," said Ms. Leibovitch, who told Israel Radio she had been visiting Turkey at least once every two months for 10 years. "The feeling was humiliating, like, 'You're not apologizing? We'll show you who the boss is here.' "

A Turkish tour group returning from Ramadan celebrations in Jerusalem said they also had been singled out—by Israeli security officials at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport. Members of the group told reporters they had been strip searched, were repeatedly questioned and had their bags pulled apart, before being allowed to fly home.

"There was a different treatment against Turkish people," the group's guide, Eyup Ansar Ugur told Turkey's state-run Anadolu news agency.

Further tensions look likely. A spokesman for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Monday that a long-planned trip to Egypt is now set, probably early next week, and that efforts to arrange a politically sensitive side trip to the Gaza strip were continuing. Israel fears that a visit to Gaza by so senior and popular a figure as Mr. Erdogan would help to legitimize Hamas, which governs the territory but is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S.
=========

Here's a story for the man-bites-dog folder: The United Nations has conducted another inquiry into an Israeli military operation—and produced a report that mainly vindicates the Jewish state. And here, alas, is a story for the dog-bites-man folder: The Turkish government has responded to the U.N. report by withdrawing its ambassador from Tel Aviv and expelling Israel's from Ankara.

The Palmer report—named for the inquiry's chairman, former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer—was commissioned by the U.N.'s Secretary General to investigate the May 2010 "flotilla incident," when six ships sailing from Turkey to Gaza on an alleged humanitarian mission were boarded by Israeli commandos enforcing a naval blockade of Gaza. Nine passengers were killed (and several Israeli soldiers badly beaten) in the ensuing melee, sparking a crisis in Jerusalem's already frayed relations with Ankara.

Given the U.N.'s track record on Israel, one might have expected this latest report to be a reprise of Richard Goldstone's notorious report alleging Israeli war crimes during its 2009 war with Gaza (charges later retracted by Mr. Goldstone). Instead, the Palmer report offers a point-by-point rebuttal to some of the most preposterous accusations leveled against Israel.

One such accusation from the Turks is that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is illegal because blockades can only be legally imposed on another state, and Israel has never recognized Palestine as a state. The Palmer report dismisses that legal legerdemain, noting that "Hamas is the de facto political and administrative authority in Gaza," that "it is Hamas that is firing projectiles into Israel or permitting others to do so," that "law does not operate in a political vacuum" and thus "Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza."

Then there is the fiction that the flotilla had embarked on a "humanitarian mission." If that were true, its organizers would not have spurned Israel's offer to off-load their supplies in the nearby Israeli port of Ashdod. As the report acidly observes, the flotilla's largest ship and the site of the fighting—the Mavi Marmara—barely contained any humanitarian goods beyond "foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers' personal baggage."

The report also gives weight to the view that a "hardcore group of about 40 activists" from an Islamist NGO known as the IHH "had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening" when they boarded the ship in Istanbul. "It is clear to the Panel that preparations were made by some of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara well in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt."

Simply put, the flotilla's organizers were spoiling for the fight they later would claim as evidence of Israeli criminality. That's a fight Israel went out of its way to avoid, both through high-level diplomatic representations to Ankara and repeated warnings to the flotilla to turn away from the blockade. Too bad, then, that the report makes a weak stab at balance by chiding the conduct of Israeli soldiers in the heat of a battle against dozens of thugs armed with iron bars, chains, knives and—given that two of the Israeli commandos were shot—probably firearms as well.

All of this might have provoked a bit of soul-searching within the Turkish government, just as its once-warm embrace of Syria's Bashar Assad has. Instead, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has doubled down on his anti-Israel bets, insisting that Jerusalem apologize to Turkey, compensate the victims and lift its blockade of Gaza as the price for his forgiveness. The Palmer report is a fresh reminder—from the least likely of sources—of why Israel has no honorable choice but to spurn those demands. The Turks will learn in their own time that being Hamas's patron is a loser's game.

Title: Stratfor: Turkey suspends Defense ties with Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2011, 06:17:49 PM

Dispatch: Turkey Suspends Defense Ties With Israel
September 6, 2011 | 2146 GMT
Click on image below to watch video:



Analyst Reva Bhalla discusses Turkey’s strategic need for a crisis with Israel and a growing U.S.-Turkish relationship that is increasing Israel’s vulnerability.


Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Related Links
Fresh Tensions Between Israel, Turkey Over Flotilla Incident
Iran Monitors Turkey’s Rising Regional Power
Israeli-Arab Crisis Approaching
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a press conference on Tuesday in which he said Turkey would be suspending defense industry ties with Israel. The announcement follows Israel’s continued refusal to apologize for a flotilla incident last May, as well as a leaked report on a U.N. report that largely exonerated Israel before that crisis. Turkey has a strategic intent to ratchet up its crisis with Israel for primarily public-relations purposes, but this is a diplomatic crisis that Israel cannot afford.

Over the past several months, back channel talks between Israel and Turkey that have primarily been mediated by the United States have been taking place in search of a compromise over the flotilla incident. Political personalities certainly play a role in sustaining the sticking points in these negotiations, but there is a deeper interest that Turkey has in continuing this crisis. Turkey is slowly but surely reemerging as a regional power. Last May when the flotilla incident occurred, Turky’s public relations campaign designed to broaden Turkish appeal in the Islamic world, was already well under way. Many will recall Erdogan’s outburst at the Davos Summit in 2009. The spread of unrest in the Arab world has accelerated Turkey’s rise, pushing Turkey into making difficult policy decisions on everything from cooperating with the United States against Iran and Iraq to developing a contingency plan for a post-Assad Syria. Many countries in the region, including Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are looking to Turkey to see if Turkish talk is all it’s worth. There’s been a great deal of skepticism in the Arab media in particular, over whether Turkish influence is really as much as it claims.

Playing up a crisis with Israel could help, in part, with Turkey’s credibility issues as it seeks to redefine its relationship with Israel and saturate the Middle East with its own influence. The problem for Israel is that Israel cannot afford diplomatic isolation. Israel needs Turkey far more than Turkey needs Israel, especially as Israel is encountering many problems on its borders.

From Turkey’s perspective, even defense industry cooperation with Israel can be substituted, and that’s where we see the United States playing an interesting role. The United States will become increasingly reliant on Turkey to help manage conflicts in the Middle East from Syria, to Egypt, to Iran, and so the U.S. will increasingly prioritize its relationship with Turkey over its relationship with Israel. This is something that Turkey is likely aware of, and is why we think that Turkey may be more serious this time about expanding its presence in the eastern Mediterranean, including the possibility of the Turkish Navy escorting aid ships to the Gaza Strip.

Turkey doesn’t need to care too much about what Israel thinks, but it does need to care about what the United States thinks on these issues. Some bargaining can thus be expected between Ankara and Washington. For example, Turkey, in exchange for cooperation on issues that the U.S. cares about, can negotiate U.S. tolerance for a continued diplomatic crisis with Israel. That’s even a dynamic that the U.S. could use to its advantage in trying to corner Israel on other issues. In that sense, Turkey’s decision on Sunday to formally approve the installation of an X-band radar as part of a U.S.-led ballistic missile defense strategy, could serve as a useful indicator that Turkey and the United States have issues, largely unrelated to Israel, that take precedence.

Title: Glick: Baraq's record and some American jews.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 08, 2011, 08:14:32 AM

US election season is clearly upon us as US President Barack Obama has moved into full campaign mode. Part and parcel of that mode is a new bid to woo Jewish voters and donors upset by Obama's hostility to Israel back in the Democratic Party's fold.

To undertake this task, the White House turned to its reliable defender, columnist Jeffrey Goldberg. Since 2008, when then-candidate Obama was first challenged on his anti-Israel friends, pastors and positions, Goldberg has willingly used his pen to defend Obama to the American Jewish community.

Trying to portray Obama as pro-Israel is not a simple task. From the outset of his tenure in office, Obama has distinguished himself as the most anti-Israel president ever.

Obama is the first president ever to denounce Jewish property rights in Jerusalem. He is the first president to require Israel to deny Jews property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as a precondition for peace talks with the Palestinians.

He is the first US president to adopt the position that Israel must surrender its right to defensible borders in the framework of a peace treaty. He has even made Israeli acceptance of this position a precondition for negotiations.

He is the first US president to accept Hamas as a legitimate actor in Palestinian politics. Obama's willingness to do so was exposed by his refusal to end US financial assistance to the PA in the aftermath of last spring's unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

He is the first US president to make US support for Israel at the UN conditional on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

Even today, Obama has refused to state outright whether or not he will veto a Security Council resolution later this month endorsing Palestinian statehood outside the context of a peace treaty with Israel. As he leaves Israel twisting in the wind, he has sent his chief Middle East Peace Processors Dennis Ross and David Hale to Israel to threaten Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into caving to US-Palestinian demands and beg PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to accept an Israeli surrender and cancel his plans to have the UN General Assembly upgrade the PLO's mission to the UN.

Given Obama's record - to which can be added his fervent support for Turkish Prime Minister and virulent anti-Semite Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his courtship of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and his massive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Egypt - it is obvious that any attempt to argue that Obama is pro-Israel cannot be based on substance, or even on tone. And so Goldberg's article, like several that preceded it, is an attempt to distort Obama's record and deflect responsibility for that record onto Netanyahu. Netanyahu, in turn, is demonized as ungrateful and uncooperative.

Goldberg's narrative began by recalling Netanyahu's extraordinary statement during his photo opportunity with Obama at the Oval Office during his visit to Washington in May. At the time, Netanyahu gave an impassioned defense of Israel's right to secure borders and explained why the 1949 armistice lines are indefensible.

Goldberg centered on then-secretary of defense Robert Gates's angry statement to his colleagues in the wake of Netanyahu's visit. Gates reportedly accused Israel of being ungrateful for all the things the US did for it.

After presenting Gates as an objective critic whose views were justified and shared by one and all, Goldberg went on to claim that the administration's justified antipathy for Netanyahu was liable to harm Israel. That is, he claimed that it would be Netanyahu's fault if Obama abandoned traditional US support for Israel.

Goldberg's article is stunning on several levels. First, his distortion of events is breathtaking. Specifically he failed to note that Netanyahu's statement at the Oval Office was precipitated by Obama's decision to blindside Netanyahu with his announcement that the US supported an Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Obama made the statement in a speech given while Netanyahu was en route to Washington.

Then there is his portrayal of Gates as an objective observer. Goldberg failed to mention that Gates's record has been consistently anti-Israel. In his Senate approval hearings during the Bush administration, Gates became the first senior US official to state publicly that Israel had a nuclear arsenal.

Gates was a member of the 2006 Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that recommended the US pressure Israel to surrender Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights in order to appease the Arab world and pave the way for a US withdrawal from Iraq.

Gates did everything he could at the Pentagon to deny Israel the ability to attack Iran's nuclear installations. He was also a fervent advocate of massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia that upset the military balance in the Middle East.

The Obama administration bases its claims that it is pro-Israel on the fact that it has continued and expanded some of the joint US-Israel missile defense projects that were initiated by the Bush administration. Goldberg sympathetically recorded the argument.

But the truth is less sanguine. While jointly developing defensive systems, the administration has placed unprecedented restrictions on the export of offensive military platforms and technologies to Israel. Under Gates, Pentagon constraints on Israeli technology additions to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters nearly forced Israel to cancel its plans to purchase the aircraft.

It is an open question whether American Jews will be willing to buy the bill of goods the administration is trying to sell them through their media proxies in next year's presidential elections. But if next week's special elections for New York's Ninth Congressional District are any indication, the answer is apparently that an unprecedented number of American Jews are unwilling to ignore reality and support the most anti-Israel president ever.

The New York race is attracting great attention because it is serving as a referendum on Obama's policies toward Israel. The district, representing portions of Queens and Brooklyn, is heavily Jewish and has been reliably Democratic. And yet, a week before the elections, Republican candidate Bob Turner is tied in the polls with Democratic candidate David Weprin, and the main issue in the race is Obama's policies on Israel.

To sidestep criticism of the president's record, Weprin is seeking to distance himself from Obama. He refuses to say if he will support Obama's reelection bid. And he is as critical of Obama's record on Israel as his Republican opponent is.

But Turner's argument - that as a Democrat, Weprin will be forced to support his party and so support Obama - is gaining traction with voters. According to a McLaughlin poll of the district released on September 1, Turner's bid is gaining steam, and Weprin's is running out of steam, with Turner's favorability rates on the rise and Weprin's declining.

Deflecting substantive criticism by seeking to demonize one's opponents is a standard leftist play. Obama and his political supporters engage in it routinely in their demonization of their political opponents as "terrorists" and "extremists." And now, with the American Jewish vote in play for the first time since 1936, they are doing it to Netanyahu.

It is encouraging to see that at least in New York's Ninth Congressional District, American Jews are refusing to be taken in.

Title: Re: Glick: Baraq's record and some American jews.
Post by: G M on September 08, 2011, 08:23:54 AM

"Trying to portray Obama as pro-Israel is not a simple task. From the outset of his tenure in office, Obama has distinguished himself as the most anti-Israel president ever."

Whaaaaaaat? But he wore a kippa at AIPAC!  :roll:

Title: WSJ: Abbas rebuffs Baraq
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 09, 2011, 06:12:05 AM

By JAY SOLOMON in Washington and JOSHUA MITNICK in Ramallah

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rebuffed a last-ditch U.S. push aimed at getting him to back away from his campaign to win Palestinian statehood through a United Nations vote, placing Washington and Ramallah on a potential collision course in the months ahead.

On Thursday, Mr. Abbas recommitted to his plan to pursue the U.N. vote this month, following a meeting in the West Bank the previous day with two senior Obama administration officials. These officials explicitly warned the Palestinian leader that his relations with the U.S. could sour if he followed through on his initiative, according to diplomats briefed on the meeting.

The two American diplomats, the White House's Dennis Ross and special Middle East peace envoy David Hale, specifically pointed Mr. Abbas to threats made by the U.S. Congress to cut American financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority as a result of the U.N. initiative, according to these diplomats.

Messrs. Ross and Hale also told the Palestinian leader that the U.N. vote could undermine security in the Palestinian territories and potentially derail longer-term hopes for Mideast peace, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will likely disengage and harden his government's position toward the Palestinian Authority, according to these diplomats.

"The U.N. route is not an option," the American diplomats said, according to an official briefed on the exchange.

Mr. Abbas confirmed during a news briefing in Ramallah on Thursday that the U.S. has been exerting growing pressure on him to back away from his U.N. strategy. But he said he still planned to introduce a resolution to the Security Council this month asking that the 15-nation body recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, despite repeated U.S. statements that it will veto the measure.
"They talked about some sort of confrontation, which means there will be a big difference between'' the Palestinians and the U.S., Mr. Abbas said. "I am in need of their help. I will keep my relations normal-style with them. But if they don't want that, of course, it's up to America."

U.S. officials acknowledged Thursday they have been increasing pressure on Mr. Abbas. The State Department said U.S. diplomats would veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood placed before the Security Council. The State Department has also launched a global campaign in recent weeks to lobby governments to vote against any Palestinian initiative at the U.N. General Assembly. "If something comes to a vote in the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. will veto," State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said Thursday.

The U.S. envoys offered sweeteners to Mr. Abbas on Wednesday, according to the diplomats briefed on the meeting. But Palestinian officials said these were too little, too late.

Among the incentives: The U.S. had suggested the so-called quartet of powers working to broker a Mideast peace—composed of the U.N., European Union, U.S. and Russia—would put out a new statement in the coming days that seeks to more formally define the terms of a new round of talks between Israel and the Palestinians.  (What a , , , remarkablestrategy this is!)

The statement is specifically seeking to weave in President Barack Obama's stated position that new talks use Israel's borders prior to the 1967 Six Day War as the baseline for creating a new Palestinian state, while acknowledging the need for some territorial exchanges. Mr. Netanyahu has so far rejected such parameters for the talks, arguing that Israel's 1967 borders are now "indefensible."

The Palestinians have been asking the quartet to demand a complete freeze on Jewish construction in the disputed West Bank and East Jerusalem, a timeline for new talks and guarantees that East Jerusalem and the future status of Palestinians refugees will be on the agenda.

None of these issues are expected in the new statement, U.S. and European officials say.

Mr. Abbas said Thursday that he would look at the text of any new quartet statement. But he strongly suggested that his decision had been made to go to the U.N. "If if they come now in this short time and say: 'Okay, we have a package, and don't go to the United Nations,' I think this amounts to a game,"' Mr. Abbas said.

The U.S. officials also told Mr. Abbas that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would play a more central and "personal" role in the peace process if the Palestinians agreed to enter into another round of direct talks with Israel's government.

U.S. officials privately worry that a decision by the Obama administration to veto the Palestinian initiative could end up dominating the debate at the U.N. General Assembly during the last two weeks of September.

The White House had been hoping to utilize the annual event to showcase the spread of democratic movements across the Middle East and North Africa. Mr. Obama is planning to participate in an event showcasing the new leadership in Libya that recently overthrew longstanding strongman Moammar Gadhafi, with the help of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization military strikes.

The Palestinians' push at the U.N. is in many ways ceremonial. Only the Security Council has the power to formally authorize the creation of a new state, which Washington has made clear won't happen.

But Palestinian officials said they were likely to work around the Security Council and seek a vote among the 192-nation General Assembly aimed at giving Palestine the status of a nonmember observer state. Only the Vatican now has that status.

A widely expected vote in favor could give the Palestinians far more rights at the U.N. and membership at key U.N. and global bodies, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

Israeli officials are already expressing concerns that their government could face growing legal challenges at both the Human Rights Council and the ICC if the General Assembly votes in favor of the Palestinian initiative. Indeed, Messrs. Ross and Hale told Mr. Abbas that actions by the Palestinians at the ICC was a "red line" that the U.S. believed couldn't be crossed.

Mr. Abbas said Thursday that the Palestinians aren't looking to go to the ICC, but suggested they might pursue claims there in the future in response to Israeli actions.

Leading Democratic and Republican lawmakers have publicly warned Mr. Abbas in recent months that he risks future U.S. financial assistance if he goes forward with the U.N. vote. The U.S. has been providing the Palestinian Authority with $500 million to $900 million in annual aid. It has come in the form of military assistance, direct budgetary support and funds for international organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

The chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), announced last month that she would also seek to cut off funding for any U.N. agency that accepts an upgrade in the Palestinians' diplomatic status.

In 2006, Congress briefly cut off most funding for the Palestinian Authority after the militant group Hamas, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, won local elections. The U.S. actions greatly undercut the Palestinian Authority's ability to pay its staffers and meet its financial obligations. Much U.S. legislation toward the Palestinians has rigid requirements that limit the White House's ability to seek waivers.

Still, a number of U.S. officials have privately said that the cessation of aid to the Palestinian Authority could end up undermining Washington and Israel's interests. The Palestinian Authority has been commended for improving the performance of its security forces in the West Bank. An end of military assistance could ultimately hurt Israel's security situation, said these U.S. officials.

"If they cut their aid to us, it will be a different situation,'' Mr. Abbas said Thursday. "Of course it's a problem."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: prentice crawford on September 09, 2011, 05:42:34 PM

  Egyptians break into Israel Embassy in Cairo
By AYA BATRAWY - Associated Press | AP – 58 mins agotweet9Share4EmailPrintRelated Content
Egyptian activists demolish a concrete wall built around a building housing the Israeli …

Some hundreds of Egyptian activists demolish a concrete wall built around a building …
CAIRO (AP) — A group of about 30 protesters broke into the Israeli Embassy in Cairo Friday and dumped hundreds of documents out of the windows after a day of demonstrations outside the building in which crowds swinging sledge hammers and using their bare hands tore apart the embassy's security wall.

Israel's ambassador, Yitzhak Levanon, his family and other embassy staff were waiting at Cairo's airport for a military plane to evacuate them, said airport officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Hundreds of protesters converged on the embassy throughout the afternoon and into the night, tearing down large sections of the graffiti-covered security wall outside the 21-story building housing the embassy. Egyptian security forces made no attempt for hours to intervene.

Just before midnight, a group of protesters reached a room on one of the embassy's lower floors at the top of the building and began dumping Hebrew-language documents from the windows, said an Egyptian security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

In Jerusalem, an Israeli official confirmed the embassy had been broken into, saying it appeared the group reached a waiting room on the lower floor. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to release the information.

No one answered the phone at the embassy late Friday.

Since the fall of Hosni Mubarak in February, calls have grown in Egypt for ending the historic 1979 peace treaty with Israel, a pact that has never had the support of ordinary Egyptians. Anger increased last month after Israeli forces responding to a cross-border militant attack mistakenly killed five Egyptian police officers near the border.

Several large protests have taken place outside the embassy in recent months without serious incident. Friday's demonstration, however, quickly escalated with crowds pummeling the security wall with sledge hammers and tearing away large sections of the cement and metal barrier, which was recently put up to better protect the site from protests.

For the second time in less than a month, protesters were able to get to the top of the building and pull down the Israeli flag.

Crowds outside the building photographed documents that drifted to the ground and posted some of them online.

Protesters clashed with police and set fire to a police truck outside the embassy. Crowds also tried to attack a nearby police station but were turned back by security forces firing tear gas and warning shots. State radio reported that one person died of a heart attack and that 163 people were injured.

Senior Israeli officials were holding discussions on the embassy breach.

Israeli Defense Minster Ehud Barak said in a statement that he also spoke with his American counterpart, Leon Panetta, and appealed to him to do what he could to protect the embassy.

Thousands elsewhere protested for the first time in a month against the country's military rulers.

Seven months after the popular uprising that drove Mubarak from power, Egyptians are still pressing for a list of changes, including more transparent trials of former regime figures accused of corruption and a clear timetable for parliamentary elections.

Egyptians have grown increasingly distrustful of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which took control of the country when Mubarak was forced out on Feb. 11 after nearly three decades in power. The council, headed by Mubarak's defense minister, Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi, has voiced its support for the revolution and those who called for democracy and justice.

But activists accuse it of remaining too close to Mubarak's regime and practicing similarly repressive policies, including abusing detainees. The trials of thousands of civilians in military courts has also angered activists.

"In the beginning we were with the military because they claimed to be protectors of the revolution, but month after month nothing has changed," said doctor Ghada Nimr, one of those who gathered in Tahrir Square.

One banner in Cairo read, "Egyptians, come out of your homes, Tantawi is Mubarak."

Demonstrators in Cairo also converged on the state TV building, a central courthouse and the Interior Ministry, a hated symbol of abuses by police and security forces under Mubarak. Protesters covered one of the ministry's gates with graffiti and tore off parts of the large ministry seal.

Protests also took place in Alexandria, Suez and several other cities.

About 850 people were killed in the early days of the Jan. 25-Feb. 11 uprising. Tantawi is scheduled to testify in Mubarak's trial in closed sessions that begin Sunday. The 83-year-old Mubarak is on trial on charges of complicity in the deaths of protesters, a charge that could bring the death penalty.

The judge in the trial banned TV cameras from the courtroom during this week's sessions, and starting Sunday the proceedings will be closed to the media and the public.

The lack of transparency in trials of members of Mubarak's inner circle has angered many in Egypt.

"These are all practices of the old regime: repression and restriction on freedoms," said Cairo protester Khaled Abdel-Hamid.

                                                         P.C.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 09, 2011, 06:46:59 PM

With the moves in the UN that will give observer status to Gaza-West Bank (and the right to sit on various bodies such as the Human Rights Council if I am not mistaken), the Turks apparently planning to challenge the blockade of Gaza and the Israeli development of natural gas off its coastline, the apparent trajectory in Egypt towards ending the peace treaty, and Baraq Hussein Obowma in the White House, the prognosis is grim indeed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 09, 2011, 06:51:35 PM

Who could have seen this coming?

Title: Jewish "Intellectuals" dead wrong: King of Jordan
Post by: ccp on September 12, 2011, 08:10:25 AM

I wonder who the intellectual is.  State's he is an Israeli but also quoted as speaking to him in US.  Wonder if it is Soros.:

*****Jordan's Abdullah: Israel's situation today more difficult than ever

King says 'Jordan and the future Palestine are stronger than Israel is today. It is the Israeli who is scared today'

Roee Nahmias Published:  09.12.11, 15:21 / Israel News 
 share

"Jordan and the future Palestine are stronger than Israel is today. It is the Israeli who is scared today," King Abdullah of Jordan said late Sunday in Amman.

The king described a recent conversation he held in the US with "one of the Israeli intellectuals" who commented on events in the Arab world, arguing that they were good for Israel. "I replied and said that it was the opposite and that Israel's situation today is more difficult than ever before.

Abdullah reiterated that his country would not serve as an "alternative homeland to the Palestinians."

According to the Jordanian leader, "Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine. We support all Palestinian rights and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state – our policy hasn’t changed. The subject of an alternative homeland must not be part of the discussion. It is unacceptable."

Abdullah sought to reassure everyone, saying "I have never heard from any senior American official – whether Bush, Clinton or Obama – any pressure on Jordan that the Palestinian solution should come at its expense."

"Jordan", the king added, "Will defend its rights and support its vision of a permanent solution that would ensure the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and a just realization of the right of return and adequate compensation."****

Title: Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 12, 2011, 02:10:29 PM

Analyst Kamran Bokhari examines Israel’s regional challenge and Egypt’s domestic challenge following an attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.


Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Egyptian protesters storming the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Sept. 9 has created friction between Egypt and Israel, as both sides try to manage the uneasy relationship. This incident has domestic policy implications for Egypt as well as foreign policy implications for Israel.

Egyptian and Israeli authorities are trying to put behind the incident that took place on Friday when several protesters stormed the Israeli embassy, forcing the Israeli ambassador and his family to return to Israel. Authorities in both countries are trying to manage the diplomatic relationship that has become tense, given the fall of President Hosni Mubarak and the uncertain political conditions in Egypt.

The tensions involving Israel are not exactly completely negative from the point of view of Egypt’s military leadership. The Egyptian military authority is interested in delaying, as much as possible, the transition toward civilian rule. What that means is essentially postponing elections as long as possible. Given the current mood within Egypt, the military government doesn’t exactly have the leverage to be able to postpone those elections. That said, an issue like tensions with Israel can be used by the government in Cairo to be able to pull off that kind of postponement of elections. But, nonetheless, the situation right now is very premature and it’s not really clear whether the Egyptian authorities will be able to make use of the incident with Israel to manage domestic politics.

The tensions between Egypt and Israel come at a time when Israel is facing growing problems across its regional neighborhood. Israel has to worry about what is happening in Syria, what would be the fate of the embattled al Assad regime that is facing protests of its own. The Turkish government has announced that it is going to deploy its own naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean, which essentially is upping the anti with Israel, because Israel, thus far, has had freedom of movement in those waters.

In addition, there is the issue of the Palestinians who are trying to use the United Nations General Assembly session this year to be able to pull off a vote in favor of Palestinian statehood. Taken together, all of these issues complicate matters for Israel, and the key pillar of Israeli security is Egypt and the relationship with Egypt. And if Egyptian relations with Israel cannot be managed, then that becomes a far bigger problem for Israel and makes it less likely for Israel to be able to manage the other issues.

Title: Dershowitz brings some legal clarity
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2011, 09:55:53 AM

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
As Egypt and Turkey increase tensions with Israel, the Palestinian Authority seeks to isolate the Jewish state even further by demanding that the United Nations accord Palestine recognition as a "state" without a negotiated peace with Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas described his playbook for seeking U.N. recognition while bypassing the step of negotiating a two-state solution: "We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years."

What exactly happened 63 years ago? The U.N. recommended partitioning the former British mandate into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab. Israel and most of the rest of the world accepted that partition plan, and Israel declared itself the nation-state of the Jewish people. The United States, the Soviet Union and all the great powers recognized this declaration and the two-state solution that it represented.

The Arab world unanimously rejected the U.N. partition plan and the declaration of statehood by Israel. The Arab population within Israel and in the area set aside for an Arab state joined the surrounding Arab nations in taking up arms.

In defending its right to exist, Israel lost 1% of its population, many of whom were civilians and survivors of the recent Holocaust. Yet the current Palestinian leadership still insists on calling the self-inflicted wounds caused by its rejection of a two-state solution the "nakba," meaning the catastrophe.

By claiming that the Palestinians "have been under occupation for 63 years" (as distinguished from the 44 years since the Arab states attacked Israel in 1967 and Israel occupied some lands of the invading nations), the Palestinian president is trying to turn the clock back to a time prior to Israel's establishment as a state based on the U.N.'s two-state proposal. In other words, the push for recognition by the U.N. of Palestine as a state, based on Mr. Abbas's complaint that the Palestinians have been under occupation for 63 years, is an attempt to undo the old work of the U.N. that resulted in Israel's statehood 63 years ago.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press
 
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
.Mr. Abbas's occupation complaint also explains why he is so adamant in refusing to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Every Arab state is officially a Muslim state and yet, as in 1948, none of them is prepared to accept the permanent existence of a state for the Jewish people in the Middle East. Certainly some, including the Palestinian Authority, are prepared to mouth recognition of Israel as a state, so long as the so-called right of return remains for four million so-called refugees who, if they were to return in mass, would soon turn Israel into yet another Arab state.

Mahmoud Abbas is generally a reasonable man, and many of the things he has recently said about the need for the two-state solution are also reasonable. But he talks out of two sides of his mouth: one for consumption by the international community and the other for consumption by the Palestinian street. His complaint about a 63-year occupation is clearly designed to signal to his constituents that he won't give up on the ultimate goal of turning Israel into a Palestinian state.

If the General Assembly recognizes Palestine as a state without the need to negotiate with Israel, it will, in effect, be undercutting many of its own past resolutions, as well as many bilateral agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Such recognition would set back the prospects for a negotiated peaceful resolution and would encourage the use of violence by frustrated Palestinians who will gain nothing concrete from the U.N.'s hollow action but will expect much from it.

We saw what happened when the Palestinian people came close to achieving statehood in 2000-'01—a prospect that was shattered by Yasser Arafat's rejection of the Clinton-Barak peace plan. Arafat's rejection, which even the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. at the time, Bandar bin Sultan, later called a "crime" against the Palestinian people, resulted in a bloody intifada uprising among Palestinians in which thousands of Palestinians and Israelis were killed. The U.N. will be responsible for any ensuing bloodshed if it stokes the flames of violence by raising Palestinian expectations while lowering the prospects for a negotiated peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has urged the Palestinians to return immediately to the negotiating table without any preconditions. There is no downside in doing so, since everything would then be on the table for negotiation, including the borders, the right of return, recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, the settlements and anything else the Palestinians would seek as part of a negotiated two-state peace.

The job of the U.N. is to promote peace, not to retard it. So instead of discouraging negotiations by promising recognition, the U.N. should be demanding that the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government begin negotiations immediately without any preconditions. That would be a positive step.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).

Title: Stratfor reads our forum
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2011, 05:54:39 AM

and picks up on my point about the Egyptian military being pressured to change relations with Israel due to domestic considerations.
===================Turkey Seeks to Reassert Its Influence As Tensions Flare Between Egypt and Israel

Following a near crisis situation late Friday night when protesters laid siege to the Israeli embassy, the head of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Planning Unit, Amir Eshel, traveled to Cairo on Monday to discuss the recent security developments in Egypt. Although Eshel’s visit was reportedly focused primarily on the threats posed by lawlessness in the Sinai Peninsula, he also likely discussed an issue of major concern for Israel at the moment — the rising tone of anti-Israel sentiment in public demonstrations that has become commonplace in post-Mubarak Egypt.

“The only thing holding back a growing tidal wave of anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt is the military.”
The Egyptian protests that began last January in an effort to force the removal of then-President Hosni Mubarak never really stopped, even after he was deposed in a military coup. There have been occasional lulls, but the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has been dealing with demonstrations on a consistent basis now for over seven months. It was only recently that one of the major themes has become opposition to the SCAF’s relationship with Israel. The change in tone was triggered by the deaths of six members of the Egyptian security forces following the Aug. 18 Eilat attacks – and the way the SCAF handled the aftermath, most notably in refusing to recall Egypt’s ambassador to Israel.

There is a disconnect between the way most Egyptian people feel regarding Israel and the strategic considerations that guide the military’s relations with its northeastern neighbor. To put it simply, most Egyptians dislike Israel and the peace treaty the two nations negotiated in 1978, while the military views their long-held alliance as a pillar of Cairo’s national security. Israel’s fear since last winter has been that new domestic considerations would leave the Egyptian military vulnerable to public pressure to amend this relationship.

The SCAF could have prevented the demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy from escalating to the point where protesters were able to physically enter the building. There was an order from the top to allow the situation to become a near crisis before intervening to stop it. The SCAF waited for what must have felt like to Israel (and the United States) an interminably long time to order its commandos to bring the crisis to an end, whisking the remaining staff away and out of harm’s way. Israel expressed appreciation for this rescue, but it also likely understood the message conveyed by this incident: The only thing holding back a growing tidal wave of anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt is the military.

It is unclear who organized the demonstrations that began as a standard protest in Tahrir Square before moving over to the embassy. The Israeli embassy had witnessed several such (largely peaceful) gatherings in the weeks following the Eilat attacks. Israel is not as concerned with who organized the demonstrations as much as how the SCAF may feel it has to appease the demonstrators to avoid being seen as being too quick to rush to Israel’s defense. Although the SCAF is still in firm control of the country and has no intention of breaking the peace treaty, in Israel’s mind, exploiting events such as last Friday’s for political gain is playing with fire. At some point, the military may not be able to save the day.

Turkish Prime Minister Recap Tayyip Erdogan — the leader of another country whose relationship with Israel has seen significant strains — was already scheduled to visit Cairo on Monday when the embassy crisis erupted. In the middle of what Ankara has dubbed the Turkish leader’s “Arab Spring tour,” Erdogan has planned visits to Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. (An idea to also visit the Gaza Strip was abandoned last week, possibly at the behest of the SCAF.)

Turkey, like Egypt, has a long-running alliance with Israel. Unlike Egypt, Turkey had already begun to re-orient its foreign policy in recent years away from having such close ties with Israel. (The Mavi Marmara incident, which has recently come back into the headlines, was a by-product of this shift that began in 2008.) Reasserting its influence in the Arab world, especially in the countries that experienced political turmoil in the wake of the Arab Spring, is currently one of Ankara’s main foreign policy goals. The Turks are using their public spat with Israel to gain credibility in the region that shares anti-Israel sentiments. The sight of Erdogan speaking to a crowd of Egyptians in Arabic on Monday to chants of “Protector of Islam” points to the utility of such an approach.

In the end, however, Turkey is not yet ready to play the role of regional powerhouse, or to even effectively mediate the tensions between Egypt and Israel. Ankara is playing a perceptions game with Erdogan’s regional tour — a process that will take time to bear fruit. Israel, on the other hand, is facing reality. Given its strained relations with Turkey, doubt about its alliance with Egypt, a looming Palestinian U.N. vote, a weakened Syrian regime, a perpetually unpredictable Lebanon and an Iran that is about to gain from the looming vacuum in Iraq, Israel is reminded of the pitfalls of being located in the Middle East.

Title: The Peace Process
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 15, 2011, 03:59:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QAuBc_cbXo0

Title: Suadi prince on the US veto in UN
Post by: bigdog on September 16, 2011, 02:21:49 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/veto-a-state-lose-an-ally.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

Title: Re: Suadi prince on the US veto in UN
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 03:19:36 AM

Quote from: bigdog on September 16, 2011, 02:21:49 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/veto-a-state-lose-an-ally.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

http://www.cfr.org/world/saudi-arabia-americas-ally-enemy/p6618

Saudi Arabia, America's Ally and Enemy



Author:


Michael Doran


December 23, 2003
International Herald Tribune


Saudi Arabia is in the throes of a crisis. Its population is growing faster than its economy, its welfare state is rapidly deteriorating, regional and sectarian resentments are rising, and the disaffected are increasingly turning to radical Islamic activism. Many understand that the Saudi political system must evolve in order to survive, but a profound cultural schizophrenia prevents the elite from agreeing on the specifics of reform.
 
On the one hand, some Westernizers in the ruling class look to Europe and the United States as models of political development; on the other, a Wahhabi religious establishment holds up its interpretation of Islam's golden age as a guide and considers giving any voice to non-Wahhabis as idolatry.
 
Saudi Arabia's two most powerful figures have taken opposing sides in this debate: Crown Prince Abdullah tilts toward the liberal reformers, whereas his half-brother Prince Nayef, the interior minister, sides with the clerics. Abdullah cuts a higher profile abroad, but Nayef, who controls the secret police, casts a longer and darker shadow at home.
 
The two camps divide over a single question: whether the state should reduce the power of the religious establishment. The clerics and Nayef take their stand on the principle of tawhid, or "monotheism," as defined by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Wahhabism's founder. In their view, many people who claim to be monotheists are actually polytheists and idolaters. For the most radical Saudi clerics, these enemies include Christians, Jews, Shiites, and even insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims. From the perspective of tawhid, these groups constitute a grand conspiracy to destroy true Islam.
 
In the minds of the clerics, stomping out pagan cultural and political practices at home and supporting war against Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq are two sides of the same coin. Jihad against idolatry, the clerics never tire of repeating, is eternal, "lasting until Judgment Day," when true monotheism will destroy polytheism once and for all. The doctrine of tawhid also ensures the clerics a unique domestic political status, since it implies they alone have the necessary training to safeguard the purity of the realm.
 
If tawhid marks the right pole of the Saudi political spectrum, then the doctrine of taqarub - rapprochement between Muslims and non-Muslims - marks the left. Taqarub promotes the notion of peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers. It also seeks to expand the political community by legitimizing political participation by groups that the Wahhabis consider non-Muslim - Shiites, secularists, feminists and so on. In foreign policy, taqarub muzzles jihad, allowing Saudis to live in peace with Christian Americans, Jewish Israelis, and even Shiite Iranians.
 
Abdullah clearly associates himself with Taqarub. He has advocated relaxing restrictions on public debate, promoted democratic reform, supported a reduction in the power of the clerics, and even shown willingness to allow greater freedoms for Saudi Arabia's oppressed Shiite minority. By floating the "Saudi plan" for Arab-Israeli peace, moreover, and traveling to Crawford, Texas, to discuss the issue with President George W. Bush, he harmonized his domestic and foreign agendas. To a Western eye there is no inherent connection between Abdullah's political reform agenda and his rapprochement policies toward non-Muslim states and Shiite "heretics." In a political culture policed by Wahhabis, however, they are seen to be cut from the same cloth.
 
While Abdullah has signaled friendship with the West, Nayef has encouraged jihad - to the point of offering tacit support for Al Qaeda and overseeing a crackdown on Saudi liberals. Nayef does not take overt responsibility for the persecution of domestic reformers, but the hand of the secret police is barely hidden from view. The sequence of events is now familiar. Either without warning or in response to a complaint by a prominent cleric, a critic of the religious establishment loses his job. His employers subsequently refuse to comment. Islamic extremists then issue a death threat to the unemployed man over the phone or on the Internet. Almost invariably, the campaign achieves its desired result.
 
Everyone knows that Osama bin Laden rejects the legitimacy of the Saudi family, but few recognize the substantial overlap between the beliefs of Al Qaeda and the Saudi religious establishment. The chief ideological difference between them is that the former includes the Saudi royal family among its enemies while the latter does not.
 
This hardly rules out limited or tacit cooperation on a variety of issues. Al Qaeda activists sense, moreover, that the American desire to separate mosque and state across the Middle East constitutes the greatest immediate threat to their broader political goals. So Al Qaeda's short-term objective is less to topple the Saudi regime than to shift the country's domestic balance of power to the right and punish supporters of Taqarub.
 
Projecting their domestic struggle onto the external world, Saudi hard-liners are now arguing that the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia is conspiring with the United States in its war to destroy Islam. Al Qaeda's nightmare scenario is that the Americans and the Iraqi Shiites will force Riyadh to enact broad reforms and bring the Saudi Shiites into the political community. There is no question that many hard-line Saudi clerics share precisely the same fears.
 
These notions of an American-Shiite conspiracy are not simply an internal Saudi matter. They legitimize the daily attacks on American soldiers in Iraq's "Sunni Triangle," as well as attacks such as the anti-Shiite suicide bombing in Najaf last August. Nonetheless, changing the situation will be difficult, because the United States has limited means of muting the anti-Shiism and anti-Americanism that the Saudi clerics espouse.
 
Wahhabism is the foundation of an entire political system, and everyone with a stake in the status quo can be expected to rally around it when push comes to shove. The United States has no choice but to press hard for democratic reforms in both Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But the very attempt to create more liberal political orders will set off new disputes, which will inevitably generate anti-American feelings. As Washington struggles to promote democracy in the Middle East, therefore, it will find once again that its closest Arab ally is also one of its most bitter enemies.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The writer is assistant professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This article is drawn from a forthcoming essay in Foreign Affairs.
 

Title: Re: Suadi prince on the US veto in UN
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 03:25:53 AM

Saudi Venom in American MosquesBy: Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, February 01, 2005




Those of us following the nascent career of Islam in America have for years worried about the unhealthy influence of Saudi money and ideas on this community.
 
We watched apprehensively as the Saudi government boasted of funding mosques and research centers; as it announced its support for Islamist organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations; as it trained the imams who became radicalized chaplains in American prisons; and as it introduced Wahhabism to the university campuses via the Muslim Student Association.
 
But through the years, we lacked information on the contents of Saudi materials. Do these water down or otherwise change the raw, inflammatory message that dominates religious and political life in Saudi Arabia? Or do they replicate the same outlook?
 
Now, thanks to excellent research by Freedom House (a New York-headquartered organization founded in 1941 that calls itself “a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world”) we finally have specifics on the Saudi project. A just-published study, “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques,” provides a wealth of detail.
 
(Two points about it bear noting: this important study was written anonymously, for security reasons; and it was issued by a think tank, and not by university-based researchers. Once again, an off-campus organization does the most creative and timely work; yet again, Middle East specialists find themselves sidelined.)
 
The picture of Saudi activities in the United States is not a pretty one.
 
Freedom House’s Muslim volunteers went to fifteen prominent mosques from New York to San Diego and collected over two hundred books and other publications disseminated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (some 90 percent in the Arabic language) in the mosque libraries, publication racks, and bookstores.
 
What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings – each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom – espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:
 •Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes “that churches are houses of God and that God is worshipped therein … is an infidel.”
•Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam (who “should be killed”), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of the Shari‘a in America.
•See non-Muslims as the enemy: “Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”
•See the United States as hostile territory: “It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways.”
•Prepare for war against the United States: “To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government.”
 
The report’s authors correctly find that the publications under review “pose a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself.” The materials instill a doctrine of religious hatred inimical to American culture and serve to produce new recruits to the enemy forces in the war on terrorism.
 
To provide just one example of the latter: Adam Yahiye Gadahn, thought to be the masked person in a 2004 videotape threatening that American streets would “run with blood,” became a jihadi in the course of spending time at the Islamic Society of Orange County, a Saudi-funded institution.
 
Freedom House urges that the U.S. government “not delay” a protest at the highest levels to the Saudi government about its venomous publications lining the shelves of some of America’s most important mosques. That’s unobjectionable but it strikes this observer of Saudi-American relations as inadequate. The protest will be accepted, then filed away.
 
Instead, the insidious Saudi assault on America must be made central to the (misnamed) war on terror. The Bush administration needs to confront the domestic menace that the Wahhabi kingdom presents to the United States. That means junking the fantasy of Saudi friendship and seeing the country, like China, as a formidable rival whose ambitions for a very different world order must be both repulsed and contained.
 
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Title: Re: Suadi prince on the US veto in UN
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 03:46:38 AM

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/04/07/the_maturing_saudi-china_alliance_98904.html

April 7, 2010
The Maturing Saudi-China Alliance
By Daniel Wagner & Theodore Karasik


As Washington's influence in the world and the Middle East wanes, Gulf countries are weaning themselves from their traditional orientation toward and dependence on the United States. America's post-war political and economic supremacy in the region is now threatened as a result of its own foreign policy, but equally so by the rise in importance of the emerging powers. No country has capitalized on the shifting landscape more than China, which has, consistent with its actions globally, moved assertively to strengthen its ties with the Gulf region generally and in particular with its most important economic and political power, Saudi Arabia.
 
Chinese-KSA Background
From the Chinese perspective, energy security lays at the heart of the bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia, as has been the case with many of China's most important strategic relationships over the past decade. China has adopted a multi-tiered foreign policy designed to acquire and secure long-term energy supplies by diversifying its sources of oil and gas, engaging in 'energy diplomacy,' and establishing energy reserves. With the world's largest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia was bound to play an important role in Chinese energy policy.




 





Receive email alerts
Sign Up







Daniel Wagner & Theodore Karasik

Saudi Arabia



China

 


The Kingdom demonstrated its intention to adopt an independent approach to global affairs more than 20 years ago by holding talks between the former Soviet Union and Afghan rebels in 1988. China and Saudi Arabia signed a Memorandum of Understanding and opened commercial offices in each other's countries that year as well, which led to the formal establishment of diplomatic bilateral ties. Their relationship has steadily grown since then. Just as China has been vociferous in its pursuit of a deeper relationship with the region, Saudi Arabia has been the most assiduous in the region in cultivating a stronger relationship with China. For this reason, Saudi Arabia has, since 9/11, been perceived with some suspicion by America - even during the Bush years. King Abdullah's first foreign visit upon assuming the throne was to China. And President Hu has paid two visits to Saudi Arabia in the span of three years.
 
Saudi Arabia cast its eye on Asia with greater fervor over the past decade, recognizing that Japan's thirst for oil, combined with China's and India's economic growth and increasing influence in the global economy, meant that Asia will eventually replace North America and Europe as the largest consumer of Saudi oil. In 2009, Saudi oil exports to the U.S. fell to 989,000 barrels per day - the lowest level in 22 years, and down by a third from 2008. By contrast, Saudi oil exports to China doubled between 2008 and 2009 to more than a million barrels per day. The Kingdom now supplies a quarter of all of China's oil imports. The economic importance of each country to the other cannot therefore be exaggerated.
 
A substantial boost in Chinese exports to Saudi Arabia occurred after 2000, when Chinese products became more price-competitive. As a result of rising oil prices in the early part of the last decade, Saudi Arabia's appetite for Chinese products rose dramatically. Between 2002 and 2004, Saudi imports from China jumped by 160 percent - a growth rate not matched by any other country during this period in value terms. In 2006 Chinese President Hu declared a desire to boost bilateral trade between the two countries to SR150 billion by 2010. By 2008 Saudi exports reached SR116 billion and imports from China reached SR40 billion, when the volume of oil exported by the Kingdom to China reached 720,000 barrels per day.
 
China's oil demand is expected to grow by nearly one million barrels per day over the next two years, with its overall oil consumption having nearly doubled between 2000 and 2009 (to 8.5 million barrels per day). China will account for one third of global oil consumption in 2010. So while China's oil consumption is still only half that of the U.S. (at 18.5 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia knows that it is only a matter of time until China will become the top consumer. The Kingdom is reorienting its foreign and energy policy to become consistent with that eventuality.
 
The Kingdom is already China's largest trading partner in the greater Middle East, and China is Saudi Arabia's fourth-largest importer and fifth largest exporter in general. Chinese industrial products are increasingly replacing western goods in Saudi markets, which is impacting Saudi attitudes regarding the relative importance of China - and therefore the West - in long-term strategic relations. If China signs a free trade agreement with the GCC, China's perceived importance to the entire region will grow.
 
Current Affairs
The truth is that many in the GCC have grown tired of U.S. pressure on fighting terrorism and perceived U.S. interference in domestic affairs. Many Gulf states find their burgeoning relationship with China refreshing, in that China -- which itself objects to perceived U.S. interference in its domestic affairs -- tends not to do the same with its trading partners. But China's cordial relationship with Gulf States is not without sensitivities. In particular, China's repression of Muslims in Xinjiang Province has complicated its political dialogue with states in the region. Religious activists in the Gulf are bound to draw parallels between Xinjiang, Gaza, and Kashmir. Ultimately, the strength of the region's economic relations with China will dominate its political relations with China, and any disagreements over state political policy will take a back seat to ensuring that regional and bilateral relations remain cordial and on the right track.
 
Presuming that the acquisition of oil remains central to China's economic and foreign policy, it will not be long before China will want to take its relationship with Saudi Arabia to another level. It will want to transform its relationship from that of a somewhat bashful suitor toward a more formal engagement. To do so, it must choose between working within the confines of the post-War diplomatic landscape crafted by the United States, or challenging that order in bold fashion. Doing so would break the century-long dominance America and its allies have had on Gulf diplomatic relations and enable China to truly begin to mold its bilateral and regional relations in its own image. This choice may come sooner than China, or the West, may imagine, for China's political power has in many respects already outstripped its economic power - something pundits tend not to focus on. For example, China has unleashed a fiscal and diplomatic tidal wave in an effort to secure economic resources in Africa for the better part of a decade.
 
But would this be something China actually seeks? Breaking the status quo ante and undoing a century of history and influence would entail enormous effort in terms of persuasion, fiscal largesse, influence peddling, and relationship building. Africa was a relatively easy nut to crack - most African nations need the money and infrastructure China has provided, and are drawn to China simply by the fact that it has pursued a relationship with them. But the Gulf does not need China's money, or its infrastructure, and is not generally so easily accommodating to such overtures.
 
So what would China need to do to accomplish a similar feat in the Gulf? It would need to replace the security umbrella the U.S. has so carefully crafted over the past 60 years. This is clearly not something that will be easily achieved - if it can be achieved at all. China is not a global naval power-although Beijing is building its capabilities in that regard - through the protection of international shipping against Somali pirates right off the shore of Saudi Arabia from the Red Sea. But it has projected its military power in the Gulf since the 1980s through missile proliferation and arms sales. Saudi Arabia purchased intermediate range CSS-2 missiles from China in 1988, raising suspicion at the time about the Kingdom's nuclear ambitions. China met an important strategic need for the Kingdom that America would not agree to meet. The U.S. has continued to measure its military support for the Kingdom with its strategic imperatives for Israel - something China has not and will not do.
 
Implications
Chinese behavior in the Gulf is primarily driven by two potentially contradictory factors. One is China's newly-found status as a 'stakeholder state' favoring regime stability. But this is somewhat inconsistent with China's tendency to elbow its way into relationships it deems important, and its history of dictating the terms on which it will address topics of critical perceived importance. China is also still finding its footing on the global stage, and at times clumsily manages bilateral relations. The other is the Chinese quest for energy in light of its economic explosion, the opportunistic pursuit of which may lead China to have a destabilizing influence in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia has hinted that it may increase oil shipments to China in times of military crisis, which could prompt China to overstep its reach in the Gulf, and elsewhere.
 
For now, Saudi Arabia will keep a foot in both the American and Chinese camps, judging that its own long-term interests are well served by maintaining the comparative advantages offered by both nations. That said, the pendulum is clearly shifting toward the Chinese camp. In time, as the Kingdom's economic ties grow firmer with China, their military relationship will expand. As China's military power comes to match its political and economic power globally, it will become Saudi Arabia's strongest military ally. However, a potential roadblock stands in the way-the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). If the SCO brings Iran, from observer to member status, then the calculus may change as Beijing, and Moscow, arrive at the Gulf through a Persian doorway.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: bigdog on September 16, 2011, 06:52:41 AM

Good stuff, GM.  And thanks for not killing the messenger.   :wink:

Title: The Arab Disease
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 09:17:53 AM

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20110915.aspx

The Arab Disease

September 15, 2011: In the last decade, the world has learned what Israelis have known for a long time; Arabs and their governments tend to favor self-destructive policies. Western nations have generally ignored this madness, or excused each instance as a momentary lapse in good judgment. But this bad behavior has spawned Islamic terrorism, and sustains it. Many Arabs believe what al Qaeda preaches, that the world should be ruled by an Islamic religious dictatorship, and that this must be achieved by any means necessary (including force, against non-Moslems, and Moslems who don’t agree.) This sort of thinking has been popular with Islamic conservatives since Islam first appeared in the sixth century. Since then, it has periodically flared up into major outbreaks of religious inspired violence. But that’s not the only problem. Arabs, in particular, sustain these outbursts with their fondness for paranoid fantasies and an exaggerated sense of persecution and entitlement. For example, most Arabs believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks were not carried out by Arabs, but were a CIA scam, to provide an excuse for the West to make war on Islam.  That’s just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. troops in Iraq were amazed at the number of fantastical beliefs that were accepted as reality there. Then there is the corruption and intense hatreds. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world, and always has been.
For centuries, the West was shielded from this problem because the Ottoman Turks ruled most of the Arabs. Western diplomats often heard the Turks complain about their Arab subjects. A favorite quip among the Turks was, “One should not involve oneself with the affairs of the Arabs.” Then, when World War I, and the Ottoman Empire, ended in 1918. Western nations found themselves temporarily in charge of these former Turkish Arab provinces. Before World War II broke out in 1939, most of these Arab provinces were turned into separate states. These new countries were not stable. After World War II began, for example, Iraq (a monarchy at that point) attempted to ally itself with Nazi Germany. Arabs admired the Nazi attitudes towards Jews (not realizing that Nazi anti-Semitism applied to all Semites, of whom Arabs were the most numerous.) Britain could not afford to have a Nazi ally sitting on their major source of oil, and gathered together a few divisions and invaded. Three weeks later, Iraq was conquered, and a more agreeable group of Iraqis were found to run the place for the rest of the war.

After World War II, there were problems in several Arab states, most of them involving reformers (who turned out to be dictators, once they took over) and the ruling traditionalists (who were less efficient dictators, for the most part). Then there was Israel, where Arabs had been demonstrating the religious intolerance they have long been infamous for. Around the same time, Saudi Arabia was explaining to Western oil workers why the long list of lifestyle rules for foreigners (no non-Moslem houses of worship, restrictions on the dress and activities of women and so on) was necessary, and mandatory (on pain of death). But when the UN approves the establishment of Israel (and an adjacent Arab state), the Arab world announces that they will not tolerate this. Arab states tell Arabs living near Jews to flee, temporarily, while the combined armies of all Arab states in the region attack and wipe out the greatly outnumbered Jews. To the world’s amazement, the Arabs are defeated. Even though Arab military skill had been held in low esteem for centuries (and Jews were not considered much better), this defeat came as a shock.

The newly created state of Israel studied all this, and concluded that the Arabs were done in by corruption and self-delusion. These two problems continued to cripple Arab military effectiveness. There were a few exceptions. The Jordanians institutionalized the training they had received from the British, although that only made them a more difficult enemy for the Israelis to defeat in 1967. Since then, Jordan has maintained good relations with Israel. Egypt reformed its military in the early 1970s, but those reforms were gone by the late 1970s, replaced by the usual corruption and incompetence.

The Arabs have fought five major wars with Israel, losing all of them badly, even though Israel was always outnumbered and outgunned. Unlike Jordan, all the other Arab states continue to insist that Israel must be destroyed. Palestinians continue to believe the promises of these Arab states that this will soon be accomplished. In the meantime, the descendants of the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 are still living in refugee camps, because the Arab states those camps are in will not accept the Palestinians as refugees, and give them citizenship. In the West, the Palestinians were accepted as refugees and allowed to settle and become citizens. The Palestinians are unimpressed at how Europe handled a similar situation after World War II, when many borders were and millions of people moved. After the Arab attack on the newly declared Israeli state in 1948 failed, Arab nations refused to take in any of the 700,000 Palestinians who fled the fighting. Had those Palestinians stayed, they would have outnumbered the 600,000 Israelis and the history of Israel would have been quite different. It's interesting to note that nearly all of the 25 million refugees produced by the aftermath of World War II in the late 1940s were resettled. This included 600,000 thousand Jews who fled Arab nations after Israel was established.

It gets much worse. As hundreds of billions in oil revenue poured into the Persian Gulf states, the Arab nations there did not invest in their economies, instead they created government jobs for most of the males, and imported foreigners to run the economy (pick up the garbage, build and maintain everything, run the stores, hospitals and so on). East Asian nations, without oil, invested what they had in education and their economy. Fifty years later, the Arabs still have their consumer society, run by foreigners, while the East Asian states (some of them Moslem) have achieved economic independence, with vibrant, self-sustaining economies. Some Arabs have noticed this, but the majority have not.

The madness continued, especially when it came to the lack of tolerance for other religious or political ideas. For example, in Iraq, a Sunni minority had long ruled a Shia Moslem majority, often using a lot of brutality to keep the Sunnis in power. A Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein, came to power in the late 1960s, and in 1980 ignored thousands of years of history (where the more powerful Iranians kick the Arabs around at will most of the time) and invades Iran. There is a revolution going on in Iran at that time, and Saddam believes he can seize some oil fields just across the border, and then negotiate a peace deal with the distracted Iranians. That’s not how the Iranians operate. They never have. A bloody war ensues. Total casualties are several million dead and wounded. In 1988 both sides agree to a ceasefire. The armies were basically sitting on their pre-war borders at that point. Iraqi gained nothing, except a lot of debts (needed to buy weapons, and loyalty from Iraqi Shia). The insanity continued in 1990, when Saddam decided that he could invade Kuwait (to whom he owned over $10 billion) and add their oil to Iraq’s already enormous reserves. Saddam overlooks the fact that the West (and most Arabs) consider him an unreliable maniac, and will not tolerate the seizure of Kuwait. Within six months, a coalition of Western and Arab troops drive Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait and demand reparations for all the damage Iraq did to Kuwait. The UN puts Iraq under an embargo until the debts are paid, and weapons inspectors are satisfied that Iraq has no more chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Note that the Arab states joined this coalition only after the United States promised not to invade Iraq and remove the Sunni Arab minority from power. This was part of the long struggle between Iranians and Arabs. Iraq had a Shia Moslem majority (as did Iran) and the Sunni Arab oil states did not want a more pro-Iran Shia government running Iraq.

Saddam, terrified that Iran would now invade Iraq and kill him (Iranian leaders had publicly vowed to do that), now that Iraq was so weak, refused to admit that he has already destroyed his “weapons of mass destruction.” This fact was kept very secret because, as Saddam later admitted, he wanted Iran to think he still had these weapons (to discourage Iran from invading.) Saddam believed that the UN would eventually get tired of the embargo and inspections and go away. Iran, however, would always be there.

When the U.S. invaded in 2003, Saddam’s forces folded about as quickly as they had in 1991. But Saddam had a Plan B. He told his Sunni Arab followers to begin a terror campaign against the foreign troops (which did not work out too well) and against Shia Arabs (which killed over 50,000 civilians). Saddam reasoned that this   would cause the Shia Arabs in Iraq to attack Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and that this would bring in neighboring Sunni Arab nations to aid the Iraqi Sunni Arabs in taking power again. Saddam even considered it possible that he would end up as the dictator of Iraq again. This was insane, but it made perfect sense to many Iraqi Sunni Arabs. None of the neighboring Arab states were going to aid the Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists (other than allowing their own terrorism minded citizens to go to Iraq and get killed as suicide bombers or inept gunmen). This Sunni Arab terror campaign went on for nearly five years, until most Iraqi Sunni Arabs (at least the ones who had not fled the country, as a fifth already had) gave up, and turned against the terrorists.

But most Arabs admit that their main reason for hating the West, is the existence of Israel. The Palestinians are united by their desire to destroy Israel and drive all Jews from the Middle East, but they are also divided by many things, including religion. Although most (except for three percent who are Christians) are Moslem, they are at odds over what kind of Islam should be practiced. Many, but not most, Palestinians in Gaza (where 1.5 million live) favor Islamic conservatism, and making religion the center of people's lives and forcing all Palestinians to comply with Islamic law (Sharia). But in the West Bank (where 2.5 million live), the trend is definitely in favor of education (always popular among Palestinians) and moving away from destructive practices (religious conservatism and Islamic terrorism). This is actually still a contentious issue in the West Bank, where the ruling (as the PLO) Fatah party has long been known for corruption more than any kind of reform. But the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority (a Fatah man) has been talking up more education, and critical thinking (something that could get you killed in Iran).

Some Arab leaders go even further. Four years ago, at a meeting of the Arab League, the king of Saudi Arabia told the assembled rulers that the biggest problem in the Arab world was poor leadership. This was a bold statement, but not unusual for the senior people in the Saudi government. These princes have also been supporting the Arab Reform Movement, which is based on the idea that most of the Arab world's problems are internal, not the result of outside interference. Actually, most educated Arabs will readily admit that their leaders have been less than stellar, and largely responsible for the corruption and bad decisions that have put the Arab world so far behind the West, and every other region, except Africa, when it comes to economic growth.

But knowing and admitting to the problem does not solve it. The United States found that out after Saddam Hussein's Baath Party dictatorship was overthrown. Iraqis eagerly embraced democracy, only to find that the people they elected were not a big improvement over Saddam. Some of Iraq's new leaders backed terrorists. This was especially true of Iran backed Shia factions, which unleashed death squads, that killed thousands of Sunni Arabs. Some of the Sunni Arab leaders supported terrorists who targeted Shias. And then there was the corruption, with billions of dollars of government money missing.

This incompetence is also, as the Saudi king likes to point out, the cause of the Islamic terrorism that has found a home in the Islamic world. Indeed, these terrorists only began attacking kafirs (non-Moslems) in the 1990s when they realized Islamic terrorists were getting shut down in Arab countries. In Egypt, Syria and Algeria, Islamic radical attempts to toss out corrupt governments all failed. While Arab leadership may suck, these guys have certainly mastered the art of running a police state.

But attacking non-Moslems, outside of the Moslem world, brought into play the Western media. This was important, because the Western media now had 24 hour, world-wide (via satellite) outlets. All the people that mattered could now see what the Islamic terrorists did. Before, terror attacks inside Arab countries were largely ignored by the rest of the world. But now, the instant publicity was critical, because there were millions of Arabs living in the West. These people were making more money than they were back home. Fed up with the corrupt and incompetent leadership back home, they moved. This Arab Diaspora provided a refuge for Islamic militants. Another benefit was the appearance of Arab language satellite news services in the 1990s. Terrorist movements thrived on publicity, and the more news channels there were out there, the more attention terrorist attacks would get.

All that terrorism was a sign that some Arabs are very unhappy. For decades, the powers-that-be refused to acknowledge why the kids were pissed off. Thanks to all those suicide bombs and breathless news reports, the family secret was out there for the entire world to see. No, not the al Qaeda "the West is making war on Islam," canard, but an earlier al Qaeda call to overthrow the corrupt leaders of the Arab countries. Al Qaeda has to come up with the "war on Islam" angle to justify September 11, 2001, and earlier attacks. But the root cause is bad leadership at home.

The Palestinians have used terrorism against each other, as well as the Israelis, and it has not worked. The Arab states that donate so much money to the Palestinians have noted that, as well as the fact that Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the threat to keep going (had not the American led coalition promptly shown up.) Palestinians continue to support al Qaeda, which is still at war with the Arab nations Palestinians depend on for payroll money.

So when the king of Saudi Arabia tells the assembled Arab leadership that they are the problem, you can take that as a sign of progress. But real progress it ain't. Arab leaders are victims of their own success. Their rule is based on corruption and police state tactics. Think East Europe before 1989. Big difference is that, although the populations of East Europe then, and the Arab world now, were both fed up with their leaders and governments, the Arabs were not willing to make as painless a switch as the East Europeans did in the 1990s. That's because the East Europeans had two choices; communism or democracy. The Arabs have three; despotism, democracy or Islamic dictatorship.

In Iraq and Gaza we see how the Islamic radicals react to democracy. They call it un-Islamic and kill those who disagree with them. The Arabs have to deal with this, and in Iraq they are. In Gaza they aren't. But the violence in Iraq has revealed another Arab problem. Even if you remove religion from the equation, not all Arabs are keen on democracy. In Iraq, the Sunni Arab minority believe it is their right (or responsibility) to run the country. This is a common pattern in Arab countries. One minority believes they are rulers by right, and that democracy is an abomination and un-Islamic (or at least inconvenient for the ruling minority). This is the pattern in nearly every Arab country.

**Read it all.

Title: Perry and Israel
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 12:08:42 PM

Maybe some lefty Jews should examine their anti-goy bias and rethink who they should align themselves with.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 16, 2011, 12:11:31 PM

"anti-goy bias"?

Care to expound on that GM?

Title: Re: Perry and Israel
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 12:34:41 PM

**The always insightful Dennis Prager captures it well here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/why_are_jews_liberal.html

Why Are Jews Liberal?
 By Dennis Prager

The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal?

 The question is entirely legitimate since Jews (outside of Israel) are indeed overwhelmingly liberal and disproportionately left of liberal as well. For example, other than blacks, no American group votes so lopsidedly for the Democratic Party. And the question is further sharpened given that traditional Jewish values are not leftist. That is why the more religiously involved the Jew, the less likely he is to be on the Left. The old saw, "There are two types of Jews -- those who believe Judaism is social justice and those who know Hebrew," contains more than a kernel of truth.

 In no order of importance, here are six reasons:

 1. Judaism is indeed preoccupied with social justice (as well as with holiness and personal morality), and many Jews believe that the only way to achieve a just society is through leftist policies.
 


2. More than any other major religion, Judaism has always been preoccupied with this world. The (secular) Encyclopedia Judaica begins its entry on "Afterlife" by noting that "Judaism has always affirmed belief in an afterlife." But the preoccupation of Judaism has been making this world a better place. That is why the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) is largely silent about the afterlife; and it is preoccupied with rejecting ancient Egyptian values. That value system was centered on the afterlife -- its bible was the Book of the Dead, and its greatest monuments, the pyramids, were tombs.

3. Most Jews are frightened by anything that connotes right wing -- such as the words "right-wing" and "conservative." Especially since the Holocaust, they think that threats to their security emanate from the Right only. (It is pointless to argue that Nazism stood for National Socialism and therefore was really a leftist ideology. Whether that is theoretically accurate doesn't matter; nearly everyone regards the Nazis as far Right, and, therefore, Jews fear the Right.) The fact that the Jews' best friends today are conservatives and the fact that the Left is the home of most of the Jews' enemies outside of the Muslim world have made little impact on Jews' psyches.

 4. Liberal Jews fear most religion. They identify religion -- especially fundamentalist religion and especially Christianity -- with anti-Semitism. Jews are taught from birth about the horrors of the Holocaust, and of nearly 2,000 years of European, meaning Christian, anti-Semitism. They therefore tend to fear Christianity and believe that secularism guarantees their physical security. That is what animates the ACLU and its disproportionately Jewish membership, under the guise of concern with the Constitution and "separation of church and state" (words that do not appear in the Constitution), to fight all public expressions of Christianity in America.

 5. Despite their secularism, Jews may be the most religious ethnic group in the world. The problem is that their religion is rarely Judaism; rather it is every "ism" of the Left. These include liberalism, socialism, feminism, Marxism and environmentalism. Jews involved in these movements believe in them with the same ideological fervor and same suspension of critical reason with which many religious people believe in their religion. It is therefore usually as hard to shake a liberal Jew's belief in the Left and in the Democratic Party as it is to shake an evangelical Christian's belief in Christianity. The big difference, however, is that the Christian believer acknowledges his Christianity is a belief, whereas the believer in liberalism views his belief as entirely the product of rational inquiry.

 The Jews' religious fervor emanates from the origins of the Jewish people as a religious people elected by God to help guide humanity to a better future. Of course, the original intent was to bring humanity to ethical monotheism, God-based universal moral standards, not to secular liberalism or to feminism or to socialism. Leftist Jews have simply secularized their religious calling.

 6. Liberal Jews fear nationalism. The birth of nationalism in Europe planted the secular seeds of the Holocaust (religious seeds had been planted by some early and medieval Church teachings and reinforced by Martin Luther). European nationalists welcomed all national identities except the Jews'. That is a major reason so many Jews identify primarily as "world citizens"; they have contempt for nationalism and believe that strong national identities, even in America, will exclude them.

Just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism).

 If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews -- with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout -- are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy -- for the world and especially for the Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 16, 2011, 12:53:40 PM

A great piece, but what does it have to do with anti-goy animus on the part of lefty jews?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 12:57:59 PM

How many Jewish voters hear Perry's twang and shut off, despite his absolute clear message for supporting Israel? How many will ignore who Buraq has surrounded himself with for decades, and even after seeing all he's done to undercut Israel's security will vote for him again?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 16, 2011, 01:06:24 PM

Umm, , , reality check. Baraq is a goy, and most of the leftist movements of the world are goyim-- yet they are supported by lefty Jews so to call lefty Jews "anti-goy" makes no sense whatsoever.  The left jew reacts to Perry as he does the same way any progressive, goy or jew does.

You made an off-handed little thought out comment and should walk it back  :lol:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 01:12:58 PM

Oh c'mon. "Anti-goy" "goy-bashing". It's clever.  :-D

I'm no expert on Yiddish, but I think there are other terms that would probably be used for Buraq that wouldn't be "goy" and wouldn't be polite either.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 16, 2011, 03:35:50 PM

Insert Quote
Oh c'mon. "Anti-goy" "goy-bashing". It's clever.

So clever it went right over my head :roll: :lol:

As for other terms, "putz" comes to mind.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 16, 2011, 03:41:20 PM

Ok, so is there a Yiddish term for "Redneck"? Aside from "The meshugganah in the cowboy boots"?

Title: WSJ: The legal case against Palestinian statehood
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 20, 2011, 04:15:52 AM

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.
AND LEE A. CASEY
Later this week Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to seek recognition of a Palestinian state from the United Nations. The move is opposed by the Obama administration, which has rightly called it a "distraction." Nevertheless, the PA's effort has wide support among the U.N. membership, including Security Council members Russia, China and Britain, as well as other important regional states such as Turkey. These powers should think again because putting the U.N.—and particularly the General Assembly—in the business of state recognition is inconsistent with international law and the U.N. Charter, and it is manifestly not in their interests.

The U.N.—General Assembly or Security Council—has no power to create states or to grant all-important formal "recognition" to state aspirants. The right to recognize statehood is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty and the United Nations is not a sovereign. Those who cite as precedent the General Assembly's 1947 resolution providing for the partition of Palestine misread that instrument and its legal significance.

 Rep. Buck McKeon on the impact of $1 trillion in defense cuts.
.Resolution 181 outlined a detailed (and rigorous) process whereby the British Mandate in Palestine was to end and two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, were to be established. It recommended that process to Great Britain (as the mandate-holder) and to other U.N. members. It did not create or recognize these states, nor were the proposed states granted automatic admission to the United Nations. Rather, once the two states were established as states, the resolution provided that "sympathetic consideration" should be given to their membership applications.

In the event, the Arab countries rejected partition and Israel declared (and successfully defended) its independence. Israel's statehood was recognized, in accordance with international law, by other states—including the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Palestinian Authority, by contrast, does not meet the basic characteristics of a state necessary for such recognition. These requirements have been refined through centuries of custom and practice, and were authoritatively articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. As that treaty provides, to be a state an entity must have (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government, and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As of today, the PA has neither a permanent population nor defined territory (both being the subject of ongoing if currently desultory negotiations), nor does it have a government with the capacity to enter into relations with other states. This pivotal requirement involves the ability to enter and keep international accords, which in turn posits that the "government" actually controls—exclusive of other sovereigns—at least some part of its population and territory. The PA does not control any part of the West Bank to the exclusion of Israeli authority, and it exercises no control at all in the Gaza Strip.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (left) with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
.The PA does not, therefore, qualify for recognition as a state and, concomitantly, it does not qualify for U.N. membership, which is open only to states. All of this is surely understood by the PA and its backers, and is also why the administration has correctly labeled this effort as a distraction—"stunt" being a less diplomatic but even more accurate term in these circumstances. What is unfortunate is that the Obama administration has failed to present the case against a Palestinian statehood resolution in legal rather than tactical terms, even though these arguments are obvious and would greatly reinforce the U.S. position, also providing a thoroughly neutral basis for many of our allies, particularly in Europe, to oppose Mr. Abbas's statehood bid.

The stakes in this battle are high. The PA's effort to achieve recognition by the U.N., even if legally meaningless, is not without serious consequences. To the extent that state supporters of that measure may themselves have irredentist populations or active border disputes with their neighbors—as do Russia, China, Britain and Turkey—they will certainly store up future trouble for themselves.

Traditionally, states rarely recognize (even if they may materially support) independence movements in other states. This is because granting such recognition may have very serious consequences, up to and including war. (The classic example here being France's recognition of the infant United States in 1778 and its immediate and inevitable entry into the War for Independence against Britain).

With respect to Israel, although it does not actually claim all of the territory on which the "State of Palestine" would be established, it is and has been engaged in difficult negotiations over that territory—and the PA's status—for many years. Support for U.N. recognition might not rise to the level of an act of aggression against Israel, but the U.N. Charter also forbids members to act in a "manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." First among those purposes is maintaining international peace and security, and efforts prematurely to force recognition of a Palestinian state clearly undercut this goal. This is, in fact, a rare instance in which a measure is bad policy, bad law, and has the real potential to damage the interests of its opponents and its supporters.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey are Washington, D.C., lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Mr. Rivkin is also a senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Title: As usual, Canada shows some class
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 20, 2011, 10:37:14 AM

second post:

Harper gives thumbs down to Palestinian state

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made his government's strongest statements yet against a drive to get the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state next week.

"No unilateral actions like this are helpful in terms of establishing a long-run peace in the Middle East," Harper said during a stop in Saskatoon, Sask. "Canada views the action as very regrettable and we will be opposing it at the United Nations."

Previously, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird had dismissed the Palestinian Authority's effort as "meaningless" and "unhelpful."

He also indicated Canada would welcome a Palestinian state only after peace negotiations with Israel.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas plans to goes before the UN next week to demand recognition of full Palestinian statehood and UN membership.

Right now, the Palestinians are recognized simply as an "entity."

Even if a statehood resolution passed in the UN General Assembly, it would then go to the Security Council where Washington has already said it would exercise its veto.

In that case, the Palestinians could still go back to the full UN General Assembly to gain recognition as a non-member state.

That would give the Palestinians possible access to other international bodies, such as the International Criminal Court.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/09/16/18697046.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 20, 2011, 10:43:12 AM

Hooray for Canada. I remember how I used to enjoy mocking their pathetic economy and weak foreign policy.



How things have changed.

Title: The UN’s tragic failure
Post by: Rachel on September 21, 2011, 04:47:58 AM

The UN’s tragic failure
By JPOST EDITORIAL
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=238773
20/09/2011   
In the General Assembly, about 20 anti-Israel resolutions are adopted each year, as opposed to just five or six against other countries.
 
Today, perhaps more than ever before in history, there is a desperate need for an objective, responsible international body capable of peacefully arbitrating conflicts, enforcing human rights and mitigating the more negative forces of globalization.

In theory, the United Nations, as an international body with over 190-member nations, has all the requisite resources needed to perform this crucial function.

Indeed, it could take significant measures to fight violations of human rights in countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Zimbabwe or Sudan. In the field of diplomacy and security the UN could be conducive to formulating peaceful resolutions of conflicts in the Middle East and in Africa.

Unfortunately, instead of being a positive force for tikkun olam, the UN has failed miserably to rise to the many moral challenges faced by humanity in the 21st century.

Two UN-sponsored events taking place at the end of this week in New York City – the Durban III Conference and the UN General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood – provide instructive examples of how the UN has allowed itself to be hijacked by forces inimical to peace and human rights.

Durban III is envisioned as a commemoration of the 10- year anniversary of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa.

Though ostensibly about the promotion of human rights, Durban I (followed in 2009 by Durban II) quickly deteriorated into anti-Israel hate fests. Sessions were characterized by Trotskyist anti-Zionism, Iranian-inspired conspiracy theories and a flood of anti-Semitic slanders.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion were freely handed out together with Islamist, leftist anti-globalist propaganda referring to Israel as a racist, theocratic and apartheid state.

The Durban Conference declaration singled out the Jewish state for censure. Israel was the only UN member specifically mentioned in the context of human-rights abuses (though it did recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace) and criticized “occupation” of Palestinian land.

That declaration will be reaffirmed during Durban III, with the backing of the G-77, a bloc of developing states created after the breakup of colonialism, many of which are Muslim.

Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly, slanted by the same G-77 bloc, is expected to vote in the near future in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state. As Ben-Gurion University historian Benny Morris has noted, the UN is essentially helping the Palestinians to implement a strategy first adopted by Yasser Arafat in the late 1980s.

After realizing Israel could not be destroyed in war, Arafat set about establishing a Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip without making peace with Israel or forfeiting any Palestinian demands, such as the “right of return.”

Unfettered by a peace treaty, this mini-Palestinian state would be free to continue its struggle against Israel. Petitioning the International Criminal Court against alleged Israeli crimes as an “occupier” might be one aspect of the struggle, while launching rockets and missiles on Israeli towns from the West Bank – like the ones fired from Hamas-controlled Gaza or Hezbollah-controlled south- Lebanon – might be another.

Palestinians are already planning to march on security check-points and settlements in the West Bank after the UN General Assembly vote, which could provoke an Israeli response and lead to violence.

But the UN appears unperturbed by Israel’s legitimate security concerns and oblivious to the fact that only a negotiated peace settlement based on mutual concessions and recognition can resolve the conflict.


Instead, the UN seems obsessed with singling out Israel for condemnation.

According to UN Watch in Geneva, the Human Rights Council has adopted, since its founding in 2006, about 70 resolutions condemning specific countries – 40 of which have been against Israel.

In the General Assembly, about 20 anti-Israel resolutions are adopted each year, as opposed to just five or six against other countries.

Its nearly pathological fixation on Israel, coupled with its refusal to acknowledge real crimes against humanity elsewhere, has invalidated the UN as a forum for healing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

More tragically, it has wasted its potential as an international force for good and as a promoter of tikkun olam.
    

Title: VDH: Will Israel Survive?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 22, 2011, 04:38:23 AM

Will Israel survive? That question hasn't really been asked since 1967. Then, a far weaker Israel was surrounded on all sides by Arab dictatorships that were equipped with sophisticated weapons from their nuclear patron, the Soviet Union. But now, things are far worse for the Jewish state.

Egyptian mobs just tried to storm the Israeli embassy in Cairo and kill any Israelis they could get their hands on. Whatever Egyptian government emerges, it will be more Islamist than before -- and may renounce the peace accords with Israel.


One thing unites Syrian and Libyan dissidents: They seem to hate Israel as much as the murderous dictators whom they have been trying to throw out.


The so-called "Arab Spring" was supposed to usher in Arab self-introspection about why intolerant strongmen keep sprouting up in the Middle East. Post-revolutionary critics could freely examine self-inflicted Arab wounds, such as tribalism, religious intolerance, authoritarianism, endemic corruption, closed economies and gender apartheid.


But so far, "revolutionaries" sound a lot more like reactionaries. They are more often retreating to the tired conspiracies that the Israelis and Americans pushed onto innocent Arab publics homegrown corrupt madmen such as Bashar Assad, Muammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak.


In 1967, the more powerful periphery of the Middle East -- the Shah's Iran, Kemalist Turkey, a military-run Pakistan and the Gulf monarchies -- was mostly uninvolved in the Israel-Arab frontline fighting.


Not now. A soon-to-be-nuclear Iran serially promises to destroy Israel. The Erdogan government in Turkey brags about its Ottoman Islamist past -- and wants to provoke Israel into an eastern Mediterranean shooting war. Pakistan is the world's leading host and exporter of jihadists obsessed with destroying Israel. The oil-rich Gulf states use their vast petroleum wealth and clout to line up oil importers against Israel. The 21st century United Nations is a de facto enemy of the Jewish state.


Meanwhile, the West is nearly bankrupt. The European Union is on the brink of dissolving, its population shrinking amid growing numbers of Islamic immigrants.


America is $16 trillion in debt. We are tired of three wars. The Obama administration initially thought putting a little "light" into the once-solid relationship between Israel and the United States might coax Arab countries into negotiating a peace. That new American triangulation certainly has given a far more confident Muslim world more hope -- but it's hope that just maybe the United States now cannot or will not come to Israel's aid if Muslim states ratchet up the tension.


It is trendy to blame Israel intransigence for all these bleak developments. But to do so is simply to forget history. There were three Arab efforts to destroy Israel before it occupied any borderlands after its victory in 1967. Later, it gave back all of Sinai and yet now faces a hostile Egypt. It got out of Lebanon -- and Hezbollah crowed that Israel was weakening, as that terrorist organization moved in and stockpiled thousands of missiles pointed at Tel Aviv. Israel got out of Gaza and earned as thanks both rocket showers and a terrorist Hamas government sworn to destroy the Jewish state.


The Arab Middle East damns Israel for not granting a "right of return" into Israel to Palestinians who have not lived there in nearly 70 years. But it keeps embarrassed silence about the more than half-million Jews whom Arab dictatorships much later ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and sent back into Israel. On cue, the Palestinian ambassador to the United States again brags that there will be no Jews allowed in his newly envisioned, and American subsidized, Palestinian state -- a boast with eerie historical parallels.


By now we know both what will start and deter yet another conflict in the Middle East. In the past, wars broke out when the Arab states thought they could win them and stopped when they conceded they could not.


But now a new array of factors -- ever more Islamist enemies of Israel such as Turkey and Iran, ever more likelihood of frontline Arab Islamist governments, ever more fear of Islamic terrorism, ever more unabashed anti-Semitism, ever more petrodollars flowing into the Middle East, ever more chance of nuclear Islamist states, and ever more indifference by Europe and the United States -- has probably convinced Israel's enemies that finally they can win what they could not in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and 2006.


So brace yourself. The next war against Israel is no longer a matter of if, only when. And it will be far more deadly than any we've witnessed in quite some time.

Title: Olmert says
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 22, 2011, 05:01:23 AM

second post of the morning:

AS the United Nations General Assembly opens this year, I feel uneasy. An unnecessary diplomatic clash between Israel and the Palestinians is taking shape in New York, and it will be harmful to Israel and to the future of the Middle East.

I know that things could and should have been different.

I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a more stable Middle East and to grant Israel the security and well-being it desires. As tensions grow, I cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of missing an opportunity — one that we cannot afford to miss.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to make a unilateral bid for recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations on Friday. He has the right to do so, and the vast majority of countries in the General Assembly support his move. But this is not the wisest step Mr. Abbas can take.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has declared publicly that he believes in the two-state solution, but he is expending all of his political effort to block Mr. Abbas’s bid for statehood by rallying domestic support and appealing to other countries. This is not the wisest step Mr. Netanyahu can take.

In the worst-case scenario, chaos and violence could erupt, making the possibility of an agreement even more distant, if not impossible. If that happens, peace will definitely not be the outcome.

The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.

According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.

The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.

These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.

Moreover, the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and unpredictable developments in the region, such as the recent attack on Israel’s embassy in Cairo, could easily explode into widespread chaos. It is therefore in Israel’s strategic interest to cement existing peace agreements with its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

In addition, Israel must make every effort to defuse tensions with Turkey as soon as possible. Turkey is not an enemy of Israel. I have worked closely with the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In spite of his recent statements and actions, I believe that he understands the importance of relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Netanyahu must work to end this crisis immediately for the benefit of both countries and the stability of the region.

In Israel, we are sorry for the loss of life of Turkish citizens in May 2010, when Israel confronted a provocative flotilla of ships bound for Gaza. I am sure that the proper way to express these sentiments to the Turkish government and the Turkish people can be found.

The time for true leadership has come. Leadership is tested not by one’s capacity to survive politically but by the ability to make tough decisions in trying times.

When I addressed international forums as prime minister, the Israeli people expected me to present bold political initiatives that would bring peace — not arguments outlining why achieving peace now is not possible. Today, such an initiative is more necessary than ever to prove to the world that Israel is a peace-seeking country.

The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and seek a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible.

Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas will meet the challenge.

Ehud Olmert was prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009.

Title: Clinton - working on his legacy or campaigning for Hill in 2016?
Post by: ccp on September 23, 2011, 07:21:41 AM

""[Palestinian leaders] have explicitly said on more than one occasion that if [Netanyahu] put up the deal that was offered to them before -- my deal -- that they would take it," Clinton said, referring to the 2000 Camp David deal that Yasser Arafat rejected."

As usual Clinton flatters himself.   If only not for Netanyahu peace on Clinton's terms would have been accepted.  He totally ignores the rise of Hamas and Hezbelloh since the BJ in chief king was in office.  I will listen to Aaron Klein this Sunday as he might weigh in on this:

***Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process
Posted By Josh Rogin  Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 2:22 PM   Share

Who's to blame for the continued failure of the Middle East peace process? Former President Bill Clinton said today that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- whose government moved the goalposts upon taking power, and whose rise represents a key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Clinton, in a roundtable with bloggers today on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, gave an extensive recounting of the deterioration in the Middle East peace process since he pressed both parties to agree to a final settlement at Camp David in 2000. He said there are two main reasons for the lack of a comprehensive peace today: the reluctance of the Netanyahu administration to accept the terms of the Camp David deal and a demographic shift in Israel that is making the Israeli public less amenable to peace.

"The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination and [Ariel] Sharon's stroke," Clinton said.

Sharon had decided he needed to build a new centrist coalition, so he created the Kadima party and gained the support of leaders like Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert. He was working toward a consensus for a peace deal before he fell ill, Clinton said. But that effort was scuttled when the Likud party returned to power.

"The Israelis always wanted two things that once it turned out they had, it didn't seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu. They wanted to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there's no question -- and the Netanyahu government has said -- that this is the finest Palestinian government they've ever had in the West Bank," Clinton said.

"[Palestinian leaders] have explicitly said on more than one occasion that if [Netanyahu] put up the deal that was offered to them before -- my deal -- that they would take it," Clinton said, referring to the 2000 Camp David deal that Yasser Arafat rejected.

But the Israeli government has drifted a long way from the Ehud Barak-led government that came so close to peace in 2000, Clinton said, and any new negotiations with the Netanyahu government are now on starkly different terms -- terms that the Palestinians are unlikely to accept.

"For reasons that even after all these years I still don't know for sure, Arafat turned down the deal I put together that Barak accepted," he said. "But they also had an Israeli government that was willing to give them East Jerusalem as the capital of the new state of Palestine."

Israel also wants a normalization of relations with its Arab neighbors to accompany a peace deal. Clinton said that the Saudi-inspired Arab Peace Initiative put forth in 2002 represented an answer to that Israeli demand.

"The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians ... we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership,'" Clinton said. "This is huge.... It's a heck of a deal."

The Netanyahu government has received all of the assurances previous Israeli governments said they wanted but now won't accept those terms to make peace, Clinton said.

"Now that they have those things, they don't seem so important to this current Israeli government, partly because it's a different country," said Clinton. "In the interim, you've had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them."

Clinton then repeated his assertions made at last year's conference that Israeli society can be divided into demographic groups that have various levels of enthusiasm for making peace.

"The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel's founding," Clinton said. "The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious, who believe they're supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they're not encumbered by the historical record."

Clinton affirmed that the United States should veto the Palestinian resolution at the U.N. Security Council for member-state status, because the Israelis need security guarantees before agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian state. But the Netanyahu government has moved away from the consensus for peace, making a final status agreement more difficult, Clinton said.

"That's what happened. Every American needs to know this. That's how we got to where we are," Clinton said. "The real cynics believe that the Netanyahu's government's continued call for negotiations over borders and such means that he's just not going to give up the West Bank."***

Title: WSJ: Ajami
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 23, 2011, 08:37:47 AM

By FOUAD AJAMI
'U.N. 194" is the slogan of the campaign to grant the Palestinians a seat at the United Nations, to recognize their authority as the 194th nation in that world body. This is the Palestinians' second chance, for there was the session of the General Assembly in 1947 that addressed the question of Palestine, and the struggle between Arabs and Jews over that contested land.

A vote took place on the partition resolution that November and provided for two states to live side by side. It was a close affair. It required a two-thirds majority, and the final tally was 33 states in favor, 13 opposed, 10 abstentions, and one recorded absence. Israel would become the 58th member state. The Palestinians refused the 59th seat.

Arab diplomacy had sought the defeat of the resolution, and the Palestinians had waited for deliverance at the hands of their would-be Arab backers. The threat of war offered the Palestinians a false promise; there was no felt need for compromise. The influential secretary-general of the Arab League, the Egyptian Azzam Pasha (by an exquisite twist of fate a maternal grandfather of al Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahiri), was to tell a talented, young Zionist diplomat, Abba Eban, that the Arab world was not in a compromising mood. "The Arab world regards the Jews as invaders. It is going to fight you," he said. "War is absolutely inevitable."

For the Zionists, the vote was tantamount to a basic title to independence. But the Jewish community in Palestine had won the race for independence where it truly mattered—on the ground. Still, theirs was a fragile enterprise.

Britain, the Mandatory Power in Palestine since the end of World War I, had wearied of the Zionists, of the Arabs, and of the whole sordid burden of adjudicating their competing claims. The British Empire was broke and looking for a way to reduce its burdens. In August 1947, it had given up India, the Jewel of the Crown, and stood aside as a wave of cataclysmic violence between Hindus and Muslims provided a shameful end to a long imperial dominion. It was no use shedding blood and treasure in Palestine, and Pax Britannia was eager to pass the problem onto the U.N.

Nor were matters clinched for partition, and for the cause of a Jewish state, in the American councils of power. President Harry Truman was indecisive. He drew sustenance from the Bible and the cause of Jewish statehood tugged at him, but he was under immense pressure from a national security bureaucracy that had no sympathy for the Zionist project. An accidental president who had come to the presidency after the death of FDR, he lacked the self-confidence a crisis of this kind called for.

His secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall, was dubious of the idea of partition, fearful that a war would break out over Palestine that would require the intervention of American troops. Truman stood in awe of Marshall, regarded him as one of the "great commanders of history." Secretary of Defense James Forrestal was more antagonistic still. There were oil interests in the Arab world, and a big strategic position in the region to protect.

The voting at the U.N. was messy. In the end, all American doubts were swept aside, and the United States opted for partition, lobbied for it, and was joined by the Soviet Union. Britain abstained. The tire magnate Harvey Firestone secured Liberia's vote for partition. The Philippines hesitated but cast a favorable vote. India had hinted that it was in sympathy with partition but in the end chose not to run afoul of the sensibilities of its own Muslim population. Rumor had it that the delegate from Costa Rica sold his country's vote for $75,000.

"The partition line shall be nothing but a line of fire and blood," Azzam Pasha warned. And history would vindicate him. Six months later, with Britain quitting Palestine without even a ceremonial handover of responsibility, war would break out.

Related Video
 Matt Kaminski on President Obama's U.N. speech, Palestine's statehood gambit, and attitudes toward the U.S. in Muslim countries.
..But the scenarios of doom for the new Jewish state were not to be fulfilled. Israel held its own. And the Palestinians who had bet on the Arab cavalry riding to the rescue were to know defeat and dispossession. Their cause was subsumed under a wider Arab claim, mandatory Palestine was to be divided—there was the new Jewish state, Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Egyptian control over Gaza. The victory of Israel two decades later in the Six Day War reunited the land and, ironically, gave the Palestinians a chance to release themselves from pan-Arab captivity.

"We need to have full membership at the U.N. We need a state, a seat at the United Nations," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared last week in Ramallah as he launched this bid, in defiance of American wishes. Thus state-building would be bypassed, and the Palestinians, in a familiar pattern of their history, would place their faith in deliverance through the indulgence of others.

But were the Palestinians to look at their history, they would come to recognize that the one break that came their way happened in 1993, through direct negotiations with Israel. The peace of Oslo that secured them their national authority, that brought Yasser Arafat from his Tunisian exile to Gaza, was a gift of direct diplomacy. Arafat was looking for redemption; he had bet on Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1990-91 and lost the financial support of the Arab oil states. Israel, for its part, had just elected a war hero, a stoical, determined man, Yitzhak Rabin, as its leader, and he had campaigned on the promise of getting "Gaza out of Tel Aviv."

True, the ceremony of reconciliation on Sept. 13, 1993, had taken place on the South Lawn of the White House, Bill Clinton nudging Arafat and Rabin together for that reluctant handshake. But the Americans were giving away the bride long after the couple had eloped.

A generation after that handshake, the lesson of that accord remains unaltered. There can be no avoiding the toil and the exertions of direct negotiations. The deliberations at the U.N. are only theater, just another illusion.

Mr. Ajami is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and co-chair of the Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.

Title: Glick: Remilitarized Sinai?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2011, 06:24:12 AM

Will the Egyptian military be permitted to remilitarize the Sinai? Since Palestinian and Egyptian terrorists crossed into Israel from Sinai on August 18 and murdered eight Israelis this has been a central issue under discussion at senior echelons of the government and the IDF.

Under the terms of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, Egypt is prohibited from deploying military forces in the Sinai. Israel must approve any Egyptian military mobilization in the area. Today, Egypt is asking to permanently deploy its forces in the Sinai. Such a move requires an amendment to the treaty.

Supported by the Obama administration, the Egyptians say they need to deploy forces in the Sinai in order to rein in and defeat the jihadist forces now running rampant throughout the peninsula. Aside from attacking Israel, these jihadists have openly challenged Egyptian governmental control over the territory.

So far the Israeli government has given conflicting responses to the Egyptian request. Defense Minister Ehud Barak told The Economist last week that he supports the deployment of Egyptian forces. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he would consider such deployment but that Israel should not rush into amending the peace treaty with Egypt.

Saturday Barak tempered his earlier statement, claiming that no decision had been made about Egyptian deployment in the Sinai.

The government's confused statements about Egyptian troop deployments indicate that at a minimum, the government is unsure of the best course of action. This uncertainty owes in large part to confusion about Egypt's intentions.

Egypt's military leaders do have an interest in preventing jihadist attacks on Egyptian installations and other interests in the Sinai. But does that interest translate into an interest in defending Israeli installations and interests? If the interests overlap, then deploying Egyptian forces may be a reasonable option. If Egypt's military leaders view these interests as mutually exclusive, then Israel has no interest in such a deployment.

Israel’s confusion over Egypt's strategic direction and interests echoes its only recently abated confusion over Turkey's strategic direction in the aftermath of the Islamist AKP Party's rise to power in 2002. Following the US's lead, despite Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's hostile rhetoric regarding Israel, Israel continued to believe that he and his government were interested in maintaining Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. That belief began unraveling with Erdogan's embrace of Hamas in January 2006 and his willingness to turn a blind eye to Iranian use of Turkish territory to transfer arms to Hezbollah during the war in July and August 2006.

Still, due to US support for Erdogan, Israel continued to sell Turkey arms until last year. Israel only recognized that Turkey had transformed itself from a strategic ally into a strategic enemy after Erdogan sponsored the terror flotilla to Gaza in May 2010.

As was the case with Turkey under Erdogan, Israel's confusion over Egypt's intentions has nothing to do with the military rulers' behavior. Like Erdogan, the Egyptian junta isn't sending Israel mixed signals.

Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was never a strategic ally to Israel the way that Turkey was before Erdogan. However, Mubarak believed that maintaining a quiet border with Israel, combating the Muslim Brotherhood and keeping Hamas at arm's length advanced his interests. Mubarak's successors in the junta do not perceive their interests in the same way.

To the contrary, since they overthrew Mubarak in February, the generals ruling Egypt have made clear that their interest in cultivating ties with Israel's enemies - from Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood - far outweighs their interest in maintaining a cooperative relationship with Israel.

From permitting Iranian naval ships to traverse the Suez Canal for the first time in 30 years to opening the border with Hamas-ruled Gaza to its openly hostile and conspiratorial reaction to the August 18 terrorist attack on Israel from the Sinai, there can be little doubt about the trajectory of Egypt's relations with Israel.

But just as was the case with Turkey - and again, largely because of American pressure - Israel's leaders are wary of accepting that the strategic landscape of our relationship with Egypt has changed radically and that the rules that applied under Mubarak no longer apply.

After Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, terrorists in Gaza and Sinai took down the border. Gaza was immediately flooded with sophisticated armaments. Then-prime minister Ariel Sharon made a deal with Mubarak to deploy Egyptian forces to the Sinai to rebuild the border and man the crossing point at Rafah. While there were problems with the agreement, given the fact that Mubarak shared Israel's interests, the move was not unjustified.

Today this is not the case. The junta wants to permanently deploy forces to the Sinai and consequently is pushing to amend the treaty. The generals' request comes against the backdrop of populist calls from across Egypt's political spectrum demanding the cancellation of the peace treaty.

If Israel agrees to renegotiate the treaty, it will lower the political cost of a subsequent Egyptian abrogation of the agreement. This is the case because Israel itself will be on record acknowledging that the treaty does not meet its current needs.

Beyond that, there is the nature of the Egyptian military itself, which was exposed during and in the aftermath of the August 18 attack. At a minimum, the Egyptian and Palestinian terrorists who attacked Israel that day did so with no interference from Egyptian forces deployed along the border.

The fact that they shot into Israel from Egyptian military positions indicates that the Egyptian forces on the ground did not simply turn a blind eye to what was happening. Rather, it is reasonable to assume that they lent a helping hand to the terror operatives.

Furthermore, the hostile response of the Egyptian military to Israel's defensive operations to end the terror attack indicates that at a minimum, the higher echelons of the military are not sympathetically disposed towards Israel's right to defend its citizens.

Both the behavior of the forces on the ground and of their commanders in Cairo indicates that if the Egyptian military is permitted to deploy its forces to the Sinai, those forces will not serve any helpful purpose for Israel.

The military’s demonstrated antagonism toward Israel, the uncertainty of Egypt's political future, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the hatred of Israel shared by all Egyptian political factions all indicate that Israel will live to regret it if it permits the Egyptian military to mobilize in the Sinai. Not only will Egyptian soldiers not prevent terrorist attacks against Israel, their presence along the border will increase the prospect of war with Egypt.

Egypt's current inaction against anti-Israel terror operatives in the Sinai has already caused the IDF to increase its force levels along the border. If Egypt is permitted to mass its forces in the Sinai, then the IDF will be forced to respond by steeply increasing the size of its force mobilized along the border. And the proximity of the two armies could easily be exploited by Egyptian populist forces to foment war.

In his interview with The Economist, Barak claimed bizarrely, "Sometimes you have to subordinate strategic considerations to tactical needs." It is hard to think of any case in human history when a nation's interests were served by winning a battle and losing a war. And the stakes with Egypt are too high for Israel's leaders to be engaging in such confused and imbecilic thinking.

The dangers emanating from post-Mubarak Egypt are enormous and are only likely to grow. Israel cannot allow its desire for things to be different to cloud its judgment. It must accept the situation for what it is and act accordingly.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 24, 2011, 08:39:11 AM

Apparantly Mubarak was able to contain Jihadists before they got to Sinai.  The Egyptian military without his is not doing so.

A really bad sign.

I would agree with the opinion that Israel cannot allow Egyptian military demonstrating no commitment to Israel's security into Sinai.

No Jew should vote for Brock.  Yet most still will though it appears less than before.  Or at least stay home if not hold their nose and vote Republican.

Title: The UN to push an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine
Post by: Rachel on September 25, 2011, 08:24:24 AM

The UN to push an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=239045&prmusr=2Izuz2t6qATpx87SQR4P1PSDCJdH8oNaI4ahkUyL2c%2fD5a3ssVCpuluZMeE84zjw
22/09/2011   
The new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine.
 
The United Nations is being asked to grant the Palestinians the status of a “state,” for at least some purposes.   The question arises what kind of a state will it be?  In an effort to attract Western support, the Palestinian Authority claims that it will become another “secular democratic state.”  Hamas, which won the last parliamentary election, disagrees.  It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law. 

We know what the Palestinian leadership is saying to the West. Now let’s look at what its saying to its own people, who will, after all, be the ultimate decision makers if Palestine is indeed a democracy. 

The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that “Islam is the official religion in Palestine.”  It also states that Sharia Law will be “the major source of legislation.”  It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people.  Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion.  Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one.  It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics.  Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular.

The new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine.  The Ambassador of the PLO to the United States was asked during an interview whether “any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?”  His answer: “Absolutely!”  After much criticism, the Ambassador tried to spin his statement, saying that it applied only to Jews “who are amid the occupation.” 

Whatever that means, one thing is clear:  large numbers of Jews will not be welcome to remain in Islamic Palestine as equal citizens.  In contrast, Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslims.  They are equal under the law, except that they need not serve in the Israeli army.

The new Palestine will have the very “law of return” that it demands that Israel should give up.  All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded. 

To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state.  It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion.  Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!
 
Palestinian leadership accuses Israel of having roads that are limited only to Jews.  This is entirely false: a small number of roads on the West Bank are restricted to Israelis, but they are equally open to Israeli Jews, Muslims and Christians alike.  The entire state of Palestine will have a “no Jews allowed” sign on it.   

It is noteworthy that the very people who complain most loudly about Israel’s law of return and about its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, are silent when it comes to the new Palestinian state.  Is it that these people expect more of Jews than they do of Muslims?  If so, is that not a form of racism?   

What would the borders of a Palestinian state look like if the Palestinians got their way without the need to negotiate with Israel?  The Palestinians would get, as a starting point, all of the land previously occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 War, in which Jordan attacked Israel.  This return to the status quo that led to the 6 Day War is inconsistent with the intention of Security Council Resolution 242, which contemplated some territorial changes. 

The new boundaries of this Palestinian state would include Judaism’s holiest place, the Western Wall.  It would also include the access roads to Hebrew University, which Jordan used to close down this great institution of learning founded by the Jews nearly 100 years ago.  The new Palestinian state would also incorporate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in which Jews have lived for 3000 years, except for those periods of time during which they were expelled by force. 

It is contemplated, of course, that Israel would regain these areas as part of a land swap with the Palestinians.  But there is no certainty that the Palestinians would agree to a reasonable land swap.  Palestinian leaders have already said that they would hold these important and sacred sites hostage to unreasonable demands.  For example, the Western Wall covers only a few acres, but the Palestinian leadership has indicated that these acres are among the most valuable in the world, and in order for Israel to regain them, they would have to surrender thousands of acres.  The same might be true of the access road to Hebrew University and the Jewish Quarter. 


When Jordan controlled these areas, the Jordanian government made them Judenrein—Jews could not pray at the Western Wall, visit the Jewish Quarter, or have access to Hebrew University.  There is no reason to believe that a Palestinian state would treat Jews any differently if they were to maintain control over these areas. 

An Apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster.  That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the outcome of negotiations with Israel, and not the result of a thoughtless vote by the United Nations.

The Palestinians and Israeli leaders are now in New York.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to sit down and negotiate, with no preconditions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution.  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should accept that offer, which will actually get the Palestinians a viable state rather than a cheap paper victory that will raise expectations but lower the prospects for real peace. 

Title: Dershowitz is good on this subject
Post by: ccp on September 25, 2011, 09:05:33 AM

Good article

"Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!"

That is a good idea fpr a new strategy.  Send the American gay infatada to the West bank and stir up trouble there.

Title: Re: Dershowitz is good on this subject
Post by: G M on September 25, 2011, 09:26:52 AM

Quote from: ccp on September 25, 2011, 09:05:33 AM

Good article

"Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!"

That is a good idea fpr a new strategy.  Send the American gay infatada to the West bank and stir up trouble there.

No, they only go where it is safe. They''ll go into a church in the US and disrupt a service, but they'll never go into a mosque.

Title: Israel, and its neighbors - Apartheid
Post by: Spartan Dog on September 25, 2011, 12:05:53 PM

On behalf of Crafty Dog...please use the scroll bar at bottom to see the right-side column (it has not been cropped)

---

(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00004.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00007.jpg)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00010.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00013.jpg)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00016.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00019.jpg)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00022.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00025.jpg)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00028.gif)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00037.gif)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00031.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00034.jpeg)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00040.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00043.jpg)
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00046.jpg)	(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/ATT00049.jpg)

Title: Bunker busters?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 05:51:35 PM

Thank you Kostas.

I caught a fragment of a report on FOX that we are now providing bunker busters to the Israelis?!?  Can anyone confirm or deny?

Title: Re: Bunker busters?
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 06:06:33 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 05:51:35 PM

Thank you Kostas.

I caught a fragment of a report on FOX that we are now providing bunker busters to the Israelis?!?  Can anyone confirm or deny?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/23/obama-israel-bunker-busters/

The Bunker Busters and the Measure of Support for Israel


Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 09.23.2011 - 4:40 PM

Today, Eli Lake reported in the Daily Beast that President Obama “has secretly authorized significant new aid to the Israeli military that includes the sale of 55 deep-penetrating bombs known as bunker busters.” The story, to be published in Newsweek on Monday, indicates that Obama released the bombs to Israel in 2009 after the Bush administration had at first denied the request and then delayed it.
 
This decision, taken at a time when the president was also applying brutal pressure on Israel to make concessions on territory and Jerusalem to the Palestinians, sums up the contradictions in the Obama administration’s Middle East policy.
 


The strategic alliance between the United States and Israel transcends the differences between the two countries over the peace process and even the attempts of Obama to tilt the diplomatic playing field toward the Palestinians as he has repeatedly done during his time in office.
 
Obama has done more to undermine the Jewish claim on Jerusalem than any of his predecessors. He has also set out to distance the American position on the peace process from that of Israel, a foolish misjudgment that encouraged Palestinian intransigence and led to the diplomatic debacle on display this week at the United Nations. But to note this, as one must, doesn’t mean Obama is, as some of his most extreme critics assert, an open foe of the Jewish state.
 
Like many of his predecessors, Obama has hoped to encourage Israel to take risks for peace by measures that would enhance its sense of security. Such initiatives have a dual purpose in that they are intended to make Israel more defensible while also creating an atmosphere in which the leaders of the Jewish state will be more inclined to make concessions. Their impact on security is both necessary and laudable. Their effect on Israeli diplomacy is usually dubious.
 
The bunker busters gave Israel more confidence in its ability to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist targets. They might also be used against Iranian nuclear facilities, a fact that might lead some to think Obama had given a green light to an Israeli attack on Iran. If true, it would be highly ironic, because Obama was otherwise engaged in a foolish attempt to “engage” Iran in 2009. But it is highly unlikely this is the case. Given the U.S. command of the skies over the region through which Israeli planes would have to travel to get to Iran, the president probably believes he can still exercise a veto on such a strike.
 
The United States is Israel’s sole ally. Even if items such as the bunker busters may come with a hefty diplomatic price tag, it is not difficult to understand why the Israel Defense Forces think they are worth it.
 
Yet, let us be in no doubt as to the reason why news about the bunker buster sale was leaked now, more than two years after the fact, according to Lake’s reporting. At a time when Obama’s support in the Jewish community is dropping in part because of his abusive treatment of Netanyahu, it is vital he try to prove he is as good a friend to Israel as any of his predecessors.
 
Obama’s Democratic surrogates will, no doubt, cite this sale as well as other things the president has done to help bolster Israeli security. But judging Obama’s attitude toward Israel solely on the basis of whether or not he is willing to maintain normal security cooperation is to measure it by an extremely low standard.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2011, 08:27:33 PM

Why not link the Eli Lake article?  It seems a lot more impartial than Tobin.

"Obama’s security cooperation extended beyond bunker busters. According to Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), who serves on the committees that fund both the U.S. military and foreign aid, Obama gave “orders to the military to ratchet up the cooperation at every level with Israel.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/23/president-obama-secretly-approved-transfer-of-bunker-buster-bombs-to-israel.html


I'm curious, in article after article, our Secretary of Defense, Generals, et al have all said, Israel, if not the root and only cause, exacerbates our problems in the Middle East.
We have spent billions upon billions of dollars and thousands of American lives have been lost.  Why?  What's in it for America?  Sorry, but I'm an America first kind of guy...

This week, or soon, at great cost to America, Obama will veto Palestine's request for membership to the UN.  Note, we are the only one who would vote to veto that matter and the majority of the UN support Palestine's cause.  Frankly, the easy solution, the one that would save American lives, is to simply abstain.  Why be ostracized?  But Obama won't do that.   He's trying to find peace in the Middle East; not an easy task.  And still defend Israel.   In the interim, America pays, and pays, and pays......

So before you dump on Obama, acknowledge and give him some credit too.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 08:38:56 PM

Does this logic also apply to Taiwan, Cyprus, and the Falklands?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2011, 08:46:36 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 08:38:56 PM

Does this logic also apply to Taiwan, Cyprus, and the Falklands?

Probably.  At least to Taiwan.  Americans would NEVER support us going to war with China over Taiwan at this point.  Risk/Benefit Analysis.  Sorry, there's not much benefit and a whole lot of risk.

Cyprus and the Falklands?  I'm not sure what our interest is, but on the other hand, there's little downside too.  So what?  It's like attacking/invading Granada.  No one cares.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 08:53:56 PM

I could be misremembering, but IIRC we backed Greece over Turkey in Cyprus and good relations with Turkey sure would be helpful.  Our backing of the British in the Falklands is universally unpopular in Latin America.  What would the implications be for the geo-strategic calculus of South East Asia if we were seen as abandoning Taiwan?  No need to answer really, my larger point is that Israel is not the only place where the US pursues policies not popular with many countries.

As for the larger point, in my unhumble opinion, our friendship with Israel is most definitely to the good of the US.  A few simple examples:  As has been pointed out to you here previously, Saddam Hussein would be a nuclear power now but for Osirak, and Syria would be well on its way to becoming one but for Israel.  Also, peruse this forum for reports of Saudi Arabia green lighting Israel to take out Iran's nuke program only to be stopped by Baraq.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2011, 09:07:07 PM

I understand your point; but my point is risk/reward.  The Cypress issue is still an open book.  I doubt if we will take a truly strong stance one way or another.  The Falklands was over before I returned from vacation.  Do I care what Latin America thinks?  Not really.

In contrast China and Taiwan are very very different.  And so is Israel and the Middle East.  We have a lot to lose.  And not much to gain....

However, I agree with your point, other places exist where we pursue policies not popular with many countries.  But it doesn't cost many, if any, American lives.  It doesn't even cost that much money.
Israel is different.  It HAS cost American lives.  And billions upon billions of dollars.  As would a war with China over Taiwan.  No thanks....

But that's not my point.   Just give Obama some credit.  He may not be perfect, but he's still there when Israel needs him.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:08:02 PM

"Why not link the Eli Lake article?  It seems a lot more impartial than Tobin."

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09/obama-administration-apparently-leaks-misleading-story-to-seem-more-pro-israel-than-bush/

Obama Administration Apparently Leaks Misleading Story To Seem More Pro-Israel Than Bush
Posted by Matthew Knee   Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:04am

 

The News Beast reports that Obama sold Israel bunker buster bombs that the Bush administration had previously blocked in 2005.
 
The problem: In 2007, the Bush arranged for the bombs to be delivered in the 2009-2010 time period, which they were.  Newsweek of course dutifully spun the story to emphasize Bush’s original refusal, rather than the fact that the bombs arrived when Bush had promised they would.
 
Obama doesn’t deserve points for every agreement with Israel he doesn’t break.  He deserves criticism for each one he does break, such as the agreement that promised Israel US support for building in certain parts of East Jerusalem.
 
But maybe I’m just too cynical.  Surely this “leak,” conveniently spun by a friendly publication,  has nothing to do with Obama’s “I’m not anti-Israel, now please give me your money so I can have four more years of being even more ‘not anti-Israel’ than I am now ” campaign to shore up his Jewish support.  No, that would be crazy talk.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:12:04 PM

"Probably.  At least to Taiwan.  Americans would NEVER support us going to war with China over Taiwan at this point.  Risk/Benefit Analysis.  Sorry, there's not much benefit and a whole lot of risk.

Cyprus and the Falklands?  I'm not sure what our interest is, but on the other hand, there's little downside too.  So what?  It's like attacking/invading Granada.  No one cares."

Right. The crushing of Taiwan's freedom will have no negative consequences? What about Japan and the rest of asia?

America: We'll defend freedom, as long as it's easy and inexpensive! 

Right?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2011, 09:16:01 PM

Even some of the hawks from the George W. Bush administration grudgingly give Obama credit for behind-the-scenes progress. “If you say to the White House, ‘Obama has been very unfriendly to Israel,’ they say, ‘What do you mean? It’s the best military-to-military relationship ever.’ And that part is true,” says Elliott Abrams, who oversaw Middle East policy at the National Security Council. “If you look at the trajectory from Clinton to Bush to Obama, the military relationship has gotten steadily stronger. I don’t think Obama changed the trajectory, but he certainly didn’t interfere with it, and it continued under him.”

The bunker busters were a significant breakthrough. The Israelis first requested the sale in 2005, only to be rebuffed by the Bush administration. At the time, the Pentagon had frozen almost all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects out of concern that Israel was transferring advanced military technology to China.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/obama-arms-israel.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:19:06 PM

Oh, like the rest of Obama's national security plan, he just left Bush's plans in place. I guess voting present works out well sometimes.


"They told me if I voted for McCain, it would be George W. Bush's third term. They were right!"

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:24:38 PM

Why would Israel need bunker busters anyway? I though Obama was going to meet with Aminanutjob without preconditions and use his gift. What happened?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2011, 09:29:45 PM

Do you really think we are going to go to war with China over Taiwan?   :? :? :?  Frankly, even most Americans call them Chinese, not Taiwanese.  Most Americans don't even
know the difference and you think we would go to war with China over Taiwan?  You must be kidding.  Or are you?   :?

As for Japan, if I was Japan I would start arming.  But Japan offers a lot to America including trade, money, defense bases, etc.  It's not the same as Taiwan, sorry.  Japan is the only country
in Asia, and perhaps Korea, worth anything.  Of course China, but then I don't see them as our friend long term if they are even now.

Gosh, defending freedom sounds nice, maybe we should start more wars in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, Africa and elsewhere to "defend freedom".  They need it!    :evil:

Sorry, I'm tired.  We have enough problems at home.  Iraq and Afghanistan are debacles; we don't need more.

Quote from: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:24:38 PM

Why would Israel need bunker busters anyway? I though Obama was going to meet with Aminanutjob without preconditions and use his gift. What happened?

Gosh, maybe Obama should just stay home and do nothing?  No money, no veto, and no bunker busters?  America would probably be better off.
But he's there for Israel; be a little grateful.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:35:57 PM

Japan is imploding in numerous ways, including their moribund economy and plummeting birthrate. If we are withdrawing from the world, there is nothing special about Japan that would differentiate it from Taiwan on any strategic level.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:40:02 PM

"This week, or soon, at great cost to America, Obama will veto Palestine's request for membership to the UN.  Note, we are the only one who would vote to veto that matter and the majority of the UN support Palestine's cause."

Anybody that hates Israel hates us too. The UN is nothing but a collection of thugs and dictators and should have been shut down long ago as an ongoing transnational criminal organization.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2011, 09:51:50 PM

 :? :? :?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm

Japan's economy is the third largest in the World. 

Do you know how many dollars they hold?

Do you know how important our military bases are in Japan?

Do you know how important Japan is to America?  We have something to lose as does Japan.

Taiwan?  What do we have to lose?

But I think this discussion (although I think we are done) should be moved.  At this point, while I was drawing a similarity to Israel,
Israel seems to be dropped from the subject.

My point was/is that Obama HAS supported Israel.  Give him some credit.  Or maybe he should just stop giving them money, his veto, and arms?
Then at least you might have a point.   :evil:

And to finish for the evening...

"Anybody that hates Israel hates us too."

I don't think you get it; they hate us BECAUSE of our (Obama) support for Israel.  Not my words, but our Secretary of Defense, our Generals, et al.....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 09:55:43 PM

I'm gonna have to read those citations about just what the truth is with the bunker busters but it's late , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 10:03:51 PM

 :? :? :?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm

Japan's economy is the third largest in the World. 

**And dropping like it's population.

Do you know how many dollars they hold?

**The dollars Obama and his crew continue to devalue?

Do you know how important our military bases are in Japan?

**If we are not going to be the world's policeman, we have no need for those bases. If we are using them to base antiquated fighters that are no match for new generation Chinese missiles and aircraft, what's the point?

Do you know how important Japan is to America?  We have something to lose as does Japan.

**What is unique about Japan that doesn't apply to Taiwan, S. Korea or other parts of asia?

Taiwan?  What do we have to lose?

**The same we lose with Japan.

But I think this discussion (although I think we are done) should be moved.  At this point, while I was drawing a similarity to Israel,
Israel seems to be dropped from the subject.

My point was/is that Obama HAS supported Israel.  Give him some credit.  Or maybe he should just stop giving them money, his veto, and arms?
Then at least you might have a point.   :evil:

And to finish for the evening...

"Anybody that hates Israel hates us too."

I don't think you get it; they hate us BECAUSE of our (Obama) support for Israel.  Not my words, but our Secretary of Defense, our Generals, et al.....

**Wrong. We are kafirs, unbelievers. Just like Israel. We don't bow before Mecca and chant that Mohammad is allah's prophet. Thus they wage war against all kafir, as required by the koran and ahadith.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2011, 03:18:15 AM

Part of my response to JDN's let Israel get pushed into the sea post in the name of US security was to point out that there are a number cases where the US goes it alone, but this is not the place for extended conversation regarding those cases. 

More to the point, indeed THE point were the various examples I gave of why friendship is GOOD for the interests of the US.

Title: It mostly comes down to money
Post by: ccp on September 27, 2011, 12:36:51 PM

"I don't think you get it; they hate us BECAUSE of our (Obama) support for Israel.  Not my words, but our Secretary of Defense, our Generals, et al....."

Well I have been wondering why so many UN nations feel it necessary to bash Israel.  The answer is probably quite simple.

Arab oil money being spread around.  Why else would so many of these countries always vote against Israel?  What the heck, do they care about Jews one way or another.  Or for that matter they love the Palestinians so much? :|  It has nothing to do with either.  Saudis are spreading around the cash to these countries.  It is probably just that simple.

Just like Brock is all of a sudden selling Israel bunker busters.  He wants the stupid liberal American Jew's to keep sending him money and political support.

Maxine Waters has a point.  Probably the first and last time I will agree with her:
Brock takes the Black vote for granted.  He would never had said to the Jews, to the Latinos what he told the Black Caucus. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2011, 03:20:03 PM

Perhaps I am missing something, but I read GM's citation on the bunker busters as showing the Baraq folks as bullexcrementers.

Title: Canada's Baird lectures our JDN
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2011, 08:44:07 PM

Baird targets Israel’s foes
Foreign affairs minister talks tough in UN speech
By MIKE BLANCHFIELD The Canadian Press
Tue, Sep 27 - 4:54 AM

 
Foreign affairs minister John Baird: "Canada will not accept or stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory and its citizens."(Sean Kilpatrick / CP)

OTTAWA — Canada used its United Nations speaking slot Monday to lambaste opponents of Israel as no better than the appeasers who allowed fascism and communism to flourish before the Second World War.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird delivered Canada’s views to the General Assembly in a speech that put meat on the bones of the Harper government’s unflinching support of Israel.

"Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of previous generations, terrorism is the great struggle of ours. And far too often, the Jewish state is on the front line of our struggle and its people the victims of terror," says a prepared text of Baird’s remarks.

"Canada will not accept or stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory and its citizens. The Second World War taught us all the tragic price of ‘going along’ just to ‘get along.’ "

Baird made no direct mention of the Holocaust in which six million Jews died at the hands of Nazi Germany. But he evoked the era when he quoted Winston Churchill as saying "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Baird reiterated Canada’s opposition to the recent Palestinian bid to secure UN recognition as a state.

The UN Security Council became seized with the matter on Monday for the first time after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas delivered his own forceful speech advocating the move.

"We supported the aspirations of those peoples who sought for themselves and their countries brighter futures during the Arab Spring that just passed," said Baird.

"But we will not go along with the unilateral actions of the Palestinian Authority."

Baird repeated Canada’s call for a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The no-holds-barred address also took aim at the UN itself, for allowing despotic regimes to hold memberships on, or occupy the chair of, major committees.

"The greatest enemies of the United Nations are not those who publicly repudiate its actions," said Baird.

"The greatest enemies of the United Nations are those who quietly undermine its principles and, even worse, by those who sit idly, watching its slow decline."


© 2011 The Halifax Herald Limited
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1265393.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 28, 2011, 07:10:01 AM

Israel keeps trying to make it harder, or so it seems, for it's allies to help out.

"We believe that this morning's announcement by the government of Israel approving the construction of 1,100 housing units in East Jerusalem is counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties,"

The Gilo project will expand the development to the south by several hundred yards, absorbing additional land claimed by Palestinians, Jerusalem attorney and anti-settlement activist Daniel Seidemann said. The expansion will include government buildings, a school and an industrial park.

"This expands the existing footprint of Gilo and changes the borders," and makes peace talks less viable, he said.

"The quartet is out there trying to find a way to get these kinds of events under control so negotiations can resume," Seidemann said. "The U.S., EU and everyone all engaged Israel [to stop the approval] and Israel did it anyway."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-housing-20110928,0,5140697.story

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2011, 08:34:43 AM

Negotiations were going on just fine while settlements were being built until Baraq fuct things up , , , and who gives a ____ about what Daniel Seidemann has to say anyway except Pravda on the Beach?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 28, 2011, 08:41:27 AM

I never heard of Daniel Seidemann before so I don't care.   :-)

But it seems to me that in the middle of Palestine's push at the UN, a rather delicate time, an announcement of new housing units on disputed land, at best, is rather poor PR.

At worst......

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2011, 09:04:19 AM

I suppose, but ultimately it's irrelevant.  The Palestinians are not willing to recognize Israel's right to exist, so what's the point of negotiating?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 28, 2011, 09:15:26 AM

I understand your point, but the "right to exist" is not a black and white concept. It has been argued for a long time.  It is hard to define.

I don't agree with everything (most things?) this author wrote, but he does bring up some interesting points.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html

Further, I don't remember (?) another nation state demanding acknowledgment of the "right to exist", but then Israel is rather unique. 

It's not easy. 

My point is it's better not to pour gasoline on a fire...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2011, 08:33:37 PM

What specious sophistry!  :-P :x :-P  Sorry but I cannot be bothered to dignify it with a response. :-P

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 28, 2011, 08:45:24 PM

Yeah even I thought it was a little weak.  :-). But it's good to know what's out there.
And I usually respect the Christian Science Monitor.

That said I still think Israel's timing leaves something to be improved upon.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 29, 2011, 07:54:41 AM

"the "right to exist" is not a black and white concept"
  - Really, it is.

"It is hard to define."
   - No, it isn't.  A disputed border or foreign policy issue maybe, but the right to exist is a yes or it is a no.

Under American law, how do you feel about your right to exist?  Is it not a  bigger and starker issue if your neighbors all vow to kill you, destroy you and move your house off the map, than restrictions let's say on the the setback of your side yard or the height of your fence?

The Palestinian question should be enlarged to re-certify all the nations denying Israel's right to exist. I heard our ambassador to Israel just say (if I heard him correctly) that at a recent point in time something like 21 of the last 26 UN resolutions were about condemning Israel. Here is a list of 224 of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel   Other than the strength of the hatred they face, is Israel really the most dangerous and threatening country on earth?  Is self defense threatening?  Or is the UN, who accepted the regimes of Libya and Syria to serve on the UN Human Rights commission, the most misguided institution on earth?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 29, 2011, 08:20:23 AM

"Really, it's NOT" black and white.   :-)

For example, "It is not a right recognized in international law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist

Frankly, throughout history I'm sure we have negotiated with quite a few nations that would have preferred that we didn't "exist".  Probably, we might have
wished they didn't exist either.  But we still negotiated.

Using your analogy of my neighbor "who vowed to kill me, destroy me and move my house off the map".  According to law, is it ok because I'm stronger
and I have a tough big brother that I invade his property, put up a new fence on his property and call it mine?  And on this new land I've "acquired", can I add additional housing for my family?  But if his family is still on that portion of land I took, I evict them, I provide them no shelter?  Little food.  Even basics in life.  If my neighbor's children throw rocks at me, is it ok if I shoot them?

Yes, you would argue that your neighbor threatened to kill you etc. so you had to do what you had to do.  What do you think the Judge would say
when you neighbor complained to the Police?  I bet he would follow the law.  YOU might even be arrested for your actions. 

My point is that it is not black and white.  Negotiations need to happen.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 29, 2011, 08:47:14 AM

Negotiations WERE happening until Baraq made it politically impossible for Abbas to continue by denouncing the settlements as a barrier to negotiations!  :-P

"According to law, is it ok because I'm stronger and I have a tough big brother that I invade his property, put up a new fence on his property and call it mine?  And on this new land I've "acquired", can I add additional housing for my family?  But if his family is still on that portion of land I took, I evict them, I provide them no shelter?  Little food.  Even basics in life.  If my neighbor's children throw rocks at me, is it ok if I shoot them?  Yes, you would argue that your neighbor threatened to kill you etc. so you had to do what you had to do."

Spectacularly off.  It wasn't threats.  It was DECADES of ACTUAL ATTEMPTS.  Your determination to get this issue wrong and throw up specious bullexcrement is rather remarkable.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 29, 2011, 08:53:51 AM

I knew I was wasting my time.  :oops:

Amazing to get locked into a viewpoint so rigidly that you won't even admit YOUR right to exist.  A way of thinking we call 'centrism'??

Good luck.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 29, 2011, 09:10:55 AM

Crafty,

"Spectacularly off."

Actually, I was quoting Doug's analogy.

"Under American law, how do you feel about your right to exist?  Is it not a  bigger and starker issue if your neighbors all vow to kill you, destroy you and move your house off the map, than restrictions let's say on the the setback of your side yard or the height of your fence?"

Perhaps I am "getting this wrong".  But it's NOT black and white.  I may have a "right to exist" in my opinion.  But my neighbor may disagree. 
In history, this issue repeats itself time after time. (see my previous link)

Doug's erroneous logic and analogy not withstanding, even if "attempts" were happening, that doesn't mean we can't negotiate and find some sort of peace.

My viewpoint is not "rigid" nor is it "bullexcrement".  It's just different than yours.  Yet, IMHO may I respectfully say you are the one who is biased in this discussion.  In contrast, most of our allies also say it's not black and white and most of our allies in some way support the Palestinians cause.  I suppose you think they are all "rigid" too?  And full of "bullexcrement"?  Or will you acknowledge that they have some good points too?

It sounds like I'm the one who is open minded to different viewpoints.  I'm only suggesting impartiality and negotiations.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 29, 2011, 10:19:08 AM

If you correctly took my question to be an analogy then it would necessarily include the fact that you were under actual attacks for decades with bombs sent in and exploding from your neighbors, unless you deny those facts.  That big player that is partly on your side is far away and not doing anything to stop those attacks.  If you believe in your right to exist, you defend yourself in all that entails.

Does or does not Israel have a right to exist?  (Rhetorical, I have already heard your non-answer.)

Do you or do you not have a right to exist?  (Already answered with a wishy-washy negative.)  I disagree.  I am pro-death penalty, but up until conviction by your peers beyond reasonable doubt of an extremely heinous crime and exhausting all available appeals, I support your right to exist.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 29, 2011, 10:41:53 AM

I quoted your analogy.  I didn't add or subtract.

And without the "big brother" Israel would soon cease to exist.  And when we veto the Palestinians proposal at great cost to America, is that doing nothing? That's a pretty amazing big brother I would say.  I'ld be really grateful if I had a big brother like that.

Doug, an individual's right to exist and a nation's right to exist are different.  Again, I refer you to my link previously posted.  I hope you read it. Quite a few "nations"
would like the "right to exist".  Some do some don't.

Further, as regards to nations, the concept of "right to exist" does not have legal standing.  It is a cool sound bite. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 29, 2011, 12:54:59 PM

I don't plan to write longer posts to placate people who pretend there is no context.  Modern Israel is a fact.  It is a country.  It is a U.S. ally.  It has borders, laws, leaders and elections.  It is a U.N. member state.  They have a flag at the Olympics.  Why are we still BSing around with this?  Israel exists.  Those who say they don't recognize that are saying they seek to destroy them and they don't hide that fact in any way.  They are not wishing to take out one specific regime like forcing Saddam out of power after he attacked four of his neighbors or Germany and Japan in WWII.  They hate them for who they are, not for what they've done. They seek to destroy a nation and all its people.  But that is not black and white? 

At least I learned a new word, nonversation.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 29, 2011, 01:17:55 PM

"In contrast, most of our allies also say it's not black and white and most of our allies in some way support the Palestinians cause.  I suppose you think they are all "rigid" too?  And full of "bullexcrement"?  Or will you acknowledge that they have some good points too?  It sounds like I'm the one who is open minded to different viewpoints.  I'm only suggesting impartiality and negotiations."

Most of our Euro allies are getting out-fuct by the Muslims in their countries and are engaged in pre-emptive dhimmitude.  Much of the world is dependent on Arab oil.  (Britain released the Lockerbie bomber for an oil deal with Kaddaffy!)  1/5 (1/4?) of the world is Muslim.  The UN has countries like Syria and Kaddaffy's Libya heading the Human Rights Council. 

GET THIS JDN.  NEVER AGAIN.  No more slicing the salami with the jew hatred.  Stop trying to shoot us and bomb us.  Stop trying to push us into the sea.  Stop deliberately targeting our women and children.  Accept our right to live and let us prosper together.  WHATEVER YOUR ANSWER, WE WILL LIVE.  CHALLENGE THAT AND YOU WILL REGRET IT.

Title: Panetta blames Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 03, 2011, 01:23:02 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-u-s-message-scold-israel-for-getting-more-isolated/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 03, 2011, 04:38:30 PM

Crafty this verbiage from Panetta is very bad.  What the heck does he want Israelis to do?

A large portion of the Muslim world wants then dead or driven to the sea.

How does one communicate with people who think this? 

Does he give as examples US communication with Pakistan, with China, with Egypt, with Syria, with Saudi Arabia? 

He sounds like a condescending jerk.  "They need to do this they need to do that".  Thanks alot.

So he concludes it is Israel's fault they are getting more isolated.  He advocates more talks and more talks and more communication and more diplomacy.  We've been hearing this crap from the left for 40 years.  What is new since Brock is in is that now it is mostly the fault of the Jews.

I think he just cost the Brock man another 5 % or so of the Jewish vote.

Keep it up.  I am an American first but I am not going to sit quietly and watch my heritage get wiped out which is the road it is heading in.

Title: Aerial Tour of Israel
Post by: Rachel on October 07, 2011, 05:33:31 AM

Aerial Tour of Israel
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR4o5NU8cUY&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IR4o5NU8cUY

Title: The Shalit deal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2011, 10:31:28 PM

I'm not getting the deal for Shalit at all.  Doesn't something like this only encourage the bastards?

Nor am I getting Stratfor's comment (see the Middle East War thread)  that these negotiations allow Hamas to claim sobriety.

Title: Re: The Shalit deal
Post by: G M on October 12, 2011, 10:46:49 PM

I'm not getting the deal for Shalit at all.  Doesn't something like this only encourage the bastards?

Yes.

Nor am I getting Stratfor's comment (see the Middle East War thread)  that these negotiations allow Hamas to claim sobriety.

You'd have to be Biden-drunk to see HAMAS as sober....    :roll:

Title: Strat Questions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2011, 09:37:08 AM

Israel-Hamas Prisoner Swap

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a prisoner swap deal, trading some 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Early reports had suggested jailed Fatah figure Marwan Barghouti would be released as part of the deal, but Israel subsequently denied those reports. What are the terms of the deal? How does it differ from previous failed negotiations? How was it brokered? What has changed in the regional situation that would render this deal possible now after years of similar deals falling through? Are there any hints that this may pave the way for additional deals between Israel and the Palestinians? What does Hamas do next, and what impact does the release have on Fatah? Egypt has been credited with a substantial role in this deal. Why was Egypt capable of this, and what does it gain?

Title: Glick: A pact signed in blood
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 15, 2011, 10:17:02 AM

No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.

There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn't empathize with their suffering. It isn't simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF.

It isn't just that it could happen to any of our families.

As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family's suffering is our collective suffering.

And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others.

Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family.

Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit. Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.

There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family's sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.

Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly.

Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.

For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14- month-old granddaughter Sinai Keinan did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002.

And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren't planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem.

Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.

The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu's brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.

The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.

It is a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.

Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.

This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.

The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.

Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.

There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.

In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews.

This deal - like its predecessors - is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.

The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu's current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu's part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.

Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position.

He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider.

Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition.

But this rationale ended with Barak's resignation from the Labor Party in January.

Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu.

They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu's government. He doesn't need to pay any price for their loyalty.

So Netanyahu's decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.

What has really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas's position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas's patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas's leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.

Hamas's leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood's oppressor.

With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.

But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.

According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.

What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.

Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.

At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.

At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.

What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer's convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: "The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best.

"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse."

The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.

Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu's abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.

Title: Re: Glick: A pact signed in blood
Post by: G M on October 15, 2011, 02:17:51 PM

Glick is correct. This is setting a up a policy they'll come to regret.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 16, 2011, 09:09:09 AM

I just noticed that this thread has joined the ever growing list of threads on this forum with over 100,000 reads.

Title: Perspective on the Schalit deal
Post by: Rachel on October 16, 2011, 06:53:01 PM

Perspective on the Schalit deal

Sunday, October 16, 2011

http://bogieworks.blogs.com/

Since the announcement of a deal in which Israel will be releasing as many as 1000 security prisoners (many with blood on their hands) in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit (who has been held in Gaza for 5 1/2 years), many have come out publicly either for or against the deal.

Many Israelis are experiencing some combination of relief and delight that a soldier son who has been held prisoner for so long will finally be returned to the family and nation that fought and prayed so hard for his release.

But understandably, many israeli families who have lost loved ones in terror attacks perpetrated by those slated for release, have been quite vocal in their objection to the deal. They have even gone so far as to file petitions asking the Israeli supreme court to block the release of the murderers.

Like many, I can honestly say that I understand and agree with both positions.

But it was my synagogue's rabbi who was finally able to help me gain the proper perspective for viewing this deal.

He said that he too was torn about whether this deal was an acceptable one, much less a good one. But then he realized that it was impossible to decide by looking at it from the viewpoint of either the bereaved families of terror victims or the bereaved family of a kidnap victim.

He said that we are reminded many times by our sages that all of Israel is responsible for one another. He posits that this means that we are obligated to view ourselves as one large family rather than a nation of families, and must make decisions based on that viewpoint.

He didn't tell us whether he favored or disapproved of the deal. But he said it was made clear to him what the right course of action would be once he looked at the situation, not from one family or the other... but rather when he looked at it as if he were a parent of a single family who had had one child killed in a terror attack, and a second child kidnapped and awaiting ransom.

That, he told us, is the only way the nation of Israel can begin to contemplate such a terrible choice.

Title: Libyan PAD missiles heading for Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 17, 2011, 05:20:04 PM

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3234/libyan-missiles-headed-for-gaza-sinai

Title: The better poltical choice
Post by: ccp on October 18, 2011, 07:36:42 AM

Though certainly not a good one.

"is the only way the nation of Israel can begin to contemplate such a terrible choice."

In the end this has to be a political decision.  Unfortunately Israel has no good option.  IF they refuse the deal they don't get their "child" back and internationally they look like they are hoarding Palestinian prisoners.  If they do it they may buy a tiny smidgeon of political capital from the "international community" which is basically bought and paid for by Arab oil money to always be against the Jews.  And worse the Palestinians themselves will never appreciate the lopsided deal and as a peace or goodwill gesture and instead know this is what always results when they take a hostage.  Which is of course  why they continue to take hostages.

So either way Israel is always the poltical loser.  This is just the least bad of the choices.  And they do get their "child".

Just my armchair take.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 18, 2011, 09:13:37 AM

The importance of taking Israelis hostage just went through the roof for the jihadists. That which you reward, you'll see more of.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2011, 09:21:46 AM

That is my take on it too.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 18, 2011, 09:24:44 AM

The concept of every Israeli being a frontline soldier served Israel well, saving more lives in the long run. This is a bad decision.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 18, 2011, 10:45:23 AM

Sure one downside is it encourages more hostage taking.

Israel has done this many times before though I don't know if recently till now.

Netanyahu and other decision makers may be looking at a bigger picture.

Title: Who could have seen this coming?
Post by: G M on October 18, 2011, 12:10:17 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-military-schalit-suffering-malnutrition-132751567.html

Netanyahu told an audience that he understood the pain of Israeli families who lost relatives in Palestinian violence, but that Israel's ethos of doing everything possible to bring its soldiers home safely forced him to act.

He also issued a staunch warning to the freed militants. "We will continue to fight terror and every released terrorist who returns to terror will be held accountable," he said.

Those concerns were underscored with comments by one of the freed prisoners, Hamas militant leader Yehia Sinwar, who called on the movement to kidnap more soldiers.

Hamas agreed to release Schalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, many of them serving life sentences for deadly attacks on Israelis. The arrivals of the prisoners set off ecstatic celebrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where large crowds and dignitaries greeted them.

In Gaza, prisoners embraced and shook hands with Hamas leaders at the Rafah border crossing.

Tens of thousands of flag-waving Palestinians celebrated at a rally that quickly turned into a show of strength by the Islamic militant group, which seized control of Gaza from its rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in 2007.

On a sandy lot, a huge stage was set up and decorated with a mural depicting Schalit's capture in a June 2006. Thousands hoisted green Hamas flags.

"My happiness is indescribable," said Azhar Abu Jawad, a 30-year-old woman who celebrated the return of a brother who had been sentenced to life for killing an Israeli in 1992.

"We'll get him a bride and everything. I just spoke to him. He's so happy. This is a reminder, God doesn't forget anyone," she said.

In the West Bank, released prisoners were taken to the grave of iconic Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas greeted them, and several thousand people filled the courtyard outside his headquarters to celebrate.

"We thank God for your return and your safety," Abbas said. "You are freedom fighters and holy warriors for the sake of God and the homeland."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 18, 2011, 12:23:04 PM

GM, Netanyahu already knows this.

Eventually there will be war.  It is inevitable.  Israel is screwed and I feel the sentiment in the US is turning against the "Jews".

Here is his statement:

****October 11, 2011, 6:01 pm

Netanyahu Statement on Shalit Deal
By ROBERT MACKEY
We have concluded ardeous negotiations with #Hamas to release #Gilad #Shalit. He will be coming home in the next few days.
Tue Oct 11 18:54:24 via web
The PM of Israel
IsraeliPM

Below is the complete text of remarks made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday, at the start of an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss a prisoner exchange agreement with Hamas. The agreement would secure the release of a single captive Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Today, I bring a proposal to the government for a deal that will bring Gilad Shalit home alive and well; bring him home to his parents, Aviva and Noam; his brother, Yoel; his sister, Hadas; his grandfather Zvi; and the entire people of Israel. Two and a half years ago, when the government was formed, I took upon myself, as my first priority, to bring Gilad home to his people, to his family — to bring him home safe and sound.

At the time, Gilad was already held in captivity for two and a half years, with no visits from the Red Cross, with no visits at all, and we did not know what state he was in. The first step I took, and we approved it here in the government, was to get a video recording of Gilad, and we all breathed a sigh of relief when we saw it. We saw that he was functioning, physically, mentally and cognitively. We saw that he was functioning well. We knew that he was healthy and that he was alive. I regarded that tape as an insurance policy, because it obliged the Hamas before the international community to safeguard him, to keep him alive and maintain his health. But that was obviously only the first step.

The most important mission that we had was more challenging — to actually bring Gilad home. To that end we held long and tough negotiations through the German mediator. These negotiations were based on a framework outlined by the previous government. They were long and exhausting and despite all our efforts, a deal was not reached.

I must point out that not a day went by without us trying various ways to bring Gilad home, any way possible, and that didn’t work either. In the last few weeks, the negotiations were renewed in Cairo, this time with the Egyptian government as mediator. My instructions to the team were to adhere to the principles and framework that are important for the security of the State of Israel, which I will detail in the meeting.

There is an in-built tension between the desire to bring back an abducted soldier, or citizen, and the need to maintain the security of the citizens of Israel. This is my dual responsibility as prime minister.

The deal I am bringing to the government expresses the right balance between all of these considerations. I do not wish to hide the truth from you — it is a very difficult decision. I feel for the families of victims of terror, I appreciate their suffering and distress, I am one of them. But leadership must be examined at moments such as this, being able to make difficult, but right, decisions.

I believe that we have reached the best deal we could have at this time, when storms are sweeping the Middle East. I do not know if in the near future we would have been able to reach a better deal or any deal at all. It is very possible that this window of opportunity that opened because of the circumstances would close indefinitely and we would never have been able to bring Gilad home at all.

Therefore, for all of these reasons, I instructed the team to put their initials on the deal last Thursday, and today it was finalized and signed by both sides. I thank my military secretary, Maj. Gen. Yohanan Locker; the chief of the Shin Bet, Yoram Cohen; my personal envoy to the negotiations, David Meidan; and his predecessor, Hagai Hadas. I thank the team that has accompanied them all these years.

I thank the [Israel Defense Forces], the security forces for doing everything they could regarding Gilad Shalit. I also wish to thank the German mediator, and the chancellor, Angela Merkel, who supported his mission all along. send a special thanks to the government of Egypt and the Egyptian intelligence services for providing much assistance in mediating and helping us reaching this agreement.
Log InRegister NowHome PageToday's PaperVideoMost PopularTimes Topics
Search All NYTimes.com
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
NewsWorldU.S.N.Y. / RegionBusinessTechnologyScienceHealthSportsOpinionArtsStyleTravelJobsReal EstateAutos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 11, 2011, 6:01 pm
Netanyahu Statement on Shalit Deal
By ROBERT MACKEY
We have concluded ardeous negotiations with #Hamas to release #Gilad #Shalit. He will be coming home in the next few days.
Tue Oct 11 18:54:24 via web
The PM of Israel
IsraeliPM

Below is the complete text of remarks made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday, at the start of an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss a prisoner exchange agreement with Hamas. The agreement would secure the release of a single captive Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Today, I bring a proposal to the government for a deal that will bring Gilad Shalit home alive and well; bring him home to his parents, Aviva and Noam; his brother, Yoel; his sister, Hadas; his grandfather Zvi; and the entire people of Israel. Two and a half years ago, when the government was formed, I took upon myself, as my first priority, to bring Gilad home to his people, to his family — to bring him home safe and sound.

At the time, Gilad was already held in captivity for two and a half years, with no visits from the Red Cross, with no visits at all, and we did not know what state he was in. The first step I took, and we approved it here in the government, was to get a video recording of Gilad, and we all breathed a sigh of relief when we saw it. We saw that he was functioning, physically, mentally and cognitively. We saw that he was functioning well. We knew that he was healthy and that he was alive. I regarded that tape as an insurance policy, because it obliged the Hamas before the international community to safeguard him, to keep him alive and maintain his health. But that was obviously only the first step.

The most important mission that we had was more challenging — to actually bring Gilad home. To that end we held long and tough negotiations through the German mediator. These negotiations were based on a framework outlined by the previous government. They were long and exhausting and despite all our efforts, a deal was not reached.

I must point out that not a day went by without us trying various ways to bring Gilad home, any way possible, and that didn’t work either. In the last few weeks, the negotiations were renewed in Cairo, this time with the Egyptian government as mediator. My instructions to the team were to adhere to the principles and framework that are important for the security of the State of Israel, which I will detail in the meeting.

There is an in-built tension between the desire to bring back an abducted soldier, or citizen, and the need to maintain the security of the citizens of Israel. This is my dual responsibility as prime minister.

The deal I am bringing to the government expresses the right balance between all of these considerations. I do not wish to hide the truth from you — it is a very difficult decision. I feel for the families of victims of terror, I appreciate their suffering and distress, I am one of them. But leadership must be examined at moments such as this, being able to make difficult, but right, decisions.

I believe that we have reached the best deal we could have at this time, when storms are sweeping the Middle East. I do not know if in the near future we would have been able to reach a better deal or any deal at all. It is very possible that this window of opportunity that opened because of the circumstances would close indefinitely and we would never have been able to bring Gilad home at all.

Therefore, for all of these reasons, I instructed the team to put their initials on the deal last Thursday, and today it was finalized and signed by both sides. I thank my military secretary, Maj. Gen. Yohanan Locker; the chief of the Shin Bet, Yoram Cohen; my personal envoy to the negotiations, David Meidan; and his predecessor, Hagai Hadas. I thank the team that has accompanied them all these years.

I thank the [Israel Defense Forces], the security forces for doing everything they could regarding Gilad Shalit. I also wish to thank the German mediator, and the chancellor, Angela Merkel, who supported his mission all along. send a special thanks to the government of Egypt and the Egyptian intelligence services for providing much assistance in mediating and helping us reaching this agreement.

This morning I Invited Noam Shalit to my residence, and I spoke on the phone with the mother, Aviva, and the grandfather, Zvi. I told them that I am keeping my promise and I’m bringing their son and grandson home. I told them, “I’m bringing your boy back.” I am happy that I succeeded in fulfilling the Jewish decree of redeeming captives, and if all goes as planned, Gilad will be back in Israel in the next few days with his family and his people.

The nation of Israel is a unique people. We are all mutually responsible for each other, as our sages said: “He who saves one soul, it is as though he saved an entire world.” Tonight, I bring the government a proposal to save Gilad Shalit, to finally bring him home to Israel after five years.

Title: A surprisingly wooly-headed analysis from Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2011, 01:28:17 PM

I have a high regard for Stratfor, but I've seen better from Newspeak than this one:

Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Related Links
•   Gilad Shalit Returns to Israel
•   Israeli-Arab Crisis Approaching
•   From the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush: Rethinking the Region
Israel and Hamas began operationalizing the deal that was struck last week, according to which an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, would be released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. The process is still under way but it is a significant one, considering that this is the first substantive negotiated settlement between Hamas and Israel and there are implications that that stem from it.
The release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners has set a precedent, a precedent by which Hamas and Israel have demonstrated that they can negotiate and reach a settlement. What this means is, or at least paves the way for, is that future negotiations can take place between the Palestinian Islamist movement and the Jewish state. This allows Hamas to be able to demonstrate that it is a pragmatic player that can engage in substantive negotiations and behave as a rational international political actor. That said, Hamas does run into problems because it needs to balance this newly emerging perception of a rational political actor with that of a resistance movement, one that does not recognize Israel, rejects the right of Israel to exist and continues on the path of armed struggle against the Jewish state.
Hamas isn’t the only political actor that will have implications from this deal. Its rival Fatah is now in a more difficult position because Hamas, from the point of view of the Palestinian people, seemingly has demonstrated that its approach to negotiations, coupled with armed resistance, is one that can actually pay off. So Fatah is under pressure to demonstrate that it is not negotiating from a position of relative weakness and its approach to negotiations and to dealing with the Palestinian issue through international channels is actually the right way to move forward.
And certainly Israel has its own challenges moving forward after the Gilad Shalit deal. On one hand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has demonstrated that it can take a pragmatic approach to the Palestinian issue and therefore it can relieve some of the international pressure that it has been under in recent months. But at the same time having positioned itself as a centrist force the Netanyahu government, headed by the Likud Party, is now having to deal with potential backlash for more right-wing forces, both nationalist and religious, who are not entirely pleased with the notion that one Israeli soldier can be secured in exchange for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners who have committed acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens.
On the international front the Netanyahu government has definitely made some gains, but at the same time it could run into some complications when it comes to Egypt, because Egypt is the one that brokered the final settlement. And Israel is very concerned that Egypt’s military rulers do not run into any problems when it comes to popular sentiment, especially as it applies to the Palestinian issue. And therefore Cairo’s military rulers can be expected to use that Israeli dependency on them to their advantage on the domestic political front, which may not necessarily jibe with Israeli interests.
The Israeli-Hamas deal is an extraordinary event that comes at an extraordinary time, when there is no shortage of issues raging in the region. But one thing is clear — that it has set a precedent that can unfold in many ways, and we will just have to wait and see whether this leads to further negotiations or more conflict or a mix of both.

Title: Re: A surprisingly wooly-headed analysis from Stratfor
Post by: G M on October 18, 2011, 01:36:18 PM

Ooof!

 :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 18, 2011, 02:13:42 PM

I said before but it still seems to me that whatever the underlying thinking is for the Israeli side of the deal, they aren't going to tell us.  Stratfor is holding back the conjecture they usually add that tries to make sense of things.  Makes me think (as already said by CCP) Israel is preparing for some act of war and Shalit would certainly have been murdered in response.  Maybe they are preparing something relating to security that would 1027 more terror soldiers back on enemy ground of little consequence.

CCP: "Eventually there will be war.  It is inevitable.  Israel is screwed and I feel the sentiment in the US is turning against the "Jews"."

Yes.  Not being able to count on America might actually simplify their  options, allow for actions not available when the focus is always on jumping through the international hoops of acceptance.

I don't know exactly where we are in this so-called Arab spring process, nor I suppose does anyone else.  The calm before the storm is probably the best guess.  Israeli intelligence and military strategists must assume and prepare for the worst case scenario if the goal is a 100% chance of survival.

I was not familiar with Mr. Shalit.  Judging from his photo on wikipedia I am guessing that what is special about Gilad Shalit is merely his youthfulness and innocence, symbolic of any young man lost from any Israeli family.  He was just serving his country and for that has been held 5 years behind enemy lines.  I am reminded of a comment made by Mariane Pearl, widow of Daniel Pearl, saying to Jim Lehrer about those who beheaded him - they are a "nuisance to humanity", meaning of no value to the human race dead or alive.  In that sense maybe Israel got the better end of this deal  - receiving more value in one person than Hamas is getting with a thousand.

Another CCP point: "one downside is it encourages more hostage taking"

The only consolation to that is that if they already have a 100% incentive to take hostages, it is hard for that incentive to increase.  

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 18, 2011, 02:31:29 PM

"Not being able to count on America might actually simplify their  options"

Interesting thought.  What little I hear is Israel is arming for the inevitable with submarines, anti ballistics and Netanyahu has plainly said we will do it ourselves.

"jumping through the international hoops of acceptance."

No matter what they do they have an enemy hell bent on wanting them driven out of Israel either by exodus or extermination.
The international community (pardon this stupid phrase) won't budge it seems till its too late if at all.

"Judging from his photo on wikipedia"

I appeared thin to start with but his picture recently shows someone who was kept on bare subsistance.

Truthfully, I am not very religious at all.  Yet I guess there is still something in me about this.  I have tears just seeing all this.

Yes some Jews are pushy.  Take Soros.  Yet cannot the world leave us the hell alone to live in peace.

I keep hearing Jews worrying about the Blacks and the poor etc.  Has anyone heard one prominant Black or otherwise minority or poor person speak up for a Jew?

If anyone has let me know.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 19, 2011, 05:50:30 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8834887/Palestinian-militants-vow-to-abduct-a-new-Gilad-Shalit.html

The Popular Resistance Committees, the Hamas-dominated militant coalition that captured Sgt Maj Shalit, vowed that it would seize another Israeli soldier to force Israel to release the 6,000 Palestinian prisoners that remain in its custody.
 
"We are going to capture another soldier and cleanse all the Israeli jails of our prisoners," said a masked spokesman using the nom de guerre Abu Mujahid.
 
For many Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, the release of so many prisoners for one man is evidence that Israel responds only to threats, making the path of peaceful negotiation espoused by Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and his moderate Fatah party nonsensical. "The people want a new Gilad, the people want a new Gilad," chanted the tens of thousands who gathered at a Hamas-sponsored rally in Gaza city to welcome home the freed prisoners.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2011, 07:24:07 AM

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.

BTW I was quite disappointed last night in Cain's response to a question on the question presented here.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Cranewings on October 19, 2011, 05:45:20 PM

The first thing I thought when I heard they traded 1000 for 1 was that they were planning on killing everyone, and wanted to have a clean crack at killing everyone they released. That's just my sunny side talking though.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 19, 2011, 05:46:42 PM

Quote from: Cranewings on October 19, 2011, 05:45:20 PM

The first thing I thought when I heard they traded 1000 for 1 was that they were planning on killing everyone, and wanted to have a clean crack at killing everyone they released. That's just my sunny side talking though.

We can only hope.

Title: Re: Who could have seen this coming?
Post by: G M on October 25, 2011, 01:31:49 PM

Quote from: G M on October 18, 2011, 12:10:17 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-military-schalit-suffering-malnutrition-132751567.html

Netanyahu told an audience that he understood the pain of Israeli families who lost relatives in Palestinian violence, but that Israel's ethos of doing everything possible to bring its soldiers home safely forced him to act.

He also issued a staunch warning to the freed militants. "We will continue to fight terror and every released terrorist who returns to terror will be held accountable," he said.

Those concerns were underscored with comments by one of the freed prisoners, Hamas militant leader Yehia Sinwar, who called on the movement to kidnap more soldiers.

Hamas agreed to release Schalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, many of them serving life sentences for deadly attacks on Israelis. The arrivals of the prisoners set off ecstatic celebrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where large crowds and dignitaries greeted them.

In Gaza, prisoners embraced and shook hands with Hamas leaders at the Rafah border crossing.

Tens of thousands of flag-waving Palestinians celebrated at a rally that quickly turned into a show of strength by the Islamic militant group, which seized control of Gaza from its rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in 2007.

On a sandy lot, a huge stage was set up and decorated with a mural depicting Schalit's capture in a June 2006. Thousands hoisted green Hamas flags.

"My happiness is indescribable," said Azhar Abu Jawad, a 30-year-old woman who celebrated the return of a brother who had been sentenced to life for killing an Israeli in 1992.

"We'll get him a bride and everything. I just spoke to him. He's so happy. This is a reminder, God doesn't forget anyone," she said.

In the West Bank, released prisoners were taken to the grave of iconic Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas greeted them, and several thousand people filled the courtyard outside his headquarters to celebrate.

"We thank God for your return and your safety," Abbas said. "You are freedom fighters and holy warriors for the sake of God and the homeland."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4138982,00.html

Saudi cleric: Kidnap soldier - get $100,000


Famous Muslim cleric Dr. Awad al-Qarni offers reward in response to similar cash prize offered by Israeli bereaved family. Hamas minister: Gaza pullout enables us to keep Shalit captive

Roee Nahmias Published:  10.25.11, 13:50 / Israel News 
 






A week after the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, top Saudi cleric Dr. Awad al-Qarni is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who kidnaps Israeli soldiers.

 

He is responding to an ad published by the Libman family offering a similar reward for anyone who catches the person who murdered their relative Shlomo Libman. Libman was killed by terrorists near the settlement of Yitzhar in 1998.

 

Israeli army officers ordered to foil kidnappings, even at expense of soldier's life
Hamas vows to abduct more soldiers

 

"The press reported that the Zionist settlers will pay huge amounts of money to whoever kills the freed Palestinian prisoners," al-Qarni said. "In response to these criminals I declare to the world that any Palestinian who will jail an Israeli soldier and exchange him for prisoners will be rewarded with a $100,000 prize," he wrote on his Facebook page.

 




Al-Qarni's Facebook page

 

Al-Qarni's post has already received more than 1,000 likes and extensive coverage in Hamas-affiliated newspapers in Gaza.

 

Al-Qarni is a famous Muslim cleric who often guests on TV shows and operates his own website where he discusses various religious law issues. The Palestine-Islam issue is particularly close to his heart.

Title: Aid to Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2011, 08:46:18 AM

This appears today on FrontPagemag.com - Very well-stated:

In Defense of U.S. Aid to Israel
Posted By David Meir-Levi On October 27, 2011

As demonstrated in the present writer’s two previous articles (here and here) regarding US aid to Israel, the USA, in return for its aid and political support, receives from Israel very profitable financial and political reciprocity and significant benefits in the areas of military intelligence, ordnance and operations.  On the other hand, America’s aid to Israel’s enemies actually supports America’s enemies, underwrites in part their terrorist actions against our soldiers and civilians, funds the very countries that openly seek our destruction, and pays the salaries of Arab terrorist mass murderers.

Why then do some scholars, journalists and political commentators devote so much time and energy to arguing that American aid to Israel is excessive, a waste of the American taxpayers’ money, and a political liability to the USA?

Take for example, one among many, the Washington D.C. economist Thomas Stauffer who warned us in 2002 that Israel is bankrupting America, having received more than $1.6 trillion in foreign aid since 1973.  Stauffer upped the ante a year later with the assertion in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) that the cost to the US taxpayer of our government’s support of Israel is actually $3 trillion!

The real numbers are actually rather easy to ascertain.  The Congressional Research Service provides annual reports for Congress on a wide variety of issues, among them the total cost of American aid to Israel.  Their analysts do not seem to be especially pro- or anti-Israel. The most recent report, for 2010, indicates that the total US aid to Israel for military, economic and immigrant resettlement costs from 1949 to 2010 was $109 billion dollars or, on average, less than $2 billion per year.  As is apparent from the 2010 report, US aid to Israel was zero or negligible until 1967 (after the 6-Day War), and did not reach the current annual sums of $2.5 billion to $3 billion or more until 1997 (following the Oslo Accords).  $3 billion per year is not chump change; but it is hardy an amount that would “bankrupt” the USA, and it is not much more than America’s annual aid to Egypt.

Moreover, as explained in the present writer’s two previous articles, American support for Israel is a very profitable investment for the USA rather than a gift to Israel.

Compare $109 billion to Stauffer’s $3 trillion! Recall that a million million, or one thousand billion, equals one trillion.  Stauffer has inflated his numbers by a factor of 30!

How does he come up with his trillions? –  by throwing in the proverbial “kitchen sink.”

Stauffer reaches his enormous sums by adding to the bona fide aid his utterly irrational but self-serving assertion that Israel is to blame for post-1973 rises in oil prices and thus bears the onus of culpability for America’s energy costs after the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the 1974 Arab oil embargo.  He never mentions that this embargo was imposed by our so-called ally Saudi Arabia, nor does he venture to suggest what Israel should have done when Egypt and Syria invaded — not defend itself?  In which case there would have been a very short Yom Kippur war and no oil embargo, but also no Israel?
He throws in as well the cost of American trade restrictions on Libya, Iraq and Iran; but never explains how these restrictions, a function of decisions made by our President and Congress, are Israel’s fault.  He even decries American Jews’ charitable gifts to Israel and to pro-Israel charities in the USA – after all, if that money did not go to Israel it would instead benefit the US economy.  One cannot but wonder whether he has ever expressed similar animus toward American citizens of the Catholic faith contributing to the Vatican.

Perhaps most confusing, he even lumps into his astronomic estimate the aid that the USA has given to Egypt (c. $117 billion) and to Jordan (c. $22 billion) in return for peace treaties with Israel.  Aside from the obvious fact that this USA money went to Egypt and Jordan but not to Israel, it is also quite rational to suggest that our government wisely saw these treaties as foundation blocks of peace in the Middle East, and therefore well worth the investment.  In short, Stauffer pulls into his calculus anything and everything that he can possibly think of to inflate the numbers.  Contrary to the popular adage, he does not throw in everything but the kitchen sink, he tosses that in too.

Essays of a similar ilk, by Stephen Zunes,  Scott McConnel, and various writers for the transparently anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), have employed similar mendacious and misleading tactics to exponentially inflate the cost of American support for Israel and condemn the US-Israel special relationship as a liability for the USA.

More detailed rebuttals of these “kitchen sink” arguments can be found here, here, and here; but the critique summarized above demonstrates the sheer irrationality and galactic exaggerations of the “kitchen sink” approach to assessing US aid to Israel.
The most comprehensive condemnation of the US government’s support for Israel comes from the article and book by Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, who insist that “Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support which “dwarfs that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion.”
A long list of distinguished scholars, commentators, journalists, congressmen and government representatives have discredited Walt and Mearsheimer, highlighting their egregiously inflated numbers, incorrect history, frequent decontextualization of quotes and facts, and misrepresentation of the underlying dynamics of the Arab-Israel conflict.  Moreover, Walt and Mearsheimer stooped to such unprofessional depths as to draw some of their “facts” from neo-Nazi and other anti-Israel hate websites. Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government distanced itself from the paper, and insisted that its logo be removed from all publications of the article, despite the fact that Steven Walt is a professor there.  Consensus among critics is that the paper utterly fails to meet academic standards and promotes anti-Semitic myths.

It is correct to state that Israel was for many years after 1973 the largest individual recipient of direct U.S. aid.  But for many of those years Egypt came in as a very close second; and after the onset of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American-supported governments of these two countries each received tens of billions more annual aid than Israel.  Iraq alone has received in excess of $58 billion since 2003 for reconstruction and “state building.” So if there is a risk of American largesse “bankrupting” the USA, why pick on Israel?

US military support worldwide totaled 630 billion in 2008, approached 800 billion in 2009, and continues to rise.  Let’s keep in mind that these hundreds of billions spent on maintaining military bases and deploying troops in Europe and the Far East are US aid to the countries that host our bases.  Were the USA to withraw these military deployments, the host countries would need to shoulder more of the burden for their own defense.  The billions that the US spends on our military presence in the world free those same billions in the host countries’ economies for their own domestic use.

How then can anyone argue that US aid to Israel “dwarfs” American aid to other countries when the USA spends from three to five times that amount in Iraq, and when US aid annually to Israel is less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of American total military and other aid world-wide?  Why do acclaimed scholars and other widely respected professionals need to “throw in the kitchen sink?”   Why do they need to make spurious and demonstrably false claims about the amount of American aid?  They lie because the truth does not support their agenda.

Walt and Mearsheimer are explicit about their agenda in their paper and their book:  they seek to demonstrate that the American government is in the grip of a Zionist conspiracy, the head of which is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and evidence for which is the enormous amount of US aid to Israel; hence their need to insist that US aid to Israel dwarfs the aid given to any other state.  Since the real numbers are too small to support such an extreme proposition, Walt and Mearsheimer must resort to culling their “facts” from Neo-Nazi Jew-hatred websites.  Since the benefits to the USA are so great that the actual aid dollars are more than justified, then these erstwhile scholars and others of their ilk must fabricate astronomic numbers, and minimize or deny the benefits of this aid to the USA.

The purpose of all of these “kitchen sink” exercises is obvious: discredit Israel and Israel’s supporters by making Israel look like a liability rather than an asset and thus justify anti-Israel animus, legitimize hatred of Israel, and influence governments and individuals to reduce or eliminate support for Israel. This type of mendacity is akin to Holocaust denial and Israel denial.  All three turn history upside down, distort reality, and deny the patently undeniable with palpable lies and transparent fabrications.  The ultimate goal of all three is support for those forces seeking Israel’s destruction.

In sharing this ultimate goal with Hamas, Hezbollah, a dozen other genocidal Muslim terrorist organizations, and Iran, the purveyors of the “kitchen sink” assessment of US aid to Israel have joined the ranks of the 21st century’s version of Hitler’s little helpers.T

Title: WSJ: US cuts UNESCO funding!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 31, 2011, 12:08:28 PM

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is cutting off funding for the United Nations cultural agency because it approved a Palestinian bid for full membership, a move that could cost the agency a fifth of its budget.

The U.S. and other opponents of the vote had warned that granting the Palestinian request for membership at Unesco could harm renewed Mideast peace efforts.  State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Monday's vote triggered a long-standing congressional restriction on funding to U.N. bodies that recognize Palestine as a state before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached.  Ms. Nuland said Unesco's decision was "regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace" between Israelis and Palestinians.  She said the U.S. would refrain from making a $60 million payment it planned to make in November, but the U.S. would maintain membership in the body.

The Palestinians want full membership in the U.N., but Israel opposes the bid. The U.S. says it would veto a vote in the Security Council  Palestine became a full member of the United Nations's cultural agency on Monday amid huge cheers after delegates approved the membership in a vote of 107-14 with 52 abstentions. Eighty-one votes were needed for approval in a hall with 173 Unesco member delegations present.

"Long Live Palestine!" shouted one delegate, in French, at the unusually tense and dramatic meeting of Unesco's General Conference.

Lawmakers in the U.S., which provides about 22% of funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, had threatened to halt some of the funding if Palestinian membership was approved.

The U.N. agency protects historic heritage sites and works to improve world literacy and cultural understanding, but it also has come under criticism in the past as a forum for anti-Israel sentiment. The U.S. pulled out of Unesco under President Ronald Reagan but rejoined under President George W. Bush.

Monday's vote is a symbolic breakthrough but it alone won't make Palestine into a state. The issue of borders of an eventual Palestinian state, security troubles and other disputes that have thwarted Middle East peace for decades remain unresolved.

Palestinian officials are seeking full membership in the U.N., but that effort is still under examination and the U.S. has said it will veto it unless there is a peace deal with Israel. Given that, the Palestinians separately sought membership at Paris-based Unesco and other U.N. bodies.  Monday's vote is definitive. The membership formally takes effect when Palestine signs Unesco's founding charter.  The U.S. ambassador to Unesco, David Killion, said after Monday's vote that it would "complicate" U.S. efforts to support the agency. The U.S. voted against the measure.

Israel's ambassador to Unesco, Nimrod Barkan, called the vote a tragedy.

"Unesco deals in science, not science fiction.  They forced on Unesco a political subject out of its competence.  They've forced a drastic cut in contributions to the organization," he said.

Existing U.S. law can bar Washington from funding any U.N. body that accepts members that don't have the "internationally recognized attributes of statehood." That requirement is generally interpreted to mean U.N. membership.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last week called Unesco's deliberation "inexplicable," saying discussion of Palestinian membership in international organizations couldn't replace negotiations with Israel as a fast-track toward Palestinian independence.

Ghasan Khatib, spokesman for the Palestinian government in the West Bank urged the U.S. to keep Unesco funding.

He called it "a vote of confidence from the international community."

"We look at this vote as especially important because part of our battle with the Israeli occupation is about the occupation attempts to erase the Palestinian history or Judaizing it. The Unesco vote will help us to maintain the Palestinian traditional heritage, " he said

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 31, 2011, 02:31:48 PM

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is cutting off funding for the United Nations cultural agency because it approved a Palestinian bid for full membership, a move that could cost the agency a fifth of its budget.

Alhamdullah! Fcuking awesome!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 31, 2011, 03:24:16 PM

Note that it is Congressional action which legally requires this.

Title: Dolphin subs from Germany
Post by: ccp on November 01, 2011, 12:58:00 PM

armed with nuclear missles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine

Title: Stratfor: Jordan and Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2011, 06:11:31 PM

Analyst Reva Bhalla explains the Jordanian calculation to move toward greater engagement with Palestinian group Hamas.
Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Related Links
•   The Geopolitics of the Palestinians
•   Jordan’s King Dismisses his Cabinet
Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal is expected to make an official visit to Jordan in the coming days to meet with King Abdullah II. An important shift is taking place in Jordan as the country’s leaders are starting to take a much more proactive stance in trying to prevent the backlash of the Arab Spring in countries like Syria and Egypt from threatening the Hashemite Kingdom’s hold on power. Though the Jordanian government lives in deep tension with its majority Palestinian population, part of the evolving Jordanian strategy entails making very public steps to improve its relationship with Hamas.

Over the past several weeks, there have been several movements in Jordan that have been very much out of character for the Hashemite regime, yet have been very revealing of how Jordan is viewing the growing uncertainties in its neighborhood. Jordan is preparing for a visit by Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, who is currently based in Damascus, to make an official visit to Amman along with Qatar’s crown prince after Eid al-Adha. In setting the mood for the upcoming visit, Jordanian Prime Minister Awn al-Khasawneh said Oct. 31 that the government’s decision in 1999 to expel Hamas leaders, including Khaled Meshaal, was a “constitutional and political mistake.”

The Jordanian authorities have a fundamental crisis with the Palestinians. The country’s Hashemite rulers were transplanted from the Arabian Peninsula to rule over a territory that is now predominantly inhabited by Palestinians. Jordan thus views groups like Hamas and any bid for Palestinian statehood as a direct threat to the sustainability of the Hashemite monarchy. This is why Jordan has a very healthy relationship with Israel, which shares common cause with the Jordanian government in keeping the Palestinians contained. That said, Jordan does place limits on its relationship with Israel, as it did in 1997, when Jordan saved Meshaal from an Israeli assassination attempt in Amman. Jordan sees the need to continue to engage Islamist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

On the domestic front, Jordan has not been immune to demonstrations inspired by the Arab Spring. Most of the demonstrations have been led by the political arm of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood called the Islamic Action Front. But these demonstrations have been markedly different from those taking place in neighboring Arab countries. Jordan has a much more open relationship with its opposition, and the demonstrations have been pretty contained. The opposition in Jordan is very aware of its limits and is not calling for complete regime change. Still, the government does not feel like it has completely dodged the bullet, and the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood has been pushing in its negotiations with the government to welcome Hamas back to Amman.

Jordan is also looking nervously at the political transition taking place in Egypt. Though Jordan is happy to see the military regime in Egypt maintain control, they can see that the government in Cairo will increasingly have its hands full in trying to contain its domestic opposition while trying to keep Hamas hemmed in in Gaza.

Then there is the situation in Syria, where President Bashar al Assad’s political problems are growing. A great deal of tension exists between Jordan and the Syrian regime, which is allied with Iran. But Jordan has also relied on Syria for a long time to play its part in keeping Hamas in check. A lot of Hamas’ finances, for example, run through Hamas’ politburo, which moved to Damascus in 2001. Now that the Syrian regime is distracted, Jordan is growing concerned about Egypt’s and Syria’s abilities to keep Hamas in check and is now trying to take matters into its own hands. Jordan also shares an interest with Egypt in trying to distance Hamas from Iran’s orbit of influence and deny Iran a strong foothold in the Levant. On the home front, Jordan’s government can also use improving ties with Hamas to gain credibility with the country’s Islamist opposition.
But Hamas also comes with a lot of baggage. Though Jordan and Israel continue to cooperate very closely, Jordan does not necessarily want to be held responsible by Israel for Hamas’ militant actions. Jordan and Israel also do not want to give Hamas an opportunity to gain a strong foothold in Fatah-controlled West Bank, from which it could threaten both Jordan and Israel. Still, Jordan may be contemplating the old adage of “keeping friends close and enemies closer” in making these positive gestures toward Hamas.

Hamas is also weighing the merits of warming ties with Jordan. The group understands that Jordan’s intelligence and security apparatus works in very tight coordination with Israel and the United States and will be doing whatever it can to clamp down on Hamas’ movements. Hamas is looking for a new home, and the Jordanian government may be seriously looking at the prospect of laying out the welcome mat for Hamas for its own strategic interests.

Title: Some new clouds in the gathering storm
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2011, 03:57:02 PM

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3293/iran-training-palestinians-with-new-missiles

Title: Re: Some new clouds in the gathering storm
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 03:59:47 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2011, 03:57:02 PM

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3293/iran-training-palestinians-with-new-missiles

Oy vey. I pray for the safety of Israel and her people.

Title: Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 29, 2011, 02:05:14 PM

STRATFOR
---------------------------
November 29, 2011


VIDEO: DISPATCH: KATYUSHA ROCKETS FIRED INTO ISRAEL

Director of Analysis Reva Bhalla discusses the geopolitical dynamics surrounding the
recent Katyusha rocket fire into Israel from southern Lebanon.
Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology.
Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

At least two Katyusha rockets were reportedly launched from southern Lebanon into
Israel shortly after midnight on Monday, prompting retaliatory Israeli shelling. So
far, the situation appears to be contained, but the rocket fire is a reminder of one
of several options both Syria and Iran could have at their disposal to counter
rising regional pressure.
 
The rocket fire into Israel was claimed Tuesday by a group calling itself the Sheikh
Abdullah al-Azzam Brigades that allegedly operates out of Palestinian refugee camps
in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has not claimed responsibility for that attack. The
IDF is apparently in agreement with this assessment. Israeli military radio, citing
army officials, said that the rocket fire was likely the work of a small Palestinian
or Islamist group rather than Hezbollah, while maintaining that it holds the
Lebanese government responsible for the attack. Israeli retaliatory fire was also
reportedly directed at open fields and not Hezbollah targets. No follow on rocket
attacks have occurred so far. Israel also seems interested in avoiding an
escalation, with Israeli military officials stressing that response to the rocket
fire would be "limited and selective."
 
This incident cannot be viewed in isolation. First, it’s important to keep in mind
that while a number of jihadist militants do mill about this part of the region and
could act independently, Lebanon has a very murky militant landscape that is heavily
utilized by Syrian intelligence. In fact, STRATFOR has received a number of
indications in recent weeks that Syrian intelligence has been boosting its presence
in major Palestinian camps in Lebanon with the intent of creating a security crisis
in the region. Even threatening such a crisis, Syria hopes, could distract from the
regime’s crackdown at home and at the same time, compel Syria’s adversaries to
negotiate a truce with Damascus to avoid a wider regional conflict. There’s no
guarantee that such a plan would even work, and the recent rocket fire out of
Lebanon would constitute a pretty weak response if Syria actually had a hand in it.
Still, we are aware that Syria is in the process of ramping up at least some of its
militant assets in Lebanon and are thus on the watch for further militant activity
emanating from these camps.
 
This puts Hezbollah in quite the dilemma. Hezbollah is not looking for a conflict
with Israel and, in fact, its leadership is under a lot of stress in trying to
manage its affairs in Lebanon while its allies in the Syrian regime remain in
crisis. At the same time, a covert war appears to be heating up in the region with
several signs of possible sabotage attacks coming to light in recent days. First
there was a Nov. 15 blast at an IRGC ballistic missile complex near Tehran. And
then, most recently, there were reports of a Nov. 28 explosion in Isfahan.  Iranian
media later retracted the report on the Isfahan explosion, but the alleged explosion
took place in a city with numerous sites related to both Iran's ballistic missile
and nuclear programs -- as well as a number of military installations.
 
With the U.S. troops withdrawing from Iraq by the end of December and Iran using its
foothold in Iraq to spread its influence in the wider region, a lot of different
stakeholders in the region are looking for ways to keep Iran in check.
 
As we are watching for how Iran responds to these incidents, we will be keeping an
especially close eye on southern Lebanon. Syria and Iran may have a mutual interest
in activating militant proxies to help counter this rise in regional pressure, but
so far the response has been pretty mild and Hezbollah appears very reluctant to get
embroiled in a conflict with Israel at this point in time. Then again, it’s also
still very early in the game.
More Videos - http://www.stratfor.com/theme/video_dispatch

Title: A Letter from an Israeli Reserve Soldier
Post by: Rachel on December 01, 2011, 07:29:14 PM

A Letter from an Israeli Reserve Soldier
by Aron Adler
Our young country, built from the ashes of the Holocaust, does not turn its back on humanity.

My name is Aron Adler. I am 25 years old, was born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in Efrat, Israel. Though very busy, I don't view my life as unusual. Most of the time, I am just another Israeli citizen. During the day I work as a paramedic in Magen David Adom, Israel's national EMS service. At night, I'm in my first year of law school. I got married this October and am starting a new chapter of life together with my wonderful wife Shulamit.

A few weeks out of every year, I'm called up to the Israeli army to do my reserve duty. I serve as a paramedic in an IDF paratrooper unit. My squad is made up of others like me; people living normal lives who step up to serve when responsibility calls. The oldest in my squad is 58, a father of four girls and grandfather of two; there are two bankers, one engineer, a holistic healer, and my 24-year-old commander who is still trying to figure out what to do with his life. Most of the year we are just normal people living our lives, but for 15-20 days each year we are soldiers on the front lines preparing for a war that we hope we never have to fight.

This year, our reserve unit was stationed on the border between Israel, Egypt and the Gaza Strip in an area called "Kerem Shalom." Above and beyond the "typical" things for which we train – war, terrorism, border infiltration, etc., this year we were confronted by a new challenge. Several years ago, a trend started of African refugees crossing the Egyptian border from Sinai into Israel to seek asylum from the atrocities in Darfur. What started out as a small number of men, women and children fleeing from the machetes of the Janjaweed and violent fundamentalists to seek a better life elsewhere, turned into an organized industry of human trafficking. In return for huge sums of money, sometimes entire life savings paid to Bedouin "guides," these refugees are promised to be transported from Sudan, Eritrea and other African countries through Egypt and the Sinai desert, into the safe haven of Israel.

We increasingly hear horror stories of the atrocities these refugees suffer on their way to freedom. They are subject to, and victims of extortion, rape, murder and even organ theft, their bodies left to rot in the desert. Then, if lucky, after surviving this gruesome experience whose prize is freedom, when only a barbed wire fence separates them from Israel and their goal, they must go through the final death run and try to evade the bullets of the Egyptian soldiers stationed along the border. Egypt's soldiers are ordered to shoot to kill anyone trying to cross the border OUT of Egypt and into Israel. It's an almost nightly event.

For those who finally get across the border, the first people they encounter are Israeli soldiers, people like me and those in my unit, who are tasked with a primary mission of defending the lives of the Israeli people. On one side of the border soldiers shoot to kill. On the other side, they know they will be treated with more respect than in any of the countries they crossed to get to this point.

Related Article: Our Soldiers

The region where it all happens is highly sensitive and risky from a security point of view, an area stricken with terror at every turn. It's just a few miles south of the place where Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. And yet the Israeli soldiers who are confronted with these refugees do it not with rifles aimed at them, but with a helping hand and an open heart. The refugees are taken to a nearby IDF base, given clean clothes, a hot drink, food and medical attention. They are finally safe.

Even though I live in Israel and am aware through media reports of the events that take place on the Egyptian border, I never understood the intensity and complexity of the scenario until I experienced it myself.

In the course of the past few nights, I have witnessed much. At 9 p.m. last night, the first reports came in of gunfire heard from the Egyptian border. Minutes later, IDF scouts spotted small groups of people trying to get across the fence. In the period of about one hour, we picked up 13 men - cold, barefoot, dehydrated - some wearing nothing except underpants. Their bodies were covered with lacerations and other wounds. We gathered them in a room, gave them blankets, tea and treated their wounds. I don't speak a word of their language, but the look on their faces said it all and reminded me once again why I am so proud to be a Jew and an Israeli. Sadly, it was later determined that the gunshots we heard were deadly, killing three others fleeing for their lives.

During the 350 days a year when I am not on active duty, when I am just another man trying to get by, the people tasked with doing this amazing job, this amazing deed, the people witnessing these events, are mostly young Israeli soldiers just out of high school, serving their compulsory time in the IDF, some only 18 years old.

The refugees flooding into Israel are a heavy burden on our small country. More than 100,000 refugees have fled this way, and hundreds more cross the border every month. The social, economic and humanitarian issues created by this influx of refugees are immense. There are serious security consequences for Israel as well. This influx of African refugees poses a crisis for Israel. Israel has yet to come up with the solutions required to deal with this crisis effectively, balancing its' sensitive social, economic and security issues, at the same time striving to care for the refugees.

I don't have the answers to these complex problems which desperately need to be resolved. I'm not writing these words with the intention of taking a political position or a tactical stand on the issue.

I am writing to tell you and the entire world what's really happening down here on the Egyptian/Israeli border. And to tell you that despite all the serious problems created by this national crisis, these refugees have no reason to fear us. Because they know, as the entire world needs to know, that Israel has not shut its eyes to their suffering and pain. Israel has not looked the other way. The State of Israel has put politics aside to take the ethical and humane path as it has so often done before, in every instance of human suffering and natural disasters around the globe. We Jews know only too well about suffering and pain. The Jewish people have been there. We have been the refugees and the persecuted so many times, over thousands of years, all over the world.

Today, when African refugees flood our borders in search of freedom and better lives, and some for fear of their lives, it is particularly noteworthy how Israel deals with them, despite the enormous strain it puts on our country on so many levels.

Our young and thriving Jewish people and country, built from the ashes of the Holocaust, do not turn their backs on humanity. Though I already knew that, this week I once again experienced it firsthand. I am overwhelmed with emotion and immensely proud to be a member of this nation.

With love of Israel,
Aron Adler, writing from the Israel/Gaza/Egyptian border

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jw/id/A_Letter_from_an_Israeli_Reserve_Soldier.html

Title: Re: A Letter from an Israeli Reserve Soldier
Post by: G M on December 01, 2011, 08:52:30 PM

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/index.html#/documentaries/strangers-no-more/synopsis.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 12, 2011, 08:32:10 AM

If one were to believe the mainstream American media one would think Israeli's love Brock.   WE have Fareed Zakaria asking putting every Jewish official on the spot asking them if they think his friend and confidante Brock is doing "everything possible" to protect Israel.  Of course they are loathe to tell the truth on American TV.  Zakaria knows this.

Antyhing for the beloved One of the beloved Democrat party it seems.  Contrary to the certainly twisted reports we get in MSM:

****Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

Top government officials laud France, UK, but tell Ynet White House policy with regards to Iranian nuclear program 'hesitant'

Attila Somfalvi Published:  12.11.11, 22:44 / Israel News 
  Senior Israeli officials expressed their disappointment with US President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.

"The administration is still not acting in full force to impose significant sanctions against Tehran," one of the officials told Ynet Sunday night.

On the other hand, officials in Jerusalem lauded French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. "France and the UK have begun to act determinedly, while Obama's administration has yet to formulate a policy that is sufficiently severe," another official said.****

Title: Obama's popularity in Israel
Post by: JDN on December 12, 2011, 08:46:14 AM

Some, actually the majority do approve of Obama in Israel.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/1203/President-Obama-sees-popularity-boost-in-Israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 12, 2011, 09:28:46 AM

I saw this poll and this is exactly what I am talking about.

There is no chance this poll is accurate.  This is msm propaganda.

I know numerous Israelis and none are enamored with Obama.

Title: The Lie of the Palestinian People
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2011, 09:10:32 AM

An Invented People
Posted By David Meir-Levi On December 13, 2011

On Friday, December 9, presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was interviewed on cable TV’s The Jewish Channel, where he made the unexpected comment that the Palestinians are an invented people with no apparent right to their own state.  His remarks, summarized in the Washington Post, were promptly condemned; but is he correct?

Let’s recall that Mr. Gingrich has an MA and PhD in History from Tulane University.  In fact, history is quite clear on this issue.  Mr. Gingrich is correct, and the first to say so was Daniel Pipes.

The name “Palestine” derives from the Philistines, who originated from the Eastern Mediterranean (perhaps Greece or Crete) and invaded the region in the eleventh and twelfth centuries B.C. Related to the Bronze Age Greeks, they spoke a language akin to Mycenaean Greek.  Their area of habitation on the Eastern Mediterranean littoral became known as “Philistia.”

When Romans arrived a thousand years later they corrupted “Philistia” to “Palestina,” from whence “Palestine.”  Six hundred years later, the Arab invaders corrupted “Palestina” to “Falastin.”

Throughout all subsequent history there was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region remained under successive foreign rulers, from the Umayyads and Abbasids and Ayyubids to the Fatimids, Ottomans and British.  During these millennia the term “Falastin” referred to an undefined geographical region, much like “Appalachia” or “the great Southwest” in modern U.S. geography.

In 1695 a Dutch orientalist, Hadrian Reland, conducted a geographical survey of the region. He found that none of the known settlements, ancient or contemporary, bore Arabic names.  Most names were Hebrew, Greek, or Latin in origin.  Moreover, the land was almost empty of inhabitants, desolate, the few towns (Jerusalem, Acre, Safed, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza) inhabited mostly by Christians and Jews, with Muslims present only in very small number, mostly Bedouin in the hinterland.

His book, Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata (Utrecht, 1714), offers no evidence for a “Palestinian people,” “Palestinian heritage,” “Palestinian nation” or “Palestinian homeland” in ancient times; and it provides a powerful argument against the outrageous and transparently false assertions by some modern Arab spokespersons that what most people know to be Jewish history is in fact “Palestinian” history. Today’s defenders of the “Palestinian cause” are reduced to stealing Jewish history and heritage precisely because the so-called “Palestinians” have none of their own.
Today’s “Palestinians” are indeed an invented people.  But how did they get invented?  Arabs themselves answer that question for us.

The term “Palestine” was given a political meaning for the first time in history by the British after World War I, when they took the region from the Turks and termed it “British Mandatory Palestine.”   At that time (1920) Arab political and intellectual leaders spoke out vehemently against the creation of this new “Palestine” because the region was, in their minds, inextricably connected to Syria.  The Arabs of the area had their own designation for the region: Balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus), or as-Suriya al-Janubiya (southern Syria). In fact, Arab nationalists protested the use of the term “Palestine” because for them “Palestine” was really southern Syria. Even the most vitriolic and vociferous Arab nationalist, the Hajj Amin el-Husseini, opposed creating “Palestine” separate from Syria.  For documentation see Marie Syrkin’s “Palestinian Nationalism: Its Development and Goal,” in Curtis, Michael, Neyer, Joseph, Waxman, Chaim, and Pollack, Allen, The Palestinians: People, History, Politics (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 200.

The General Syrian Congress of 1919 stressed an exclusively Syrian identity for the Arabs of “southern Syria”: “We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine . . .” (Ibid, Syrkin, Supra). George Antonius, the father of modern Arab nationalist history, documented in The Arab Awakening (1938. P. 312) the upheaval created among the Arabs of “Greater Syria” and Iraq as they flocked to the streets of Syrian cities, including Jerusalem, in armed uprisings to protest the British imposition of a separate political entity known as “Palestine,” carved out of what was traditionally a part of Syria.

Once France conquered Syria in 1920, leaders in “southern Syria” changed their tune.  Arab allegiances were to Damascus, not to France.  With the French controlling Syria, the ideaof “Palestine” as a separate Muslim and Arab state began to take shape, and Palestinian leaders, most prominently el-Husseini, began a nationalist movement for the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, modeled after and in opposition to Zionism. Palestinian national identity was invented in 1920, and midwifed by Zionism!

Even toward the end of the Mandate period, almost 30 years later, there was still opposition to the concept of a separate political entity known as “Palestine” among leading Arab spokespersons.  Philip Hitti, historian and most eloquent spokesman for the Arab cause, testified to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946: “Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

In early 1947, when the UN was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, various Arab political and academicspokespersons vociferously protested because, they argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria. No such people as “Palestinians” had ever existed, so it would be an injustice to Syria to create a “Palestine” ex nihilo at the expense of Syria.

Akhmed Shukairi, Saudi ambassador to the UN, asserted in 1956, eight years after the birth of the State of Israel, that “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria” (and cf. Supra, Syrkin, p. 201).  As late as March 8, 1974, Syria’s President Hafez al-Assad asserted on Radio Damascus that: “… Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria.” During the nineteen years from 1948 to the Six-Day War (June, 1967), all that remained of the territory initially set aside for the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine was the West Bank, under illegal Jordanian sovereignty, and the Gaza Strip, under illegal Egyptian rule. Never during these nineteen years did any Arab leader argue for the right of national self-determination for the Arabs of these territories.

Even Yasser Arafat, until 1967, used the term “Palestinians” to refer only to the Arabs who lived under, or had fled from, Israeli sovereignty; and the term “Palestine” to refer only to Israel in its pre-1967 borders. In the PLO’s original founding Charter, Article 24 states: “…(the PLO).. does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the west Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.” For Arafat in 1964, “Palestine” was not the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, which after 1948 belonged to other Arab states. The only “homeland” for the PLO in 1964 was the State of Israel.  However, after the Six- Day War, thanks to Arafat’s mentoring by the Soviets, the PLO revised its Charter on July 17, 1968, to remove the language of Article 24, thereby newly asserting a “Palestinian” claim of sovereignty to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

After the Six-Day War, Arab leaders reframed the conflict.  Formerly, Israel was the “David” and the Arab world the “Goliath.” Now Israel was the gargantuan illegal occupier and the “Palestinians” were the weak, hapless, homeless, hopeless “oppressed people” and “victims of colonialism.” But this reframing required, created as it was ex nihilo, an “historic Palestine” and an ancient “Palestinian people” who had lived in their “homeland” from “time immemorial,” who could trace their “heritage” back to the Canaanites, who were driven out by the evil Zionists, and who had the inalienable right granted by international law and universal justice to use terror to reclaim their national identity.

That this was a political confection was revealed by Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the PLO’s Executive Committee, in a March 31, 1977 interview with British journalist James Dorsey in the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.
Dorsey’s original interview is not available online, but has been quoted here, here, and here.

In addition to verifying that the “Palestinians” are an invented people, Muhse’in also tells us why they were invented: “Only for political and tactical reasons…to oppose Zionism.”

The lie of the “Palestinian people,” invented to justify the destruction of Israel, is exposed by their own leaders, and by the fact that, in absence of their own, they must steal Jewish history. Josef Goebbels’ technique of repeating the same lie until it is believed turned this lie into erstwhile “fact,” until Gingrich.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Title: Re: The Lie of the Palestinian People
Post by: G M on December 13, 2011, 10:16:22 AM

Somewhere, Andraz is rocking back and forth in a fetal position, clutching tear stained copies of Chomsky and Said fiction.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 14, 2011, 06:26:42 PM

GM, with love just for you

from your daemons themselves. Hear them out

Edward Said on Palestine, Iraq, and U.S. Policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7xAPcFLPDY


A Conversation with Noam Chomsky on Palestine/Israel by Frank Barat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30X2tYUGK_8

Title: Why have liberal Westerners turned their backs on the Jewish state?
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 12:05:16 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204826704577074241213222280-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMzExNDMyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Israel, Isaac and the Return of Human Sacrifice
Why have liberal Westerners turned their backs on the Jewish state?

By DAVID MAMET
As Iran races toward the bomb, many observers seem to think the greater threat is the possibility that Israel might act against its nuclear program. Which raises the question: What should it mean if, God forbid, militant Islam through force of arms, and with the supine permission of the West, succeeds in the destruction of the Jewish State?

1) That the Jewish People would no longer have their ancestral home;

2) That they should have no home.

At the Versailles Peace Conference, Woodrow Wilson stated as an evident moral proposition that each people should have the right to national self-determination. The West, thereafter, fought not for empire, nor national expansion, but in self-defense, or in defense of this proposition. But, for the Jewish State, the Liberal West puts the proposition aside.

Since its foundation Israel has turned the other cheek. Eric Hoffer wrote that Israel is the only country the world expects to act like Christians. Some Jews say that the Arabs have a better public relations apparatus. They do not need one. For the Liberal West does not need convincing. It is thrilled merely to accept an excuse to rescind what it regards as a colossal error.

The Liberal West has, for decades, indulged itself in an orgy of self-flagellation. We have enjoyed comfort and security, but these, in the absence of gratitude and patriotism, cause insecurity. This attempted cure for insecurity can be seen in protestations of our worthlessness, and the indictment of private property.

But no one in the affluent West and no one among the various protesters of various supposed injustices is prepared to act in accordance with his protestations. The opponent of "The Corporation" is still going to use the iPhone which permits him to mass with his like. The celebrities acting out at Occupy meetings will still invest their surplus capital, and the supposed champion of the dispossessed in the Levant will not only scoff at American Indian claims to land he has come to understand as his—he will lobby the City Council to have the homeless shelter built anywhere but on his block.

The brave preceptors who would like to end Poverty, War, Exploitation, Colonialism, Inequality and so on, stop at the proclamation. How may they synchronize their wise fervor with their inaction?

How may they still the resultant anxiety? The Left's answer is the oldest in the world: by appeal to The Gods. But how may The Gods be appeased? The immemorial answer is: By human sacrifice.

What is the essence of the Torah? It is not the Ten Commandments, these were known, and the practice of most aspired to by every civilization. Rabbi Lawrence Kushner teaches they are merely a Calling Card; to wit: "remember me . . . ?"

The essence of the Torah is the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac. The God of Hosts spoke to Abraham, as the various desert gods had spoken to the nomads for thousands of years: "If you wish me to relieve your anxiety, give me the most precious thing you have."

So God's call to Abraham was neither unusual nor, perhaps, unexpected. God had told Abraham to leave his people and his home, and go to the place which God would point out to him. And God told Abraham to take his son up the mountain and kill him, as humans had done for tens of thousands of years.

Now, however, for the first time in history, the narrative changed. The sacrifice, Isaac, spoke back. He asked his father, "Where is the Goat we are to sacrifice?" This was the voice of conscience, and Abraham's hand, as it descended with the knife, was stayed. This was the Birth of the West, and the birth of the West's burden, which is conscience.

Previously the anxiety and fear attendant upon all human life was understood as Fear of the Gods, and dealt with by propitiation, which is to say by sacrifice. Now, however, the human burden was not to give The Gods what one imagined, in one's fear, that they might want, but do, in conscience, those things one understood God to require.

In abandonment of the state of Israel, the West reverts to pagan sacrifice, once again, making a burnt offering not of that which one possesses, but of that which is another's. As Realpolitik, the Liberal West's anti-Semitism can be understood as like Chamberlain's offering of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, a sop thrown to terrorism. On the level of conscience, it is a renewal of the debate on human sacrifice.

Mr. Mamet is a playwright and screenwriter.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 06:02:48 AM

like Chamberlain's offering of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, a sop thrown to terrorism.


A sop thrown to terrorism. Since the author is a screenwriter, I cant but think that this is some double bind screenplay joke that I dont understand. But its so appropriately ironic, because the exact same argument can be used against Israel.

From the first link I pasted above :

INT:Prof Said, do the Zionists have any historical claim to the lands of Israel ?
ES:
Of course. But I would not say that the Jewish claim is the only claim or the main claim. It is A claim among many others. Certainly the Arabs have a much greater claim because they have had a longer history of actual residence in Palestine than the Jews did. If you look at the history of Palestine, there has been some very interesting work done by Biblical archeologists you will see that the period of actual „Israelite“ dominance in Palestine amounts to about 200 to 250 years.. There were also jebusites, kanaanites, philistines and many other people in Palestine, at the time and before and after. And to isolate one of them and say THATS the real owner of the land, I mean that is fundamentalism.


With the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian empire many ethnical groups vanished, in the sense they suddenly became parts of different national identities. One of the big examples of this are the Sudeten Germans, the other, for example are the Hungarians which to this day have half a million of „their own“ living in Slovakia, which amounts to 10% of the entire population.

 In the 30ies there were 3.5 million Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia, they comprised little over 35% o the entire ethnic spectre (which as a state was born in 1918, specifically at the Treaty of Versailles). „Ethnic Germans“ mostly lived in a region called Bohemia, before AH in the Holy Roman empire since the early part of 12th century. Almost a 1000 years. But Sudetenland was given to Czechoslovakia, or better yet, was acknowledged AS part of Czchekoslovakia in the afore mentioned peace conference in Paris. So ethnic Germans were now living in Czechoslovakia.

From the misleading „historical“ prism – which doesnt include anything „historic“ at all, just collected  and modified data, to support a claim – that usually the pro-Israel people like to use so much with the conflict, isnt this offering from Chamberlain to Hitler not only completly in tune with „historic neccesity“ but also completely justified ?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 09:02:25 AM

With the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian empire many ethnical groups vanished, in the sense they suddenly became parts of different national identities. One of the big examples of this are the Sudeten Germans, the other, for example are the Hungarians which to this day have half a million of „their own“ living in Slovakia, which amounts to 10% of the entire population.

Has that ever happened anywhere before in human history?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 10:21:20 AM

Edward Said on Palestine, Iraq, and U.S. Policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7xAPcFLPDY

Ok, I just wasted 16 minutes of my life on Said the frau-eed mouthing the typical bogus leftist talking points. What part of that did you think was profound, Andrew?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2011, 10:40:21 AM

I'm still having trouble grasping the logic that Hitler and Chamberlain were right?!?

I'm still having trouble grasping the logic that multi-ethnic national concepts of Europe are what the Arabs have in mind for the Jews, or the Coptic Christians in Egypt or the Christians in Iraq, or the non-Muslims pretty much anywhere in the Arab world.

I'm still trying to figure out the point behind the reference to the Holy Roman Empire.

"INT:Prof Said, do the Zionists have any historical claim to the lands of Israel ?
ES:  Of course. But I would not say that the Jewish claim is the only claim or the main claim. It is A claim among many others. Certainly the Arabs have a much greater claim because they have had a longer history of actual residence in Palestine than the Jews did. (BULLSH*T) If you look at the history of Palestine, there has been some very interesting work done by Biblical archeologists you will see that the period of actual „Israelite“ dominance in Palestine amounts to about 200 to 250 years. (OH REALLY?) There were also jebusites, kanaanites, philistines and many other people in Palestine, at the time and before and after. And to isolate one of them and say THATS the real owner of the land, I mean that is fundamentalism."

Where are these other groups now?  They have ceased to exist for thousands of years.  Only the Jews remain, as we have for these thousands of years.  We have been continuously longer in Israel than anyone else.  Why is Prof. Said, or anyone else for that matter, not upset at division of ethnic groups by the boundaries of Lebanon? Syria? Iraq?

Fundamentalism?!?  Look at the tolerance and diversity in Israel and compare it that that of its neighbors.  How can such accusations be taken seriously?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 11:02:47 AM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMKGI0gEq-I[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMKGI0gEq-I

Really strange how Chomsky condemns America and Israel, and yet people from around the world flee to these countries. Don't they know how Chomsky is held in such high regard by the leftist academic indoctrination industrial complex? Why would they ignore his brilliance and flee from communist and jihadist places to horrible places where free markets and human rights hold a central role?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 15, 2011, 12:16:49 PM

"jebusites, kanaanites, philistines and many other people in Palestine"

Oh and by the way.  None of these ancient peoples as a group have surivived for *thousands* of years!  They don't exist anymore.  So what is this guy talking about they also have a right to the land?

Jews are one of the few groups people who have existed in around 1400 BC to now with an common persistant heritage.  Who else is older?  Egyptians.  Yes Aborigines, I think.

Perhaps some tribes in Africa?  I don't know who else.  There were probably forunners of the Greek city states.  Perhaps one could make a case for Persia or Babylonian forerunners.   Probably early "Chinese" forerunners.

There were no Christains till Jesus as we all know.

Lets see there was no such thing as a Muslim till what 670AD.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 01:07:57 PM

@GM

Dont you think the logic that somehow thinkers that critisize a certain country should go somewhere more akin to what they are saying, is a bit childish? The very role of a philosopher, thinker is to see holes and critique. If Chomsky or anyone else for that matter says something against liberal capitalism, or violations of freedom of press or anything of that sort, doesnt mean he doesnt WANT to live in the USA. Of course not, ironically, the fact that most of the intellectual think tank (For now at least) operates within the USA is because the USA still is the most prosperous area in that regard, as far as academia and rights of speech goes.

Just from the suggested videos alone you could look at some videos where Chomsky razes Obama to the ground, and the whole „ethos“ or better yet, „pathos“ of the American Left. Chomsky is anything but, what you call a leftist liberal.
But still, how does that imply the logic of „if you dont like it here go somewhere else ?“

But all in all, ive been to one of his discussions, live. He is a very approachable dude, incredibly systematic and will hear anyone out, so I urge you, if you think you have all the answers, please, go to one of his talks, wait for the Q and A and show him wrong infront of everyone there and the world, if the event will be filmed. Better come well prepared.

Every single event in known history, that brought the society to a higher plain in the dialectic of progress, found its roots in the dissident thinkers, and the ones who constantly critisized the established order. And most of the time were even forced to live elsewhere because of it. The rights and liberties you have in the USA and are so damn proud of, have been settled on blood, tears and more blood. And those people who ignited their roots, those who dared to think otherwise, usually paid with their life for it.

As pertaining the video you linked...no doubt a touching one...
but course there are charming stories everywhere, no area of man can simply be divided to evil and good. There are stories of evil and stories of good everywhere, and we all know very well you can look them up on the internet. But lets stick with the Said quote that TV as a medium is a distorted one, and leave this type of „propaganda“ out of it

what part of the Said video you think wasnt profound ?

And I find it beneath you to operate constantly within this political tone. Fraud here, fraud there. Ad hominem arguments are a serious logical phallacy.  At least honor the dead, even if you dissagree with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thats the politics show. „We dont like that bloke, get up dirt on him so he looses credibility.“ Doesnt work like that. Is everything politics to you ?

@Marc


Marc. Im sure you can read between the lines.

It was an argumentative example. The author GM posted, claimed that somehow liberal Wests tactic in the middle east is akin to the Chamberlanian move to give to the Germans what wasnt theirs to appease the general state of conflict.

I then explained the Sudetenland case, that in fact the opposite holds true, that if you use the logic that the Jews have history at their backs and claims to Israel, Hitlers claim to Sudetenland was completely legitimate.

The holy roman empire comment was also aimed at this, since Sudeten Germans were living in Bohemia nearly 1000 years, (like the Jews argument – been living there longer) since and throughout the Empire, and it is on this logic that Hitler claimed it as German, and also annexed Austria. But obviously, violated all sorts of international rights, constitutions, state sovereignty, etc. and that is the whole point.

The fact today is, we share the world. There are certain things we try to conform to, to make living easier for everyone.

You are equating all Arabs with their form of islamic fundamentalism „rebelion“. Which is only a part of the revolt. But the most vocal one for sure. You have all sorts of secular, less drastic and passive forms of expression, which btw Chomsky talks a whole lot about. You have the workers movement, the freedom of women movement, the democratic movement, the student movement, etc. Saying what a section of Arabs have in mind for Jews to conclude that indeed all arabic world shares the notion is ridiculous, no ? Just like Im sure you wouldnt claim that indeed all rednecks are stupid, and since rednecks live in America, all Americans are stupid rednecks.

Also, calling anyone who attacks the pro Jewish argument an anti Semite is absurd. There are so many levels to this problem, calling anyone names is basically just a way out. The „point and tell“ way out.

My argument is aimed solely at the logic with which you, and others of course, constantly use to base Israels „right“ to the land, which is through historic claims.

THE PROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED ON THAT CLAIM. PERIOD

It can only be solved politically, and diplomatically, with the citizens, and everyday humans living there in mind.

And it already has been. The major gripe here is, Israel and USA go all rambo on everyone there, playing the victim but at the same time wielding the biggest atomic arsenal in history. And violating every possible international law and arrangement there is.

And there isnt only onle solution to the problem. In fact there are 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n7hQKYh94g
moar Chomsky love, rrrrrrrrr.

@ccp

greetings.

The tribes case was an example that connecting the land to one specific tribe and thus basing his claim to a „land“ is impossible and completely irrational. The Native Americans have been living in Americas way longer than the modern citizen, but I dont see anyone talking about them haveing the rightful claim to the land, neither after their genocide at the pinnacle of the USA state formation.

If anything, you are alot more connected to that genocide, come on, lets see you  working. Start a group, make a rally or something. Occupy Indian street.


I fail to see what you are aiming at ? Somehow that Muslims, that formed later, do not stem from any of the original tribes ? Or that they are out of the question because they came later?? 

guys, simply put. Who was where first, is irrelevant, is not an acceptable argument in this, nor any serious historical debate. Modern nations form as a result of identity, national spirit and objetive comformity to a certain traditional core. Linguistical, ethnical and political borders are separate entities, which do not allow equation.

You have different nations who speak the same language, you have same nations that speak different languages and have one nation with separate borders, several nations within same borders...etc.

The case solution here is age old Rousseauean one, that of a Social Contract.

Title: what about the fourth solution
Post by: ccp on December 15, 2011, 04:11:45 PM

I watched the video.

Chomsky conveniently neglects that there is a fourth solution.

I don't listen to him much or know much about him but he is obviously part of this liberal movement that does indeed include many naricisstic Jews who are for the one world government.   And of course "smart government".  He sits there smuggly lecturing anyone who will listen on what is best for all of us.

Anything less is outdated, midevil, stupid, ignorant and on the wrong side of history.

I don't quite get the concept that Jews in Israel are for this big expansion.  They simply want that piece of land the size of NJ.

They are not out conquering the world as he seems to imply.

Perhaps he should switch from Pepsi to Coke.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 04:44:05 PM

hi ccp,

thanks for the reply.

What exactly do you mean ? Can you elaborate on the fourth solution, or what exactly the interviewer posts as midevil, stupid...

Well, usually the point of an interview of a well known intellectual is to hear his smuggly point on what is best for all of us, dont you agree ?

They simply want that piece of land the size of NJ

Palestine since 1946, following the initial division, the UN partitioning and year 2000

http://worldcitizen.uk.net/4maps.jpg

keep in mind though that this is a symbolic map. A big part of the palestinian loss of land is because of their strict no bargain chip-policy, which usually resulted in warfare. It is also warfare that resulted in the now occupied lands, that Israel doesnt want to back off from, claiming safety issues. This is in part what Chomsky says that the radical forms of rebelion in Palestine are making it harder for them to reach a better solution. But still, this is might makes right on every level. Check the statistics link lower on some actual raw numbers

a couple interesting links from Btselem : The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

http://www.btselem.org/maps

http://www.btselem.org/statistics

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 04:52:04 PM

an example of fatalities during operation "cast lead"...

make your own mind, on the safety issue

http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=27&sM=12&sY=2008&eD=18&eM=01&eY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=during

these spring to view first

mind the "Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces " and "Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces " and compare them to Israeli civilians and security forces, for example

here are the "until" and "after" fatalities

http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before

http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=19&sM=01&sY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=after

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 15, 2011, 05:28:07 PM

I think Israel did give back Gaza and Sinai for peace with Egypt.

But a majority Palesitinians don't want a peaceful coexistence.

The fourth solution is a form of the final solution.
Iran finishes their development of nuclear weapons and uses them to get rid of the Jews in "southern Syria" once and for all.


 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 05:45:41 PM

"Dont you think the logic that somehow thinkers that critisize a certain country should go somewhere more akin to what they are saying, is a bit childish?"

You misunderstand my point, Andrew. I was pointing out how the people of the world vote with their feet when given the opportunity, and it isn't to the "Worker's Paradises" that Chomsky and his ilk praise. It isn't to North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other "scientifically marxist" or sharia state. Chomsky would never pick up and move from the US. Playing to the anti-american/anti-western bigotries pays too well, as Frau-eed and others have long exploited.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Chomsky and his breed of hatemongers and what the people of the world really know vs. the leftist narrative.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 05:47:44 PM

Chomsky is anything but, what you call a leftist liberal.

He's best described as leftist hater of America and an anti-semetic crank.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 05:50:49 PM

ah yes, I see what you mean with fourth solution

While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community.

although I think they are actually far behind with obtaining the actual weapon, the talks lately, IMHO are purely Machiavellian diversions. What they are getting with this, is a different bargaining solution. Lets use the lowest estimate, that Israel has 75 nukes (highest are around 400s), which is more than enough for the cataclysm. Iran would eventually get 1. Underpowered, yes, but also more than enough to cause the end.

but, it is a more balanced position to enter negotiations from. The prospect of the end of man, has brought the longest era of peace in Europe in history of humanity. Call me naive, but I call bluff on Ahmadinejad and the Big Mushroom, if Iran indeed comes up with the weapon, which I heavily doubt it will, unless it gets stolen, sold, or the like

@GM

Chomsky hardly ever praises Workers paradises GM, let alone North Korea. His political spectrum, if anything, is Anarchism, which is as far away state control as possible. And again, the antiWest bigotry comment is well misplaced, in my opinion. The role of the critic is to do what ? Critisize. And since philosophy of language and philosophy in general is at heart a critical doctrine, at least since the dialectic of Enlightenment that he is following, its what he does.

Ok show me an example of his Anti-Semitism, and what an Anti-Semite is for you today

Title: Andrew's emperor has no clothes
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 05:54:38 PM

But all in all, ive been to one of his discussions, live. He is a very approachable dude, incredibly systematic and will hear anyone out, so I urge you, if you think you have all the answers, please, go to one of his talks, wait for the Q and A and show him wrong infront of everyone there and the world, if the event will be filmed. Better come well prepared.

Aside from all his obvious flaws and his detatchment from reality, he lies when forced to face some of his prior statements.


http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/chomsky-recolle.html

Chomsky recollects



This is an old one, but I have acquired new readers since. It's worth the telling.

I have once taken part in an exchange with Professor Chomsky. I wrote an article for Prospect magazine in November 2005 taking issue with the proposition, which was the magazine's cover story, that Chomsky was "the world's top public intellectual". Among my reasons for dissent was his dishonest handling of source material. I also noted, in my account of his political thinking:

Chomsky's first book on politics, American Power and the New Mandarins (1969) grew from protest against the Vietnam war. But Chomsky went beyond the standard left critique of US imperialism to the belief that "what is needed [in the US] is a kind of denazification."

Chomsky replied in the magazine's issue for January 2006. Wedged among flattering charges of my "tacit acquiescence to horrendous crimes", Chomsky wrote:

Proceeding further to demonstrate my "central" doctrine, Kamm misquotes my statement that "We have to ask ourselves whether what is needed in the United States is dissent - or denazification."

The full passage from American Power runs as follows (p. 17, emphasis added):

We have to ask ourselves whether what is needed in the United States is dissent – or denazification. The question is a debatable one. Reasonable people may differ. The fact that the question is even debatable is a terrifying thing. To me it seems that what is needed is a kind of denazification.

So in his article for Prospect, Chomsky quoted just the first sentence of this passage, to imply he had thought it an open question whether the US needed "denazification". He ignored the sentence 20-odd words later that expressed exactly the sentiment, in exactly the words, that I attributed to him. He then had the gall to complain that I had misquoted his statement.

Note that the quotation Chomsky gives is accurate, so far as it goes - it's just the wrong sentence. The wording (including spelling out "United States" instead of abbreviating it) and the punctuation are as he wrote them nearly 40 years earlier. It is a reasonable inference that he must have had the book open in front of him when he composed his reply to me. What the man can possibly have been thinking is a mystery. Perhaps he thought I wouldn't have the book, or that he'd have the last word and no one would check it. As it was, the editor of Prospect graciously allowed me to conclude the exchange with a 250-word letter in the next issue to state my central objection to Chomsky's reply. My central objection was, naturally, that in responding to a piece charging him with dishonesty in citing source material, it was singular for Chomsky to prove my point by distorting source material that he had himself written.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 06:02:25 PM

ok another kind of credibility post. Ad hominem ?

Oliver Kamm is quite a well known journalist, and a critic of Chomsky. Usually intellectuals have critics. Why ? Because they are dissidents, they think differently and act differently aswell.

but still, how does this fact alone anyhow degrade him ? Even if he were cought in his own bind, people get stuff wrong, why is this a case for the petty gibbersih name calling ?

And obvious flaws, detachment from reality sound very poetic, id like to hear or read some more of this.

Kamm Chomsky polemic is hardly black and white. And is quite known. As with the Said "frauds" you posted, there is hardly ever a quote/post here that deals with actual thoughts from the person being charged

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200601--.htm

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:05:33 PM

Oh, so "dissidents" (fringe hatemongers) like Chomsky cannot be criticized when they are caught lying, like Said's invented "Palestinian" identity?

Why does the left depend on lies, if they are just "speaking truth to power"?

Title: Chomsky lies
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:09:09 PM

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

"He begins as a preacher to the world and ends as an intellectual crook.”
- Arthur Schlesinger
(Commentary, December 1969)

“Noam Chomsky skittles and skithers all over the political landscape to distract the reader’s
attention from the plain truth.”
- Sidney Hook
(The Humanist, March-April 1971)

“In his ideological fanaticism he constantly shifts his arguments and bends references,
quotations and facts, while declaring his ‘commitment to find the truth.’”
- Leopold Labedz
(Encounter, July 1980)

“Even on the rare occasions when Mr. Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies,
he exaggerates by a factor of, plus or minus, four or five.”
- Walter Laqueur
(The New Republic, March 24, 1982)

“After many years, I came to the conclusion that everything he says is false. He will lie just
for the fun of it. Every one of his arguments was tinged and coded with falseness and
pretense. It was like playing chess with extra pieces. It was all fake.”
- Paul Postal
(The New Yorker, March 31, 2003)

**Too many Chomsky-lies to paste here, read it all.

Title: Chomsky lies about communism
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:11:50 PM

I. 10 Chomsky Lies About Communist Mass Murderers – General
10.
The Lie: “in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe
under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”1
The Truth: The communists murdered 4 million people in the Ukraine; 753,000 in Poland;
360,000 in Romania; 300,000 in Belarus; 200,000 in Hungary; 100,000 in East Germany;
100,000 in Lithuania; 70,000-100,000 in Yugoslavia; 30,000-40,000 in Bulgaria; 20,000 in
Czechoslovakia; and 5,000 in Albania. Other atrocities included the murder of over 500,000
POWs in Soviet captivity and the mass rape of at least 2 million women by the Red Army.2
9.
The Lie: “Western norms require that we compare Eastern and Western Europe to
demonstrate our virtue and their vileness, a childish absurdity… Elementary rationality would
lead someone interested in alternative social and economic paths to compare societies that
were more or less alike before the Cold War began, say Russia or Brazil… Such comparisons,
if honestly undertaken, would elicit some self-reflection among decent people…”3
The Truth: In Russia, Lenin’s food confiscations inflicted famine on over 33 million people,
including 7 million children, and left 4-5 million dead; Stalin’s assault on the peasants killed
another 8.5 million, half of them children.4 Brazil experienced nothing of the kind.
8.
The Lie: “Internal [Soviet] crimes abated [after 1945]; though remaining very serious they
were scarcely at the level of typical American satellites, a commonplace in the Third World,
where the norms of Western propriety do not hold.”5
The Truth: In 1947, the Soviets withheld food from famine victims, causing up to 1.5 million
deaths.6 During 1945-53, there were over 300,000 officially recorded deaths in the Gulag; by
1 Letter reprinted in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is In Us (Verso, 1995), pp149-51.
2 Sergei Maksudov, “Victory Over the Peasantry,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Fall 2001, p229
(Ukraine); Marek Tuszynski, “Soviet War Crimes Against Poland During the Second World War and
its Aftermath,” The Polish Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 1999, pp183-215 (Poland); Martyn Rady, Romania
in Turmoil (I.B. Tauris, 1992), p31 (Romania); Washington Post, January 16, 1994 (Belarus); Tamas
Stark, “Genocide or Genocidal Massacre? The Case of Hungarian Prisoners in Soviet Custody,”
Human Rights Review, April-June 2000, pp109-18 (Hungary); Los Angeles Times, October 27, 1991
(East Germany); US News & World Report, October 20, 1997 (Lithuania); New York Times, July 9,
1990 (Yugoslavia); Karel Bartosek, “Central and Southeastern Europe,” in Stephane Courtois, ed., The
Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press, 1999), p395 (Bulgaria); Philadelphia Inquirer,
November 3, 1999 (Czechoslovakia); New York Times, July 8, 1997 (Albania); David M. Glantz and
Jonathan House, When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (University Press of Kansas,
1995), p307 (POWs); Anthony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945 (Penguin, 2003), p410 (rapes).
3 World Orders, Old and New (Pluto Press, 1994), p40.
4 Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (Vintage, 1995), pp410-9; Roman Serbyn, “The
Famine of 1921-1923” in Roman Serbyn and Bohdan Krawchenko, eds., Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933
(Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1986), p169 (Lenin); Sergei Maksudov, “Victory Over the
Peasantry,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Fall 2001, p229 (Stalin).
5 World Orders, Old and New (Columbia University Press, 1996), p39.
6 Michael Ellman, “The 1947 Soviet Famine and the Entitlement Approach to Famines,” Cambridge
Journal of Economics, September 2000, pp603-30.
2
1953, the slave population exceeded 5.2 million.7 No American satellite – whether in Europe
or in Latin America – was guilty of anything even remotely comparable.
7.
The Lie: “In the Soviet sphere of influence, torture appears to have been on the decline since
the death of Stalin… Since it has declined in the Soviet sphere since the death of Stalin, it
would appear that this cancerous growth is largely a Free World phenomenon.”8
The Truth: Until the late 1980s, the Soviets ran 1,000 concentration camps where at least 2
million inmates endured constant violence. Torture was systematic in Soviet satellites in the
Third World.9
6.
The Lie: “Imagine the reaction if the Soviet police were to deal with refuseniks in any way
comparable to the Israeli [anti-riot] practices that briefly reached the television screens.”10
The Truth: The Soviet police held 10,000 dissidents in psychiatric prisons and concentration
camps. An estimated 50,000 were sent to uranium mines to die of radiation poisoning.11 Such
practices elicited no reaction because the Soviets did not allow them to reach the television
screens.
5.
The Lie: “[Regarding] China’s actions in Tibet… it is a bit too simple to say that ‘China did
indeed take over a country that did not want to be taken over.’ This is by no means the general
view of Western scholarship.”12
The Truth: The Chinese invasion provoked massive popular uprisings. Mao welcomed the
Tibetan resistance because it could be crushed by force. State terror and man-made famine
had killed up to 500,000 Tibetans by the mid-1960s.13
4.
The Lie: “It’s clear, I believe, that the emphasis on the use of terror and violence in China
was considerably less than in the Soviet Union and that the success was considerably greater
in achieving a just society.”14
7 Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History (Doubleday, 2003), pp583, 579, 581.
8 The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), p8.
9 Avraham Shifrin, The First Guidebook to Prisons and Concentration Camps of the Soviet Union
(Bantam Books, 1982); US News & World Report, May 19, 1986. For the Third World, see, e.g.,
Armando Valladares, Against All Hope (Coronet, 1987), pp400-26; Nghia M. Vo, The Bamboo Gulag:
Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam (McFarland, 2004), pp133-6.
10 Fateful Triangle (rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999), p486.
11 Wall Street Journal, December 21, 1984; US News & World Report, May 19, 1986; The Times, UK,
July 11, 1986.
12 Letters, New York Review of Books, April 20, 1967.
13 Warren W. Smith, Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations
(Westview Press, 1996), pp399-412, 440-50, 548-51, 600; Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The
Unknown Story (Jonathan Cape, 2005), pp473-7 (revolts); Patrick French, Tibet, Tibet (HarperCollins,
2003), p292 (deaths).
14 Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power, and Confrontation (McGraw-Hill, 1971), p112.
3
The Truth: China’s communists officially stated that they had executed 800,000 in the first
few years of their dictatorship; unofficially, they admitted to the massacre of 2 million in just
one year. Concentration camps held an estimated 8 million, with 280,000 killed annually. The
communists publicly declared that they had persecuted 20-30 million as class enemies in their
first decade and that there were 100 million victims of the Cultural Revolution.15
3.
The Lie: “There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China;
one also finds many things that are really quite admirable… [In China] a good deal of the
collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place
after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.”16
The Truth: The communists reduced 550 million peasants to slavery. They forced at least 90
million to work on furnace-building projects alone. When famine resulted, they cut the food
ration and used mass terror to stop the peasants eating their own harvest. Victims, including
children, were tortured, buried alive, strangled or mutilated.17
2.
The Lie: “Also relevant is the history of collectivization in China, which, as compared with
the Soviet Union, shows a much higher reliance on persuasion and mutual aid than on force
and terror, and appears to have been more successful.”18
The Truth: Its culmination was the Great Leap Forward, the worst man-made catastrophe in
history, in which 30 million died.19
1.
The Lie: “Of course, no one supposed that Mao literally murdered tens of millions of people,
or that he ‘intended’ that any die at all.”20
The Truth: Mao spoke of sacrificing 300 million people, or half of China’s population. He
warned that the policies he later adopted would kill 50 million people. Grain exported by the
communists was sufficient to feed the numbers who starved to death, which they privately
estimated at 30 million.21
15 New York Times, June 13, 1957 (official executions); November 15, 1970 (unofficial figure); Joel
Kotek and Pierre Rigoulot, Le siècle des camps (Jean-Claude Lattès, 2000), p647 (camps); The Times,
UK, November 14, 1984 (first decade); New York Times, November 17, 1980 (Cultural Revolution).
16 Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power, and Confrontation (McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp117-8.
17 Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (Jonathan Cape, 2005), pp450, 452-4.
18 American Power and the New Mandarins (rev. ed., The New Press, 2002), p137n56.
19 Basil Ashton, Kenneth Hill, Alan Piazza, Robin Zeitz, “Famine in China, 1958-61,” Population and
Development Review, December 1984, p614.
20 “Second Reply to Casey,” ZNet, September 2001: http://www.zmag.org/chomreply2.htm
21 Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (Jonathan Cape, 2005), pp457-8. Cf. Carl
Riskin, “Seven Questions About the Chinese Famine of 1959-61,” China Economic Review, Autumn
1998, p119: “enough was known to let us conclude that ignorance is not even an accurate excuse.”
4
II. 10 Chomsky Lies About Communist Mass Murderers – Indochina
10.
The Lie: “the basic sources for the larger estimates of killings in the North Vietnamese land
reform were persons affiliated with the CIA or the Saigon Propaganda Ministry… there is no
evidence that the leadership ordered or organized mass executions of peasants.”22
The Truth: Reports from North Vietnamese defectors suggested that 50,000 were massacred.
A Hungarian diplomat was told that 60,000 were massacred. A French leftist witness wrote
that 100,000 had been slaughtered. Land reform cadres reported 120,000-160,000 killed. A
former official has said that 172,000 were killed or driven to suicide in a “genocide triggered
by class discrimination.” Victims’ families starved to death under the policy of “isolation.”23
9.
The Lie: “Revolutionary success in Vietnam both in theory and practice was based primarily
on understanding and trying to meet the needs of the masses… A movement geared to
winning support from the rural masses is not likely to resort to bloodbaths among the rural
population.”24
The Truth: Viet Cong death squads assassinated at least 37,000 civilians in South Vietnam;
the real figure was far higher since the data mostly cover 1967-72. They also waged a mass
murder campaign against civilian hamlets and refugee camps; in the peak war years, nearly a
third of all civilian deaths were the result of Viet Cong atrocities.25
8.
The Lie: “given the very confused state of events and evidence plus the total unreliability of
US-Saigon ‘proofs,’ at a minimum it can be said that the NLF-DRV ‘bloodbath’ at Hue [in
South Vietnam] was constructed on flimsy evidence indeed.”26
The Truth: The communists boasted of murdering thousands in Hue. One regiment reported
that its units alone killed 1,000 victims. Another report mentioned 2,867 killed. Yet another
document boasted of over 3,000 killed. A further document listed 2,748 executions.27
7.
The Lie: “In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have
been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and
restraint… has been almost totally ignored.”28
The Truth: A prominent defector reported that 50,000-100,000 had been massacred. An expolitical
prisoner and a former Gulag commander said that 200,000 Viet Cong deserters were
22 The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), pp342, 432n168.
23 Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975), pp141-3, 155-7 (defectors, diplomat, isolation); Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord
Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960), p222 (French leftist); Lam Thanh Liem, “Chinh sach
cai cach ruong dat cua Ho Chi Minh,” in Jean-Francois Revel et al., Ho Chi Minh (Nam A, 1990), p203
(cadres); interview, Radio Free Asia, June 8, 2006 (official).
24 The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), pp340-1.
25 Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp272-3, 448-9.
26 The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), p352.
27 Stephen T. Hosmer, Viet Cong Repression and its Implications for the Future (Rand, 1970), pp73-4.
28 The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), p28.
5
targets for execution. Mass expulsions caused the drowning of 200,000-400,000 boat people,
according to the UN High Commission for Refugees.29
6.
The Lie: “When the war ended in 1975, the victorious Pathet Lao appear to have made some
efforts to achieve a reconciliation with the mountain tribesmen who had been organized in the
CIA clandestine army [in Laos].”30
The Truth: The Pathet Lao waged a campaign of genocide, murdering an estimated 100,000
tribespeople. They inflicted massacres, terror bombing, concentration camps and mass rape.31
5.
The Lie: “it seems fair to describe the responsibility of the United States and Pol Pot for
atrocities during ‘the decade of the genocide’ as being roughly in the same range.”32
The Truth: Demographic evidence indicates that America killed about 40,000 Khmer Rouge
fighters and Cambodian civilians during 1970-5, and that the Khmer Rouge murdered at least
1.8 million civilians during 1975-9.33
4.
The Lie: “The harshest critics claim that perhaps 100,000 people have been slaughtered [in
Cambodia]… Comparing East Timor with Cambodia, we see that the time frame of alleged
atrocities is the same, the numbers allegedly slaughtered are roughly comparable in absolute
terms, and five to ten times as high in East Timor relative to population… my own conclusion
is that the sources in the [case of] East Timor are more credible…”34
The Truth: A Truth Commission found that the Indonesian war in East Timor caused 18,600
violent killings and 75,000-183,000 deaths from hunger and illness.35 Genocide investigators
have determined that the Khmer Rouge perpetrated 1.1 million violent killings and murdered
2.2 million victims overall.36
3.
The Lie: “If 2-2½ million people… have been systematically slaughtered by a band of
murderous thugs [then intervention is sought]… [But not] if the figure of those killed were,
29 Human Events, August 27, 1977 (defector); Al Santoli, ed., To Bear Any Burden (Indiana University
Press, 1999), pp272, 292-3 (prisoner, commander); Associated Press, June 23, 1979, San Diego Union,
July 20, 1986 (boat people). See generally Nghia M. Vo, The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment
in Communist Vietnam (McFarland, 2004) and The Vietnamese Boat People, 1954 and 1975-1992
(McFarland, 2006).
30 After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p122.
31 Forced Back and Forgotten (Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, 1989), p8 (estimate); Jane
Hamilton-Merritt, Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-
1992 (Indiana Uniersity Press, 1999), pp337-460 (atrocities).
32 Manufacturing Consent (Vintage, 1994), pp264-5.
33 Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995),
pp41-8, 57.
34 Radical Priorities (rev. ed., AK Press, 2003), p80.
35 Final Report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR),
January 30, 2006, part 6, paras. 47, 56-7: http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/846.html
36 Craig Etcheson, After the Killing Fields (Praeger, 2005), p119.
6
say, less by a factor of 100 – that is, 25,000 people… [or] if the deaths in Cambodia were not
the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state…”37
The Truth: No honest observer thought that only 25,000 died under the Khmer Rouge or that
the mass deaths were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation. A UN investigation
reported 2-3 million dead, while UNICEF estimated 3 million dead.38 Even the Khmer Rouge
acknowledged 2 million deaths – which they attributed to the Vietnamese invasion.39
2.
The Lie: “the evacuation of Phnom Penh [by the Khmer Rouge], widely denounced at the
time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives.”40
The Truth: At least 30,000 very young children died as a direct result of the Khmer Rouge
evacuation of Phnom Penh.41 In total, at least 870,000 men, women and children from Phnom
Penh died under the Khmer Rouge dictatorship.42
1.
The Lie: “At the end of 1978 Cambodia [under the Khmer Rouge] was the only country in
Indochina that had succeeded at all in overcoming the agricultural crisis that was left by the
American destruction.”43
The Truth: Famine killed over 950,000 people under the Khmer Rouge.44 By late 1979, UN
and Red Cross officials were warning that another 2.25 million faced starvation thanks to “the
near destruction of Cambodian society under the regime of the ousted Prime Minister Pol
Pot.” They found starving children wherever they went.45
37 After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), pp138-9.
38 William Shawcross, The Quality of Mercy: Cambodia, Holocaust and Modern Conscience
(Touchstone, 1985), p115-6.
39 Khieu Samphan, Interview, Time, March 10, 1980.
40 After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p160.
41 Ea Meng-Try, “Kampuchea: A Country Adrift,” Population and Development Review, June 1981,
p214.
42 Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995),
p57.
43 Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), pp245-6. Cf.: “it was a condition of survival to turn (or
return) the populations to productive work. The victors in Cambodia undertook drastic and often brutal
measures to accomplish this task… At a heavy cost, these measures appear to have overcome the dire
and destructive consequences of the US war by 1978,” After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p
viii.
44 Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995),
p82.
45 New York Times, August 8, 1979.

Title: Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:19:37 PM

"Ok show me an example of his Anti-Semitism, and what an Anti-Semite is for you today"

XIII. 10 Chomsky Lies About His Collaboration With Holocaust Deniers
10.
The Lie: “In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion… to sign a petition calling on
authorities to insure Robert Faurisson’s ‘safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.’”272
The Truth: According to Serge Thion’s collaborator Pierre Guillaume, Chomsky signed and
promoted the petition months after their meeting, without being asked by them.273 According
to Robert Faurisson, the petition was written and circulated by the American Holocaust denier
Mark Weber.274
9.
The Lie: “I was asked to sign a petition calling on authorities to protect Faurisson’s civil
rights, and I did so. I sign innumerable petitions of this nature, and do not recall ever having
refused to sign one.”275
The Truth: Chomsky had already boasted of his refusal to sign a petition for human rights in
communist Vietnam. On that occasion, he had explained that “public protest is a political act,
to be judged in terms of its likely human consequences,” which included the likelihood that
the American media “would distort and exploit it for their propagandistic purposes.”276
8.
The Lie: “I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson’s ‘freedom of speech
and expression.’ The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity
of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are
taken for granted in democratic societies…”277
The Truth: The petition that Chomsky signed dignified Faurisson’s writings by (a) affirming
his scholarly credentials (“a respected professor” of “document criticism”); (b) describing his
lies as “extensive historical research”; (c) placing the term “Holocaust” in derisory quotation
marks; and (d) portraying his lies as “findings.”278
7.
The Lie: “is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not
know his work very well. But from what I have read… I find no evidence to support either
conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him,
272 “His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.
273 Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point,” in Droit et Histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1986), p152.
274 Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (Avukah Press, 1995),
pp55-6.
275 Réponses inédites à mes détracteurs parisiens (Paris: Cahiers Spartacus, 1984); Language and
Politics (AK Press, 2004), p290.
276 Unpublished interview, March 28, 1977; Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), p176.
277 “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression,” October 11, 1980,
published as the preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de
falsifier l’histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980).
278 The text of the petition is reproduced in Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the
Holocaust Deniers (Avukah Press, 1995), pp53-4.
41
either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a
relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”279
The Truth: Chomsky was well aware of Faurisson’s Nazi-style bigotry, including his claim
that “with good war logic, Hitler would have been led to intern all the Jews who had fallen
into his hands… It was necessary to avoid all contact between the Jew and the German
soldier.” Faurisson even defended the imposition of the yellow star on Jewish children, who
“committed all sorts of illicit activities or resistance to the Germans.” He had written for neo-
Nazi publications and spoken at neo-Nazi meetings.280
6.
The Lie: “Serge Thion [is] a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all
forms of totalitarianism…”281
The Truth: Serge Thion is a longstanding denier of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia
as well as the Nazi Holocaust. He had published a book reprinting and defending Faurisson’s
denials of the Holocaust.282
5.
The Lie: “Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have
frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I
describe the holocaust as ‘the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human
history’).”283
The Truth: The phrase in Chomsky’s Peace in the Middle East? occurred in a passage
setting out “the Zionist case” for Jewish statehood, which he opposed.284
4.
The Lie: [Denying that he allowed Holocaust deniers to publish the French translation of his
Political Economy of Human Rights:] “I make no attempt to keep track of the innumerable
translations of books of mine in foreign languages… I contacted the publisher, who checked
their files and located the contract for the French translation – with Albin-Michel, a
mainstream commercial publisher, to my knowledge.”285
The Truth: According to Holocaust denier Pierre Guillaume, “Chomsky accepted without
demurring that his book should be published in a series that I controlled and proposed Serge
Thion and Michele Noel for the translation. That is, he accepted that his personal work would
279 “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression,” October 11, 1980,
published as the preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de
falsifier l’histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980).
280 Interview with Robert Faurisson, Storia illustrata, Italy, August 1979, reprinted in the neo-Nazi
Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1981; see Nadine Fresco, “The Denial of the Dead: On the
Faurisson Affair,” Dissent, Fall 1981.
281 “His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.
282 Serge Thion, Vérité historique ou Vérité politique? Le dossier de l’affaire Faurisson. La question
des chambres à gaz (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980).
283 “His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.
284 Peace in the Middle East? (Fontana, 1975), p53.
285 Letter, Outlook (a Canadian communist magazine), June 1, 1989.
42
suffer harshly from the backlash of the vile reputation given to us [i.e., Holocaust deniers]…
His book appeared with Hallier-Albin Michel Publishing, in my series.”286
3.
The Lie: “I never wrote a ‘joint article’ with [Holocaust denier Pierre] Guillaume… [there is]
no hint of any collaboration with me [in preparing Guillaume’s article].”287
The Truth: Near the end of his article, Guillaume wrote: “The first version of the preceding
text included numerous errors of detail and an error of evaluation that Chomsky indicated to
us while reaffirming that his position was fixed and unchanged. We corrected in the text
errors that did not affect the reasoning and we give, below, Chomsky’s comments.” 288
2.
The Lie: “I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even
denial of the holocaust.”289
The Truth: The idea of denying the existence of gas chambers and the Holocaust was the
brainchild of antisemites and neo-Nazi activists. Denial of the existence of gas chambers and
the Holocaust is a propaganda tactic of antisemitic and neo-Nazi individuals and movements
all over the world.290
1.
The Lie: “Returning to my involvement in the Faurisson affair, it consists of signature to a
petition, and, after that, response to lies and slander. Period.”291
The Truth: Chomsky lied about the views of Holocaust deniers (Faurisson, Thion), published
one of his books (Political Economy) in a series directed by a Holocaust denier (Guillaume),
allowed his writings on the subject (Réponses inédites) to be published in book format by a
Holocaust denier (Guillaume), assisted with an essay (“Une mise au point”) by a Holocaust
denier (Guillaume), and argued that there is nothing antisemitic about Holocaust denial. He
has praised Holocaust deniers, endorsed their political and academic credentials, collaborated
in their propaganda campaigns, and whitewashed their antisemitic and neo-Nazi agenda.
286 Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point,” in Droit et Histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1986), p154.
Translated from French.
287 Letter, Outlook (a Canadian communist magazine), June 1, 1989.
288 Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point,” in Droit et Histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1986), p170.
Translated from French.
289 Quoted in W.D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,” Quadrant, October 1981.
290 As observers had already noted: see Lucy Dawidowicz, “Lies About the Holocaust,” Commentary,
December 1980.
291 Réponses inédites à mes détracteurs parisiens (Paris: Cahiers Spartacus, 1984); Language and
Politics (AK Press, 2004), p291.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 06:23:42 PM

OF course they can, and they must be critisized. But, in what way ? And especially with what etiquette ?

if you do post Kamms note, read it in full, and then the response from Chomsky. Just like I said with the Said debate

Why does the left depend on lies, if they are just "speaking truth to power"

See, theres politics again. Chomsky is not a politician. And he is not the political left, by a long shot. He is a critic of the uttermost European tradition, especially that of the German and French enlightenment

And the quotes you posted there, how is this fact GM ? It is heresay at best. Facts, fantasies, he is stupid, everything he says is wrong, blahblahblah. Lets see what Paul Postal of the New Yorker has graced us with, or Sidney Hook of the Humanist

ah Bogdanor, I was waiting untill you will bring him up.

not to mention that he does not want to confront Chomsky in person at all, the way he is discrediting him is complete and utter bullshit. Just read the posts you copied here. The alleged "lies", half of the stuff isnt even lying, just disagreeing. But obviously you need to discredit the Left wing idiot, and say he is lying.

The very first quote you put here, you can see Chomskys whole point in his book The Golden Age Is In Us, which of course Bogdanor nowhere uses in full, just out of context references to the actual thoughts, nor does he paste full references.

or the Soviet crimes quote. Take a look at what Chomsky offers in the context of this quote in World orders, Old and New. Some evidence, this time in the form of testimony from a Guatemalan refugee, that in fact his assessment as we approach the 90's was true. Reasonable people might disagree. Chomsky if he were so inclined might offer additional evidence to support his claim. Bogdanor might offer counter evidence. All good. It's not a lie in any case. But of course, his critics somehow have a way of misusing his actual works in total or somehow forget to paste where their "lie" is coming from.

Lets look at another, the China one. Once again Chomsky goes on to source that claim here (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19670420.htm) and otherwise discuss the complexities of regarding it as expansionist. If Chomsky has been misled by his sources (Ginsburgs and Mathos) this cannot be called a lie.


and so on and so on

Endless lines of ad hominem arguments, I cant accept this GM.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:31:50 PM

"Chomsky is not a politician"

Did I say he was a politician? No, as I said before, he's a hypocritical fringe loon hater of America, the west and especially Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 06:37:06 PM

gah, now he brings up Guillaume. La vielleTaupe, where have we heard that again ? Oh I think they were refered to as the "neo Nazis" in the case with collaborating with Sayid.

You want to see neo nazis ? Come to Berlin one time, and Ill take you to a street, and a nice biker bar. Better dont have any hair on your head though.

Guillaume et the gang REUSED THE NAME OF THE PUBLISHING COMPANY LAVIELLE TAUPE, which in the beggining published philosophy texts, that Chomsky AND  Said sometimes worked with. AFter the thing went zugrunt, along came Guillaume, the ultra left radicalist, who brought the place up, REUSED THE NAME and started his own propaganda of anti semitic craze. Much of the previous collective condemned the act, and thought it a sad decline of an otherwise compelling intellectual. Chomsky and Said also fall in this bunch of "previous" collective.


Look, GM, google whatever you want, but be mindful of what you read and how you read it. There is a certain manner as to how people are critisized, and if its a well versed, argumented dialogue, that speakers, intellectuals, philosophers duly embark in. But not like this,   I dont have time nor the strength to answer and reply to any shit you dig up on anyone from the bowels of the internet and quite frankly I dont care anymore.

Title: EXCLUSIVE: Noam Chomsky’s Secret, Friendly Letters to a Holocaust Denier
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:38:43 PM

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1185

EXCLUSIVE: Noam Chomsky’s Secret, Friendly Letters to a Holocaust Denier


Posted by David Stein on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 · 55 Comments


 
A CounterContempt exclusive: Newly uncovered documents reveal that leftist icon Noam Chomsky has had a much more active dialogue with Holocaust deniers than he’s ever let on.
 
By David Stein
 
Background
 
In the late 1970s and early ‘80s, leftist author, professor, and anti-Israel activist Noam Chomsky became embroiled in what would become known as “The Faurisson Affair.” In 1979, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon, Robert Faurisson, was fined by a French court for claiming in Le Monde that the Holocaust was a hoax.
 


Chomsky, a rabid critic of Israel, was asked by a friend of Faurisson’s to sign a petition supporting Faurisson’s right to free speech. The petition did not mention Faurisson’s views; it merely defended his right to express them.
 
Chomsky signed the petition. In the ensuing uproar, he explained his reasons in an October 1980 essay. He claimed to be completely uninterested in Holocaust denial. Faurisson’s views, he wrote, were irrelevant. All that mattered is that people have the right to express political or historical views – however unpopular – free from government prosecution. Regarding Faurisson, Chomsky wrote, “As far as I can determine, he (Faurisson) is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.” This was patently false, as Faurisson’s anti-Semitism was well-documented. However, Chomsky continued to claim ignorance of Faurisson’s views (and of Holocaust denial in general).

Chomsky’s essay was used by a denial publishing house as a preface for a book about Faurisson. Chomsky admitted that he had issued the essay with no restrictions regarding how it could be used, but he claimed to have asked the deniers to refrain from using it in their book. According to Chomsky, his request arrived too late, and the book (with the Chomsky preface) was published.
 
And that was that. Chomsky has continued, for the past thirty years, to defend his role in L’Affaire Faurisson. His defense always consists of the same points: His lack of knowledge of Faurisson’s work, and (more importantly) his absolute, total lack of interest in Holocaust denial. Chomsky has stressed, time and again, that the subject doesn’t interest him, and that he doesn’t care about, nor does he have knowledge of, anything the deniers say or write.
 
In short, Chomsky’s defense can be paraphrased as, “Look, I helped a guy out because I don’t believe in government censorship. I don’t care who he was; I’d have helped anyone in the same way. And now it’s done and I have no interest in knowing anything about who this guy is or what he believes in.”
 
But, according to recently uncovered documents, that’s simply not true.
 
The Chomsky Letters
 
From at least 1984 through 1992, Chomsky corresponded with a man who, during those time periods, was one of the leading authors and editors in the Holocaust denial movement. And it was a very friendly correspondence, complete with praise for the denier’s work, and an offer of assistance on Chomsky’s part.
 
The denier in question is L.A. “Lou” Rollins. At the time of the first Chomsky correspondence, Rollins was a writer and contributing editor at the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the North American headquarters of Holocaust denial and Nazi literature. And although the IHR has, in the past two decades, attempted to reinvent itself as a “respectable” Holocaust denial institute by eschewing clumsy, vulgar anti-Semitism in favor of pseudo-academic “historiography,” back in 1984 there was no subtlety in the IHR’s presentation. The publishing arm of the IHR sold such titles as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the “pro-Hitler” reprint of “Mein Kampf,” “The Testament of Adolf Hitler,” “The International Jew,” “The Turner Diaries,” KKK leader David Duke’s autobiography “My Awakening,” and various anti-Semitic and white supremacy booklets and leaflets. Contributors to the IHR included former SS Standartenführer Leon Degrelle, and former Nazi General Otto Ernst Remer.

Below is a page from the IHR’s English-language re-release of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher’s 1934 German children’s book “The Poisonous Mushroom” (click to enlarge):
 


It is against this backdrop that Chomsky and Rollins corresponded. In the first of the recently uncovered letters, Chomsky expresses happiness that Rollins was able to find Chomsky’s anti-Israel book “The Fateful Triangle” useful in his work. Chomsky tells Rollins that he’s pleased to hear that he (Rollins) is writing about Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who Chomsky proceeds to call “one of the major frauds of our time.” He compares Wiesel to Nazi collaborators, and accuses him of “exploiting the Holocaust to justify oppression and murder.”

Chomsky promises to send Rollins “news clippings from the Jewish press” to assist him with his anti-Wiesel screed (Rollins’ Chomsky-assisted essay would appear in the fall 1985 edition of the IHR’s “journal”).
 
Chomsky closes by writing, “I’m looking forward to hearing more about your study.”
 
The most recent of the newly-uncovered correspondences is from June 14, 1992. It’s a fairly dull discussion of a letter from a third party that Rollins had sent to Chomsky for his perusal.
 
We have in our possession additional materials covering the Chomsky/Rollins correspondences, and we will be releasing them in due time. But, for now, these two letters aptly demonstrate a long-term, extremely friendly exchange of ideas between Chomsky and a leading figure at the largest Holocaust denial publishing house in America…an exchange in which Chomsky clearly expressed an interest in the denier’s work, and even offered his assistance.

http://www.countercontempt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/IMG1.pdf

Anti-semetic enough for you, Andrew?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:40:25 PM

Look, GM, google whatever you want, but be mindful of what you read and how you read it. There is a certain manner as to how people are critisized, and if its a well versed, argumented dialogue, that speakers, intellectuals, philosophers duly embark in. But not like this,   I dont have time nor the strength to answer and reply to any shit you dig up on anyone from the bowels of the internet and quite frankly I dont care anymore.

Your inability to defend your leftist frauds is duly noted. Thank you for your time.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 06:50:22 PM

thank you for the patronising tone. You rock.

again, ad hominem. Logical fallacy. I have a friend that denies the Holocaust. Does that make me a fraud too ?

Further more, to what you posted again - hats of, great source.

some comments :

1) why aren’t Rollins letters included?
2) Chomsky maintains an open door with letters and responds to all, often devoting 6 hours a day. Is Chomsky expected to meticulously screen every piece of mail he receives (well actually in the days of the Unabomber they were but I digress), and find out who the writer is? And again keep in mind these are from pre-internet days.
Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?
Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite? While in the 1992 letter he refers to Holocaust Deniers as “far out nuts”!

There are no facts here, only a misconstruence of Chomskys writings. And how does ending occupation of & settlement development in the West Bank call for a new Holocaust?

These letters prove nothing. Where in these letters does Chomsky say “I deny the Holocaust ever happened.” He doesn’t.

Besides, nothing about Chomsky is “misconstrued” in this article. The letters are there, in their entirety, for all to read. People can draw their own conclusions

Smearing Chomsky in this way will only work for an audience that is either (a) thoroughly ideologically committed to a pro-Israel position already, or (b) unlikely to open one of Chomsky’s books to measure his views against your descriptions of him. I suspect your distortions will backfire on those who do choose to check for themselves, because they will see how dishonest you’ve been, thereby discrediting by association any debate on Israel/Palestine that might come from honest figures on your side, thus feeding into, rather than combating, anti-Israeli and antisemitic (for those who can’t tell the difference) sentiments.

By all means expose genuine holocaust deniers if you really think anyone takes them seriously. Holocaust denial seems to be relatively common in Arab states that neighbour Israel, but in the rest of the world, holocaust denial is so marginal that the mainstream views it as utterly laughable and just not worth thinking about or critiquing.

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.

Without including the actual letters, this come across as a smear job.

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:53:25 PM

again, ad hominem. Logical fallacy. I have a friend that denies the Holocaust. Does that make me a fraud too ?

If you write a forward for his book about how the Holocaust didn't happen, yes. Just as Chomsky did.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:56:32 PM

"Chomsky, himself a Jew"

Being a Jew doesn't mean one doesn't hate Jews, just as Chomsky peddles his Anti-Americanism while enjoying his American lifestyle, which many leftists do.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:58:15 PM

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

I will. I'm curious if he still wants to praise Pol Pot and Mao.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 07:02:38 PM

Quote from: G M on December 15, 2011, 06:58:15 PM

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

I will. I'm curious if he still wants to praise Pol Pot and Mao.

cant wait

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:07:19 PM

Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:11:07 PM

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:13:53 PM

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.


How does Israel's human rights record match up to China's, or Communist Vietnam, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, all of whom Chomsky has praised? Why the selective outrage? Couldn't be anti-semitism, could it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:17:46 PM

And again Andrew, if Israel is so horrible, why do people flee to it, including the "palestinians" when given the opportunity?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 07:21:56 PM

Quote from: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:07:19 PM

Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

ask him

Quote from: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:11:07 PM

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

AHHAHAHA, brilliant. And I suppose the Communist Party was its Good offspring. Id like to hear more of this ? If it holds you very well may have given me extra special stoff, for my post graduate.

Quote from: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:13:53 PM

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.


How does Israel's human rights record match up to China's, or Communist Vietnam, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, all of whom Chomsky has praised? Why the selective outrage? Couldn't be anti-semitism, could it?

slippery slope, logical fallacy. Insuficient argument. Cant se relevance, you do grasp the notion of anti semitism right ?

GM, I beleive I expressed this already when we had our blasts with Said. I am not taking sides in the Israel PAlstine dispute. I am not pro Palestine nor Pro Israel. I dont actually have much interest in it otherwise, and to this day I do not know which side to "actively" support. I rain down on stuff here, only because the method by which guys here can argument some stuff for the sake of "history". But I get dragged along into other discussions sadly, on the account of my work, that is waiting behind me on the desk. But no matter...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:29:26 PM

Quote from: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 07:21:56 PM

Quote from: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:07:19 PM

Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

ask him

Quote from: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:11:07 PM

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

AHHAHAHA, brilliant. And I suppose the Communist Party was its Good offspring. Id like to hear more of this ? If it holds you very well may have given me extra special stoff, for my post graduate.

Let me clear it up for you: Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one  of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

In other words, all of Marx's offspring were evil, and as far as a body count, the Nazis don't even come close to what Stalin, Mao and Chomsky's hero Pol Pot did.

BTW, how's that european socialism working out for you these days?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2011, 07:41:39 PM

Well!  Lively exchange so far! (and 9 posts have been made while I was on the phone and writing this!)

For myself, I'd like to get back to this (there's stuff in your reply to my previous post that I could go into, but I sense too much water has gone under the bridge since then):

"While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community"

If YOUR butt were on the line (and you weren't such a fan of Chomsky  :-D ) this might carry a tad more weight  :lol:  

As for "The reaction of the international community"   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:   Be serious please
1 These are the men who sent waves of children against the Iraqis to clear mine fields for the soldiers to follow.  You think the bleatings of the UN are going to matter to them?   They will be the strong horse of the neighborhood, and everyone will kneel to them in gratitude for killing all the jews, chant "Allah Akbar!" and about how death matters more to them than life.  

Title: Martyrdom and plastic keys
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 07:48:51 PM

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-432369

Iran's brutality: Women and children first
 
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
 
 
by  James Zumwalt
Source: Human Events

Following World War II, much was written about Western democracies ignoring the aggression of rogue states Germany and Japan—opting for appeasement—until such aggression could no longer be tolerated.  The question repeatedly asked is why warning signs went unheeded.  At some future time, historians of another generation will ask the same question in the aftermath of a nuclear attack by a 21st Century rogue state.
While timing is in question, it is clear Iran eventually will possess a nuclear weapon.  If allowed to do so, there is no doubt in this historian’s mind that Iran’s president and resident madman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will use it.
There are warning signs we have received and, like our pre-World War II leaders, have ignored.  But even more telling is evidence of violence perpetrated upon two groups of his own people—groups Western culture has long regarded as deserving special protection: women and children.
During the eight year Iran-Iraq war, Tehran very quickly learned its army was no match for Iraq’s.  When Iraqi minefields began claiming Iranian soldiers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini concocted a scheme to reduce these losses.  He encouraged Iranian children to volunteer for a special force known as the Basiji.  Lightly armed but more often unarmed to avoid the loss of weapons, the Basiji were trained to form human waves to march through Iraqi minefields towards the enemy.  This process—through the sheer loss of numbers of children—eventually cleared a minefield, providing Iran’s professional soldiers an unencumbered approach route to Iraqi defenses.
Most of these children were illiterate and from poor families in the countryside.  Often, their only asset prior to enthusiastically sacrificing their lives was a plastic key given to each young martyr—told by his Basiji trainer, it was to open the gates of paradise in the afterlife.
Khomeini ordered 500,000 plastic keys from Taiwan for this purpose.  During the war, he sent 450,000 children to the front.  This “man of the cloth” undoubtedly found it more wasteful to have ordered 50,000 extra keys than to have ordered tens of thousands of innocent children to their deaths.
Islamic extremist logic came into play during the war when some believers became concerned the childrens’ bodies were either being vaporized by the mines or body parts were being strewn about the battlefield.  Not to be deterred by these concerns, the logic applied was the children were instructed to wrap themselves in blankets beforehand so their bodies would remain intact!
One of the Basiji trainers was a young Islamic extremist now serving as Iran’s president.  Because of this special relationship between the Basiji and Ahmadinejad, the former was brought in by the latter to take an aggressive role in suppressing protests in Iran following Ahmadinejad’s theft of office in the rigged 2009 election.
It is Ahmadinejad who now oversees another egregious policy—this one aimed at unmarried women he seeks to execute.  Under Islam, it is forbidden to execute female virgins. The arrests, trials and ordered executions of female reform activists has created a problem.  Due to Islam’s prohibition against executing virgins, if a woman is unmarried, steps have to be taken to cure this—but without violating Islam’s prohibition against unmarried sex. To circumvent both prohibitions, the female convict is drugged and a sham marriage performed with a prison guard who then brutally rapes her.  A witness to this brutal act sneared, “I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their ‘wedding’ night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning.” Video evidence of this atrocity has recently been smuggled out of Iran.
President Obama expressed confidence he would succeed in enticing Iran’s leadership away from their nuclear arms ambitions by extending an olive branch.  IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN—for this regime is incapable of reason!  An unabated Iran will only result in a future generation of historians one day asking how Obama could have been so naïve about Ahmadinejad’s intentions.  They will wonder, aware of Ahmadinejad’s brutality towards Iranian women and children, how Americans could have failed to have foreseen the fate awaiting them once he acquired nuclear weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf wars who writes often on national security and defense issues, is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will: Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields" (found at: www.jgzumwalt.com).
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 15, 2011, 08:01:53 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2011, 07:41:39 PM

Well!  Lively exchange so far! (and 9 posts have been made while I was on the phone and writing this!)

For myself, I'd like to get back to this (there's stuff in your reply to my previous post that I could go into, but I sense too much water has gone under the bridge since then):

"While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community"

If YOUR butt were on the line (and you weren't such a fan of Chomsky  :-D ) this might carry a tad more weight  :lol:  

As for "The reaction of the international community"   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:   Be serious please
1 These are the men who sent waves of children against the Iraqis to clear mine fields for the soldiers to follow.  You think the bleatings of the UN are going to matter to them?   They will be the strong horse of the neighborhood, and everyone will kneel to them in gratitude for killing all the jews, chant "Allah Akbar!" and about how death matters more to them than life.  

hi Marc

yes I agree it is a bit of an out landish claim. But I have faith (and Im an agnostic !!) How does reading stuff from Chomsky (far from being a fan) affect the weight ? Well in regards to "butts" on the line i live closer to them than you  :mrgreen:
But yeah, I agree that the usual UN gibberish is not to be taken seriously, but in the case of a nuclear explosion that close to Europe... I think you are being to direct here.

yes you may also look at the extremists that way, but alas, that is but one facet of the populace. Like I said,  you have all sorts of passive, non agressive forms of revolt. And we all know how quickly can monstrocities cease, when there is a big player pressing (or not pressing) strings in the background....hint - Bosnia

And the case of "kneeling" for killing all the jews......again, cannot say for a fact. I may be too young, but I am carefully conservative here. Who knows, living among nuclear debris and fallout...I dunno, its 5 in the morning, my brain is melting slowly. I guess what im trying to say is, there is too much on the line for other countries, closer, that would bring more complications down in the case of the nuclear solution.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 08:16:48 PM

Smearing Chomsky in this way will only work for an audience that is either (a) thoroughly ideologically committed to a pro-Israel position already, or (b) unlikely to open one of Chomsky’s books to measure his views against your descriptions of him. I suspect your distortions will backfire on those who do choose to check for themselves, because they will see how dishonest you’ve been, thereby discrediting by association any debate on Israel/Palestine that might come from honest figures on your side, thus feeding into, rather than combating, anti-Israeli and antisemitic (for those who can’t tell the difference) sentiments.

Obviously these poor people need to read Chomsky to learn how evil America is.
________________________________________________________________________

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.
Noam Chomsky

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/noam_chomsky.html
_________________________________________________________________________
http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-09-14/news/30158216_1_refugee-status-bahai-hugs

Refugees from Iran arrive Wednesday in South Bend

September 14, 2011|By DAVE STEPHENS | South Bend Tribune Staff Writer

The last time they were together there were tears and hugs and cries of sadness.

On Wednesday, after nearly eight years and several thousand miles, there were tears and hugs and cries of joy.

The hugs began the moment Ali Sohrab saw his brother walk through Gate A of the South Bend Regional Airport, the first time the two had been together since Sohrab fled Iran in 2004.

The tears came next, followed by sobs of joy.

Sohrab's parents were next, followed by his sister-in-law and her two children, ages 7 and 4.

For the first time in nearly a decade the entire Sohrab family -- practitioners of the Bahai faith and victims of religious persecution in their native Iran -- were together again.

"Unbelievable," Ali said, seated next his elderly mother, struggling to find the word that could match his emotions.

"Unbelievable."

Refugees

It was 2005 when Ali Sohrab arrived in South Bend with his wife and two children.

As a practitioner of Bahai in Islamic Iran, Sohrab had been arrested twice, refused opportunities to work and his children were denied access to higher education.

In 2004, Sohrab told authorities his family was going on a vacation to neighboring Turkey. Instead, they never went back.

Milad Sohrab, now 19, said he remembers a final meal with his extended family. Much crying, much food, an emotional night for a then 11-year-old.

"Then we were at the airport and were all ready to leave, and that's the last thing I remember,' Milad said.

In 2005, with the help of South Bend area churches, the modern-day pilgrims arrived in South Bend, where Ali's sister already lived, having arrived in 2003.

Since that time, the family members have been able to communicate via e-mail, phone calls and online video messaging. But they couldn't exchange a hug or share a meal.

And for the family in Iran, the threat of persecution was always real.

Together

Last year, the family members still in Iran made the decision to flee.

But coming to America isn't that easy.

The Sohrab's fled to Turkey, where they filed for refugee status with the United Nations. Then they waited.

In South Bend, officials with the American Red Cross began helping with their case, as part of their international relief efforts that they coordinate around the world.

Since the Red Cross began coordinating local refugee efforts last year, the agency has helped about 50 people, in 17 different families, immigrate to the South Bend region, said Gena Robinson, director of emergency services for the Red Cross.

In most cases, Robinson said, the Red Cross tries to be very quiet about refugees coming to the United States, out of fear for family members back home. But with Sohrab's family all arriving safety, family members said it was OK to share their story with the world.

Ali, who said he couldn't sleep Tuesday night because of his excitement, said his family members couldn't have found a better place to relocate.

"You don't have freedom over there, you have a very hard life," Ali said. "You can't get jobs, you can't work, its dangerous situation to be Bahai."

But in America?

"Here, it's everybody is free," Ali said. "You can get jobs, you can get anything you want, if you are willing to work for it. You can do anything you want, you just have to do it."

Settling

Ali said his family planned on having a large dinner together Wednesday night, before the new arrivals settled in with family and friends.

Robinson said the Red Cross will spend the next 90 days actively working with the family, helping them transition into their new lives.

There will be a new language to learn. A new land to navigate. Jobs to be found. A new culture to absorb.

Ali is confident, after enduring persecution and the separation of time and space, that nothing will separate their family again.

"I'd like to do everything I can for them," Ali said. "They are my family. They are my heart."

Staff writer Dave Stephens:

dstephens@sbtinfo.com

Title: In dire need of Chomsky
Post by: G M on December 15, 2011, 08:36:02 PM

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
Noam Chomsky

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/noam_chomsky.html
____________________________________________________________________________________


http://netnebraska.org/extras/statewide/pers/sudanese.html


Originally aired December 7, 2001
  SUDANESE REFUGEES: "Lost Boys" of Sudan


 
People living in Sudan have been at war for many years because of religious and ethnic differences. Many died in combat, while others fled to avoid being forced to fight in the war. Some headed to neighboring African countries...others to America. They started coming to Nebraska about 10 years ago. Now thousands live in Eastern Nebraska.

Their long journey wasn't easy. They walked hundreds of miles every day, with no food and water and the constant fear they would be attacked by animals. Starting over in Nebraska was also a challenge. They had to find jobs and places to live, and learn our language. "Statewide's" Andrea Gallagher says Nebraska's "Lost Boys" believe it was worth it to be in America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT - Sudanese Refugees
Reported by Statewide correspondent, Andrea Gallagher.

Imagine arriving at an airport, and experiencing the hustle and bustle of business travelers….then getting on an escalator where you can go from one place to another without even moving your legs. Most people don't give this a second thought…..
 But for these young Sudanese refugees - the airport was a first glimpse of our world and its modern conveniences.
[Paul Matiop/Sudanese Refugee] "It seemed as a dream to me, I was you know in one day and one time I was in a desert and it was a dream to come here. I see a lot of things, funny things, a lot of vehicles, we don't have vehicles, a lot of foods, and there we don't have a lot of food. It is like a dream to be here."
[Santino Angok/Sudanese Refugee] "We are thankful for new life, we have suffered a long time, ten years in the bush in Sudan."
Today, the young refugees look at photos of their former life in Sudan. They want to remember their family and friends. Walking thousands of miles in the bush - not knowing if they would make it out alive --is something that will always haunt them.
[James Aguto/Sudanese Refugee] "I left my country in 1987 and I just walked to Ethiopia for ten years…..away from parent….so it is real difficult….terrible fighting in Sudan."
[Paul Matiop] "Also sometime when we went to desert, you use your urine as a water to drink."
[Santino Angok] "That war destroyed our homeland…they kill ladies and small children and all the generation has been killed."
 These refugees came to America with help from the First Baptist Church in Bellevue. Pastor Ron Elliott said the congregation wanted to help out in any way possible.
[Pastor Ron Elliott/1st Baptist Church] "When I heard about the opportunity of sponsoring them and knowing what was going on in their country, the circumstances they were living in, it seemed like it was what God wanted us to do."
 Elliott says the congregation welcomed the refugees with open arms…. An overwhelming amount of clothing was donated for the refugees who had next to nothing. They also received furnishings for their new home. Other church members took time to teach them how to do things we take for granted.
[Pastor Elliott] "Helping them get adjusted to life in America. Right now they're getting their learner's permit, learning how to drive, also teaching them to cook, how to live in American society." Pastor Elliott says he'll always remember meeting the young men at the airport.
[Pastor Elliott] "It was an interesting experience when they came out of the airplane and we greeted them, we had a sign in their own language saying 'welcome', and they were just so excited to be here. They had no luggage, no baggage at all…just the clothes on their backs was all they brought with them. And even when we came to the escalator at the airport they didn't know what to do."
The 4 refugees live together in a Bellevue apartment. Initially, the church helped with the rent and donated furnishings like books, furniture and even a television.
[Pastor Elliott] "When they went to their apartment, the caseworkers showed them the microwave, the sink, the hot and cold water. Those kinds of things they're not used to. Even a bathtub and a shower - how that works - so it was just a whole new world and whole new experience for them, but they've done well, they've adjusted."
Now the young men are able to pay their own rent because they found jobs. They work in the custodial department at Nebraska Health System in Omaha. They're grateful for the jobs, and being together.
[James Aguto] "It's good to stay together, now we are like brothers, but each of us have his own tribe and we are together because of friendship."
Most of the time, they will work in the evenings and leave the rest of the time for school. It's important to develop good work habits now, because they don't want to be cleaning forever.
[Paul Matiop] "I want to be police."
[James Aguto] "The favorite thing is learning. The favorite thing is also the helpful people, to have work, to survive by your own….that is the great thing we are doing now because now I am working."
Helen Evans works with the Heartland Refugee Resettlement Program in Omaha. She says there's around 5-thousand Sudanese refugees living in Eastern Nebraska. Her organization helps the refugees get off to a good start.
[Helen Evans/Refugee Resettlement Program] "We have an opportunity to work with various different cultural groups. Probably the most prominent now is the Sudanese. We also have Bosnian, and we have Vietnamese, some Cuban, some Haitian, so just the opportunity within their lives. Helping them get acclimated to Omaha and welcome to their lives here and letting them know about the opportunities we have here in America."
 Kuot Ngor also works at the Refugee Resettlement Program. He left Sudan and came to America back in 1995.
[Kuot Ngor/Caseworker] "I never had peace in my life. I was born in war since it started in 1956, and then I grew up in that war and it's never stopped."
 Kuot says it took him awhile to get used to the fast-paced way of life in America. Cars and traffic especially shocked him. It took him awhile before he could gain enough composure to cross a busy street. [Kuot] "Everything is so very different. In Africa, things really go slow and here when I came here I see everything very fast and I wouldn't even think I would be here in this environment."
But that wouldn't be the worst of his problems. Along with the fast-paced society came many luxuries he wasn't used to - like credit cards. Now he helps other refugees so they can learn from his mistakes.
[Kuot] "Actually I went through a lot of troubles. I have bad credit and I couldn't know to adopt to American culture. I was very frustrated. I thought it was going to be very bad.
Another problem some refugees run into is spousal abuse. In their country, it is not unusual to beat a wife if she does not obey the husband. In America, this behavior is not tolerated.
[Kuot] "They get in trouble because the woman wants to take advantage of freedom they got here and they want to move on very fast and that can get them in trouble with the man, so if they could help understand and go slow until they understand the culture here and customs here, it would be very fair."
Meanwhile, the young refugees are still getting accustomed to American life. Tasting American food is something different….they've never had so many choices before…now they have to choose wisely.
[John Kuol] "In our place, we don't have a lot of sweet food, we use only corn, beans and some oil. And the thing that was very scared for me. Even now I don't make good use of them."
[Paul Matiop] "Ice cream makes my blood cool as I was in a desert place."
[Santino] "We have security, medical also because we can have good life and food…and this is for a human being to live…if you have basic needs you can live and you will be happy in your lifetime….but in Sudan we didn't have basic needs."
 The Sudanese population in Eastern Nebraska continues to grow….Four years ago, there were fewer than 30 Sudanese families in the Omaha area….now there's more than 35-hundred. Many of them are leaving other communities to come here.
[Helen] "We have a lot of people with warm hepers and open minds who are willing to help out."
[Pastor Elliott] "Most of those are secondary refugees. They've been settled somewhere else in the United States but come to Omaha because they've heard that there are a lot of their own people here."
Elliott says he hopes to sponsor another group of refugees in the future….but for now, he just wants to make sure these young men have every opportunity to succeed.
[John Kuol] "I appreciate what happened to me and I've very happy to be here."
[James Aguto] "It's like miracle because staying here is much better than the place we were."
[Santino Angok] "To look for the future….to start another life…"
The Lost Boys finally found their home.

Title: Friedman is wrong
Post by: Rachel on December 16, 2011, 04:44:56 AM

GM-- Nice Posts

Friedman is wrong
By JPOST EDITORIAL
12/15/2011 23:58

His misunderstanding of Israel is evident in his underlying assumption that appears in his columns repeatedly: that were Israel to just leave the settlements, peace would flow like a river.
Talkbacks (77)
 
 
For the past several years, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, that guru for American Jewish liberals, has shown that he doesn’t really understand Israel or the region.

His misunderstanding of Israel is evident in his underlying assumption that appears in his columns repeatedly: that were Israel to just leave the settlements, peace would flow like a river.

Well, Israel uprooted all 21 settlements from Gaza in 2005, but instead of peace, received an unending barrage of missiles in return.

The settlements are a consequence of the conflict, not its cause. The PLO, if anyone has forgotten, was established in 1964, three years before the Six Day War and any thought of a West Bank settlement.

As for Friedman’s failure to understand the region, readers need look no further than his breathless “Postcard from Cairo” columns at the outset of the Arab Spring last February. To have read Friedman then was to believe this was 1989 all over again, and that Hosni Mubarak would be deposed and replaced by the Egyptian version of Vaclav Havel.

In one piece, he castigated Israel for not being more supportive of the protesters in Tahrir Square. “The children of Egypt were having their liberation moment,” he wrote, “and the children of Israel decided to side with Pharaoh – right to the very end.”

Wrong. Israel wasn’t supporting Pharaoh, but rather deeply concerned that following the Egyptian revolution, Sinai would turn into a terrorist base, the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline would be a constant target of attack, the Israeli Embassy in Cairo would be ransacked, and the Muslim Brotherhood – and Salafists to their right – would win the country’s parliamentary election.

Click here to find out more!
Now, in his latest piece on Israel that appeared Wednesday entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir,” Friedman demonstrated that he also doesn’t know America.

In a line that could have come straight from the pens of AIPAC-bashers Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Friedman wrote that he hoped Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whom he loathes, understood that the standing ovation he got in Congress earlier this year was not for his politics, but rather one that was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

That’s right – that wicked, despicable Israel lobby.

According to Friedman, anybody who supports Israel must be on the nefarious Jewish lobby’s payroll. Otherwise, how could they dare? Maybe Friedman should consider the possibility that the ovation was the result of America’s elected officials – in tune with the feelings of their constituents – seeing in Israel a plucky little country that shares their own basic values and is trying to survive in an awfully bad neighborhood.

Maybe Friedman should consider that the ovation was the result of politicians understanding that this conflict is not about one settlement, or one Jerusalem neighborhood, but rather over the Jewish people’s right to a homeland.

No, that can’t be. In fact, writes Friedman – always concerned about Israel’s soul – were Netanyahu to go to the University of Wisconsin, many students, including Jews, would stay away because they are confused by Israeli policies: the current spate of right-wing Knesset legislation, the segregation of women on buses, the settlements.

And then came the kicker. Friedman’s proof that Israel is merrily heading down the path toward the abyss is that radical left-wing Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy says so.

Dubbing Levy a “powerful liberal voice, writing in Haaretz,” Friedman quotes from a recent Levy column: “What we are witnessing is w-a-r. This fall a culture war, no less, broke out in Israel, and it is being waged on many more, and deeper, fronts than are apparent. It is not only the government, as important as that is, that hangs in the balance, but also the very character of the state.”

Friedman’s use of an extremist such as Levy to prove his point is akin to taking the writings of America-bashing left-wing linguist Noam Chomsky as proof that America is bad.

The problem with Friedman and those sharing his sentiments about Israel is that they take an exception and make it the rule.

This school of thought takes a sex-segregated bus in Mea She’arim and turns the whole country into Iran; takes rocks thrown by bad, misguided youth at an IDF base and turns Israel into a country on the brink of civil war; and takes the government’s refusal to bail out a failing commercial television station as putting Israel on the fast track to Soviet Russia.

What is needed is some proportion. The burning of mosques by Jewish hooligans is deplorable, but it is no more representative of the country – or the direction it is going – than Florida Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of a Koran in May was a reflection of America. Friedman should know this.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2011, 05:31:03 AM

Andre:

a) Concerning your , , , ahem , , , "leap of faith"  :lol: that the Iranian theocracy will not do what it says it will do to Israel:
   *in part because of the international community's reaction:  Lets face it; Europe is done.  You don't even f*ck enough (at least in the right orifices) to maintain your population.  The contraction (which also means the aging) of the Euro population means the fundamentals of the Euro socialist nanny state are inherently bankrupt.  The Euro is in the process of self-destructing.  NATO couldn't handle Libya without US backing, the UK no longer has a single aircraft carrier-- were Argentina to take the Falklands again there isn't a thing they could do.  Why on earth would you think that Israel should in any way think that Europe's upset at having to be downwind and breathe in the radioactive ashes of another six million jews would deter Iran's theocracy? (thanks GM for the article with the history of the waves of children to clear out mindfields)
  * Iran's theocracy has opening spoken of its survivability of an Israeli nuclear attack, whereas one or two bombs would instantly wipe out Israel.
  *  Via Hezbollah Iran well over 50,000 rockets on Israel's northern border.
  *  As GM and Rachel aptly point out, the settlements are a RESPONSE in search of security to decades of Arab efforts to literally push the Jews of Israel into the sea.  Giving up the settlements will not bring an end to such intentions-- witness the aftermath of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.  Even the greenhouses to grow food were destroyed because Hamas et al wanted nothing from the Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2011, 05:41:02 AM

PS:
   Jumping back to our earlier conversation concerning the logical consistency vel non of Hitler's claims to Sudenland and the Jews claims to Israel:

   The very point of how national boundary lines were drawn up after WW1 by France and Great Britain was to break up the German people-- and look what that led to.  Contrast the aftermath of WW2 where Chomsky's "evil, wicked, mean, and nasty" (its a line from a Steppenwolk song of the late sixties  :lol: ) fascist America sought to lift its former enemies up-- including decades of forceful military support until the Russian evil empire collapsed and Germany was reunited.
   
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: AndrewBole on December 16, 2011, 07:35:21 AM

Tell you what. I will contact Noam myself. Try to get one of my contacts on MIT, to succesfully transfer the mail, refer him to this page, or at the very least try to get him to comment the smear you posted. Lets see what he has to say...deal ?


Lets make an experiment

http://911fraud.blogspot.com/

Quote

After years of ignoring such allegations, former CIA analyst and marine intel officer Robert Steele read Webster Tarpley's book and has joined the chorus of colleagues such as William Christionson, Robert Baer and Ray McGovern and concluded that in the very least, the neocons allowed 9/11 to occur and were at some level involved in the larger plot.

Marines, in on it. CIA in on it. Not so savvy as you thought eh ? Clandestine much

Quote

Such CIA affiliations have in fact been alleged by various sources. If you disregard the allegations merely on the basis of those making the claims and feel that former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic's death during his war crimes tribunal was in fact a product of his ailing health alone and not an assassination plot by such interests as he was alleging prior to his death, you may want to bookmark this section and refer back to it later after we demonstrate irrefutably that Western intelligence and their allies, not the "Axis of Evil" they so bizarrely referred to in the wake of 9/11, were involved in the 9/11 attacks and an increasing amount of smaller events since then.

Milošević and the Balkan mafia. Innocent, right ?

http://www.alb-net.com/aki/archive/top.milosevic.jpg

http://iona.ghandchi.com/binladen.jpg

Bin Laden in Sweden. Undercover operative. He even sports the hippie style. Innocent, right ?

Another case

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

Setllers came to america, killed, massacred or deliberately affected natives with smallpox to diminish the population. From the lowest estimate, 2.5 million (1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-3205-9. ) to the highest estimate, 35 million ((1992). American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195075816. )

Now America is morally above, critically acclaimed, the protector of the weak, the safehaven of the poor, and the unfree. Fraud.

America is Evil to the bone. And a sneaky one at that too. Kills you, takes your land, then tells others how to be moral. Chomsky was right after all. Nazis were at least honest about their intentions.


What is common to these above constructed allegations and my "comments" to them ? Besides the fact, that they use the same rhetoric and modus operandi as yours, they utilize constant logical phallacies and failed relevance.

You see GM in a serious conversation, where one has or wants to proove a rational point, the train of thought needs to follow a certain logical structure. Argumentative structure. Already the wise Socrates, saw it as a big problem, when people came about, spouting anything they heard, picked up, or read on some stone, as right. So much so, that he made up his own way of conversing with such folk, he called it elenchos. His successors, mostly Aristotle, had enough of the dimwits chasing ghosts and spouting others, he decided to make a complete system of logic and argumentative reasoning. It is called Organon.

Logic as the basis of a rational argument supereeds „fact“, tenure, fraud, smear...etc. Because it is what holds it firm in the first place. It is what makes the usage of „fact“ true, or not.

You can find a quick overlook here. Make sure you start referencing it as frequently as google.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

add to that a list of all the logical phallacies, starting with your favourite one

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

a logical phallacy means, that an argument is invalid as long as it uses this kind of logic.


Im all for critique. Truly, its what I like best. Hell I read Christopher Hitchen on several accounts. Foucuaults critique, fascinating, even the most hardcore Derridean deconstructionists, Dennet, Harris, Webber...etc. This is field of theory. There are views, not facts. This isnt science. People disagree.
HOWEVER, if any criticism is to be taken seriously, its form needs to follow certain guidelines. What you usually post, are attacks against the man, usually against him as a persona, to discredit him, presidential elections style, without ANY kind of factual proof, only circumstantial evidence.

The Taupe case, busted, the Rollins letters, busted, the alleged anti semite collaboration, busted. Its all there, if you read everything. In any case, lets hope the man himself will shed more light on it.

Take any single great mind in history, and you will see they were greatly controversial if not only outlawed for crimes against humanity, God, culture, or otherwise. Frauds eh. Descartes, father of the West, fraud. Galileo, fraud. Kopernik, fraud. Socrates, fraud. Spinoza, fraud. Leibnitz, fraud. Voltaire, fraud, Faraday, fraud. Reinhold, Jacobi, Kant, Hegel, Fichte, all frauds. Einstein, Hawking, proven wrong. Frauds.

Quote

Let me clear it up for you: Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

Ah, shame. I was expecting excerpts from the nsdap political program, and its connetion to the contemporal left-wing doctrine, or at the very least Mein Kampf, that shows ties to the manifesto, or the Engels scriptures, or the Theses on Feuerbach. You know, something that I can actually connect into a thesis. But at least its a good one, to brainstorm with my colleagues over some juice in a saloon.

Come to think of it, from a pure epistemological standpoint, you are right man. Anything that you read, has an effect on you. This is the true Hegelian negative, which is actually a positive negative, that connects the thesis, with antithesis into a synthesis. Damn, you got me thinking now....

Nice one


@ Marc

Easy there. For someone claiming to be „as far right as they come“ you sure dare a lot.

Lets wait and see. I do not agree, with the notions on Europe. But this is for another topic, another day. Ever since it came into fruition, even in the times of the EGS, we were constantly getting the demography remarks, the „youre done“ arguments. But the sole fact remains, as long as Germany is at world peak economy, and at the moment it most definitely is, EU has a substantial leverage. When stuff goes awoll in Germany, that is a huge red flag. Then you have the Russians, which everyone and their mother throws stones at, and the Chinese of course. The communists will save us once again I hope.

If you wish, the only officially confirmed source by the Commision on raw matters EU, go here :

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

Concerning other things Israel, I agree here. Like I stated already, that the marginal forms of rebelion are doing more harm than good in alot of the cases of the „war effort“. I am not an expert on politics, so I will not play one. But if you go listen to any of the links above, from Chomsky or BtSelem, its stated black on white, which resolutions were vetoed by Israel, which by USA and when, which international human rights laws were violated, security council laws violated...etc. Neither side here has the ethically superior ground.

Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract.

Quote

Jumping back to our earlier conversation concerning the logical consistency vel non of Hitler's claims to Sudenland and the Jews claims to Israel:

You are not reading this correctly. Im not using the particularities of the treaties to show how and why the repercussions failed. I said that Hitlers claim to Sudetenland, lied on the same „historical“ necessity argument that the Jewish claim Israel, and Palestine. I used the example to see if you agree with Hitlers claim in that specific example, and why/why not.

Sadly I have to resign gentlemen, a day and a night of workload behind, I have to catch up. Marc, if you wish we may continue this via email, but my answers will be slow.

I will report back with any news from the Leftist anti semite.

Godspeed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2011, 08:37:36 AM

Well I too must go, in this case to an award ceremony for my daughter making honor roll  8-)

So I will close with this:

"Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract."

Ummm , , ,  When Egypt agreed to peace it got its land back.  Simple.  The Israelis ALREADY want to live in peace.  It is the Arabs who do not.   

GM:  You up to Chomsky coming to hang out with us?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 09:33:23 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2011, 08:37:36 AM

Well I too must go, in this case to an award ceremony for my daughter making honor roll  8-)

So I will close with this:

"Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract."

Ummm , , ,  When Egypt agreed to peace it got its land back.  Simple.  The Israelis ALREADY want to live in peace.  It is the Arabs who do not.   

GM:  You up to Chomsky coming to hang out with us?

Hell, I'll do my best to have him stickfighting me at the next gathering!  :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 09:52:34 AM

Lets make an experiment

http://911fraud.blogspot.com/


Quote

After years of ignoring such allegations, former CIA analyst and marine intel officer Robert Steele read Webster Tarpley's book and has joined the chorus of colleagues such as William Christionson, Robert Baer and Ray McGovern and concluded that in the very least, the neocons allowed 9/11 to occur and were at some level involved in the larger plot.

Marines, in on it. CIA in on it. Not so savvy as you thought eh ? Clandestine much


Quote

Such CIA affiliations have in fact been alleged by various sources. If you disregard the allegations merely on the basis of those making the claims and feel that former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic's death during his war crimes tribunal was in fact a product of his ailing health alone and not an assassination plot by such interests as he was alleging prior to his death, you may want to bookmark this section and refer back to it later after we demonstrate irrefutably that Western intelligence and their allies, not the "Axis of Evil" they so bizarrely referred to in the wake of 9/11, were involved in the 9/11 attacks and an increasing amount of smaller events since then.

Milošević and the Balkan mafia. Innocent, right ?

http://www.alb-net.com/aki/archive/top.milosevic.jpg

http://iona.ghandchi.com/binladen.jpg

Bin Laden in Sweden. Undercover operative. He even sports the hippie style. Innocent, right ?

Another case
---------------------------------------------------------

So, let me understand you correctly. You are putting 9/11 conspiracy theories out there as potentially valid concept as an indictment of the US?

You know not even Chomsky wants to wade into that fever swamp, to the chagrin of the "troofers", who wanted his anti-american star factor on their crazy-train.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 11:35:43 PM

"Now America is morally above, critically acclaimed, the protector of the weak, the safehaven of the poor, and the unfree. Fraud."

Well, as a baseline, please compare and contrast you nation's good acts and contributions to humanity and it's sins against that of America's and Israel's.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2011, 09:42:20 AM

GM. lets stay on track here.  Right now I want to be 100% clear:  Do you accept Andraz's challenge to see if he can bring Chomsky here, , , without him having to stickfight?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 17, 2011, 09:57:02 AM

Of course.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2011, 09:58:59 AM

I have so informed Andrew.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 17, 2011, 10:50:29 AM

Well I am not sure what to make of his political views but certainly he is extraordinarily accomplished and I respect that.

In case he does come to this board I will try to "bone up" on his views since I really don't know much about him.

From his website an awful lot to digest:


                       




                     
 
 
·  Noam Chomsky. International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the present.
·  Noam Chomsky. The Columbia Encyclopedia.
·  Noam Chomsky. Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860-1960.
·  Noam Chomsky. Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology.
·  Noam Chomsky. Major Twentieth Century Writers.
·  Noam Chomsky. MIT Linguistics Program.
·  Noam Chomsky. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
·  Noam Chomsky. Wikipedia.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 17, 2011, 10:52:18 AM

http://www.chomsky.info/

The wikipedia site alone with all its detailed information and links to other topics would take a day to study.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors: Syria - Assad's Regime Hunting its People
Post by: DougMacG on December 27, 2011, 08:54:16 AM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,805519,00.html

Inside Syria's Death Zone
Assad's Regime Hunts People in Homs
DER SPIEGEL

The regime in Damascus is using snipers to hunt down its own people. Rebels on the ground in besieged Homs, the site of some of the most extreme brutality, say the international community is hesitating to help Syrians out of fear that it will trigger a civil war. But the threat is merely propaganda from ruler Bashar Assad, they claim.

When the haze dissipates in the late afternoon light, and when the last unfortunate souls hurry across the open space, running in a zigzag pattern, hunting season begins on Cairo Street. There is random shooting all day long at this spot, but from this moment on the shooting becomes targeted. A few people make it to the other side on this day, but one does not. He screams and falls to the ground as he is hit. He was carrying a loaf of bread, something that was no longer available on his side of Cairo Street.

Pedestrians are rarely targeted in the morning. But beginning in the afternoon and continuing throughout the night, the wide, straight street that separates the Khalidiya and Bayada neighborhoods becomes a death zone. That's when they -- the snipers working for Syrian intelligence, who are nothing more than death squads, and the Shabiha killers, known as "the ghosts," mercenaries who are paid daily wages and often earn a little extra income by robbing their victims -- shoot at anything that moves.

The map of Homs is a topography of terror these days. Entire sections of Syria's third-largest city are besieged. Hundreds of thousands have become the hostages of a regime whose president, Bashar Assad, insisted with a chuckle in an interview with America's ABC News, that only a madman would order his forces to shoot at his own people.

What began nine months ago as a peaceful protest against the dictatorship of the Assad dynasty has since become a campaign against the people by the regime -- a regime that, for 41 years, was accustomed to using brutality to enforce submission. Since it realized that this brutality was no longer sufficient, it decided to use even more -- and then even more when the resistance continued to grow. There are no negotiations. In the heavily guarded downtown section of Homs, where the regime feigns an eerie mood of normality for foreign visitors, it has put up signs that read: "The continuation of dialogue guarantees stability."

Title: POTH: Ultra orthodox pick on 8 year old girl
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 28, 2011, 06:21:02 AM

BEIT SHEMESH, Israel — The latest battleground in Israel’s struggle over religious extremism covers little more than a square mile of this Jewish city situated between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and it has the unexpected public face of a blond, bespectacled second-grade girl.
She is Naama Margolese, 8, the daughter of American immigrants who are observant modern Orthodox Jews. An Israeli weekend television program told the story of how Naama had become terrified of walking to her elementary school here after ultra-Orthodox men spit on her, insulted her and called her a prostitute because her modest dress did not adhere exactly to their more rigorous dress code.
The country was outraged. Naama’s picture has appeared on the front pages of all the major Israeli newspapers. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Sunday that “Israel is a democratic, Western, liberal state” and pledged that “the public sphere in Israel will be open and safe for all,” there have been days of confrontation at focal points of friction here.
Ultra-Orthodox men and boys from the most stringent sects have hurled rocks and eggs at the police and journalists, shouting “Nazis” at the security forces and assailing female reporters with epithets like “shikse,” a derogatory Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman or girl, and “whore.” Jews of varying degrees of orthodoxy and secularity headed to Beit Shemesh on Tuesday evening to join local residents in a protest numbering in the thousands against religious violence and fanaticism.
For many Israelis, this is not a fight over one little girl’s walk to school. It is a struggle that could shape the future character and soul of the country, against ultra-Orthodox zealots who have been increasingly encroaching on the public sphere with their strict interpretation of modesty rules, enforcing gender segregation and the exclusion of women.
The battle has broadened and grown increasingly visible in recent weeks and months. Orthodox male soldiers walked out of a ceremony where female soldiers were singing, adhering to what they consider to be a religious prohibition against hearing a woman’s voice; women have been challenging the seating arrangements on strictly “kosher” buses serving ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods and some inter-city routes, where female passengers are expected to sit at the back.
The virulent coercion in Beit Shemesh has been attributed mainly to a group of several hundred ultra-Orthodox extremists who came here from Jerusalem, known as the Sicarii, or daggermen, after a violent and stealthy faction of Jews who tried to expel the Romans in the decades before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Religious extremism is hardly new to Israel, but the Sicarii and their bullying ilk push with a bold vigor that has yet to be fully explained. Certainly, Israel’s coalition politics have allowed the ultra-Orthodox parties to wield disproportionate power beyond the roughly 10 percent of the population they currently represent.
The ultra-Orthodox community’s rapidly increasing numbers — thanks to extraordinarily high birthrates — may also have emboldened the hard core, as may have their insular neighborhoods. And their leadership appears to lack moderating brakes.
In any case, the extremists have provoked an outpouring of opposition from all those who are more flexible, be they ultra-Orthodox, modern Orthodox, mainstream or secular. In fact, it was an ultra-Orthodox-led group that claimed at least part of the credit for making Naama’s story public.
“We are working to save our city and to save our homes,” said Dov Lipman, 40, a local activist, rabbi and self-defined modern ultra-Orthodox, who moved to Beit Shemesh from Silver Spring, Md., seven years ago. Seizing on the public mood of rejecting ultra-Orthodox bullying, Mr. Lipman and a group of supporters have been lobbying the Israeli Parliament, organizing protests and recently hired a media consultant. He said that is how Naama’s story came out.
Built near the ruins of an ancient city of that name mentioned in the Bible, Beit Shemesh was established in 1950, first drawing mostly poor immigrants from North Africa, then immigrants from Russia, Ethiopia and English-speaking countries. With the construction of the new neighborhoods of Ramat Beit Shemesh A and B in the 1990s, the ultra-Orthodox population boomed. Residents say 20,000 more planned housing units are earmarked for the ultra-Orthodox.


In Ramat Beit Shemesh B, signs on the walls of buildings call for modesty, exhorting women and girls to dress in buttoned-up, long-sleeved blouses and long skirts. Outside a synagogue on Hazon Ish Street in the Kirya ha-Haredit quarter, a sign requested that females should cross to the opposite sidewalk and certainly not tarry outside the building.
Naama’s school, Orot, opened in September in an area with a large community of English-speaking observant Jews that borders on the strictest ultra-orthodox neighborhoods. She quickly found she had to run a miserable gantlet to get to school, even dressed in long sleeves and long skirts.
Riots broke out on Monday when the police accompanied media crews into Hazon Ish Street, the area where Naama’s tormentors are believed to have come from. Hundreds of black-garbed men and boys poured out of the synagogue and an adjacent seminary holding handwritten signs calling for the exclusion of women, illustrated with the male and female symbols used for public washrooms. One policeman was injured after being hit in the head with a rock and several arrests were made before the crowds dispersed at dusk.
Many of the ultra-Orthodox agitators blamed the news media for the unrest, saying they had come into the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods to sow hatred and to persecute the residents for their religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, some residents insisted that Beit Shemesh was a tolerant city, but defended at least some gender separation and modesty on religious grounds.
“I think women are very poorly treated in Western society,” said Cindy Feder, 57, a resident of Ramat Beit Shemesh A, who came to Israel from New York in 1970, and who defines herself as an “open haredi,” the Hebrew term for ultra-Orthodox. She said that the objectification of women on some billboards made her feel sick.
In the more austere Ramat Beit Shemesh B, a 32-year-old mother of four defended the gender separation on public transportation, saying that it was necessary to preserve women’s honor on crowded buses that squeezed people like “tomato puree.”
But the woman, who gave only her first name, Rivka, for fear of provoking the disapproval of her neighbors, also told a story that revealed the costs of separation: one night, the extremists came and removed all the public benches from the neighborhood, so that the women could no longer sit outside with their children in the street.

Title: WSJ: Back of the bus , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2012, 05:31:04 AM

By JOSHUA MITNICK
TEL AVIV—For years, Israeli women have been pressured into moving to the rear of public buses serving strictly religious Jews. Now, in confrontations reminiscent of the era of Rosa Parks, women are pushing back.

Doron Matalon, an 18-year-old soldier, says she was standing at the front of the No. 49a municipal bus after an overnight shift at her Jerusalem base on Wednesday morning last week when an ultra-Orthodox man ordered her to move back.

"I said that I have the right to sit here," she says. "Then a commotion ensued, and other people gathered around and started shouting….It was scary."

The conflict drew national media attention and highlighted the growing tensions in Israel as the population of once-insular ultra-Orthodox Jews has surged beyond the urban enclaves of Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv suburb of Bnei Brak, where they have lived for decades.

As the Orthodox seek jobs and housing in other areas, they are increasingly interacting with mainstream Israelis who see their strict code of religious practice to be coercive, and a threat to Israel's democracy.

"It's a slippery slope. What starts with women boarding the bus in the back because of modesty can end up with women not voting," says Mickey Gitzin, the director of Be Free Israel, a nonprofit that promotes religious pluralism. "It could turn Israeli society into a segregated society in which women don't have a place in public life."

In the past week, public outrage peaked following a TV report on the harassment of an 8-year-old girl by ultra-Orthodox men, in the Jerusalem suburb of Beit Shemesh. The men spat on the girl and called her a prostitute for dressing in a way they considered to be immodest.

That spurred thousands of people to demonstrate against the segregation of women on Tuesday, Dec. 27; a counterprotest two days later ignited clashes in Jerusalem and in Beit Shemesh.

Haredi rabbis of Beit Shemesh said the women of their community observe modesty rules voluntarily because they are for women's honor and Judaism orders the separation of men and women in the public sphere.

Many ultra-Orthodox object to segregation, but have gone on the defensive. "The problem is that they want to make a secular state in the Holy Land. That's what creates the friction," said Israel Eichler, a parliament member from the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party.

Mr. Eichler alleged that Israel's secular media is focusing on the ultra-Orthodox treatment of women as a way of indirectly attacking a political ally of the Haredis—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly denounced segregation. Last week he insisted that "women will sit in every place."

Haredi political parties wield outsized clout because they often function as kingmakers of Israeli coalitions by moving between right and left, though their outlook is more in keeping with right-wing coalitions.

For decades, Israel's Haredi sects kept at a distance from the mainstream, congregating in self-contained ghettos. Their religious ideology rejected the foundations of the secular Jewish state even as they participated in its politics.

Because they made up a relatively small percentage of the population, they were allowed to avoid army service and oversee schools that shed elements of state curriculum, and lobbied for public subsidies that enabled graduates to continue religious study rather than pursue jobs.

In the 14 years since the first public buses went into operation in Jerusalem, exclusion and segregation efforts have expanded to include men-only sidewalks in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, separated waiting rooms at some health clinics, and the gradual disappearance of women from billboard advertisements in Jerusalem.

With Haredi birthrates double the average Israeli family, ultra-Orthodox Jews are poised to surge from around 10% of the country's population. Economists say the status quo, where most Haredi men don't work, will eventually drag down the economy because the government won't be able to afford the rising cost of so many men staying out of the workplace.

The bus lines that initially served only ultra-Orthodox communities eventually spilled over into mixed areas. As the number of segregated bus lines grew into the dozens and complaints emerged, the liberal Israel Religious Action Center, an affiliate of the U.S. Reform Jewish movement, petitioned the Supreme Court to ban segregation on buses.

In a ruling in January 2011, the court said that while forced segregated buses were illegal in principle, it would be possible to allow them to operate for one year on a voluntary basis.

The ruling highlighted a dilemma for Israel's government in determining how to handle diverse religious and national groups that reject many of its basic principles.

"The deeper question is how does a democracy deal with separatist fundamentalist communities in its midst," said Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. "Israel's great domestic challenge is to figure out the balance between allowing cultural autonomy and reinforcing its sovereign authority."

With the one-year trial period about to end, the petitioners say they plan to press the Supreme Court again.

For Ms. Matalon, it might be too late. She says she fears riding the bus and hasn't returned for fear of harassment.

"It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last time," she says.

Title: Fatah fuct, and so is "peace process"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2012, 12:35:40 AM

The cognitive dissonance produced by this article is simply amazing. 

Palestinian Fatah looks ill-prepared for election
 
In this photo taken Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012, Kifah Iwaiwi, a district Fatah party leader speaks at his office in the West Bank City of Hebron. Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian national movement whose survival is key to hopes for a peace deal with Israel, appears ill-prepared for a promised electoral showdown with the Islamic militant Hamas. (AP Photo - Nasser Shiyoukhi)
KARIN LAUB
From Associated Press
January 20, 2012 2:24 AM EST
HEBRON, West Bank (AP) — Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian national movement whose survival is key to hopes for a peace deal with Israel, appears ill-prepared for a promised electoral showdown with the Islamic militant Hamas.

The movement's leaders, blaming Fatah's loss to Hamas in 2006 parliament elections on lack of organization, say this time they've come up with a detailed plan to mobilize supporters and field attractive candidates. But skeptics note the party, known for epic infighting, hasn't even begun looking for a presidential candidate to replace leader Mahmoud Abbas, 76, who says he is retiring.


Some say the movement that once cast itself as a band of swashbuckling revolutionaries needs "rebranding" — its star dimmed after two decades of corruption-tainted rule in the Palestinian autonomy zones and the failure of negotiations with Israel meant to produce an independent state.

In the West Bank's largest city of Hebron, district party leader Kifah Iwaiwi said he spent much of the past four years on the job apologizing for the past misbehavior of Fatah members. Relying largely on volunteers and donations in the campaign, Iwaiwi said one of Fatah's biggest assets, at least locally, is the ability to solve voters' personal problems because of its ties to the Palestinian Authority.

Fatah and Hamas — after several years of running rival governments in the West Bank and Gaza — agreed in principle to "reconcile" and hold presidential and parliamentary elections by May 2012. Since then, Islamists have emerged victorious in parliamentary elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, feeding a fear that the Palestinian territories — if elections indeed are held — could be next.

A political takeover of the West Bank as well by an unreformed, globally shunned Hamas would isolate the Palestinians, crushing any hopes for peace and a negotiated path to Palestinian independence. It could also mean the end to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of annual foreign aid from the West, which regards Hamas as a terror group.

"Everyone feels that if Fatah falls down again, it's the end," said Iwaiwi. Hebron overwhelmingly voted for the Islamists last time.

Fatah may be helped this time by some disillusionment with Hamas, which seized Gaza by force in 2007. Pollster Khalil Shikaki sees a drop in the Islamists' popularity, from 44 percent in 2006 to 29 percent today — but a fifth of respondents are undecided, and pollsters failed to predict the stunning 2006 upset by Hamas.

The election date is linked to progress in slow-moving reconciliation talks, and Abbas' initial election date of May 4 already seems out of reach.

Central Elections Commission director Hisham Kheil said he still awaits Hamas permission to update voter records in Gaza, a process of some six weeks. Elections would be held about three months after preparations are completed, with the date set in a presidential degree by Abbas.

The delay has raised questions about whether Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal are genuinely committed to elections. They announced again last month that they are ready to end the split, but the goodwill gestures promised at the time, such as releasing political detainees and lifting travel bans, have not been carried out. They plan to meet again in Cairo in early February.

Each faces some opposition in their movements, and power-sharing comes at a steep price, especially for Abbas who would lose international support by bringing Hamas into the fold.

Abbas has told Fatah's 22-member decision-making Central Committee repeatedly that he is serious about retiring and moving forward with elections, and that the party had better find a presidential candidate.

But polls show that only Abbas could defeat a Hamas candidate, and that his lieutenants — except senior Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, imprisoned by Israel — would win minimal voter support.

Meanwhile, the party is arguing over how to choose the candidates for parliament. Chaotic primaries in 2006 were blamed for Fatah's defeat: many of those who weren't picked in the primaries ran as independents and split the vote, helping Hamas candidates win certain districts.

The Central Committee wants to skip primaries this time and pick the candidates, said Mohammed Madani, head of Fatah's election campaign.

Such a decision, however, would antagonize those seeking a more democratic process, including party elders who advocate choosing the candidates for president and parliament in a convention, not in back rooms.

"Fatah lost the last election due to an accumulation of errors. I do not see that it has learned from its mistakes," said Nabil Amr, one of the party elders who have been sidelined.

Shikaki's latest poll puts Fatah ahead of Hamas by 43 to 29 percent, with 11 percent backing other factions and 17 percent undecided. In the presidential race Abbas tops Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas by 55 to 37 percent. Jailed Fatah icon Barghouti would defeat a Hamas candidate with 54 percent, while senior Abbas aide Saeb Erekat would lose with just 7 percent. The mid-December survey of 1,260 carried an error margin of 3 percentage points.


No one knows quite what to make of the polls.

Many believe Islamist support — as elsewhere throughout the Arab world — may be under-measured systematically in such surveys. In the West Bank specifically, Hamas backers may not always be honest about their political leanings because of the ongoing crackdown on the Islamists by Abbas' security forces.

With all the uncertainty, Abbas and Mashaal could also keep postponing the election.

Hamas is confident of victory, but fears that it would be a pointless one if, just as in 2006, its West Bank candidates are harassed and arrested by Israel. Abbas might come under growing pressure from Fatah to call off the vote, as he did in 2010 when he canceled local elections after it became apparent his party would lose.

Title: Still wishfull magical thinking
Post by: ccp on February 03, 2012, 12:03:50 PM

Analysis: Media frenzy on Iran contradicts reality By YAAKOV KATZ 01/31/2012 02:58 Media preoccupation with Iran contradicts new reality forged by sanctions.  By REUTERS
Here is an example of just how tightly wound the media is when it comes to anything related to Iran these days.

On Sunday night, CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a piece on US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in which he said it would take about a year for Iran to build a nuclear bomb from the moment it makes the decision to do so.

Related: •'Iran renaming ships to circumvent sanctions'•Inspectors arrive in Iran on day of oil ban voteAll of the Israeli news sites – and several international ones as well – went wild. Some put up Panetta’s remarks as their top story leaving it there for a number of hours. What they didn’t realize though is that Panetta made the remarks in December when he was interviewed by anchorman Scott Pelley, and that the same comment on Iran was aired already back then and picked up widely by the same media.

On the other hand, one could ask what difference does it make if the media recycles the same exact story that it wrote a month ago especially now, when chances for an Israeli strike against Iran in the coming year are increasing as Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman predicted in his recent piece in The New York Times Magazine.

The truth is that the pace of the reports coming out of the American media in recent weeks about Iran is almost breathtaking.

First was Bergman’s piece, which opened with the dramatic description of Defense Minister Ehud Barak peering out the window of his luxury apartment in the Akirov Towers in Tel Aviv at the lights below while warning that Iran’s ultimate goal is to destroy the State of Israel.



Then came a report in the same paper that Israel cast doubt on the notion that a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic war. The message – it can be done and won’t be so bad.

Next, was The Washington Post report that the US was sending a floating commando base to the Persian Gulf just a week after sending an aircraft carrier through the volatile Strait of Hormuz.

Contrary to popular thinking though, Israel has yet to make an official decision on whether or not it will attack Iran, and there is already some talk within the defense establishment’s upper echelons of the possibility that due to the increased sanctions – particularly the European’s oil embargo – such a standoff might even be postponed, possibly sometime into next year.

In general, Israel’s strategy has been the same since it began the saber-rattling and beating of the war drums in late October ahead of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran: threaten to use military force in order to ultimately not to have to.

The strategy employed by Israel was disclosed by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan in a US diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks in late 2010 but still for the most part remains the same with the focus still on sanctions, diplomacy, covert measures and, of course, on the credible threat to use military force.

The current state of Iran’s nuclear program is such that Tehran has mastered the fuel cycle and uranium enrichment process and has developed all of the necessary components it would require to build a bomb. All it needs to do now is decide to built it.

The question is if they will.

The defense establishment hopes that the sanctions, covert acts and the credible threat of action by the US and Israel will succeed in delaying Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from having to make that decision in the near future. If it does, then the question that would appear on the Israeli government’s table – to attack or not to – will also be pushed off.

The objective of a military strike – whether launched by Israel or the US – would be similar to that of the sanctions and the covert measures taken by the West. According to most assessments, no matter who attacks, the damage will set the Iranians back just for a number of years, during which time the regime will likely be able to rebuild its capabilities and have more domestic legitimacy to do so.

While Israel is satisfied with the world’s continued crackdown on Iran, it is still not enough. Iran is continuing to enrich uranium and to install centrifuges in the new heavily- fortified Fordow facility near Qom.

The first way to escalate would be for the EU to enact the ban on Iranian oil immediately and not to wait until July. The second step would be for the US and the EU to impose direct sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, a move that would definitely cripple the Iranian economy.

While skeptical, Israel believes that only this combination would succeed in getting the Iranians to make the decision on their own to stop. The rationale is quite simple – the Iranians have been defying the West for years while they worked on the bomb. Now, they are so close that it will be difficult to get them to simply walk away.

This does not mean that if it comes down to it, Israel is not prepared to take military action. According to the slew of recent reports, the contrary is probably true. Either way, it will do everything it can to delay that day from arriving.

Title: WSJ: Another blurred red line?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 09, 2012, 01:30:03 PM

How should the Obama Administration respond to the news that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signed a deal with Hamas to form a unity government? In 2009, Hillary Clinton was unequivocal. The U.S. "will not deal with, nor in any way fund, a Palestinian government that included Hamas," said the Secretary of State, unless Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel.

That stern finger isn't wagging now. "We are not going to give a grade to this thing until we have a chance to talk to Palestinian Authority leaders about the implications," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, along with the usual throat-clearing about U.S. red lines. She added that the deal was an "internal matter" for Palestinians.

Which is true. What's also true is that the U.S. has budgeted some $500 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) for the current fiscal year, plus another $232 million for the U.N. welfare agency that deals with the descendants of Palestinian refugees. U.S. law prohibits aid to any Palestinian government that includes Hamas. The question for the Administration is whether it will abide by the law—or search for a legal loophole.

That loophole might be a government of supposedly nonpartisan technocrats on whom both factions can agree. This week's agreement, reached under Qatari auspices, takes one step in that direction by naming Mr. Abbas to succeed Salam Fayyad as prime minister while retaining his post as president. After that, however, the details of the plan become vague. Question: Would the U.S. continue to fund and train a Palestinian security apparatus that merges with Hamas's paramilitary units? Let's hope not.

The Administration may want to put that question to the side and hope for the best—or else for this deal to fall apart, as other deals have in the past. But eventually the U.S. will have to make some determination about the utility of funding a Palestinian government that scorns negotiations with Israel and rarely bothers to pay even lip service to U.S. interests.

So it was last year with the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations (which failed thanks to the Administration) and later at Unesco (which succeeded despite it). We're assuming there's a limit to how often even the Obama Administration is prepared to be spurned.

It may not be too late for the U.S. to tell the Palestinians that they cannot bring a terrorist organization into government while continuing to expect American money and sympathy. But that would require sharp and public statements from Mrs. Clinton and President Obama of the kind they have used to rebuke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Administration likes to tout itself as the best friend Israel has ever had. Its attitude toward Palestinian "reconciliation" is a test of that boast.

Title: Palestinian calls for non-violent protest
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 22, 2012, 07:11:45 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/peaceful-protest-can-free-palestine.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

OVER the past 64 years, Palestinians have tried armed struggle; we have tried negotiations; and we have tried peace conferences. Yet all we have seen is more Israeli settlements, more loss of lives and resources, and the emergence of a horrifying system of segregation.

Khader Adnan, a Palestinian held in an Israeli prison, pursued a different path. Despite his alleged affiliation with the militant group Islamic Jihad, he waged a peaceful hunger strike to shake loose the consciences of people in Israel and around the world. Mr. Adnan chose to go unfed for more than nine weeks and came close to death. He endured for 66 days before ending his hunger strike on Tuesday in exchange for an Israeli agreement to release him as early as April 17.

Mr. Adnan has certainly achieved an individual victory. But it was also a broader triumph — unifying Palestinians and highlighting the power of nonviolent protest. Indeed, all Palestinians who seek an independent state and an end to the Israeli occupation would be wise to avoid violence and embrace the example of peaceful resistance.

Mr. Adnan was not alone in his plight. More than 300 Palestinians are currently held in “administrative detention.” No charges have been brought against them; they must contend with secret evidence; and they do not get their day in military court.

Britain’s practices in Northern Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s were not so different from Israel’s today — and they elicited a similarly rebellious spirit from the subjugated population. In 1981, Bobby Sands, an imprisoned member of the Irish Republican Army, died 66 days after beginning a hunger strike to protest Britain’s treatment of political prisoners. Mr. Sands was elected to Parliament during his strike; nine other hunger strikers died before the end of 1981; and their cases drew worldwide attention to the plight of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Just as Margaret Thatcher, then the British prime minister, unsympathetically dismissed Mr. Sands as a “convicted criminal,” Israeli officials have accused Mr. Adnan of being an active member of Islamic Jihad. But if this is the case, Israel should prove it in court.

Mr. Adnan’s actions over the past nine weeks demonstrated that he was willing to give his life — nonviolently and selflessly — to advance Palestinian freedom. Others must now show similar courage.

What is needed is a Palestinian version of the Arab revolutions that have swept the region: a mass movement demanding freedom, dignity, a just peace, real democracy and the right to self-determination. We must take the initiative, practice self-reliance and pursue a form of nonviolent struggle that we can sustain without depending on others to make decisions for us or in our place.

In the last several years, Palestinians have organized peaceful protests against the concrete and wire “separation barrier” that pens us into what are best described as bantustans. We have sought to mobilize popular resistance to this wall by following in the nonviolent traditions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas K. Gandhi — and we remain determined to sustain peaceful protest even when violently attacked.

Using these techniques, we have already succeeded in pressuring the Israeli government to reroute the wall in villages like Jayyous and Bilin and helped hundreds of Palestinians get their land back from settlers or the Israeli Army.

Our movement is not intended to delegitimize Israel, as the Israeli government claims. It is, instead, a movement to delegitimize the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which we believe is the last surviving apartheid system in the world. It is a movement that could free Palestinians from nearly 45 years of occupation and Israelis from being part of the last colonial-settler system of our time.

I remember the days when some political leaders of the largest Palestinian political parties, Al Fatah and Hamas, laughed at our nonviolent struggle, which they saw as soft and ineffective. But the turning point came in the summer of 2008, when we managed to break the Israeli naval siege of Gaza with small boats. Suddenly, I saw great respect in the eyes of the same leaders who had doubted the power of nonviolence but finally recognized its potential.

The power of nonviolence is that it gives Palestinians of all ages and walks of life the tools to challenge those subjugating us. And thousands of peace activists from around the world have joined our movement. In demonstrations in East Jerusalem, Silwan and Hebron we are also being joined by a new and younger Israeli peace movement that categorically rejects Israeli occupation.

Unfortunately, continuing Israeli settlement activity could soon lead us to the point of no return. Indeed, if we do not soon achieve a genuinely independent Palestinian state, we will be forced to press instead for a single democratic state with equal rights and responsibilities for both Palestinians and Israelis.

We are not sure how long it will take before our nonviolent struggle achieves its goal. But we are sure of one thing: it will succeed, and Palestinians will one day be free.

Mustafa Barghouthi, a doctor and member of the Palestinian Parliament, is secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 22, 2012, 10:31:50 AM

"What is needed is a Palestinian version of the Arab revolutions that have swept the region: a mass movement demanding freedom, dignity, a just peace, real democracy and the right to self-determination. We must take the initiative, practice self-reliance and pursue a form of nonviolent struggle that we can sustain without depending on others to make decisions for us or in our place."

 Well all you need do is recognize Israel "guarantee" a peaceful co-existence and you won't have to go on hunger strikes.

 

Title: WSJ: Harvard at it again , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 29, 2012, 06:43:14 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203960804577244932732348366.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on February 29, 2012, 06:53:55 PM

I can't read the link.  For those of us poor people who read your forum and don't subscribe and pay for the WSJ (I read it elsewhere); may I suggest you post the whole article rather than a link?
Otherwise, many of us, and many in the future will not be able to read it.  This is an issue that is becoming more and more relevant. 

Title: Obama at AIPAC
Post by: bigdog on March 04, 2012, 04:46:10 PM

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-plays-hawk-in-chief-on-iran-20120304?page=1

Title: Why Israel has doubts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2012, 05:02:04 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257191372525750.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
By DAN SENOR
'I try not to pat myself too much on the back," President Barack Obama immodestly told a group of Jewish donors last October, "but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration."

Mr. Obama struck a similar tone at the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in Washington Sunday, assuring the group that "I have Israel's back." And it's little wonder why. Monday he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid growing concern that a military strike will be necessary to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. He also knows that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote when he publicly pressured Israel to commence negotiations with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders with land swaps. With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.

It is true that there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense programs, the bulk of which comes from Mr. Obama maintaining a 10-year commitment made by President George W. Bush to Israel's government in 2007.

But a key element of Israel's security is deterrence. That deterrence rests on many parts, including the perception among its adversaries that Israel will defend itself, and that if Israel must take action America will stand by Israel. Now consider how Israel's adversaries must view this deterrence capability in recent months:

October 2011: Speaking to reporters traveling with him to Israel, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta raised provocative questions about Israel. "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?"

This characterization of self-created isolation surprised Israeli officials. After all, for almost three years President Obama had pressured Israel to make unilateral concessions in the peace process. And his administration had publicly confronted Israel's leaders, making unprecedented demands for a complete settlement freeze—which Israel met in 2010.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (left) with Barack Obama.
.The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity. Thus, having helped foment an image of Israeli obstinacy, the Obama administration was now using this image of isolation against Israel's government. Mr. Panetta's criticism was promptly endorsed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a harsh critic of Israel, who said Mr. Panetta was "correct in his assumptions." Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.

November 2011: In advance of meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mr. Panetta publicly previewed his message. He would warn Mr. Barak against a military strike on Iran's nuclear program: "There are going to be economic consequences . . . that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy." Even if the administration felt compelled to deliver this message privately, why undercut the perception of U.S.-Israel unity on the military option?

That same month, an open microphone caught part of a private conversation between Mr. Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. Sarkozy said of Israel's premier, "I can't stand Netanyahu. He's a liar." Rather than defend Israel's back, Mr. Obama piled on: "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day."

December 2011: Again undercutting the credibility of the Israeli military option, Mr. Panetta used a high-profile speech to challenge the idea that an Israeli strike could eliminate or substantially delay Iran's nuclear program, and he warned that "the United States would obviously be blamed."

Mr. Panetta also addressed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by lecturing Israel to "just get to the damn table." This, despite the fact that Israel had been actively pursuing direct negotiations with the Palestinians, only to watch the Palestinian president abandon talks and unilaterally pursue statehood at the U.N. The Obama team thought the problem was with Israel?

January 2012: In an interview, Mr. Obama referred to Prime Minister Erdogan as one of the five world leaders with whom he has developed "bonds of trust." According to Mr. Obama, these bonds have "allowed us to execute effective diplomacy." The Turkish government had earlier sanctioned a six-ship flotilla to penetrate Israel's naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Mr. Erdogan had said that Israel's defensive response was "cause for war."

February 2012: At a conference in Tunis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about Mr. Obama pandering to "Zionist lobbies." She acknowledged that it was "a fair question" and went on to explain that during an election season "there are comments made that certainly don't reflect our foreign policy."


In an interview last week with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama dismissed domestic critics of his Israel policy as "a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge . . . between Barack Obama and the Jewish American vote." But what's glaring is how many of these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.

Last December, New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez lambasted administration officials at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He had proposed sanctions on Iran's central bank and the administration was hurling a range of objections. "Published reports say we have about a year," said Mr. Menendez. "So I find it pretty outrageous that when the clock is ticking . . . you come here and say what you say."

Also last year, a number of leading Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer, felt compelled to speak out in response to Mr. Obama's proposal for Israel to return to its indefensible pre-1967 borders. Rep. Eliot Engel told CNN that "for the president to emphasize that . . . was a very big mistake."

In April 2010, 38 Democratic senators signed a critical letter to Secretary Clinton following the administration's public (and private) dressing down of the Israeli government.

Sen. Charles Schumer used even stronger language in 2010 when he responded to "something I have never heard before," from the Obama State Department, "which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is a dagger."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, said of Mr. Obama last year, "I think he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has encouraged Israel's enemies, and really unsettled the Israelis."

Election-year politics may bring some short-term improvements in the U.S. relationship with Israel. But there's concern that a re-elected President Obama, with no more votes or donors to court, would be even more aggressive in his one-sided approach toward Israel.

If Mr. Obama wants a pat on the back, he should make it clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that he will stand by Israel if it must act. He came one step closer to that stance on Sunday when he told Aipac, "Iran's leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs." Let's hope this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.

Mr. Senor, co-author with Saul Singer of "Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle" (Twelve, 2011), served as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003-04, and is currently an adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

Title: Re: Israel and an Arab Justice
Post by: bigdog on March 06, 2012, 04:59:12 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/world/middleeast/anger-and-compassion-for-justice-who-stays-silent-during-zionist-hymn.html

Politics and the Israeli Supreme Court. 

Title: Dershowitz/Chomsky on Israel/Palestinian problem
Post by: ccp on March 06, 2012, 06:07:31 AM

From 2008 so not new:
(I haven't read most of it yet - no time right now)
http://chomsky.info/debates/20051129.htm

Title: POTH: Pro-Israel Groups differ on Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2012, 06:35:05 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/world/pro-israel-groups-differing-approaches-on-iran.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120319

WASHINGTON — Even before President Obama declared this month that “I have Israel’s back” in its escalating confrontation with Iran, pro-Israel figures like the evangelical Christian leader Gary L. Bauer and the conservative commentator William Kristol were pushing for more.

Gary Bauer, a conservative Christian leader who seeks strong action on Iran, says Mr. Obama’s “record on Israel is abysmal.”

In a slickly produced, 30-minute video, the group that the two men lead, the Emergency Committee for Israel, mocked Mr. Obama’s “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security” and attacked his record on Iran as weak. “I’ll be brutally honest: I don’t trust the president on Israel,” Mr. Bauer, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, said in an interview. “I think his record on Israel is abysmal.”

With Israeli leaders warning of an existential threat from Iran and openly discussing the possibility of attacking its nuclear facilities, pro-Israel groups on all sides have mobilized to make their views known to the Obama administration and to Congress. But it is the most hawkish voices, like the Emergency Committee’s, that have dominated the debate, and, in the view of some critics, pushed the United States closer to taking military action against Iran and another war in the Middle East.

“It’s not about Israel,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, the House majority leader and a key Congressional ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

“It’s about the U.S.,” Mr. Cantor said in an interview. “It’s about our interests in the region. There have been a lot of conflicting messages coming out of the White House.”

Among those advocating a more aggressive approach toward Iran are prominent Republicans in Congress, like Mr. Cantor and Senator John McCain of Arizona; the party’s presidential candidates; groups like the Emergency Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac; the so-called “neocons” from the George W. Bush administration who were strong proponents of the war in Iraq; pro-Israel evangelical Christians like Mr. Bauer, who is also active in the group Christians United for Israel; and many Democrats.

Urging diplomacy are liberal groups like J Street, which is helped by $500,000 a year in contributions from the liberal philanthropist George Soros, and Tikkun, a Jewish journal that has begun running newspaper advertisements here and abroad that urge, “NO War on Iran and NO First Strike!” Tikkun, based in Berkeley, Calif., is hoping to link its antiwar message with the Occupy protests.

“A lot of people talk about the ‘Israel lobby’ as if it’s a monolithic thing,” said Dylan Williams, head of government affairs for J Street. “It’s a myth. There is a deep division between those who support military action at this point and those who support diplomacy.”

Clear fissures have developed among pro-Israel groups — not only between hawks and doves over whether to use military force against Iran, but among hard-liners themselves over just how aggressively to confront it.

Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner who is a staunch supporter of Israel, was once a major donor to Aipac. But because of Aipac’s support for American aid to the Palestinian Authority, he has broken from the group. This year, Mr. Adelson has given at least $10 million, along with his wife, to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, Mr. Gingrich has pushed for stronger support of Israel and attacked Mr. Obama’s policies on the Iranian issue as weak. He also described the Palestinians as an “invented people.”

The disagreements over what to do about Iran reflect the divisions among Jews themselves. In a survey of American Jews last September by the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group, 56 percent of those polled said they would support American military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions failed, while 38 percent opposed it. Support was down slightly from a year earlier.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, a leader of Tikkun and an affiliated antiwar coalition of religious groups, said backers of diplomacy want to slow what they have seen as a “drumbeat to war” in recent weeks. Rabbi Lerner and other opponents of military action say the debate over Iran echoes the political climate in 2002 before the United States-led invasion in Iraq.

Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat (whom POTH fails to mention is Muslim) who opposes military action against Iran, said, “The rhetoric is overblown.”

Those advocating military intervention “whip up fear and whip up doomsday scenarios,” Mr. Ellison said in an interview. “It has an effect. If nothing else, they’re making Obama talk about military options with regard to Iran.”

But Mr. Ellison is in the minority on Capitol Hill, where the debate over Israel and Iran was largely settled long ago.



cont.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 19, 2012, 08:21:39 AM

There is also the obvious trend for those Jews who are against military action to be invested in Obama and the Democrat party elections.

Title: Egypt designates Israel its top enemy & Baraq restores military aid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 21, 2012, 06:29:55 PM

Egypt Designates Israel Its Top Enemy — Obama Restores Military Aid
________________________________________
Egypt’s parliament, which is dominated by two pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, voted unanimously last Monday to expel Israel’s ambassador to Egypt, and signaled that the Camp David Accords would soon be a thing of the past: Egypt, the parliamentarians declared, would “never” be Israel’s ally. In fact, Israel was Egypt’s “number one enemy.” And how did Barack Obama respond to this egregious trampling upon the agreement that has kept an uneasy peace between Israel and Egypt for thirty years? By announcing a resumption of military aid to Egypt.

From the beginning of the “Arab Spring,” I said repeatedly that it was not a democracy movement, as the Western press was claiming, but an Islamic supremacist takeover that would result in the creation of Sharia states that would be far more hostile to the U.S. and Israel than the Arab nationalist regimes they were supplanting. This assessment was greeted with the usual scorn: the Islamic supremacist media machine charged “Islamophobia,” on Fox Juan Williams said I was “fearmongering,” and the usual suspects made the usual ad hominem attacks. Yet everything that has happened since then has shown that the “Arab Spring” is indeed an Islamic supremacist winter, ushering in repressive Sharia regimes with the enthusiastic blessing of Barack Obama.

Yet even as Egypt’s Islamic supremacists rattle their sabers, their spokesmen, allies and useful idiots in the American mainstream media continue to peddle their soothing lies. The Islamic supremacist and adolescent mudslinger Reza Aslan was at West Virginia University last week speaking about the developments in the Middle East, and heaping more steaming piles of what he calls analysis on the hapless marks in his audience. “Believe it or not,” Aslan said, and anyone with eyes in his head will opt for “not,” “the greatest single aspiration in the region at this moment is to achieve democracy.” Slyly implying that those who have cast doubts on this alleged wonderful flowering of democracy are motivated by racism, he continued: “It does not matter where you pray or what skin color you were born with; democracy is a fundamental right of life.” He also, according to the report on his talk in the campus paper, “aimed to debunk that the Arab Spring is an Islamic takeover. This myth is simply an American paradox due to the primary belief that we live in a secular country that easily separates church and state, he said.” Ah yes, of course. “There is not much difference between us and them,” Aslan said. “These groups now have the opportunity to come out of the mosque and to market ideas and see how they can come to life in reality.”

Yes, “there is not much difference between us and them.” After all, we all want to cover women in burqas and enslave them to their husbands, brutalize and terrorize non-Muslims, murder apostates from Islam, and extinguish the freedom of speech, don’t we? And apparently one way these Egyptian parliamentarians hope to “come to life in reality” is by crucifying people and amputating their limbs. Yet as always, it doesn’t matter how outstandingly wrong and deceptive politically correct spokesmen are. It doesn’t matter that none of their predictions ever come true, or that everything they said was nothing to be concerned about turns out to be a matter of major concern. There is never any accountability for them at all — that a clown like Reza Aslan gets invited to speak at any university at all, while those who are consistently correct are demonized and marginalized, is a measure of how debased and politicized American academia and the public square in general have become.

Aslan also complained in January that “pundits and politicians are already ringing the alarm bells. The common refrain you hear in the US: The Middle East is being overrun with religious radicals bent on oppressing women and destroying Israel. That is nonsense, of course. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that political Islam will be a force in the new, democratic Middle East. And that is a good thing.” His comment on Egypt’s designation of Israel as its “number one enemy” was not recorded, but Aslan is no stupider or more malevolent than many other mainstream media and government spokesmen who assured us that the “Arab Spring” would bring a new flowering of freedom to the Middle East and North Africa. And chief among these was Barack Obama himself.

Speaking about the Libyan revolution in March, Barack Obama hailed “the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny,” and also praised “the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia and in Egypt.” Now, as Egypt rushes headlong toward becoming a Sharia state and going to war with Israel, Obama is giving his blessing to the anti-Israel, anti-America forces he is largely responsible for unleashing.

Obama’s abandonment of the undeniably repulsive Mubarak regime paved the way for the ascendancy of the forces now in control in Egypt. Mubarak and his predecessors Anwar Sadat and Gamel Abdel Nasser kept a lid on the Muslim Brotherhood and other forces of Islamic fanaticism for decades. Now that they are gone, it is unlikely that the peace that Sadat concluded with Israel back in the 1970s will long survive.

According to a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 54% of Egyptians want to scrap the Camp David accords that have kept an uneasy peace with Israel since 1979—in yet another blow to the credibility of Obama and all the analysts and commentators who assured the American people that the Egyptian uprising heralded the dawn of a new, secular democracy there. A significant percentage of Egyptians manifest a deeply ingrained Islamic anti-Semitism that leads them to hate Israel—and the Camp David accords—for religious reasons that are embedded within Islam, not political ones that may be susceptible to negotiation, compromise, or even rational consideration.

The resumption of military aid shows that Barack Obama doesn’t seem to mind that hostility one bit. A state can designate Israel its number one enemy and still receive military aid from the United States – military aid that it is almost certain to use against our putative allies in the Middle East, the Israelis.

Obama’s hostility to Israel runs throughout his administration. If he is reelected, and Egypt goes to war with Israel, it is not even certain that the United States would fight on Israel’s side.
Quote:
About Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (Regnery), and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/21/egypt-designates-israel-its-top-enemy-obama-restores-military-aid-to-egypt/

Title: Re: Egypt designates Israel its top enemy & Baraq restores military aid
Post by: G M on March 21, 2012, 06:49:14 PM

Wow. Who could have seen this coming?  :roll:

"But he wore a kippa at AIPAC!"

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 22, 2012, 06:12:03 AM

And let's not forget Hillary has responsibility here. 

The brave champion of women's rights around the world.

I suppose Zakaria will be out in full force this weekend spinning the tale of Obama's brilliance in all this.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 22, 2012, 06:25:17 AM

I bet that tape of Obama's speech at the dinner for Rasheed Khalidi would shed some light on his attitudes towards Israel. I wonder why the LA Times is still hiding it....


Not really.

Title: Israel's ambassador to the UN in the WSJ
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 22, 2012, 06:31:26 AM

Good reminder there GM.

By RON PROSOR
'War is the unfolding of miscalculations." So noted historian Barbara Tuchman decades ago, yet this principle continues to fall on deaf ears in the international community. As terrorism in the Gaza Strip increases, threatening to set off instability across the region, the continued roar of rockets into Israel should keep world leaders up at night. But most remain mute and missing in action.

Their choice to stand idle is a grave miscalculation. The consequences for the region could be tragic.

This month, a targeted strike by the Israel Defense Forces canceled the travel plans of arch-terrorist Zuhair al-Qaisi as he headed from Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula. His itinerary included much more than snorkeling in the Red Sea. He aimed to launch another mass murder of innocent Israelis from the Sinai—and undermine the foundation of regional stability by driving a wedge between Israel and Egypt.

In the five days that followed, terrorists in Gaza stepped up their attacks on Israeli cities to 60 rockets per day (up from a years-long average of "only" two to four a day). As these terrorists sought to maximize civilian deaths, Israel worked to minimize them, with a precise and targeted offensive and defensive response.

Israel's new "Iron Dome" antimissile system intercepted more than 50 rockets over major cities, preventing more than 50 potential tragedies. Israel's Air Force hit Palestinian rocket squads with minimal civilian casualties, even though they had been intentionally using neighborhoods and schools as launching pads.

The situation in Israel's south remains as stable as a house of cards. Rockets continue to fly in from Gaza. Despite its spectacular performance, the Iron Dome is still only 90% effective at its best, whereas the terrorists in Gaza remain 100% determined to kill Israeli civilians. The clock is ticking until the next major escalation.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if rockets fall on your head, you have a right to defend yourself. It's a simple equation. Calm will return to Gaza when rockets stop falling on Israel. However, one rocket that explodes in the wrong place at the wrong time—in a grocery store, shopping mall or school—and Israel will be forced to respond in a completely different manner.

Time and time again, Israel has warned the world that Gaza is a disaster waiting to happen. Yet, over the past decade, the ratio of rocket attacks to words of condemnation from the United Nations Security Council is 12,000 to zero.

Instead of sending a clear message that terrorism in Gaza is a grave danger, much of the international community continues to point fingers at Israel for its legal and legitimate efforts to stop the flood of arms into the area. Energy that could have been spent preserving stability in the region has been diverted to attacking Israel's responsible policies aimed at preventing future escalations.

With the Middle East locked in a struggle for a democratic future, a significant escalation in Gaza would tip the scales toward the fundamentalists. From Marrakech to Manama, it would provide cannon fodder for radical clerics and politicians to promote their hateful ideology. The Arab world would be forced to drop its focus on the atrocities of the Assad regime, giving the region's most cynical eye doctor the opportunity once and for all to blind his people's vision for freedom.

Iran understands this well. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are loading Bashar al-Assad's tanks, funding his government, and training his troops—all while funneling weapons to Hamas and other terrorist proxies in Gaza.

Today, a conflict in Gaza would answer all the prayers of Iran's leaders, distracting the world as they take their final steps toward nuclear capability. For the Iranian regime, every dead Israeli or Palestinian provides an opportunity to install another centrifuge.

The terrorists in Gaza do not pose a threat only to the citizens of southern Israel. Each rocket is armed with a warhead capable of causing a political earthquake that would extend well beyond Israel's borders. Our message to the international community is clear: Your silence is pounding the drums of war.

Mr. Prosor is Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.

Title: Baraq the backstabber
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 05, 2012, 09:40:07 AM

Obama’s Knife in Israel’s Back
Posted By David Meir-Levi On April 5, 2012 @ 12:11 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 9 Comments

In his March 28th article, “Israel’s Secret Staging Ground,” in Foreign Policy, Mark Perry revealed previously secret information about Israel’s dealings with Azerbaijan;  and many are now of the opinion that his article was in reality Obama’s knife in Israel’s back.  According to Perry, four unnamed senior diplomats and military intelligence officers leaked information indicating that Israel has purchased air force bases in Azerbaijan for use in preparation for an attack on Iran.
The likelihood that it is mere coincidence that four senior diplomatic and military intelligence sources separately leaked the same information at the same time is very small.  So John Bolton holds Obama responsible.  Bolton suggests that because Obama’s private efforts to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran have failed, he decided to ratchet up the pressure on Israel by revealing sensitive, secret information that, once available to Iran, will make an Israeli offensive less likely to succeed, and thus be a deterrent to such an offensive.[1]  This is surely not the sort of thing that a head of state does to an ally; but it might be the sort of thing that an unconscionably Machiavellian President running for re-election might do if he perceives that an Israeli strike on Iran might be a political liability for him.
The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry denies any collusion with Israel, and, indeed, Azerbaijan is a rather unlikely ally for the Jewish state; but Wikileaks gives a solid basis for such collusion, the motivation for which may be Azerbaijan’s perception of Iran as an existential enemy.
Some Israeli analysts deride the very idea that Israel could be in league with Azerbaijan for a variety of strategic and tactical, military, logistical and political reasons, including the fact that an Iranian revenge attack on Azerbaijan’s oil production facilities could easily destroy the country’s entire economy.
But these commentators all miss the point.  It does not matter whether or not the information is correct.  Those who leaked it presumably thought that it was.  It does not matter that the President says that he did not knife Israel in the back and has “no interest” in leaks of this kind, or that “…the US is crawling with thousands of intelligenceand former intelligence officials.”  The buck stops at Obama’s desk.  He is the Commander-in-Chief of those thousands.  Yet his response is dismissive, nonchalant, and insouciant:  hardly the appropriate attitude when an ally’s secret defensive plans have been compromised, with potentially existential consequences.
In the context of a broader perspective this incident takes on rather dire dimensions, as it is the latest in a long line of anti-Israel statements and actions originating with Obama or with those working close to him.
This past February Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Iran that he thinks Israel will strike as early as April.  So Israel’s ally tells Israel’s enemy when Israel will strike.  Surely, for Iran, this is “news you can use.”  Was this just a gaff, or was it an intentional leak meant to undermine Israel’s military options?  Panetta answers to Obama, but Obama seems to be insouciant, saying nothing.
Another problem regarding Obama’s silence is the recent flap about a State Department official’s refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel.  This official is not to blame.  She was merely conforming to the directives of her employer, the U.S. Department of State, which, despite Congress’ Jerusalem embassy act of 1995, and the recent Supreme Court decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, continues to ignore U.S. law.   The State Department answers to the President, and the President is silent, insouciant, on this issue.
But he did have something to say about the status of Jerusalem on the White House website. Not too long ago Obama himself ordered the removal of all references to “Jerusalem, Israel” from the White House website, replacing them with “Jerusalem.”  What could be Obama’s motive for divesting Israel of its capital, and Jerusalem of its Jewish state?  Connecting some recent dots will offer an answer to that question.
To a mostly Jewish AIPAC audience on June 4, 2008, front-running Presidential candidate Obama announced that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”     But only a few days later, after being assailed by Arab-American and Palestinian spokespersons, he told a mostly Arab audience that “…it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate.” [2]  To which audience did he lie?
But as the world had already learned a few months earlier, he was willing to divide not only Jerusalem, but all of Israel. In January, 2008, Obama said he supported the division of Israel into two parts by a Palestinian state.[3] This stunning comment came as Obama, struggling to articulate his stance on key Mideast issues, asserted that “The Palestinians have a legitimate concern that a state have a contiguous coherent mass that would allow the state to function effectively.” Was Obama not aware that a land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank would effectively cut Israel in half, making it incoherent and non-contiguous, divided into northern and southern portions? Was this merely the gaff of an inexperienced, flustered and geographically challenged presidential candidate trying to accommodate Arab-American voters, or was Obama stating a priority that presaged a series of later presidential anti-Israel words and deeds?
Looking back a bit further into Obama’s not-too-distant past, one may be able to find the likely answer to these questions.
During his presidential campaign (2007-08) he revealed to the press the names of those to whom he would look for guidance on Middle East issues,  his “brain trust” as it were: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, Bettylu Saltzman, Robert Malley,[4]  and Samantha Power, among others  –  a dream team for the anti-Israel crowd at home and abroad.  Given his choice of advisors, it was not difficult to predict that he would be no friend of Israel.
And speaking of advisors, let’s recall Obama’s mentor and spiritual guide, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright who glad-handed and honored the notorious anti-Israel and anti-Jewish and anti-homosexual Louis Farrakhan, and who is still active in anti-Israel activities with his most recent participation in the planning of the “Global March on Jerusalem” (GMJ).  Did Obama sit in Wright’s fire-and-brimstone anti-Israel church and never inhale?
It is also important to recall Obama’s comfort and conviviality with Arab and Arab-American anti-Israel leaders[5], some of whom saw him as a friend of “Palestine” whom they could trust to take strong pro-Palestinian positions once in the White House.  Such leaders included the likes of Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah.  Obama’s attendance at a vociferously anti-Israel celebration with these and other Palestinian-American leaders back in 2003 was apparently something of a political embarrassment to Obama during his election campaign, so much so that The Los Angeles Times withheld the video of his participation.
It was at this event that Obama is said to have told Ali Abunimah not to press him about Palestinian issues, explaining that he would be able to do more for the Palestinians once he is elected a U.S. Senator.  Obama later denied saying that, but Abunimah never publicly retracted the statement and alluded to it several times in public appearanceswhere he expressed his disappointment in Obama’s positive statements about Israel.
Obama’s comment to Abunimah was an eerie precursor to his recent “hot mike” gaff with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  Just as he did not want his voting constituency to know what he planned to do for the Palestinians once elected to the U.S. Senate, so too does he not want the American public to know what sort of flexibility toward Russia he looks forward to, regarding missile defenses, once elected to his second term as President.  Obviously in both cases the nature of this post-election flexibility is something that, if known, would reduce his chances of being elected.
Given the above, it may be premature to suggest that Obama wants Iran to win, but clearly he wants Israel to lose.
Notes:
[1] See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2c7340%2cL-4209836%2c00.html for a comprehensive summary of the damage that this leak may cause for Israel.  For the most detailed, in-depth and objective summary and analysis of the issue of why an Israeli attack on Iran may create problems for the USA and constitute a liability for the President see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R42443.pdf .
[2] The video of that speech is no longer available on line but see excerpts at http://obamalies.net/obama-flip-flops-on-jeruselem.html ; and for the flip-flop when speaking to Arab audiences see:  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/obama-backtracks-on-jerusalem.html and http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/05/another-obama-flip-flop-jerusalem/.
[3] Originally published with video in Israel Insider, Jan. 29, 2008.  The article and video are no longer on line, but available at http://focusonjerusalem.com/newsroom90.html .
[4] But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Malley for a summary of his defenders on the issue of his attitude toward Israel.
[5] For details of Obama’s connections to radical Islam, CAIR and Farrakhan see http://www.danielpipes.org/5983/obama-would-fail-security-clearance;http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/10/more-on-the-links-between-obama-and ; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29709_Terrorist_Fundraisers_for_Obama; andhttp://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3602 (for his wife’s connections too).

Title: Re: Baraq the backstabber
Post by: G M on April 05, 2012, 09:54:59 AM

Wow. Who could have seen this coming?  :roll:

Title: Broken Promises
Post by: JDN on April 10, 2012, 09:07:56 PM

And you wonder why Israel consistently gets bad press.....


latimes.com

Israel tries to save West Bank settlements it vowed to dismantle

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approach appears designed to avoid eviction of Jewish settlers and appease conservative lawmakers.

By Edmund Sanders, Los Angeles Times

4:01 PM PDT, April 10, 2012

advertisement

JERUSALEM —Israel's government is scrambling to find ways to save some of the unauthorized West Bank settlements it once promised to dismantle, including some that are built partly on private Palestinian land.

The new strategy seeks to retroactively legalize some outposts and, in other cases, relocate Jewish settlers to nearby land that is not privately owned, in effect creating what critics say would be the first new West Bank settlements in years.

The approach by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government appears designed to avoid the need to carry out high-profile military evictions of settlers in order to appease conservative lawmakers, who have accused Netanyahu of betraying the settlers' cause.

But it raises questions about past promises by the succession of Israeli governments — to Palestinians, the international community and Israel's own Supreme Court — to stop building new settlements and evacuate many of the illegal outposts, particularly those built on Palestinian land without official Israeli authorization.

Though most of the world views all Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal, Israel makes a distinction between settlements it has approved and those, known as outposts, that arose over the last 20 years. Most are small communities of ideological religious families who put up temporary housing without the permission of the Defense Ministry. Though the government labels them illegal, it also provides implicit support in the form of security, roads, electricity and other infrastructure.

The fate of these approximately 100 outposts was thrust back into the spotlight last month when the Supreme Court reiterated an order that Migron, the largest outpost in the West Bank, be evacuated this year, though it delayed the deadline to August. In doing so, the court rejected a government request to delay eviction for three years more while settlers are relocated about a mile away.

A few other outposts are also facing demolition deadlines in the coming months in response to court challenges by Palestinian landowners and anti-settlement activists.

Facing a backlash from settler groups and right-wing politicians over the impending evacuations, Netanyahu announced this month that he was committed to "strengthening" Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He ordered his attorney general to search for ways to legalize three other unauthorized outposts — Bruchin, Sansana and Rechelim — and to block the planned demolition of a fourth, Givat Haulpana, near the West Bank settlement of Beit El.

The decision marked a reversal for the government, which previously assured the Supreme Court that it would dismantle Givat Haulpana by May because it was built on private Palestinian land.

Palestinians said Netanyahu's support of settlement expansion and the government's continued approval of new housing permits suggest that Israel is not serious about resurrecting the peace process. Netanyahu is scheduled to meet this week with Palestinian officials in an attempt to restart negotiations, but the Palestinians say they won't resume talks without a settlement freeze.

Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers are proposing legislation that would prevent the future dismantling of most existing outposts built on private Palestinian land by requiring Palestinian landowners to accept monetary compensation in lieu of the property.

Critics say the government's actions violate both the spirit of peace accords, including the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2002 U.S-sponsored "road map," and of explicit promises made to the Supreme Court in recent years.

"Legalizing these outposts would be a frontal assault on the Oslo accords and road map," said Israeli attorney Michael Sfard, who represents Palestinian landowners and the anti-settlement group Peace Now.

"Because of the absence of a peace process and significant American pressure, ideas that only six months ago were unheard-of are becoming a political reality," Sfard said. Israel is using the four outpost cases included in Netanyahu's order last week as "trial balloons" to gauge international reaction, he said. "So far the silence from the international community is just fueling the right-wing radicalization process in the government."

Netanyahu has defended the steps as legal and necessary to bolster Jewish communities in the West Bank. Government officials denied that their plans would violate the law or harm the peace process.

"If there is a legal solution or a possibility to legalize in certain places, then it will be done," said government spokesman Ofir Gendelman. He denied that the plans would violate the law or harm the peace process.

"I don't think we gave any promises to the Palestinians regarding outposts," Gendelman said, despite Israel's agreement under the road map to dismantle some outposts. "We have always made clear that settlements are an issue that can be resolved through negotiation."

He stressed that so far the policy affects only a few outposts, none included in the 2002 pledge. Most of those outposts are still standing.

The government first laid out the principles of its outpost policy in court filings over the last year. Before that, a succession of Israeli governments had lacked a clear, consistent strategy for coping with the sites.

In January, Netanyahu appointed a special committee to investigate the issue of outposts and make recommendations.

Aides said the prime minister was pursuing a strategy that involves legalizing outposts on land where no Palestinians have proved ownership. In cases where outposts are deemed to be located on private Palestinian land, the government is seeking voluntary relocation agreements with settlers and offering to move them at its expense to nearby land, often near existing settlements.

In the case of Migron, the government hopes to move about 50 families to land about a mile away. A similar agreement was made in December to move about half a dozen trailers in Ramat Gilad and reclassify the outpost as part of a nearby settlement.

Critics call the plan a shell game that will result in new settlements.

Anti-settlement expert Dror Etkes, who has advised the Palestinian Authority and others, credited the lawsuits in Israeli courts for pushing the government to finally take action on illegal outposts and clarify its stance. But the outpost opponents' efforts might backfire, he said, if the government's new tactics result in a net gain of settlements.

He predicted that in Migron, for example, settlers would move to a nearby temporary location first and ultimately a third permanent site, and the government is pledging nearly $7 million to build them new homes and roads.

"We could just end up with more settlements overall," Etkes said, adding that he doubted that the original Palestinian landowners would ever regain their property. "Sometimes you might find yourself in a position where you win legally but lose politically."

edmund.sanders@latimes.com

Title: Re: Broken Promises
Post by: G M on April 11, 2012, 07:07:17 AM

And you wonder why Israel consistently gets bad press.....

I don't. Anti-semites such as yourself look for any opportunity to Jew-bash. Funny how real atrocities in the region don't evoke your concern. I guess if you can't attack Israel, it holds no interest for you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on April 11, 2012, 09:01:27 AM

One side threatens death, destruction and sends missiles into neighborhoods to prove they are serious - no comment.
The other side delays or refuses to kick private citizens out of their own homes - outrage.

To each his own conclusion.  Did I miss any relevant facts?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on April 11, 2012, 09:24:57 AM

Quote from: DougMacG on April 11, 2012, 09:01:27 AM

The other side delays or refuses to kick private citizens out of their own homes - outrage.

To each his own conclusion.  Did I miss any relevant facts?

Yeah, I think you did ignore the facts.

If a private citizen squatted illegally in one of your buildings Doug, would you kick them out?  Would it be
outrageous of me to say that I agree; you should kick them out? 

Not to mention that the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that these "homes" are illegal.  Or would you support
the squatters and the governments attempt to keep the squatters in your building against law?

Or that international governmental promises were made that are are now being broken for political reasons....

Knowing you Doug, if I had to guess, you would be in an uproar if these squatters were in your building against court rulings
and international law, but supported by your government.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 11, 2012, 09:46:08 AM

Removing those settlements "100 or so" won't change a thing.  It is all a ruse to continue bashing the Israelis.
No one who is serious can believe that if these settlers squaters "illegal" intruders or whatever anyone wants to call them, leave, then Iran/hezbellah and much of Hamas, and  Muslim Brotherhood will give up their intention to wipe the Jews off the map.

And Doug is right.  All that is ignored and many including you harp on a few thousand settlers.

Obama and his Black Muslim and other Jewish hating friends agree with you.

The American liberal Jews who support him are more interested in the Democrat party than the survival of Israel in my opinion.

Apparantly many American Jews do not believe in the concept of a Jewish state.

I rarely see any of them calling for abolishment of Muslim countries.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2012, 10:21:34 AM

While it is more than a little unfortunate that the illegality of these settlements plays into the hands of the gullible and serve as a tool for the malicious, it is REALLY unfortunate that "if these settlers squaters "illegal" intruders or whatever anyone wants to call them, leave, then Iran/hezbellah and much of Hamas, and  Muslim Brotherhood will (NOT) give up their intention to wipe the Jews off the map."

Title: How are things in Syria today?
Post by: G M on April 11, 2012, 11:50:34 AM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/02/nancy-pelosi-syria-junket/

Remembering Nancy Pelosi’s Syria Junket


Michael Rubin | @mrubin1971 04.02.2012 - 1:30 PM


Five years ago this coming Wednesday, House Majority leader Nancy Pelosi defied President Bush’s request and his strategy isolating Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by going to Damascus. “We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria,” the White House spokesman said. “This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror.”
 
Pelosi would have none of that. She had known evil and to her, he resided in the White House. The Syrian dictator, however, was a reforming, Western educated eye doctor. Bilateral problems might be real, but they might be resolved through dialogue. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” she told reporters.
 


The Syrian regime used her meeting to its full propaganda advantage. After concluding his meeting with Pelosi, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, said, “These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue I tell them one thing: Dialogue is … the only method to close the gap existing between two countries.” Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Pelosi, Syrian officers and North Korean scientists scrambled to put the finishing touches on a covert nuclear facility, and Syrian dissidents dove for cover, interpreting correctly that Assad would interpret the end of America’s isolation of Assad as a green light for murder. Assad, in hindsight, welcomed Pelosi not as a politician with whom to have sincere dialogue, but rather as a useful idiot who might help relieve him of international pressure.
 
Five years later, Bashar al-Assad has not changed and, alas, neither has Nancy Pelosi.

Title: "Half of the Palestinians Are Egyptians and the Other Half Are Saudis"
Post by: G M on April 11, 2012, 12:13:17 PM

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3389.htm

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3389.htm
 
March 23, 2012  Clip No. 3389 
 
Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad Slams Egypt over Fuel Shortage in Gaza Strip, and Says: "Half of the Palestinians Are Egyptians and the Other Half Are Saudis" 
 
Following are excerpts from an address by Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad, aired by Al-Hekma TV on March 23, 2012.


Fathi Hammad : Is Egypt incapable of supplying fuel for 1.5 to 2 million people in the Gaza Strip?

[...]

If you do not point your compass toward Palestine, Al-Aqsa, and Jerusalem, in order to uproot the Zionist enemy, the US will trample you underfoot. It will besiege you with its conspiracies and will finish you off.

Therefore, you must hoist the banner of Jihad, the banner of "there is no god but Allah."

[...]

Brothers, there are 1.8 million of us in Gaza. In Egypt, there are about 90 million people. We equal merely two percent of the Egyptian population. [Supplying us with fuel] would not burden you at all.

[...]

At Al-Aqsa and on the land of Palestine, all the conspiracies, throughout history, have been shattered - the conspiracies of the Crusaders, and the conspiracies of the Tatars. At Al-Aqsa and on the land of Palestine, the Battle of Hattin was waged. The [West] does not want this noble history to repeat itself, because the Jews and their allies would be annihilated - the Zionists, the Americans, and the imperialists.

Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aqsa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad.

[...]

Allah be praised, we all have Arab roots, and every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. So where is your affection and mercy?

[...]

Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.

Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you.

Allah Akbar. All praise to Allah. Allah Akbar. How can you keep silent, oh Muslims, when the people of Gaza are dying? You watch from the sidelines without providing them with the simplest thing, which you give to the West for the most meager price.

[...]
 

Title: report shows air force gearing up for Iran attack
Post by: bigdog on April 16, 2012, 05:00:55 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-plans-for-iran-attack/

A major Israel TV station on Sunday night broadcast a detailed report on how Israel will go about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in the event that diplomacy and sanctions fail and Israel decides to carry out a military strike.
 
The report, screened on the main evening news of Channel 10, was remarkable both in terms of the access granted to the reporter, who said he had spent weeks with the pilots and other personnel he interviewed, and in the fact that his assessments on a strike were cleared by the military censor.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2012, 06:26:40 PM

How very odd , , ,

Title: Arab sentenced to death for selling house to Jews
Post by: G M on April 17, 2012, 06:47:18 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-seller-of-hebron-house-sentenced-to-death/

Arab seller of Hebron house said sentenced to death

Local settler leaders seek UN, US, EU intervention

April 16, 2012, 2:28

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Jewish leaders in Hebron have called for international intervention to help the Palestinian man sentenced to death for selling a home near the Cave of the Patriarchs to Jews.
 
A letter on behalf of Muhammad Abu Shahala, a former intelligence agent for the Palestinian Authority, was signed by Hebron Jewish community leaders David Wilder and Noam Arnon, and addressed to, among others, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the president of the European Council of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy; and the director general of the International Red Cross, Yves Daccord, among others.
 
Shahala reportedly was sentenced to death for his part in selling what has become known as Beit Hamachpela (the Machpela House) to a group of Jews. He reportedly confessed to the sale after torture and was subject to a rushed trial, according to Arutz-7, which cited various news agencies. Palestinian officials said Shahala was not authorized to sell the home.
 
The death warrant still must be signed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, according to reports.
 
“It is appalling to think that property sales should be defined as a ‘capital crime’ punishable by death,” the Jewish leaders write in their letter. ” The very fact that such a ‘law’ exists within the framework of the PA legal system points to a barbaric and perverse type of justice, reminiscent of practices implemented during the dark ages.
 
“What would be the reaction to a law in the United States, England, France, or Switzerland, forbidding property sales to Jews? Actually, less than one hundred years ago, such acts were legislated and practiced, known as the infamous ‘Nuremberg laws.”
 
At least seven Jewish families were evicted from the house earlier this month, a week after they entered the home in the middle of the night on March 28 armed with documents saying they had purchased the building from its Arab owner.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors - Moral equivalency?
Post by: DougMacG on April 24, 2012, 09:23:02 AM

Looks like GM already got this story posted a week ahead of The Weekly Standard. (A year ahead of the LA Times?)  Still worth another look:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/palestinian-sentenced-death-selling-home-jews_640592.html

Palestinian Sentenced to Death for Selling a Home to Jews

“According to various news agencies, Mr. Muhammad Abu Shahala, a former intelligence agent for the Palestinian Authority, has been sentenced to death, following a hurried trial. His crime: selling property to Jews in Hebron,”
--------------
I'm sure the Obama EEOC is outraged.  I can't seem to find our beer guzzling Sec of State's speech denouncing this. 

Title: Stratfor: The Geopolitics of Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2012, 02:44:27 PM

The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern
May 14, 2011 | 0500 GMT

 Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

The founding principle of geopolitics is that place -- geography -- plays a significant role in determining how nations will behave. If that theory is true, then there ought to be a deep continuity in a nation's foreign policy. Israel is a laboratory for this theory, since it has existed in three different manifestations in roughly the same place, twice in antiquity and once in modernity. If geopolitics is correct, then Israeli foreign policy, independent of policymakers, technology or the identity of neighbors, ought to have important common features. This is, therefore, a discussion of common principles in Israeli foreign policy over nearly 3,000 years.


.For convenience, we will use the term "Israel" to connote all of the Hebrew and Jewish entities that have existed in the Levant since the invasion of the region as chronicled in the Book of Joshua. As always, geopolitics requires a consideration of three dimensions: the internal geopolitics of Israel, the interaction of Israel and the immediate neighbors who share borders with it, and Israel's interaction with what we will call great powers, beyond Israel's borderlands.


.Israel has manifested itself three times in history. The first manifestation began with the invasion led by Joshua and lasted through its division into two kingdoms, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah and the deportation to Babylon early in the sixth century B.C. The second manifestation began when Israel was recreated in 540 B.C. by the Persians, who had defeated the Babylonians. The nature of this second manifestation changed in the fourth century B.C., when Greece overran the Persian Empire and Israel, and again in the first century B.C., when the Romans conquered the region.

The second manifestation saw Israel as a small actor within the framework of larger imperial powers, a situation that lasted until the destruction of the Jewish vassal state by the Romans.


.Israel's third manifestation began in 1948, following (as in the other cases) an ingathering of at least some of the Jews who had been dispersed after conquests. Israel's founding takes place in the context of the decline and fall of the British Empire and must, at least in part, be understood as part of British imperial history.

During its first 50 years, Israel plays a pivotal role in the confrontation of the United States and the Soviet Union and, in some senses, is hostage to the dynamics of these two countries. In other words, like the first two manifestations of Israel, the third finds Israel continually struggling among independence, internal tension and imperial ambition.

Israeli Geography and Borderlands
At its height, under King David, Israel extended from the Sinai to the Euphrates, encompassing Damascus. It occupied some, but relatively little, of the coastal region, an area beginning at what today is Haifa and running south to Jaffa, just north of today's Tel Aviv. The coastal area to the north was held by Phoenicia, the area to the south by Philistines. It is essential to understand that Israel's size and shape shifted over time. For example, Judah under the Hasmoneans did not include the Negev but did include the Golan. The general locale of Israel is fixed. Its precise borders have never been.

Thus, it is perhaps better to begin with what never was part of Israel. Israel never included the Sinai Peninsula. Along the coast, it never stretched much farther north than the Litani River in today's Lebanon. Apart from David's extreme extension (and fairly tenuous control) to the north, Israel's territory never stretched as far as Damascus, although it frequently held the Golan Heights. Israel extended many times to both sides of the Jordan but never deep into the Jordanian Desert. It never extended southeast into the Arabian Peninsula.


.Israel consists generally of three parts. First, it always has had the northern hill region, stretching from the foothills of Mount Hermon south to Jerusalem. Second, it always contains some of the coastal plain from today's Tel Aviv north to Haifa. Third, it occupies area between Jerusalem and the Jordan River -- today's West Bank. At times, it controls all or part of the Negev, including the coastal region between the Sinai to the Tel Aviv area. It may be larger than this at various times in history, and sometimes smaller, but it normally holds all or part of these three regions.

Israel is well-buffered in three directions. The Sinai Desert protects it against the Egyptians. In general, the Sinai has held little attraction for the Egyptians. The difficulty of deploying forces in the eastern Sinai poses severe logistical problems for them, particularly during a prolonged presence. Unless Egypt can rapidly move through the Sinai north into the coastal plain, where it can sustain its forces more readily, deploying in the Sinai is difficult and unrewarding. Therefore, so long as Israel is not so weak as to make an attack on the coastal plain a viable option, or unless Egypt is motivated by an outside imperial power, Israel does not face a threat from the southwest.

Israel is similarly protected from the southeast. The deserts southeast of Eilat-Aqaba are virtually impassable. No large force could approach from that direction, although smaller raiding parties could. The tribes of the Arabian Peninsula lack the reach or the size to pose a threat to Israel, unless massed and aligned with other forces. Even then, the approach from the southeast is not one that they are likely to take. The Negev is secure from that direction.

The eastern approaches are similarly secured by desert, which begins about 20 to 30 miles east of the Jordan River. While indigenous forces exist in the borderland east of the Jordan, they lack the numbers to be able to penetrate decisively west of the Jordan. Indeed, the normal model is that, so long as Israel controls Judea and Samaria (the modern-day West Bank), then the East Bank of the Jordan River is under the political and sometimes military domination of Israel -- sometimes directly through settlement, sometimes indirectly through political influence, or economic or security leverage.

Israel's vulnerability is in the north. There is no natural buffer between Phoenicia and its successor entities (today's Lebanon) to the direct north. The best defense line for Israel in the north is the Litani River, but this is not an insurmountable boundary under any circumstance. However, the area along the coast north of Israel does not present a serious threat. The coastal area prospers through trade in the Mediterranean basin. It is oriented toward the sea and to the trade routes to the east, not to the south. If it does anything, this area protects those trade routes and has no appetite for a conflict that might disrupt trade. It stays out of Israel's way, for the most part.

Moreover, as a commercial area, this region is generally wealthy, a factor that increases predators around it and social conflict within. It is an area prone to instability. Israel frequently tries to extend its influence northward for commercial reasons, as one of the predators, and this can entangle Israel in its regional politics. But barring this self-induced problem, the threat to Israel from the north is minimal, despite the absence of natural boundaries and the large population. On occasion, there is spillover of conflicts from the north, but not to a degree that might threaten regime survival in Israel.

The neighbor that is always a threat lies to the northeast. Syria -- or, more precisely, the area governed by Damascus at any time -- is populous and frequently has no direct outlet to the sea. It is, therefore, generally poor. The area to its north, Asia Minor, is heavily mountainous. Syria cannot project power to the north except with great difficulty, but powers in Asia Minor can move south. Syria's eastern flank is buffered by a desert that stretches to the Euphrates. Therefore, when there is no threat from the north, Syria's interest -- after securing itself internally -- is to gain access to the coast. Its primary channel is directly westward, toward the rich cities of the northern Levantine coast, with which it trades heavily. An alternative interest is southwestward, toward the southern Levantine coast controlled by Israel.

As can be seen, Syria can be interested in Israel only selectively. When it is interested, it has a serious battle problem. To attack Israel, it would have to strike between Mount Hermon and the Sea of Galilee, an area about 25 miles wide. The Syrians potentially can attack south of the sea, but only if they are prepared to fight through this region and then attack on extended supply lines. If an attack is mounted along the main route, Syrian forces must descend the Golan Heights and then fight through the hilly Galilee before reaching the coastal plain -- sometimes with guerrillas holding out in the Galilean hills. The Galilee is an area that is relatively easy to defend and difficult to attack. Therefore, it is only once Syria takes the Galilee, and can control its lines of supply against guerrilla attack, that its real battle begins.

To reach the coast or move toward Jerusalem, Syria must fight through a plain in front of a line of low hills. This is the decisive battleground where massed Israeli forces, close to lines of supply, can defend against dispersed Syrian forces on extended lines of supply. It is no accident that Megiddo -- or Armageddon, as the plain is sometimes referred to -- has apocalyptic meaning. This is the point at which any move from Syria would be decided. But a Syrian offensive would have a tough fight to reach Megiddo, and a tougher one as it deploys on the plain.

On the surface, Israel lacks strategic depth, but this is true only on the surface. It faces limited threats from southern neighbors. To its east, it faces only a narrow strip of populated area east of the Jordan. To the north, there is a maritime commercial entity. Syria operating alone, forced through the narrow gap of the Mount Hermon-Galilee line and operating on extended supply lines, can be dealt with readily.

There is a risk of simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. Depending on the forces deployed and the degree of coordination between them, this can pose a problem for Israel. However, even here the Israelis have the tremendous advantage of fighting on interior lines. Egypt and Syria, fighting on external lines (and widely separated fronts), would have enormous difficulty transferring forces from one front to another. Israel, on interior lines (fronts close to each other with good transportation), would be able to move its forces from front to front rapidly, allowing for sequential engagement and thereby the defeat of enemies. Unless enemies are carefully coordinated and initiate war simultaneously -- and deploy substantially superior force on at least one front -- Israel can initiate war at a time of its choosing or else move its forces rapidly between fronts, negating much of the advantage of size that the attackers might have.

There is another aspect to the problem of multifront war. Egypt usually has minimal interests along the Levant, having its own coast and an orientation to the south toward the headwaters of the Nile. On the rare occasions when Egypt does move through the Sinai and attacks to the north and northeast, it is in an expansionary mode. By the time it consolidates and exploits the coastal plain, it would be powerful enough to threaten Syria. From Syria's point of view, the only thing more dangerous than Israel is an Egypt in control of Israel. Therefore, the probability of a coordinated north-south strike at Israel is rare, is rarely coordinated and usually is not designed to be a mortal blow. It is defeated by Israel's strategic advantage of interior lines.

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone
Therefore, it is not surprising that Israel's first incarnation lasted as long as it did -- some five centuries. What is interesting and what must be considered is why Israel (now considered as the northern kingdom) was defeated by the Assyrians and Judea, then defeated by Babylon. To understand this, we need to consider the broader geography of Israel's location.

Israel is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, on the Levant. As we have seen, when Israel is intact, it will tend to be the dominant power in the Levant. Therefore, Israeli resources must generally be dedicated for land warfare, leaving little over for naval warfare. In general, although Israel had excellent harbors and access to wood for shipbuilding, it never was a major Mediterranean naval power. It never projected power into the sea. The area to the north of Israel has always been a maritime power, but Israel, the area south of Mount Hermon, was always forced to be a land power.

The Levant in general and Israel in particular has always been a magnet for great powers. No Mediterranean empire could be fully secure unless it controlled the Levant. Whether it was Rome or Carthage, a Mediterranean empire that wanted to control both the northern and southern littorals needed to anchor its eastern flank on the Levant. For one thing, without the Levant, a Mediterranean power would be entirely dependent on sea lanes for controlling the other shore. Moving troops solely by sea creates transport limitations and logistical problems. It also leaves imperial lines vulnerable to interdiction -- sometimes merely from pirates, a problem that plagued Rome's sea transport. A land bridge, or a land bridge with minimal water crossings that can be easily defended, is a vital supplement to the sea for the movement of large numbers of troops. Once the Hellespont is crossed, the coastal route through southern Turkey, down the Levant and along the Mediterranean's southern shore, provides such an alternative.

There is an additional consideration. If a Mediterranean empire leaves the Levant unoccupied, it opens the door to the possibility of a great power originating to the east seizing the ports of the Levant and challenging the Mediterranean power for maritime domination. In short, control of the Levant binds a Mediterranean empire together while denying a challenger from the east the opportunity to enter the Mediterranean. Holding the Levant, and controlling Israel, is a necessary preventive measure for a Mediterranean empire.

Israel is also important to any empire originating to the east of Israel, either in the Tigris-Euphrates basin or in Persia. For either, security could be assured only once it had an anchor on the Levant. Macedonian expansion under Alexander demonstrated that a power controlling Levantine and Turkish ports could support aggressive operations far to the east, to the Hindu Kush and beyond. While Turkish ports might have sufficed for offensive operations, simply securing the Bosporus still left the southern flank exposed. Therefore, by holding the Levant, an eastern power protected itself against attacks from Mediterranean powers.

The Levant was also important to any empire originating to the north or south of Israel. If Egypt decided to move beyond the Nile Basin and North Africa eastward, it would move first through the Sinai and then northward along the coastal plain, securing sea lanes to Egypt. When Asia Minor powers such as the Ottoman Empire developed, there was a natural tendency to move southward to control the eastern Mediterranean. The Levant is the crossroads of continents, and Israel lies in the path of many imperial ambitions.

Israel therefore occupies what might be called the convergence zone of the Eastern Hemisphere. A European power trying to dominate the Mediterranean or expand eastward, an eastern power trying to dominate the space between the Hindu Kush and the Mediterranean, a North African power moving toward the east, or a northern power moving south -- all must converge on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and therefore on Israel. Of these, the European power and the eastern power must be the most concerned with Israel. For either, there is no choice but to secure it as an anchor.

Internal Geopolitics
Israel is geographically divided into three regions, which traditionally have produced three different types of people. Its coastal plain facilitates commerce, serving as the interface between eastern trade routes and the sea. It is the home of merchants and manufacturers, cosmopolitans -- not as cosmopolitan as Phoenicia or Lebanon, but cosmopolitan for Israel. The northeast is hill country, closest to the unruliness north of the Litani River and to the Syrian threat. It breeds farmers and warriors. The area south of Jerusalem is hard desert country, more conducive to herdsman and warriors than anything else. Jerusalem is where these three regions are balanced and governed.

There are obviously deep differences built into Israel's geography and inhabitants, particularly between the herdsmen of the southern deserts and the northern hill dwellers. The coastal dwellers, rich but less warlike than the others, hold the balance or are the prize to be pursued. In the division of the original kingdom between Israel and Judea, we saw the alliance of the coast with the Galilee, while Jerusalem was held by the desert dwellers. The consequence of the division was that Israel in the north ultimately was conquered by Assyrians from the northeast, while Babylon was able to swallow Judea.

Social divisions in Israel obviously do not have to follow geographical lines. However, over time, these divisions must manifest themselves. For example, the coastal plain is inherently more cosmopolitan than the rest of the country. The interests of its inhabitants lie more with trading partners in the Mediterranean and the rest of the world than with their countrymen. Their standard of living is higher, and their commitment to traditions is lower. Therefore, there is an inherent tension between their immediate interests and those of the Galileans, who live more precarious, warlike lives. Countries can be divided over lesser issues -- and when Israel is divided, it is vulnerable even to regional threats.

We say "even" because geography dictates that regional threats are less menacing than might be expected. The fact that Israel would be outnumbered demographically should all its neighbors turn on it is less important than the fact that it has adequate buffers in most directions, that the ability of neighbors to coordinate an attack is minimal and that their appetite for such an attack is even less. The single threat that Israel faces from the northeast can readily be managed if the Israelis create a united front there. When Israel was overrun by a Damascus-based power, it was deeply divided internally.

It is important to add one consideration to our discussion of buffers, which is diplomacy. The main neighbors of Israel are Egyptians, Syrians and those who live on the east bank of Jordan. This last group is a negligible force demographically, and the interests of the Syrians and Egyptians are widely divergent. Egypt's interests are to the south and west of its territory; the Sinai holds no attraction. Syria is always threatened from multiple directions, and alliance with Egypt adds little to its security. Therefore, under the worst of circumstances, Egypt and Syria have difficulty supporting each other. Under the best of circumstances, from Israel's point of view, it can reach a political accommodation with Egypt, securing its southwestern frontier politically as well as by geography, thus freeing Israel to concentrate on the northern threats and opportunities.

Israel and the Great Powers
The threat to Israel rarely comes from the region, except when the Israelis are divided internally. The conquests of Israel occur when powers not adjacent to it begin forming empires. Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Turkey and Britain all controlled Israel politically, sometimes for worse and sometimes for better. Each dominated it militarily, but none was a neighbor of Israel. This is a consistent pattern. Israel can resist its neighbors; danger arises when more distant powers begin playing imperial games. Empires can bring force to bear that Israel cannot resist.

Israel therefore has this problem: It would be secure if it could confine itself to protecting its interests from neighbors, but it cannot confine itself because its geographic location invariably draws larger, more distant powers toward Israel. Therefore, while Israel's military can focus only on immediate interests, its diplomatic interests must look much further. Israel is constantly entangled with global interests (as the globe is defined at any point), seeking to deflect and align with broader global powers. When it fails in this diplomacy, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model. Second, it can live as part of an imperial system -- either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form. Finally, Israel can be completely crushed -- with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

The Davidic model exists primarily when there is no external imperial power needing control of the Levant that is in a position either to send direct force or to support surrogates in the immediate region. The Persian model exists when Israel aligns itself with the foreign policy interests of such an imperial power, to its own benefit. The Babylonian model exists when Israel miscalculates on the broader balance of power and attempts to resist an emerging hegemon. When we look at Israeli behavior over time, the periods when Israel does not confront hegemonic powers outside the region are not rare, but are far less common than when it is confronting them.

Given the period of the first iteration of Israel, it would be too much to say that the Davidic model rarely comes into play, but certainly since that time, variations of the Persian and Babylonian models have dominated. The reason is geographic. Israel is normally of interest to outside powers because of its strategic position. While Israel can deal with local challenges effectively, it cannot deal with broader challenges. It lacks the economic or military weight to resist. Therefore, it is normally in the process of managing broader threats or collapsing because of them.

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel
Let us then turn to the contemporary manifestation of Israel. Israel was recreated because of the interaction between a regional great power, the Ottoman Empire, and a global power, Great Britain. During its expansionary phase, the Ottoman Empire sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean as well as both its northern and southern coasts. One thrust went through the Balkans toward central Europe. The other was toward Egypt. Inevitably, this required that the Ottomans secure the Levant.

For the British, the focus on the eastern Mediterranean was as the primary sea lane to India. As such, Gibraltar and the Suez were crucial. The importance of the Suez was such that the presence of a hostile, major naval force in the eastern Mediterranean represented a direct threat to British interests. It followed that defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I and breaking its residual naval power was critical. The British, as was shown at Gallipoli, lacked the resources to break the Ottoman Empire by main force. They resorted to a series of alliances with local forces to undermine the Ottomans. One was an alliance with Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula; others involved covert agreements with anti-Turkish, Arab interests from the Levant to the Persian Gulf. A third, minor thrust was aligning with Jewish interests globally, particularly those interested in the refounding of Israel. Britain had little interest in this goal, but saw such discussions as part of the process of destabilizing the Ottomans.

The strategy worked. Under an agreement with France, the Ottoman province of Syria was divided into two parts on a line roughly running east-west between the sea and Mount Hermon. The northern part was given to France and divided into Lebanon and a rump Syria entity. The southern part was given to Britain and was called Palestine, after the Ottoman administrative district Filistina. Given the complex politics of the Arabian Peninsula, the British had to find a home for a group of Hashemites, which they located on the east bank of the Jordan River and designated, for want of a better name, the Trans-Jordan -- the other side of the Jordan. Palestine looked very much like traditional Israel.

The ideological foundations of Zionism are not our concern here, nor are the pre- and post-World War II migrations of Jews, although those are certainly critical. What is important for purposes of this analysis are two things: First, the British emerged economically and militarily crippled from World War II and unable to retain their global empire, Palestine included. Second, the two global powers that emerged after World War II -- the United States and the Soviet Union -- were engaged in an intense struggle for the eastern Mediterranean after World War II, as can be seen in the Greek and Turkish issues at that time. Neither wanted to see the British Empire survive, each wanted the Levant, and neither was prepared to make a decisive move to take it.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw the re-creation of Israel as an opportunity to introduce their power to the Levant. The Soviets thought they might have some influence over Israel due to ideology. The Americans thought they might have some influence given the role of American Jews in the founding. Neither was thinking particularly clearly about the matter, because neither had truly found its balance after World War II. Both knew the Levant was important, but neither saw the Levant as a central battleground at that moment. Israel slipped through the cracks.

Once the question of Jewish unity was settled through ruthless action by David Ben Gurion's government, Israel faced a simultaneous threat from all of its immediate neighbors. However, as we have seen, the threat in 1948 was more apparent than real. The northern Levant, Lebanon, was fundamentally disunited -- far more interested in regional maritime trade and concerned about control from Damascus. It posed no real threat to Israel. Jordan, settling the eastern bank of the Jordan River, was an outside power that had been transplanted into the region and was more concerned about native Arabs -- the Palestinians -- than about Israel. The Jordanians secretly collaborated with Israel. Egypt did pose a threat, but its ability to maintain lines of supply across the Sinai was severely limited and its genuine interest in engaging and destroying Israel was more rhetorical than real. As usual, the Egyptians could not afford the level of effort needed to move into the Levant. Syria by itself had a very real interest in Israel's defeat, but by itself was incapable of decisive action.

The exterior lines of Israel's neighbors prevented effective, concerted action. Israel's interior lines permitted efficient deployment and redeployment of force. It was not obvious at the time, but in retrospect we can see that once Israel existed, was united and had even limited military force, its survival was guaranteed. That is, so long as no great power was opposed to its existence.

From its founding until the Camp David Accords re-established the Sinai as a buffer with Egypt, Israel's strategic problem was this: So long as Egypt was in the Sinai, Israel's national security requirements outstripped its military capabilities. It could not simultaneously field an army, maintain its civilian economy and produce all the weapons and supplies needed for war. Israel had to align itself with great powers who saw an opportunity to pursue other interests by arming Israel.

Israel's first patron was the Soviet Union -- through Czechoslovakia -- which supplied weapons before and after 1948 in the hopes of using Israel to gain a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel, aware of the risks of losing autonomy, also moved into a relationship with a declining great power that was fighting to retain its empire: France. Struggling to hold onto Algeria and in constant tension with Arabs, France saw Israel as a natural ally. And apart from the operation against Suez in 1956, Israel saw in France a patron that was not in a position to reduce Israeli autonomy. However, with the end of the Algerian war and the realignment of France in the Arab world, Israel became a liability to France and, after 1967, Israel lost French patronage.

Israel did not become a serious ally of the Americans until after 1967. Such an alliance was in the American interest. The United States had, as a strategic imperative, the goal of keeping the Soviet navy out of the Mediterranean or, at least, blocking its unfettered access. That meant that Turkey, controlling the Bosporus, had to be kept in the American bloc. Syria and Iraq shifted policies in the late 1950s and by the mid-1960s had been armed by the Soviets. This made Turkey's position precarious: If the Soviets pressed from the north while Syria and Iraq pressed from the south, the outcome would be uncertain, to say the least, and the global balance of power was at stake.

The United States used Iran to divert Iraq's attention. Israel was equally useful in diverting Syria's attention. So long as Israel threatened Syria from the south, it could not divert its forces to the north. That helped secure Turkey at a relatively low cost in aid and risk. By aligning itself with the interests of a great power, Israel lost some of its room for maneuver: For example, in 1973, it was limited by the United States in what it could do to Egypt. But those limitations aside, it remained autonomous internally and generally free to pursue its strategic interests.

The end of hostilities with Egypt, guaranteed by the Sinai buffer zone, created a new era for Israel. Egypt was restored to its traditional position, Jordan was a marginal power on the east bank, Lebanon was in its normal, unstable mode, and only Syria was a threat. However, it was a threat that Israel could easily deal with. Syria by itself could not threaten the survival of Israel.

Following Camp David (an ironic name), Israel was in its Davidic model, in a somewhat modified sense. Its survival was not at stake. Its problems -- the domination of a large, hostile population and managing events in the northern Levant -- were subcritical (meaning that, though these were not easy tasks, they did not represent fundamental threats to national survival, so long as Israel retained national unity). When unified, Israel has never been threatened by its neighbors. Geography dictates against it.

Israel's danger will come only if a great power seeks to dominate the Mediterranean Basin or to occupy the region between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean. In the short period since the fall of the Soviet Union, this has been impossible. There has been no great power with the appetite and the will for such an adventure. But 15 years is not even a generation, and Israel must measure its history in centuries.

It is the nature of the international system to seek balance. The primary reality of the world today is the overwhelming power of the United States. The United States makes few demands on Israel that matter. However, it is the nature of things that the United States threatens the interests of other great powers who, individually weak, will try to form coalitions against it. Inevitably, such coalitions will arise. That will be the next point of danger for Israel.

In the event of a global rivalry, the United States might place onerous requirements on Israel. Alternatively, great powers might move into the Jordan River valley or ally with Syria, move into Lebanon or ally with Israel. The historical attraction of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean would focus the attention of such a power and lead to attempts to assert control over the Mediterranean or create a secure Middle Eastern empire. In either event, or some of the others discussed, it would create a circumstance in which Israel might face a Babylonian catastrophe or be forced into some variation of Persian or Roman subjugation.

Israel's danger is not a Palestinian rising. Palestinian agitation is an irritant that Israel can manage so long as it does not undermine Israeli unity. Whether it is managed by domination or by granting the Palestinians a vassal state matters little. Nor can Israel be threatened by its neighbors. Even a unified attack by Syria and Egypt would fail, for the reasons discussed. Israel's real threat, as can be seen in history, lies in the event of internal division and/or a great power, coveting Israel's geographical position, marshaling force that is beyond its capacity to resist. Even that can be managed if Israel has a patron whose interests involve denying the coast to another power.

Israel's reality is this. It is a small country, yet must manage threats arising far outside of its region. It can survive only if it maneuvers with great powers commanding enormously greater resources. Israel cannot match the resources and, therefore, it must be constantly clever. There are periods when it is relatively safe because of great power alignments, but its normal condition is one of global unease. No nation can be clever forever, and Israel's history shows that some form of subordination is inevitable. Indeed, it is to a very limited extent subordinate to the United States now.

For Israel, the retention of a Davidic independence is difficult. Israel's strategy must be to manage its subordination effectively by dealing with its patron cleverly, as it did with Persia. But cleverness is not a geopolitical concept. It is not permanent, and it is not assured. And that is the perpetual crisis of Jerusalem.

Title: Nakba fizzles
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2012, 08:03:02 PM

"Nakba Day" Fizzles
IPT News
May 18, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3584/nakba-day-fizzles

 
Upheavals in the Middle East have led to a de-emphasis on Palestinians and their cause against Israel. One symptom of this in recent days was a considerable decrease in participation in the so-called "Nakba" (Catastrophe) Day both in the Middle East and in the West.
Every May 15 (the anniversary of the day after Israel declared independence in 1948) Palestinian ideologues devote the day to mourning the "catastrophe" of the Israel's establishment and blaming it for the plight of millions of Palestinian "refugees."
A Nakba demonstration in midtown Manhattan Tuesday drew less than 35 people. Unfortunately for demonstration organizers, witnesses are more likely to remember an "only in New York moment," when Times Square's "Naked Cowboy" made his way through the small gaggle of demonstrators.
 
A pro-Palestinian advocacy group calling itself Existence is Resistance organized the rally. The group lobbies on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers it claims are being illegally imprisoned by Israel. One of them is Abdullah Barghouti, a Hamas bomb maker who pleaded guilty to masterminding suicide bombings which killed 66 people and injured more than 500.
While there were instances of Molotov cocktail- and stone-throwing in Israel and the West Bank, this year's Nakba Day was subdued compared to last year, when tens of thousands of Palestinians and their supporters gathered on Israel's borders, and some attempted to cross into the country to assert their purported Right of Return.
Tuesday's demonstrations were limited: mobs didn't breach Israel's borders, and there were no reports of fatalities.
Last year's confrontation was stoked by Syrian operatives in Damascus and Lebanon, who reportedly bused Palestinian refugees to the Israel-Lebanon border. Lebanese troops and United Nations "peacekeepers" stood by as scores of Palestinians attempted to rush across the border into Israel.
Up to 35 infiltrators "managed to open the gates of the Golan," one triumphant rioter shouted after running through a minefield and crossing into Israeli territory. "They did what all of the Arab armies could not. We can liberate the Golan. We can liberate al-Aqsa. We can liberate Jerusalem. We can liberate Palestine and all of the occupied lands."
"God is great," the crowd responded triumphantly.
Violence also spread to parts of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Rioters at Kalandia refugee camp (located near the West Bank city of Ramallah) used ambulances for cover while throwing rocks at Israeli troops. At least 13 people were killed and hundreds more injured in last year's Nakba riots.
Several factors helped limit the spread of violence this year. Syrian President Bashar Assad – whose regime played a critical role in fomenting last year's violence – is preoccupied with brutalizing its own people in an effort to stay in power. And Israeli security forces, caught off-guard last year, were much better prepared this time.
At this year's demonstrations, the Palestinian Authority embraced the Right of Return – which most Israelis regard as a formula for the destruction of the Jewish state. At a rally in Ramallah, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad declared: "The right of return is sacred and cannot be compromised."
But the Palestinians' options for continuing their struggle against Israel have been limited by their own internal divisions and failed leadership.
"The back of Palestinian society has been broken by Hamas-Fatah separation," said Palestinian human- rights advocate Bassam Eid. In the West Bank (a region he referred to as "Fatahstan"), the infighting within Fatah is so deep that there was no hope of any coordinated uprising. "There cannot be an intifada (uprising against Israel) so long as we have an intrafada (Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence)," he said.
Writing in Commentary, Jonathan Tobin says the Palestinian focus on the events of 1948 doesn't bode well for the idea of territorial compromise. "For those who claim the Middle East conflict is about borders or Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the prominence given Nakba commemorations ought to be an embarrassment as it highlights something Israel's critics are often at pains to obfuscate. The goal of the Palestinians isn't an independent state alongside Israel. Their goal is to eradicate Israel and replace it with yet another Arab majority country."
Nakba Day should also serve as a reminder that during the past 64 years, the Palestinians have been prevented from assimilating into the Arab populations surrounding Israel. Instead, "they have been kept in poverty by a United Nations agency (UNRWA) supposedly dedicated to their welfare but which is, in fact merely interested in perpetuating their refugee status so they can remain props in the Arab War on Israel, " Tobin adds.
Commemorating Nakba Day is a part of that long term strategy. This year, at least, it didn't seem to work.

Title: Top Down without Bottom up-- missed peace opportunity
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2012, 07:10:21 AM

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/18/how_obama_missed_an_opportunity_for_middle_east_peace

Title: Dershowitz: Conditional Settlement Freeze
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2012, 08:38:47 AM

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Now that Israel has a broad and secure national unity government, the time is ripe for that government to make a bold peace offer to the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate unless Israel accepts a "freeze" on settlement building in the West Bank. Israel accepted a 10-month freeze in 2009, but the Palestinian Authority didn't come to the bargaining table until weeks before the freeze expired. Its negotiators demanded that the freeze be extended indefinitely. When Israel refused, they walked away from the table.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
The West Bank settlement of Mevo Horon
.There is every reason to believe that they would continue such game-playing if the Israeli government imposed a similar freeze now, especially in light of current efforts by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to form their own unity government, which would likely include elements opposed to any negotiation with the Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should now offer a conditional freeze: Israel will stop all settlement building in the West Bank as soon as the Palestinian Authority sits down at the bargaining table, and the freeze will continue as long as the talks continue in good faith.

The first issue on the table should be the rough borders of a Palestinian state. Setting those would require recognizing that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas:

• Those that are relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma'ale Adumim, Gilo and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem.

• Those that are relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state, such as Ramallah, Jericho, Jenin and the vast majority of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank beyond Israel's security barrier.

• Those reasonably in dispute, including some of the large settlement blocs several miles from Jerusalem such as Ariel (which may well remain part of Israel, but subject to negotiated land swaps).

This rough division is based on prior negotiations and on positions already articulated by each side. If there can be agreement concerning this preliminary division—even tentative or conditional—then the settlement-building dispute would quickly disappear.

There would be no Israeli building in those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state. There would be no limit on Israeli building within areas likely to remain part of Israel. And the conditional freeze would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which will become part of the new Palestinian state. As portions of the disputed areas are allocated to Palestine or Israel, the building rules would reflect that ongoing allocation.

I recently proposed this idea to a high-ranking Israeli official. His initial reaction was mostly positive, but he insisted that it would be difficult to impose an absolute building freeze in any areas in which Israelis currently live. He pointed out that families grow and that new bedrooms and bathrooms are needed in existing structures as a simple matter of humanitarian needs. I reminded him that Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel is prepared to make "painful compromises" in the interests of peace.

An absolute building freeze would be such a painful but necessary compromise. It might also encourage residents of settlements deep in the West Bank to move to areas that will remain part of Israel, especially if the freeze were accompanied by financial inducements to relocate.

Such a proposal by Israel would be an important first step and a good test of the bona fides of the Palestinian side. Since their precondition to negotiation will have been met by the promise of a freeze (to begin the moment they sit down to negotiate), they would have no further excuse for refusing the Israeli offer to try to resolve the conflict.

The conditional freeze would also test the bona fides of the Israeli government, which would no longer have the excuse that any freeze would risk toppling a fragile coalition that relies on right-wingers who have threatened to withdraw in the event of another freeze. The new national unity government is now sufficiently large and diverse that it could now survive a walk-out by elements opposed to any freeze.

Once the parties reach a preliminary agreement regarding the three areas and what could be built where, they could get down to the nitty-gritty of working on compromises to produce an enduring peace.

These compromises will require the Israelis to give up claims to areas of the West Bank that were part of Biblical Israel but that are heavily populated by Palestinians. It will require the Palestinians to give up any claim to a massive "right of return" for the millions of descendents of those who once lived in what is now Israel. It will require an agreement over Jerusalem, plus assurances about Israel's security in the Jordan Valley and in areas that could pose the threat of rocket attacks like those that have come from the Gaza Strip in recent years.

Both sides say they want peace. In my conversations with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, I have repeatedly heard the view that "everyone" knows what a pragmatic, compromise resolution will look like. Each side claims that the other side has erected artificial barriers to reaching that resolution.

If the building freeze issue can be taken off the table, one of the most controversial and divisive barriers will have been eliminated. The Israeli government should take the first step, but the Palestinian Authority must take the second step by immediately sitting down to negotiate in good faith.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).

Title: Re: Anti-Israel Boycotts - Fight Back Against These Idiots.
Post by: objectivist1 on June 12, 2012, 10:55:50 AM

These groups - which involve many entertainers - refer to Israel as an "Apartheid State."  How ignorant can they possibly be?

Time for Israel Supporters to Fight Back
Posted By Sammy Levine On June 8, 2012 Frontpagemag.com

With Israel’s vast military supremacy over its enemies—including Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran—the only effective weapon these Israel-haters currently have is the delegitimization of the Jewish State. This delegitimization campaign, which seeks to isolate Israel as a unique menace in the world, utilizes the media, world bodies such as the U.N., professors and entertainers, and complicit “peace activists” to tarnish Israel’s image and reputation. This campaign makes Israel out to be the aggressor and the obstacle to peace, in contrast to the poor Palestinians who just want their land back.

Perhaps it is no surprise then that Israel’s borders have been relatively quiet during the last couple years, as Hamas and Hezbollah are happy to let this worldwide public relations campaign—buttressed by the political left—play out. After all, why waste valuable resources and suicide bombers, when you can rely on Western “pro-peace” organizations and “useful idiots” to chip away at Israel bit by bit, to the point where the country is coerced into making one-sided concessions that embolden its genocidal enemies?

Left-wing, self-proclaimed “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organizations such as J-Street and Americans for Peace Now, are unintentional accomplices to this cultural war against Israel, by placing most of the blame for the conflict on Israeli “settlements.” But blaming the Israeli “settlements” for the Israel/Palestinian conflict is like blaming Britain’s fire bombing of Dresden for World War II.

The Israeli “occupation” started 20 years after the failed genocidal war against Israel in 1948. The building of the “settlements” was initiated after the “Six Day War” of 1967, in an attempt to buffer the heart of Israel from its war-hungry enemies. The “settlements” are not the cause of the conflict, but rather a consequence of it.

Picking up on this false narrative, organizations such as “Big Campaign” are spearheading a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which seeks to destroy Israel economically. Many popular entertainers, such as the Pixies, have cancelled their performances in Israel because of pressure from these anti-Israel hate groups.

Macy Grey had this to say before her performance in Israel: “I’m getting a lot of letters from activists urging/begging me to boycott by NOT performing.” She decided to perform, but other acts, such as U2, Coldplay and Bruce Springsteen, are simply refusing invitations to perform in Israel, in order to avoid aggravation from the Israel haters.

Roger Waters, former front man of Pink Floyd, has embraced the BDS campaign, and is encouraging others to join him. He said this about his decision to boycott Israel:

In my view, the abhorrent and draconian control that Israel wields over the besieged Palestinians In Gaza, and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem), coupled with its denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes in Israel, demands that fair minded people around the world support the Palestinians in their civil, nonviolent resistance…For me it means declaring my intention to stand in solidarity, not only with the people of Palestine, but also with the many thousands of Israelis who disagree with their governments racist and colonial policies, by joining a campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, until it satisfies three basic human rights demanded in international law.

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied since 1967] and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

It is important to note Roger Waters’ 3rd demand, the right of return, which would destroy Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and turn it into another Muslim-dominated country in the Middle East.

Elvis Costello also cancelled his scheduled performance in Israel a couple years ago, saying:

There are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act … and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent…I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security[.]

Israel supporters must fight back against Roger Waters, Elvis Costello and the many others who are engaging in this cultural war against Israel. It is not enough to just fight back in the realm of ideas, although this is essential to combat misguided organizations such as J-Street. We must also fight fire with fire.

That is why I created Counter-Boycott, an organization that will inform Israel supporters about those who wish to economically destroy Israel.

Counter-Boycott will take out advertisements in cities where boycotting artists are performing, to encourage consumers not to purchase tickets to their shows. Lastly, Counter-Boycott will highlight those courageous musicians, such as Madonna and Elton John, who perform in Israel despite the onslaught of hate from the boycott organizations.

Of course, the ultimate goal is to remove the disgusting stigma of Israel as a racist, oppressive country. Performing in Israel should not be perceived as a political act. Artists should not be fearful or ashamed of performing in Israel.

With enough help, we can push back against those who are pressuring many entertainers to cancel their performances in Israel. We must make it clear that seeking to delegitimize and isolate Israel will not go unnoticed.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Title: Infighting dooms new Hamas Convoy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2012, 11:59:12 AM

No Honor Among Thieves: Infighting Dooms New Hamas Convoy
IPT News
June 14, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3626/no-honor-among-thieves-infighting-dooms-new-hamas

 
Participants in the latest convoy to deliver supplies to Hamas-controlled Gaza are lashing out at British MP George Galloway and his aides for "incompetence" and "increasingly bizarre and dangerous decisions" after the effort fell short of crossing into the Palestinian territory.

Original plans called for the convoy to leave England in April and cross into Gaza from Egypt by May 15. That date marks the "Nakba," or the "catastrophe" of Israeli independence in 1948. Instead, the sixth Viva Palestina convoy never reached its destination.

Egypt refused to let the convoy pass despite weeks of effort.

It clearly caught Galloway off guard. He wrote that the Arab Spring power change in Egypt erased a ban on his entry into the country and he promised to lead the convoy as it crossed the border into Gaza to deliver "50 packed vans and lorries."
Galloway, voted back into Parliament in March representing Bradford after being defeated in 2010, said his return to office "will be a boost to me in the fight for Gaza and Palestine and for all Arab and humanitarian issues. I will invest all the opportunities available to raise issues that we both believe in it."

Representatives of several countries bailed on Viva Palestina's "Right of Return Convoy" even before it stalled in Jordan after Galloway refused to chart a course avoiding Syria, where government forces continue to massacre civilians rising against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The New Zealand delegation unanimously withdrew, saying it didn't want Assad's regime "making political capital from any humanitarian mission to Gaza."

But that's exactly what happened. Syrian officials, including military officials, feted the convoy. A governor of a major town greeted the convoy and an organizer wrote that the Syrian government "will provide us complete protection and security" while in the country.

Galloway has long enjoyed warm relations with the Assad government, working closely with it on past convoys. Last summer, he told Hizballah's Al-Manar channel that Assad was drawing international criticism "because of the good things that he did such as supporting Palestinian and Lebanese resistance and rejecting to surrender to Israel."

Galloway hailed Assad in a 2005 speech as "the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of remaining dignity of the Arabs." "Syria," he said in a separate appearance that July, "is lucky to have Bashar Al-Assad as her president."

Galloway and his Viva Palestina (VP) acolytes seem to be in agreement, however, that Gaza is lucky to have the terrorist group Hamas in control. From Galloway's infamous display of a bag of cash given to a Hamas minister in 2009 to his and VP's frequent meetings with Hamas leaders, the group works to enhance Hamas' place as "the elected government of Palestine."

Galloway's refusal to avoid dealing with the unelected government of Syria prompted Turkish and Jordanian groups to distance themselves, too.

"I don't understand the purpose of those criticisms," Galloway said. "We travel through all countries that lead to Palestine."
"By going into Syria," a London-based supporter said, "they ARE taking sides" with the government.

A state-run Syrian news agency quoted a convoy official demurring about the country's strife. "What is taking place in Syria is a Syrian affair," the unnamed official reportedly said, "and we are guests of the Syrian people and respect their right to determine their destiny without foreign interferences."

The Syrian excursion may not have been the sole cause of Egypt's rejection. An analysis by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center pointed to violence that broke out between convoy participants and Egyptian officers during a January 2010 trip. "At that time they confronted the Egyptian security forces in a kind of rehearsal for the events aboard the Mavi Marmara a few months later."

That led Egypt to declare Galloway unwelcome in the country, a move since rescinded after Hosni Mubarak's ouster last year.
The Mavi Marmara was part of a Turkish-led flotilla which, deliberately aimed to confront Israel's embargo on shipments to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Nine people on the ship died in May 2010 after they attacked Israeli commandos with knives, clubs and other weapons as they soldiers tried to board.

Though a United Nations report found that the embargo is legal and rooted in "a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza stopping weapons from being smuggled," Galloway and flotilla organizers persist and provoke more confrontations.

Galloway's mishandling of the itinerary doesn't mean supplies aren't flowing into Gaza. A similar effort dubbed "Miles of Smiles" was greeted Sunday by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

"The arrival of the convoy is a new page of the Jihad against the occupation of the Palestinian territories," said the group's leader, Jordanian Sheikh Hammam Saeed, in an article published on the Hamas military wing's website. Saeed also heads the Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Miles of Smiles convoy includes leaders from Interpal, a British organization designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2003 for supporting Hamas. Interpal is also a member of the Union of the Good, designated by the U.S. in 2008 for supporting and transferring funds to Hamas.

The convoy's general director, Essam Yusuf, also known as Essam Mustafa, is the managing trustee and vice chairman of Interpal.  The convoy also includes members of the New Zealand and Malaysian groups which broke off from Viva Palestina's latest convoy over the Syria issue.

One participant described meeting Haniyeh for lunch, calling the Hamas leader "a seemingly humble man with a kind face that emanates sincere respect for whoever he is speaking with."

Senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya welcomed the 13th Miles of Smiles convoy, presenting participants with a plaque showing "a shield surrounding Jerusalem, stressing that liberation has become closer than ever before."

Efforts like this helps them "feel that the date for the liberation of Jerusalem is soon," al-Hayya said, "and when you come and express solidarity with us, we feel that we are not alone but the entire free world is helping us and standing with us."

The convoy also met with Hamas hardliner Mahmoud al-Zahar, who told the group, "Today we begin a new cycle of civilization without injustice nor occupation nor colonization. The Arab revolutions today are the best proof to unity of peoples and their rallying around the choice of resistance and liberation. These convoys are only miles away from stepping towards the liberation of the man and Palestine from the filth of the occupation."

Despite Galloway's failure, the episode further reinforces that his Viva Palestina operation and those like it are rooted in an ambition to prop up the Hamas regime in Gaza more than in a desire to help Palestinians. Since its inception in 2009, Viva Palestina has sought to elevate Hamas politically and financially and has delivered millions of dollars to the Hamas government. Similarly, the Miles of Smiles convoys have met with Hamas leaders during their trips to Gaza, beginning in 2009. Interpal has played a key role in dispatching the Miles of Smiles convoys, and in providing funds to Hamas' infrastructure.

Earlier this month, the UK Charity Commission again cleared Interpal of any wrongdoing, despite the U.S. designation of the group. And the Commission cleared Viva Palestina for its support of Hamas in March 2010, despite the mounting evidence that Viva Palestina and Galloway delivered aid to the terrorist group

Title: Jonathan Pollard
Post by: JDN on June 16, 2012, 09:12:34 PM

"The next time an Israeli official petitions the U.S. government to release American traitor Jonathan Pollard from prison, we should tell our friend and longtime ally in an unequivocal tone: He will die in an American prison, so stop asking!"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/16/opinion/roland-martin-pollard/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Title: Jonathan Pollard
Post by: ccp on June 17, 2012, 11:31:02 AM

JDN,

I am certainly no expert on this case but at least one thing bothers me about it.  Listening to radio programs on this it is alleged that NO other person accused of passing information to an ally has ever been given a life sentence.   No one has ever served as much time for a similar crime.   Thus the question begets, what gives here?

It really does sound like some sort of vendetta.   I really don't understand why he is not by now released.  Is something else going on, we the publick are not privy to?

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm

As for Roland Martin,  I again ask what liberal Black Democrat has ever spoken publically in defense of Jews, or Israel?

If ths Martin rant you posted does not have an anti-semitic "scent" to it, I do not know what does.

If you ask me, liberal Jews have done more than any other minority to stick up for Blacks.  This is an example of the thanks they get.

While I am Jewish I am not liberal.  That said I do sympathize with the history of the way Blacks have been treated in the in the US.

It is astounding how they have not been included in American life.   I still cannot believe that only a generation ago they were segregated let alone slaves a few generations ago.

That said, I don't feel like just rolling over and allowing that *angry* Martin guy to get away with this rant.

It is really interesting to see how so many Jews have helped Obama politically over the decades and still do.  Yet what he has done is write a book about his Muslim Communist probably Jew hating father who he never knew (Dreams FROM my father).  He joined a Church in Chicago when it was poltically expedient with a Reverend who is obviously NOT "enamored" with Jews (to put it mildly).

We see pictures of him wearing yamukahs and recently giving  the Medal of Freedom to Shimon Peres when he needs our votes.   He even has Peres make the ridiculous statement when accepting the award that he appreciates the "fact" that Obama "never took  all options off the table!!!"

Well excuse me, the military option was cearly NEVER on the table and I am not sure if it is now.  It was always about talks, sanctions and the rest of the soft stuff.  Any idiot could see that.   So did the Iran leadership.  Anyway I am going off on a tangent.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 17, 2012, 11:39:00 AM

"During Pollard's trial, he was accused of also attempting to pass classified information in to Australia, South Africa and Pakistan."

Is this so?  If so, I have been unaware of it.

Separately, I note the author's lack of rage at the recent giving up of secret intel to the who fg world , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 17, 2012, 12:10:22 PM

"Separately, I note the author's lack of rage at the recent giving up of secret intel to the who fg world , , ,"

Great point.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 17, 2012, 07:14:27 PM

George Tenet (Director of the CIA) said he then told Clinton that it was “the wrong thing to do” and that “if Pollard is released, I will no longer be the director of central intelligence in the morning.”

The President's willingness to consider clemency for Pollard so upset the intelligence community that its leaders took an unusual step: they began to go public. In early December, four retired admirals who had served as director of Naval Intelligence circulated an article, eventually published in the Washington Post, in which they argued that Pollard's release would be "irresponsible" and a victory for what they depicted as a "clever public relations campaign."

He is a despicable traitor that was lucky to only get life imprisonment.  Perhaps he should have been sentenced to death like the Rosenbergs were for being traitors.  Further, interestingly enough, much of the information Pollard had ended up in Russian hands; remember this was the Cold War. 

As for the military option never being on the table; well good.  We do NOT need another war in the middle east and war wit Iran would cost us greatly.  And frankly, I don't think
the majority of Americans want war with Iran either.  Or Korea, or....  anyone else for that matter.  The repercussions for America would be devastating. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 17, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

I suppose the law and the punishment is the same whether you are spying for an enemy or spying for an ally, probably not contemplated in the law.

I don't have enough information to know what I think of the Jonathon Pollard case, but in that I hope we are in cooperation with Israel on intelligence and defense matters it would seem this is a case more suitable for a Presidential pardon than most of Hugh Rodham's bought friends.

If this were Russia, Communist China, Iran or VenezChavezuela, you know we would chomping at the bit to appease them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on June 18, 2012, 07:10:00 AM

Quote from: DougMacG on June 17, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

I suppose the law and the punishment is the same whether you are spying for an enemy or spying for an ally, probably not contemplated in the law.

I don't have enough information to know what I think of the Jonathon Pollard case, but in that I hope we are in cooperation with Israel on intelligence and defense matters it would seem this is a case more suitable for a Presidential pardon than most of Hugh Rodham's bought friends.

Doug, do you know of any crime, anyone more hideous and destructive to our country than a traitor?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on June 18, 2012, 07:17:48 AM

"Doug, do you know of any crime, anyone more hideous and destructive to our country than a traitor?"

How about a WH staff that releases sensitive security intelligence to the whole world for political gain?

Obama saying he did not "authorize it" bespeaks that he knew.

He didn't "authorize it" but he knew and winked.  At least that is what it sounds like to me.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2012, 08:27:19 AM

"I don't have enough information to know what I think of the Jonathon Pollard case, but in that I hope we are in cooperation with Israel on intelligence and defense matters it would seem this is a case more suitable for a Presidential pardon than most of Hugh Rodham's bought friends."

I too make no pretense of sufficient knowledge of the case and certainly many of our people have a serious hard-on for Pollard (and I have no clear sense of what that means in that there are many seriously anti-Israeli players in the highest levels of our military (e.g. Gen. Zinni), agencies, and Foggy Bottom) but in passing I note I disagree with the logic of the relevance of the various purchased pardons from President Clinton (including the Marc Rich pardon shepherded to successful conclusion by now AG Holder  :x ) to any appropriate standard for pardons.   

Title: POTH: Arab-Israelis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2012, 06:49:31 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/world/middleeast/service-to-israel-tugs-at-arab-citizens-identity.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120713

Title: Israel's oil weapon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2012, 04:26:39 PM

This source is unknown to me:


July 16, 2012
Israel's Oil Weapon

Seemingly out of nowhere, geopolitics have been all but turned upside down in the Middle East, thanks to the discovery of massive energy resources in Israeli territory.  As a nascent Oil Power, the Jewish State is only beginning to contemplate the new dynamics of influence available to it.
The world knows Vladimir Putin as President of Russia; however, to Putin's official title, allow me to suggest a second appellation, unofficial, but no less descriptive:  Israel's New Best Friend.  Until recently, one could characterize Russia's position vis-à-vis Israel as, at best ambivalent:  cordial relations with Jerusalem on the one hand, while supplying weapons, nuclear technology and other assistance to her enemies on the other.
But Putin's late June visit to Israel signaled, and was meant to signal, a sea-change in Russia-Israel relations -- "sea" as in Mediterranean sea, where in 2009, 50 miles off the Israeli coast, geologists discovered "an estimated 8.3 tcf (trillion cubic feet) of highest-quality natural gas," to be surpassed just a year later with the discovery of a second field, named Leviathan, of an additional 16 tcf, "making it the world's biggest deep-water gas find in a decade" and causing Israel to go from "a gas famine to feast in a matter of months."  Other estimates put the Leviathan reserves as high as 20 tcf.
Needless to say, these discoveries could not be more timely, coming at about the same time as the Muslim Brotherhood's ascension to power and acts of sabotage in Egypt jeopardize the reliability of natural gas supplies to Israel from that country.  Who says that God does not retain a special place in his heart for His Chosen People?
But of more earthly, and material, concern than the Almighty's mysterious affection for an ancient tribe of itinerant sheepherders, is Russian energy giant Gazprom's love of lucrative gas extraction contracts with the Jewish state.  After all, oil and gas discoveries of such magnitude are about as rare as the sight of Vladimir Putin, praying at the Western, wall in a yarmulke.  Or taking the Palestinians' side against the Israelis' as energetically in the future as he has in the past.  For, as Jerusalem Post columnist Isi Leibler notes, while Putin "heads a country which has ties and provides weapons to some of [Israel's] greatest enemies including Iran and Syria" and "tends to support the Palestinian position, both as a member of the Quartet and at the UN",
[Putin's] visit to Israel unquestionably sends clear signals.  Even recognizing major divergence of policies in relation to Iran and Syria, and that Putin's tensions with the United States and interests in the Arab world preclude [Israel] from considering him a partner, it sends a message to the Arabs that Russia is not an enthusiastic ally in their efforts to undermine the Jewish state.
Or at least not while the rubles are flowing into Gazprom's coffers, anyway.  But it's not just the Benjamins (Netanyahu or $100 bills, take your pick).  Both countries share ambivalent and sometimes strained relations with Turkey; concerns about the dark side of the Arab Spring, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic fundamentalism; and concerns about events in Syria.
Some of Israel's European critics might also want to rethink their anti-Israel stances and the barely disguised anti-Semitism that inspires them, or at least tone it down a bit should they want, at some future time, a piece of the Israeli oil-pie.  As Victor Davis Hansen asks, "Will Europe still snub Israel when it has as much oil, gas, and money as an OPEC member in the Persian Gulf?"  Well, I'm pretty sure they'll want to, but as De Gaulle famously said, "France has no friends, only interests."  I suppose we'll find out soon enough whether France has no enemies, either.  In the meantime, Walter Russell Mead simplystates the obvious when he says that "
regardless of the simple economic impact, in different ways and different degrees the Gulf countries and Russia are going to lose a lot of the political advantages that their energy wealth now gives them.  They will have less ability to restrict supply and to manipulate prices than they have had in the past. Oil and gas are going to be less special when supplies are more abundant and more broadly distributed.
To which this writer would only add:  especially when a major source of these "more abundant and broadly distributed" supplies is a stable, democratic friend and ally.
And finally there is America.  For Russia, it's the traditional East-West rivalry.  But for Israel, it is not so much America the country as it is her current, and hapless, president, Barack Obama and the Israel-hostile fellow travelers who populate his administration.  For the first time since, perhaps, the Eisenhower administration, Israel has good reason, at least while Obama is in power, to question our reliability as an ally.  And Putin has an obvious incentive to exploit Jerusalem's doubts by moving closer to Israel in the hope of creating a concomitant distance between Israel and the U.S.  Indeed, he mayalready be doing so (emphases below mine):
Putin's arrival in the region must be viewed in contrast to President Obama, who has yet to visit Israel....  President Putin's visit was clearly calculated to be the mirror image of Obama's last visit to the region.  In a similar manner, while Obama chose to talk to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in his first overseas telephone call as president, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke on the phone immediately after Putin's return to the presidency in May. [...]
What's more, not only did Putin begin his tour of the Middle East in Israel, he also made a point in visiting holy Christian and Jewish sites, while entirely skipping the Muslim shrines.  He met with Christian and Jewish religious leaders but avoided meeting any Muslim clergy.  Even when visiting the Palestinian Authority, Putin chose to come to Bethlehem -- a Christian site -- rather than Ramallah.  Whereas Obama chose to reach out to Islam and the Palestinians during his famous 2009 speech in Cairo, Putin chose to appear as the defender of Christianity in the Middle East, outreaching to Judaism and playing down the Palestinian case.  [...]
Indeed, when [Putin] insisted on negotiations instead of unilateral steps as the right path towards the resolution of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, he practically endorsed Israel's stance on the matter.
I mention the above as a cautionary note.  Israel has a lot more than oil to offer Russia -- and China, and India -- than oil.  She also has brainpower and all the technological prowess that goes along with it, and here I mean, especially, military technology, which, I think we all can agree, our competitors and enemies would very much like to have.  What Israel does not have a lot of, is money.  But Russia, India and, especially, China, have oodles of the stuff, much of it formerly ours.  And I would not count the Israelis themselves out, either:  as more and more Israeli energy exporting infrastructure comes online, and the revenues start flowing in, Israel might, one day, have substantial funds of her own to put in the pot.  Yes, Israel loves us -- but do they love us enough to commit national suicide for us?  Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by enemies both potential and real, and like any country in such a situation, relies on alliances and partnerships with larger ones.  Which country, or countries, one allies with, however, is of considerably lesser importance when survival is the issue and let's be brutally honest, here.  If you were Benjamin Netanyahu, and Barack Obama were your ally, would you want to put all of your alliance eggs in one basket?
So as he continues to lambaste Israel on the one hand, while schmoozing Israel's rivals and enemies on the other, and assuming that an Israeli-designed anti-missile missile could shoot down an American missile as well as it can an Arab -- or Chinese, or Russian -- one, President Obama might wish to ponder the geopolitical implications of the day, if it ever comes, that the Israelis decide that they don't need us anymore.
But we were talking about oil, about how the new Israeli discoveries make Israel, for the first time in her history, both energy-independent and an increasingly desirable ally and partner for any number of rich, powerful and above all, energy-hungry, countries.  So let's look at the military implications of Israel's emergence as an "energy superpower" and how her energy independence can benefit not just her, but us, too.
Many of us older folks remember well the Arab oil embargo of 1973, Sheik Yamani, a sweater-clad Jimmy Carter turning down the thermostat in the White House and, above all, the breathless anticipation with which the world would await the result of each price-setting meeting of the then-all powerful (or at least so it seemed) Arab oil cartel.  Fortunately, we haven't heard from the cartel in a while and with an oil-rich Israel more than happy to help her Western friends -- and hurt her Arab (and Venezuelan) enemies -- by ramping up her own production to offset any lost production from production reductions elsewhere, we may never hear from them again.
But of course, any introduction of new supply will push oil prices down everywhere and reduce revenues for everyone.  Including, of course, Iran.  So if you're Israel, with an enemy as implacable -- and oil-revenue dependent -- as Iran, why wait for an embargo?  Why not flood the world with as much oil, as fast, and as cheaply, you can?  Need oil, mister?  Oy, have I got a deal for you....
And finally, regarding Iran, there is the military application:  Iran's nuclear facilities are hidden deep underground, but her oilfields are not.  Most, if not all, of Iran's oil production infrastructure is above ground, vulnerable to attack and, oh, by the way, oil is extremely flammable.  By impairing Iran's oilfields, which the Israeli air force probably could do, Israel could bring the Iranian economy, and the Mullahs who rule it, to its and their knees.  Indeed, one can only assume that the only reason the Israelis haven't already done so is the predicted effect on oil prices and the predictable cries of outrage from the "international community" guaranteed to arise therefrom.  But with Israel ready, willing and able to replace any lost Iranian oil in quantities sufficient to keep world oil prices stable or even lower...?
Since the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., through centuries of conquest, revolt and exile, Jews have dreamed of -- and fought for, and died for -- the day when a restored, militarily strong, truly independent Israel would rise and resume her rightful place among the nations of the world.
With Israel's newfound energy supplies, and the will and wisdom to exploit those supplies to her advantage, that day may not be far off.
Gene Schwimmer is the pundit-proprietor of Schwimmerblog and the author of The Christian State.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/israels_oil_weapon.html#ixzz20njeRQ8v

Title: House votes to strengthen ties with Israel
Post by: bigdog on July 18, 2012, 04:32:47 AM

http://thehill.com/video/house/238505-house-votes-to-strengthen-ties-with-israel-sends-bill-to-obama

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2012, 07:45:43 AM

Two Sides of the Same Flag: How Israel's Natural Gas Will Change the World
By Marin Katusa

Relations amongst the countries of the Middle East revolve around religion and historic allegiances. The region's Muslim countries are divided into Sunni and Shiite camps while Jews and Christians are in a constant battle for representation. The historic Camp David peace accord between Egypt and Israel has provided a cornerstone for regional relations for years (though it is showing signs of strain in the post-Mubarak era), and the United States has long supported these two nations alongside Saudi Arabia and its allies while Russia shored up Iran, Syria, and those in the opposing group. Grievances often go back decades, if not longer, and there are so many interested parties that it is nigh impossible to move without stepping on someone's toes.

But there is one force that is more powerful in the pulsing Middle East than even religion: energy.

Oil and gas mean money and power, two great enablers that make anything possible. Why else would one of the world's most conservative Muslim countries - Saudi Arabia - align itself so closely with the United States, a showcase of liberal thought and personal freedom?

As the birthplace of three major religions, the Middle East was destined for conflict, but the presence of vast energy wealth has amplified and complicated those tensions a hundredfold. It's a global truth that those with energy resources hold the cards and those without domestic energy supplies have to do whatever is necessary to ensure they are dealt a hand. The Middle East is home to a disproportionate number of countries in the former category - countries bloated with the power that comes with oil wealth.

Not every country in the region fits that bill, however. For years Israel's Achilles heel has been energy - or a lack thereof. Netanyahu's old joke is that Moses led his people through the desert for 40 years to the only place in the Middle East without any oil. Decades of drilling and digging yielded no significant hydrocarbons, leaving Israel with no choice but to spend 5% of its GDP buying fuel from neighboring suppliers... with whom its interests conflicted and its relations were uneasy at best.

Now that is all changing. In recent years, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas have been discovered in Israeli waters while 250 billion barrels of shale oil have been outlined in the country's rocks. Whether Israel will become a significant oil producer is still very uncertain, as the economics of its shale deposits are far from proven, but the nation is already preparing for a future funded by natural gas exports.

This shift will generate welcome cash flow for Israel, but even more significant than the country's newfound wealth will be its newfound political might. Israel is already receiving visits from new friends and potential business partners, some of them countries that have avoided or even opposed Israel until now. Russia is leading that pack, having pointedly placed itself at the front of the line of nations wanting to secure a piece of Israel's gas pie - and this is the same Russia that usually supports two of Israel's greatest enemies, Iran and Syria.

In the boiling, roiling Middle East, new allegiances are never simple. Befriending one nation almost always requires you to turn your back on another, and changing camps is not easily forgotten. Those wanting access to Israel's natural gas will also have to navigate a treacherous international obstacle course, as contested maritime borders mean that Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, and even Gaza all lay some claim to Israel's vast offshore gas fields.

But remember: the wealth and power that come with energy are a great enabler. Israel will develop its gas riches. To do so, the country will need partners and buyers, and those who line up to participate will be doing so in the full knowledge that an Israel with energy wealth represents a completely new player in the Middle Eastern game (a development that could well ignite a "Cold War" over energy).

Israel's Natural Gas Revolution

The story of Israel's romance with natural gas starts in 2000, when a consortium led by Noble Energy drilled into an offshore target called Mari-B. A few holes later, the group had defined 1 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of recoverable natural gas, and by 2004 the Mari-B field was in full production. Israelis embraced a domestic energy resource: natural gas consumption rose as quickly as the country could build infrastructure to produce and transport it.
 
One good discovery often prompts another, and such was the case with Israeli gas and Noble Energy. In 2006, the American firm snapped up the chance to earn into the nearby Tamar block, which had not yet been drilled because the previous operator had shied away from the area's exceptionally high underground pressures. Noble's geologists ran every test they could and decided Tamar's potential was worth the risk. They were right: with two wells, Noble defined 9 TCF of gross natural gas resources at Tamar, of which 6.3 TCF are considered recoverable. It was the largest deepwater natural gas discovery in the world in 2009, and it came just in time.

As the graph above shows, Israel's natural gas revolution quickly pushed demand from almost zero to beyond Mari-B's ability to supply it. Fortunately, there was a country close by with lots of natural gas for sale: Egypt. In 2005, the East Mediterranean Gas Company pipeline opened, connecting the Egyptian city of El Arish to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. By 2008, Israel had 170 MCF of gas pouring in from Egypt every day. Mari-B supplied the rest, and Israel became dependent on natural gas to produce 20% of its electricity. However, all good things must come to an end.

Today, Mari-B is running dry, and relations with Egypt are on rough ground. The peace accord between Egypt and Israel only thinly concealed the never-extinguished Egyptian enmity towards Israel, and the Egyptian opposition - everyone from Islamists to Arab nationalists and leftists - has long regarded the Camp David accord with disgust. The gas deal that built and filled the pipeline was a tangible product of that hated peace accord, and the opposition has declaimed it since the day it was signed, certain that Israel and Mubarak had conspired to cheat Egypt out of its gas revenues.

Those opposition parties are now filling the seats of Egypt's parliament. The parliament itself is frozen, caught in a complex legal limbo, but no matter - a series of bombings disabled the gas pipeline to Israel last year, and it has not been operational since. The days of Israel relying on Egypt for gas - and of Egypt pocketing a nice stream of revenue from Israel - are over.
Thankfully for Israel, timing is everything. Development work at Tamar is running on schedule, and the first wells are expected to come online before the end of the year. A smaller field called Noa was sped into production to bridge the gap until Tamar can start supplying Israel's needs.

It won't be long, however, until Israel is pumping far more gas than it needs.

Beyond Tamar

Mari-B was a big discovery and Tamar was even bigger, but they both pale in comparison to the reservoir that Noble drilled into next. Shortly after delineating 9 TCF at Tamar, Noble spudded a drill into a nearby field call Leviathan and hit a home run. The Leviathan field is absolutely enormous, home to 17 TCF of gross natural gas resource.  Adding in a 7-TCF discovery in offshore Cyprus and several other, smaller discoveries near Leviathan, Noble has now discovered no less than 35 TCF of gross natural gas resource in the region. It is far more gas than Israel could ever use.
 
Export plans are already afoot. Noble and partners aim to build a liquefaction plant so that Tamar's gas wealth can be exported globally in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). They actually hope to build a floating facility, in large part because land is so precious in Israel, and to that end they are watching Royal Dutch Shell's progress as it builds and commissions the world's first floating LNG plant for use in a field off Australia.

Even though it will be years before any LNG is produced in Israel, Russia is so keen to get its hands on Israeli LNG that state energy giant Gazprom has already signed a letter of intent with the Noble group to discuss a deal to buy 2 to 3 million tonnes of LNG annually, starting in 2016. A few months later, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Israel, and among the announcements associated with that historic trip came news that Gazprom is setting up an Israeli subsidiary to help develop Leviathan.

Once the massive Leviathan field also gets into production, Israel will need every natural gas export avenue it can find. To that end, the country has been carefully cultivating its relationships with Cyprus and Greece, through which pipelines to Europe would pass (Turkey will not allow Israeli gas to cross its lands). It seems Israel's gas wealth is already generating new international allegiances: Israel, Russia, Cyprus, and Greece seem to be gravitating towards each other to form a new team in the Middle Eastern game.

New Camps in the Old Battleground

That things are changing so quickly is no surprise. The countries along both coasts of the Persian Gulf erupted into global prominence in the 1970s when world energy shortages catapulted them into previously unimagined wealth and political influence. If Israel emerges as a new power, those Arab countries will remain rich, especially because their energy is cheaper to produce than the more unconventional sources being outlined elsewhere in the world, including in Israel.

But what they keep in money, they may lose in clout. With other oil and gas streams coming on line, such as Canadian oil-sands crude and Arctic oil, we may be heading into a time when the world doesn't care all that much about what happens in the Persian Gulf (as long as nobody gets frisky with nukes).

OPEC nations will not be the only ones to cede ground to an energy-rich Israel - Turkey could be another big loser. For  years Turkey was governed by a secular party, which actively sought out closer relations with Israel. Now the Islamist AK party is in charge, and relations with Israel are on the outs. If Israel does emerge as a new energy powerhouse and establishes a cozy circle with Russia, Greece, and Cyprus, Turkey will feel like someone who ditched a long-time friend right before she won the lottery. More generally, Turkey's ambitions to play a larger role in the politics of the eastern Med will have suffered a significant setback.

Egypt will also struggle with Israel's rise. As much as many Egyptians decried the deal to sell their gas to Israel, the fact is the deal generated considerable incomes for state coffers. That income has now evaporated, just as the country convulses through the aftermath of a revolution. Moreover, Egypt's role as a regional powerhouse stemmed almost exclusively from its secular governance and its peace with Israel - these factors were so important in the old Middle East that the US government supported Egypt to the tune of $3 billion annually. Now Islamists are in power, and the path forward in Egypt's relationship with Israel is very uncertain. We see the country's power waning in the coming years as it finds footing in the new Middle East.

Then there's the United States, which will find its importance to Israel fade if the Jewish state becomes an energy giant with a dance card full of suitors. In the long run, the US could be hurt most of all if its best Middle Eastern friend, Israel, turns away from its embrace and towards the strong, strategic arms of Vladimir Putin.

It's a real possibility - Russia has already wooed Israel into several waltzes. In fact, the two nations have been growing closer for several years despite Russia's support for Iran, Syria, and even Hamas. Bilateral trade is approaching $3 billion annually; Russian immigrants make up 20% of Israel's population; Israel sold military drones and other high-tech weapons to Russia after Russia's poor military performance in Georgia in 2008; and following the Arab Spring, Israel and Russia share an interest in preventing the spread of radical Islam in the Middle East. If Israel can help stem the rising tide of radical Islam and provide Russia with another steady supply of natural gas, Putin must be thinking that perhaps this new friendship is worth the turmoil it will cause.

And cause turmoil it will, because even though alliances in the Middle East are forged over decades, they can also change overnight, especially when the new global currency of energy is at work. Russia is walking a tightrope in its efforts to woo Israel while still supporting Iran and Syria, and Putin may soon have to make a choice between old friends and new. If Russia abandons Iran and Syria, the Sunni-Shiite balance in the region will destabilize just as Islamists are taking power in several countries for the first time.

The old camps of the Middle East are changing. Transitions are rarely smooth, and these transitions in who holds power in the volatile Middle East will almost certainly provide some very rough patches.

Israel clearly sees the potential for trouble as it develops its newfound energy riches. The Israeli Defense Forces recently approved a navy request for four new warships, at a cost of about $750 million. The navy is concerned that the gas rigs being built in Israeli waters will be an attractive target for terrorist attacks, especially if Israel were to find itself in another war.

Israel knows Hezbollah has the capability to fire missiles from land to the gas fields. And Hezbollah may not be the only terrorist group with such lethal capacity - in February, the Israeli navy found an Iranian ship carrying six Nasr-1 radar-guided anti-ship missiles to Gaza; the navy believes the weapons were destined for al-Jihad. In addition, Syria also has its hands on an anti-ship missile that could reach the gas fields. Just imagine what a missile attack by an Islamist foe on an Israeli gas rig would mean for global politics (not to mention the environmental health of the Mediterranean Sea).

Of course, Israel's new warships will only add to a region that is packed with military capacity. Continued tensions over Iran's nuclear program have recently prompted the Islamic Republic and the United States to beef up their already impressive presence in the region. Just yesterday, those tensions led a gunnery team aboard a refueling tanker in the Persian Gulf to fire 0.50-cal rounds at a small, fast-moving boat, killing one person. It now seems the boat was a fishing vessel whose crew did not understand warnings to change course, but the navy personnel who decided to shoot were concerned it could have been an explosives-laden suicide skiff heading for an American warship.

While that altercation was seemingly unrelated to Israeli natural gas, in reality everything that happens in the Middle East is about energy. After all, the United States is drawn to the Middle East to protect its oil interests, and the reason it can act there with such force is because it buys billions of barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia and others in the region.

In a region that revolves around energy resources, Israel has long been at a major disadvantage, scrambling to secure supplies of the oil and gas it needed. Today, all that is changing, and Israel's newfound natural gas wealth will generate a sea change not only for the Jewish state but for the entire region and everyone involved in it. Israel is gaining clout, Russia might be changing sides, Iran is feeling vulnerable, Egypt is losing a major customer, regional and global allegiances are shifting, and we are being reminded that energy resources hold the real power in the world's most volatile region.

Title: Urgent Plea for Pro-Israel Ad Funding...
Post by: objectivist1 on July 23, 2012, 11:34:20 AM

Please send any amount via PayPal to the addresses listed if you agree and can afford to do so:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/we-must-run-these-pro-israel-ads-.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 31, 2012, 09:45:17 AM

"forcibly taking over Jerusalem, giving no compensation, and calling land in the occupied territory your "capital" is illegitimate." - JDN from Glibness thread

Hate speech IMO if you won't back it up.  Defense of your country is "illegal"?  Please cite the law along with a complete list of countries who have broken it.

Singling out Israel while looking the other way for all others reeks of antisemitism.  The same group that puts Assad and Khadafy on the Human Rights Commission lashes out constantly at Israel for committing acts of self defense.

The real question IMHO is this:  Has our half-hearted, wishy-washy support for our best ally in the region* Israel featuring equal respect for the terrorists who attack them been helpful or counterproductive to Middle East peace?

* In your world, who is our best ally in the region?  Which country seeks peace than Israel and more representative of our ideals?

Meanwhile we bow to unelected Arab royalty, Pres. Assad of Syria is a reformer, and Mrs. Arafat is oh so kissable.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 31, 2012, 10:37:00 AM

Hate Speech?   :?  When the entire world agrees with you?  That's not hate speech, hahaha that's the TRUTH.

Israel in a 1967 offensive move invaded and forcibly took over East Jerusalem.  Israel acted like the conquer; it still occupies this foreign territory nor has it seeked compromise nor has any compensation be been offered.  Defense of your country is fine.  No one has a problem if you defend your country.  This is simply wrong.  Maybe Israel's next move will be to conquer all of Jordan and move Israel's capital to Amman? I'm sure you would agree that moving the capital into conquered land would be perfectly legitimate.  Per your request, I would provide a list, but I don't have one of any countries other than Israel in the last 50 years that have forcibly taken land from another nation and moved their capital onto the foreign land.

Quoting your Wikipedia "The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.  The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."

What part don't you get?  The entire world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; it's a military occupation of a foreign land.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 31, 2012, 11:32:37 AM

And it wasn't hate speech for a certain chancellor if all of Germany agreed with him...  What a bizarre criteria for distinguishing between right and wrong.

While you were driveling around I think you forgot to answer the question, are they our best ally in the region?

Or are they a rogue nation ready to make more unprovoked attacks on neighbors as you suggest?

How can they be both?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 31, 2012, 12:05:19 PM

Israel was the aggressor in '67?!?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 31, 2012, 02:02:13 PM

"Israel was the aggressor in '67?!?"

For that to be true you would have to believe that all opposing air raids must complete their missions and all bombs must land and explode before it is "legal" to defend yourself.

FYI to JDN, if you wait until you are dead to respond, you did not act in self defense.  To the contrary, you failed to act in self defense.

Title: On Death and Palestinian Culture
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 31, 2012, 04:03:56 PM

On Death and Palestinian Culture
IPT News
July 31, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3691/on-death-and-palestinian-culture

 
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is taking criticism for remarks about culture in explaining Israel's economic success compared to Palestinians' during a speech in Jerusalem Monday.
"Culture makes all the difference," Romney said.
While Romney denied on Tuesday that his reference was a criticism about Palestinian culture, Palestinian leaders immediately slammed the comment. Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erakat calling it "a racist statement" that ignores the effect occupation has on the Palestinian economy.
What makes Palestinians a unique race has not been explained. But just imagine the outcry if a sitting government official described Palestinians as developing methods "of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people death has become an industry at which women excel."
If a passing reference to "culture" set off Palestinian ire, what might they say about an official saying death is a Palestinian "industry?"
In this case, the comment drew no criticism. It came from Hamas MP Fathi Hammad in remarks broadcast on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television in 2008. According to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Hammad told the enemies of Allah that they "do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its (methods) of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people death has become an industry at which women excel and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'"
That line – Palestinians desiring death more than Israelis value life – is invoked often by Palestinian leaders, their supporters and in their media. Three years before Hammad's comments, Hamas commander Raed Sa'ad summed up the distorted educational values that have been successfully instilled in the Palestinian younger generation.
"We have succeeded, with Allah's grace, to raise an ideological generation that loves death like our enemies love life," he said.
Such a message cannot be helpful in luring foreign investors. Political pundits are free to debate the wisdom of Romney's statement as a candidate for president, but abundant examples exist to show that Palestinian culture has embraced a celebration of violence and death in its educational and civic programs.
PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is credited for working to reverse this tide, building a growing economy on the West Bank and countering the Islamists' violent and extreme agenda. But the PA continues to undermine this effort by glorifying suicide bombers and naming schools, camps and sporting events after terrorists. For example, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) listed more than a dozen West Bank institutions in 2010 that are named for Dalal Mughrabi, who led a team that hijacked a bus packed with tourists in 1978, killing 37 people – 12 of them children – as the terrorists shot passengers and lobbed grenades at passing cars in what is known as the Coastal Road Massacre, one of the worst terrorist attacks in Israel's history.
Another PMW report in December showed how a youth magazine underwritten by the Palestinian Authority offset a generally positive message by publishing a student's praise for Adolph Hitler for killing Jews. Another article hailed a "mighty Jihad fighter [who] died as a Martyr and Jerusalem is proud of its heroes... Victory, victory, victory..."
"All Martyrdom Seekers"
 
Children's programming on the Hamas-run Al-Aqsa television has featured a series of characters in recent years extolling the virtues of martyrdom and liberating Palestine from the "filthy" Jew – "enemies of Allah" – on a program called "Pioneers of Tomorrow." MEMRI has showcased a succession of characters and their violent messages for young Palestinians. It started with Farfour, a Mickey Mouse rip-off who was shown being beaten to death by a character playing an Israeli in June 2007. The host, a young girl, told the children watching that Farfour was "martyred at the hand of the criminals, the murderers, the murderers of innocent children."
He was succeeded two weeks later by Nahoul, a bee, who vowed "to continue the path of Farfour, the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom, and of the mujahideen. Me and my friends will follow in the footsteps of Farfour. We will take revenge upon the enemies of Allah, the killers of the prophets and of the innocent children, until we liberate al-Aqsa from their impurity."
Children were shown Nahoul's death seven months later. He was replaced by Assud, a pink rabbit, who mourned Nahoul and asked the young host, ""We are all martyrdom seekers, are we not, Saraa?"
"Of course we are," she replies. "We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland ... We will liberate al-Aqsa from the filth of those Zionists."
In response to a caller, Assud promises to "get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up, Allah willing, right?"
"Allah willing," Saraa says.
In 2009, yet another character, a bear named Nassur, pledged to "join the ranks of the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades [the Hamas military wing] and I will wage Jihad among them, and I will carry a gun," a MEMRI translation shows.
As if that were not enough, a 2007 episode featured a segment called "The Gifted," showed a child purported to be 2 years old, dressed in camouflage, acting out maneuvers with a toy automatic rifle.
"God planted in his heart love for our country so he'll become a holy warrior," the child host says. "For he has chosen this path and in his young age came to love the training methods of Holy Warriors and 'Shahids' (Martyrs) who serve God's ways. Let's see what the kid does. Let's get to know him."
After the video, the host explains "Our friend Ahmad continues in this path as do all Palestinian children ... We'll wear the 'battle-vest of self-sacrifice (explosive belt) and follow the path of the Shahids."
This is not to say all Palestinians agree with the message, or that it is the sole cause of Palestinian economic problems. But it is a theme consistently set by elected leaders of both Hamas in Gaza and of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
It bears repeating that the Hamas charter specifically rules out any peaceful settlement in the conflict with Israel, saying "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
In response to Romney's statement, Palestinians blamed Israeli occupation. But after Hamas took over Gaza after Israel's unilateral withdrawal, the group opted to rain thousands of rockets on civilian communities in Israel, drawing both retaliation and an embargo aimed at keeping Hamas from importing materials to make more weapons.
A United Nations report found that the embargo is legal and rooted in "a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza stopping weapons from being smuggled,"
And despite actions by the West in shutting down the airing of programs such as these, the incitement and spreading of conspiracy theories continue.
Leaders in both territories gave heroes' welcomes to terrorists freed last fall in an exchange with Israel. More than 1,000 terrorists, many with blood on their hands, were set free in exchange for Hamas' release of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, who had been kidnapped five years earlier.
Throngs of cheering people turned out to welcome the prisoners amid celebratory gunfire and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh greeted many of them personally.
Hamas deputy chief Mousa Abu Marzook hinted darkly that more kidnappings would follow. "The rest of the prisoners must be released because if they are not released in a normal way they will be released in other ways."
There is more to Palestinian culture than this. But the celebration of death and violence is far from isolated.
In a speech about women's rights in Islamist countries, Muslim reformist Irshad Manji drew information from Martin Luther King in noting a difference between equality among people and equality among cultures.
"[J]ust because human beings are equal, it does not mean cultures are, too," she said. "Cultures are not born, cultures are constructed... There's nothing sacred about culture, which means there's nothing blasphemous, sacrilegious, or inconceivable about reforming ... aspects of it."
Palestinian leaders need to find the courage to admit that glorification of violence is rampant in their society and do more to root it out. It's the right thing to do, and it may help build their economy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on July 31, 2012, 05:43:53 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 31, 2012, 12:05:19 PM

Israel was the aggressor in '67?!?

"After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria."

Japan tried the same thing, claiming "high tension",  without nearly so much success.   :-)

Still, after soundly defeating Japan, we still didn't move our Capital to Tokyo.  Nor I bet if Japan had won the war would they have moved their capital to California.  But they might have moved the State capital to LA or SF.   :-)

It isn't just one country, or one group of people, but ALL, let me repeat, ALL nations think Israel is wrong, i.e. illegitimate, to make Jerusalem the capital. So Doug, quit making foolish analogies. And while I agree, Israel is our best ally in the region, even among friends, wrong is wrong.  I might point out that the the vast majority of Jews in America also support America's position and vote Democratic.  i.e. nearly everyone in the world thinks Israel is wrong on this issue.  As a side note, frankly, without us, Israel would have perished a long time ago.  They have no better friend.  Probably, they have no other friend, period.  Time for a little gratefulness.....

As for the other countries in the Middle East, I have also not forgotten that oil is oil.  Israel is our greatest ally, but let's be practical too.
Israel needs us a LOT more than we need them.

Title: King David Hotel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2012, 02:32:03 PM

A trip down memory lane:

The bombing in 1946 was a tragedy. However, let’s add a little context of events surrounding this bombing:
1. British troops at the time had invaded the Jewish Agency June 29, 1946 and confiscated large quantities of intelligence documents and taken it to the King David Hotel and were holding it there.
2. British troops had just arrested and imprisoned more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine.
3. A week before, 40 Jews were massacred in the streets.
The bombing was not about “killing infidels” – keep in mind this is generally a term used by Muslims to kill anyone not Muslim or by Christians during the crusades to kill anyone not Christian. This is not something typically yelled by Israeli suicide bombers – oh wait – when did we have one of those? The bombing was about destroying stolen intelligence and retaliation for the imprisonment and murder of Jews. (Doesn’t make it right – but this was war not peace time terrorism).
Also important. This bombing was done by a faction acting against the direction of Jewish leaders. The Jewish leadership found out about the bombing and tried to stop it. They also called and contacted both the hotel and consulates to evacuate the hotel in an effort to save lives and prevent the disaster from happening. Their warnings were not headed. British officers who did hear the warnings (and left the hotel on their own and then survived) later testified that there were such warnings received from the Jewish leaders and that the calls were met with “We don’t take orders from the Jews” and hung up on the repeated phone calls. Nearly 100 people shortly there after died – including Jews.
The Jewish National council denounced the bombings.
(Note that this is very unlike the Arab attacks on Jews and others (US at 9/11 etc) in which they are widely hailed as heroic and claimed by the governments and Islamist groups taking credit for them and promoting and training for them).
Israel (like the US or any country) is certainly not without its faults and I am not arguing that they are. But they are by far in the minority on these events – it is actually difficult to find them. And when it does happen, they denounce them and try to prevent them. And they are not at all the “first terrorist”. Bombings and terrorism go way back before 1946. Knowing more about the facts in this case does not dismiss the incorrect action of the bombing. But it does add context.
Now, let’s talk about terrorism being done AGAINST Israel. Let’s talk about how the Christian church massacred thousands of Jews in forced conversions (Crusade days not today). Let’s talk about burning Jews in synagogues at the direction of Martin Luther (yup, modern protestants – take a look at your history too). Martin Luther’s writings were later used by Hitler in promoting the Holocaust and death of 6 million Jews. Let’s take a look at the modern day American church turning its back on Israel in her time of need out of antisemitism and marching on Jerusalem with calls to take down her walls (modern day – see Rick Warren and all the purpose driven church crowd and other prominent church leaders in America). (Keep in mind – despite this comment, most modern day Christians and churches still support Israel – we all need a reality check on the facts from time to time though and that’s why that is included).
Let’s talk about thousands of rockets being launched into southern Israel daily and the Palestinians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and Hamas doing that.. Let’s talk about the poor that live along the southern border there because that is all they can afford and who live with daily trips to bomb shelters and many have lost loved ones through this current day ongoing terrorism. Let’s talk about a tourist bus being exploded in Bulgaria a couple weeks ago. Let’s talk about suicide bombers who tend to be of Islamist faith more often than not due to the nature of what the religion teaches blowing up everything from cafes, trains, airplanes, and buildings. Let’s talk about peace in the middle east and why it isn’t working out well. How has it gone in the past when Israel has given up land in exchange for peace and get rockets and war in exchange instead?
If the USA had someone doing these things to us, we would certainly retaliate and defend ourselves. Just look at the last decade – and to put it into context, that was only over one bombing (granted it was 9/11, the world trade center, and 3.000 Americans killed). But we only experienced terrorism so infrequently (thankfully). Israel lives with this daily.
If we list out actual time line, events, and actually list the number of times attacks have taken place on one group or another and list them all together by shear number alone even, your comment calling the Israelis the terrorists sounds absurd.
•   http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/03/our-splying-frenemies/?eiid=

Title: Does Mitts really know what he's doing?
Post by: JDN on August 08, 2012, 10:55:05 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/07/mitt-hold-your-fire.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on August 09, 2012, 06:25:01 PM

Does JDN know what he's posting?

a) Mitts is singular unless you've got two of them, and
b) the 'quote' is from Netanyahu, not Gov. Romney, and the source is unnamed.
c) The reference to Romney's policy is posed with a question mark! 
d) Both the headline writer and the poster did not read the article it appears, yet both found it worth passing on for others, lol.

Title: Liberal Jewish Denial...
Post by: objectivist1 on August 14, 2012, 11:40:38 AM

Jewicidals Condemn Pro-Israel Ads in San Francisco

Pamela Geller - August 14, 2012

Look how tough these Jews are when it comes to going after their own who are brave enough not to hide behind the genocidal rhetoric of the annihilators. Are we to understand that these liberal Jews sanction the jihad war on innocent civilians in Israel?

Where are their knee-jerk condemnations of the vile anti-Semitism on college campuses, in the Occupy movement, and in Muslim media? Why have they never condemned the anti-semitism in the quran?  It incites the Muslim world to Jewish genocide?  One Jew calls out annihilationists and this is their reaction? Even the Judenrat didn't protect and defend the Nazis' war on the Jews. They went along, but they didn't advance and promote it. This is just sick.

The Bay Area Jewish Community Condemns Anti-Muslim Muni Bus Ads
Statement from the Jewish Community Relations Council and the American Jewish Committee San Francisco

"Last week, a new advertisement appeared on Muni buses in San Francisco, placed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The Bay Area’s organized Jewish community takes great offense to the ad’s inflammatory and anti-Muslim language. We are steadfast in our support of Israel and our concern about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism, and steadfast in our opposition to anti- Muslim stereotypes.

We have long been concerned that the repeated appearance of offensive anti-Israel ads would turn our local public transit system into a battleground for the Israeli-Arab conflict; we are no less concerned by offensive anti-Muslim ads. We urge all transit authorities to reassess their policies and to construct advertising policies consistent with laws governing protected speech that preserve public transit as a safe space for all passengers."

It's a staple of enemedia coverage that these ads are "anti-Muslim," but actually the words Islam and Muslim never appear in the ads. Nor does the ad say that all Muslims are savages -- again, contrary to media myth. The premise of my ad was that a war on innocent civilians is savage. And that is a fact. As long as the Palestinian Authority continues its savage policy of fomenting violence, promoting hatred, and teaching Palestinian children to hate, the number of young Muslims willing to blow themselves up or to slit Israeli throats will continue to increase. That is savage. The Palestinian Authority propaganda of Holocaust-denial, calls for the killing of the Jews, and glorification of bloodthirsty jihadis is savage.

Tell me again why the word "savage" is inaccurate. The targeting of civilians is savage. The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage. The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage. The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.

But note that this is the only press release the JCRC has issued in all of 2012. These dhimmis have nothing whatsoever to say about the genocidal rhetoric broadcast on official "Palestinian" Authority TV on a regular basis. They have nothing to say about Obama's ongoing harassment of Israel. The increasing levels of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world? Not a word. The only thing that has moved the JCRC to speak are defiantly and forthrightly pro-Israel ads. The JCRC and AJC are a disgrace.

Supporters of the JCRC and the AJC who genuinely support Israel and the Jewish people should withdraw their support from those organizations -- and support AFDI.

Title: US scales back training exercise
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2012, 09:52:28 AM

Moving Obj's post to this thread:

Exclusive: U.S. Scales-Back Military Exercise with Israel, Affecting Potential Iran Strike

A smaller U.S. contingent may make it more difficult for the Israeli government to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran's nuclear program.

By KARL VICK AND AARON J. KLEIN | August 31, 2012

Seven months ago, Israel and the United States postponed a massive joint military exercise that was originally set to go forward just as concerns were brimming that Israel would launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The exercise was rescheduled for late October, and appears likely to go forward on the cusp of the U.S. presidential election. But it won’t be nearly the same exercise. Well-placed sources in both countries have told TIME that Washington has greatly reduced the scale of U.S. participation, slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise.


“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a senior Israeli military official tells TIME.

The reductions are striking. Instead of the approximately 5,000 U.S. troops originally trumpeted for Austere Challenge 12, as the annual exercise is called, the Pentagon will send only 1,500 service members, and perhaps as few as 1,200.  Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, but the crews to operate them will not.  Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships being dispatched to Israeli waters, the new plan is to send one, though even the remaining vessel is listed as a “maybe,” according to officials in both militaries.


A Pentagon spokesperson declined to discuss specifics of the reduced deployment, noting that planning for the exercise was classified. But in an e-mailed statement, Commander Wendy L. Snyder emphasized that the Israeli military has been kept informed of the changes. “Throughout all the planning and coordination, we’ve been lock-step with the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and will continue to do so,” Snyder said.


U.S. commanders privately revealed the scaling back to their Israeli counterparts more than two months ago.  The official explanation was budget restrictions.  But the American retreat coincided with growing tensions between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations on Israel’s persistent threats to launch an airstrike on Iran. The Islamic Republic would be expected to retaliate by missile strikes, either through its own intermediate range arsenal or through its proxy, the Hizballah militia, which has more than 40,000 missiles aimed at Israel from neighboring Lebanon.


In the current political context, the U.S. logic is transparent, says Israeli analyst Efraim Inbar. “I think they don’t want to insinuate that they are preparing something together with the Israelis against Iran – that’s the message,” says Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. “Trust? We don’t trust them. They don’t trust us. All these liberal notions! Even a liberal president like Obama knows better.”

The U.S. anti-missile systems are important because while Israel has made great strides in creating anti-missile shields that protect its population, it doesn’t have enough of them to deploy around the entire country, even with the U.S. aid specifically dedicated to building more (as well as crucial offensive capabilities, such as mid-air refuelers and possibly bunker-busting bombs).  That makes the presence of the Patriots – first deployed to Israel during the First Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein fired Scuds toward the Jewish State — and other U.S. anti-missile systems extremely valuable.  Austere Challenge was billed by assistant secretary of state Andrew J. Shapiro last November as “by far the largest and most significant exercise in U.S.-Israeli history.”  A stated goal was to “improve interoperability” between American and Israeli anti-missile systems – which are already significantly linked. The U.S. maintains an X-band radar installation in Israel’s Negev Desert, pointed toward Iran and linked to Israel’s Arrow anti-missile system.


The radar is extraordinarily powerful, so sensitive it can detect a softball thrown into the air from thousands of miles away.  But as TIME reported earlier, only Americans are allowed to see what’s on the screens, a situation that likely serves to inhibit any Israeli decision to “go it alone” against Iran, because the U.S. array can detect an Iranian missile launch six to seven minutes earlier than Israel’s best radar.  Difficult as it may be to imagine U.S. decision-makers holding back information that could save Israeli lives, both by giving them more time to reach a shelter, or their interceptors to lock onto and destroy an incoming Shahab-3, the risk looms in the complex calculus of Israeli officials mulling an attack on Iran.

Inside Israel, reports persist that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense chief Ehud Barak are determined to launch a strike, and American officials continue to urge restraint.  Israeli analysts say Netanyahu wants Obama to send a letter committing to U.S. military action by a specific date if Iran has not acceded to concessions, but the U.S. administration does not appear to be complying.  U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters in London this week  that a military strike could damage but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, and added, “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”



Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/08/31/exclusive-u-s-scales-back-military-exercise-with-israel-affecting-potential-iran-strike/#ixzz25EiGg9fw

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 01, 2012, 10:57:24 AM

MR is waffling a bit with the "crippling sanctions" lines.  It is painfully obvious that there is no such thing and can be no such thin when we have China, Russia, and others not playing ball with us on that matter.

MR now is saying military option is "on the table".    Here we go again.  Same BS line that at this point has zero affect on Iran leadership.

Of course not much Mitt can do at this point unitl he is President.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 01, 2012, 11:10:24 AM

"U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters in London this week  that a military strike could damage but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, and added, “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”


Just what we need, another war in the Middle East.....  It would be economically devastating for America.  We should as most American military men agree, "stay out of this war". 

If Israel wants to attack Iran, that is their choice.  But the United States should offer Israel no aid other than emergency aid. 

What's best for America?


Even Israeli experts think it's ill advised.
Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, a former military chief, accused Netanyahu of "generating panic" by "rashly" leading an ill-prepared home front into conflict.
The Israelis are "scared of your lack of judgment, scared that you are being led and are not leading, scared that you are putting a dangerous and irresponsible policy into motion," he said in parliament, addressing Netanyahu.

You are risking a disastrous broad regional conflict and soaring global oil prices with little or no chance of complete success.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 02, 2012, 01:53:32 PM

"that a military strike could damage but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capability"

Well of course a country cannot forever stop another from seeking nuclear weapons.

It would always be delaying or temporarily stopping it.

The fact no military action has been taken for two decades has made it much harder.

Think if Israel had not struck Iraq in the early eighties or Syria when they did.  It could only be worse.

The point is Israel has NO choice.  Iran's intentions are quite clear.

What's best for America?


Apparantly the Obama people and perhaps the US military has decided a nuclear Iran is better than the alternative.


That is also clear.

This is not best for Israel.

Title: Tobias Buck: Field of Dreams: Israel's natural gas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 02, 2012, 06:57:48 PM

Excellent (FT) article. Its focus concerns more the impact of all this gas,
and its riches, on Israeli society - and the Middle East - than on the
massive deposits themselves. Although it does not stint for coverage of
that topic.
David


*Field of dreams: Israel’s natural gas*
*By Tobias Buck*
*After decades of importing every drop of fuel, Israel has struck it rich,
uncovering vast reserves of natural gas in the Mediterranean*

[image: Inline image 1]

The black and yellow helicopter heads north from Tel Aviv, passing over
empty beaches, a yacht harbour and a string of sprawling seafront
residences that house some of Israel’s wealthiest families. After a few
minutes the pilot makes a sharp turn to the left and steers his ageing Bell
412 towards the open sea.

For more than half an hour, all there is to see is the blue waters of the
Mediterranean. Then suddenly a hulking mass of brightly painted steel rises
from the midday haze. Towering more than 100m above the water, this is the
Sedco Express, a drilling rig that has been operating in this stretch of
ocean for almost three years. As the helicopter touches down on the landing
pad, we see a small blue and white Star of David flag fluttering in the
wind. It is the only sign that the Sedco Express sits atop one of the
greatest treasures that Israel has ever found. Far below, connected to the
rig by a slender steel pipe that runs through 1,700m of ocean and another
4,500m of rock and sand, lies a vast reservoir of natural gas known as the
Tamar field.

The men on board the Sedco Express are busy testing the field’s multiple
wells in preparation for the long-awaited day next April, when a US-Israeli
consortium will start pumping the gas onshore. With reserves of almost 10
trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Tamar field is a hugely valuable
asset for the Israeli economy. Discovered in January 2009, it was the
biggest gas find in the world that year, and by far the biggest ever made
in Israeli waters. But the record held for barely two years. In December
2010, Tamar was dwarfed by the discovery of the Leviathan gasfield some 20
miles farther east – the largest deepwater gas reservoir found anywhere in
the world over the past decade. The two fields, together with a string of
smaller discoveries, will cover Israel’s domestic demand for gas for at
least the next 25 years, and still leave hundreds of billions of cubic feet
for sale abroad. The government take from the gasfields alone is forecast
to reach at least $140bn over the next three decades – a staggering sum for
a relatively small economy such as Israel’s.

Experts are convinced that Tamar and Leviathan will not be the last big
Israeli discoveries. They point to the US Geological Survey, which
estimates that the subsea area that runs from Egypt all the way north to
Turkey, also known as the Levantine Basin, contains more than 120 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. Israeli waters account for some 40 per cent of
the total. Should these estimates be confirmed through discoveries in the
years ahead, Israel’s natural gas reserves would count among the 25 largest
in the world, on a par with the proven reserves of Libya and ahead of those
of India and The Netherlands. For decades a barren energy island, forced to
import every drop of fuel, Israel today stands on the cusp of an economic
revolution, fuelled by the vast riches that lie below its waters.
. . .

It is a revolution that has gripped ministerial offices and corporate
boardrooms alike. Since the discovery of Leviathan, the country has been in
the midst of an intense and often controversial debate over how best to use
the new resources at its disposal. All the classic dilemmas associated with
hydrocarbon discoveries have resurfaced, though often with a surprising
Israeli twist. Should the gas be exported or used at home? What share of
the new wealth belongs to the government and what to the companies that
made the discoveries in the first place? And how far should Israel go
towards turning itself into a “gassified” national economy, in which power
stations, homes, industry and the transportation system alike all run on
natural gas?

A final issue, and perhaps the most poignant of all the questions facing
Israeli policy makers, is how the discoveries will affect the country’s
standing in the region. Some worry that fields such as Leviathan will
become a focal point for tensions, and perhaps even a target for Israel’s
many enemies. Others hope that the gas will serve as a force for good, and
help Israel build economic and political bridges to its neighbours, some of
whom remain as energy-starved as Israel was until recently.

The recent discoveries are so large, and have come so swiftly, that some
Israelis are having difficulty adjusting to the new reality. Even hardened
energy executives speak of a “miracle” when discussing Israel’s natural gas
story; others have resorted to the heavens to explain the new-found wealth.
No less a figure than Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, recently
compared the discoveries to “manna from heaven” – the mystical food that
sustained the Israelites during their 40 years in the desert.

Yet for all the talk of divine intervention, the discovery of Leviathan,
Tamar and other fields would not have happened without the fierce
determination of men like Gideon Tadmor. A cheerful, rotund 49-year-old, he
is widely regarded as the pioneer of Israel’s natural gas industry.

Tadmor trained as a lawyer and dabbled in the property business before
deciding more than two decades ago that it was time to turn his attention
to oil and gas exploration. It was not the most promising line of business.
Like all Israelis, Tadmor was only too familiar with the famous complaint
made by Golda Meir, and repeated endlessly since then. “Let me tell you
something that we Israelis have against Moses,” the then prime minister
remarked at a banquet in 1973. “He took us 40 years through the desert in
order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil.”

Over the years that claim became an article of faith for many Israelis. The
country’s conspicuous lack of natural resources chimed with the broader
national narrative of a state struggling and succeeding against the odds.
It even served to heighten Israeli pride in the country’s economic and
military achievements, which frequently outshone those of nearby countries
rolling in oil wealth. But, for many decades, Meir’s complaint was also
borne out on the ground, which stubbornly refused to yield all but the
tiniest amount of hydrocarbons.

The years of failure meant there was no competition when Tadmor started
knocking on the doors of the Israeli government to request exploration
licences. His company, Avner Oil & Gas, started drilling for oil onshore in
1991, before moving into the deep waters close to the Israeli coastline and
eventually pushing on into even greater depths. “We had looked at the vast
success and activity [of gas exploration] in Egypt,” he tells me, sitting
in the conference room of his headquarters north of Tel Aviv. “We all felt
that the geological trend would not stop at the political border – and
should extend into Israeli waters.”

Drilling in deep waters, however, required not only deep pockets but also
profound technical knowhow. Neither was at the disposal of the Israeli
upstarts. Tadmor and his partners decided to bring in a strategic partner,
launching a quest that turned out to be fraught with more obstacles than
anything the company had experienced to date. “It was an endless process.
We were willing to look everywhere. We knew that finding a strategic
partner would be fundamental for success, because in Israel there was no
expertise.”

Tadmor and his partners thought they had a compelling geological story:
they were proposing to drill in an area that showed much the same
characteristics as the nearby Egyptian waters where discoveries had been
made. Yet they were turned down again and again, fuelling suspicions that
the big oil groups in Europe and the US were unwilling to risk their vital
relationship with Arab countries by investing in Israel: “There is no
question about it. Anyone who knows anything about this industry knows that
there is an overwhelming geopolitical consideration with top companies when
they decide to enter or exit a country,” says Tadmor. “Even during the best
times, when Israeli and Palestinian leaders signed the Oslo accords in
1993, it was very obvious that for many of the big players there were
geopolitical considerations that clouded their approach towards Israel.”

. . .

Geopolitical considerations, of course, have been at the heart of the oil
and gas industry almost from the beginning. As the target of an Arab oil
boycott, Israel itself was forced to learn the hard way that energy
security and national security are closely entwined. Already scrambling to
secure supplies, the country was dealt another rude shock in 1973, when
Arab oil producers responded to Israel’s victory in the Yom Kippur war by
launching a sweeping oil embargo. It was a move that shaped the country’s
energy policy for years to come, instilling in Israeli leaders a desperate
desire for energy independence.

“A big part of the policy community in Israel was hugely affected by the
Arab oil boycott in the early 1970s,” says Brenda Shaffer, an expert on
Israeli energy policy at the University of Haifa. “It made people here give
an almost disproportionate importance to holding energy volumes.”

A quarter of a century later, Tadmor and his partners felt they were
finally close to delivering those volumes. Without money and expertise from
abroad, however, Israel’s hydrocarbon potential would remain untapped for
many years if not decades. And without a strategic partner or other signs
of progress, Avner Oil risked losing its offshore exploration licences. It
was time for desperate measures: “We sent a guy to Houston for three months
with one mission. I told him: go to Houston, open the phone book and go
through it company by company. Call every one of them, and bring us a
partner.”

After three months, only two companies remained on that list. Neither
seemed too keen, but Tadmor decided to take his lawyer and fly out to
Houston all the same. “At the time the price of oil was $15 per barrel.
That meant no one was taking any aggressive decisions to enter new
countries. The environment was very, very problematic,” he recalls. Indeed,
the macroeconomic environment was not the only inauspicious sign. As his
plane taxied towards the runway at Tel Aviv airport, Tadmor spotted
something unusual: “All of a sudden I see a black cat running down the
aisle. It was a chaotic situation. The stewardesses were running after the
cat with a blanket, trying to catch it. We eventually turned back, and the
cat was handed over. But one passenger decided to leave the plane. She
said: ‘With a black cat on the plane, nothing good can happen.’”

The plane returned to the runway and started accelerating for take-off.
Then Tadmor had a second nasty surprise: “I hear a huge blast – one of the
engines had exploded!” It was a near-miss: had the engine blown up in the
air, the plane might well have crashed, putting a premature end to both
Tadmor and Israel’s best hope of finding gas in the Mediterranean. “I told
my lawyer: ‘I don’t know if anything good will come of this experience.’
But everything that came out from this trip was good.”

In fact the ill-omened trip to Houston produced a deal with a small
Oklahoma-based exploration company called Samedan Oil Corporation. Samedan
was too small to worry about its relationship with Arab oil ministries, but
large enough to seek expansion abroad. It would later change its name to
Noble Energy, and emerge alongside Avner and Delek, an Israeli
conglomerate, as one of the three leading players in the Israeli natural
gas boom (Delek later bought out Avner, but kept Tadmor on to run the
combined group). To this day, the three groups control most of the big
fields discovered in the Levantine basin, with Noble holding the largest
individual stake in fields such as Leviathan, Tamar and Yam Tethys.

The partners drilled their first well in 1999, in a field known as Noa.
They found gas, but the quantity was too small to allow immediate
commercial exploitation. A year later, in a nearby field known as Mari-B,
they were successful, uncovering a field that contained about a trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. Four years later, the gas started to flow to the
mainland where it was used to generate electricity.

Tadmor and his partners had proved that Israeli waters did contain natural
gas, and that these reserves could be exploited profitably. But the
discoveries at Yam Tethys were a mere taste of things to come. In January
2009, a consortium that again included Noble, Delek and Avner, along with
Isramco and Alon, two Israeli companies, found Tamar. The following year
came Leviathan, the discovery that finally catapulted Israel into the big
league. Speaking days before the drilling that confirmed the huge find,
Yitzhak Tshuva, the Delek chairman and one of the wealthiest men in Israel,
made a bold pronouncement: “This is geopolitical power that Israel needs
now more than ever,” he said of the natural gasfields. “Israel will become
a big international player, and it will have geopolitical power vis a vis
many countries.”

. . .

One of the men whose task is to marshal that power is Uzi Landau, the
minister for energy. A slim, wiry man with a raspy voice and a hawkish
political outlook, Landau is at pains to accentuate the potential political
benefits not just for Israel but for the wider region. The minister says he
is keen to export some of the country’s natural gas to Jordan and the
Palestinian territories: “We believe this will not only be good business,
but also highly important for coexistence. This will eventually help a
peace agreement. Natural gas is also important for the political level. We
wish to develop our relations with the region,” he says.

Landau points out that Israel is already busy deepening its political and
economic relationship with Cyprus, which has itself found large gas
deposits in waters adjacent to the Israeli discoveries. There is even talk
of building a gas pipeline to Cyprus, and of connecting the Israeli power
grid to the divided island through an undersea cable. But not everyone is
convinced that Israel’s natural gas riches will be a force for regional
integration. The northern fields such as Tamar and Leviathan, for example,
are not far from the disputed line that separates Israeli and Lebanese
territorial waters. Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shia group that is one of
Israel’s most committed enemies, has already accused Israel of stealing
Lebanese gas. Farther to the south, snaking its way through the Sinai
Peninsula, is another example of the pitfalls created by regional gas
diplomacy: the pipeline that carries Egyptian gas to Israel.

Initially hailed as a sign of friendship and co-operation, the pipeline has
since emerged as an object of hate for many Egyptians, who resent the sale
of cheap gas to Israel at a time when Egypt itself faces chronic energy
supply problems. The pipeline has been blown up no fewer than 14 times
during the past 18 months, and the supply deal has now in effect been
cancelled.

“We tend to think that countries that hold a lot of oil and gas are very
powerful. But if you look at it more carefully, you see that this is a
double-edged sword. Countries that have large volumes of oil and gas tend
to have a lot more problems. They tend to get involved in conflicts more
often than other countries. There is a tendency towards war,” says Shaffer,
the energy analyst from Haifa University.

She points out that Cyprus is once again at loggerheads with Turkey over
the recent gas discoveries, and that Israel, thanks to its new alliance,
may yet find itself drawn into the escalation: “The gas finds have already
defrosted the frozen Cypriot conflict. So Israel is now finding itself
involved in a conflict that it has never been involved in before.”

But fear of conflict is not the only worry associated with the gas. As
delighted as they are over the recent finds, Israeli officials say they are
only too aware of the “resource curse” that afflicts countries with
abundant natural resources, whereby the discovery of great natural wealth
is often followed by disappointing economic growth and an erosion of
competitiveness.

“We have to be very careful not to think that with natural gas there is no
more need to continue in the same direction of the past: to focus on
education, focus on research and development and to do whatever we can to
solidify the social fabric of our society,” argues Landau. He points out
that “the political leadership of our country is very sensitive to that
problem”, but warns that the country will have to be careful “not to fall
into that pit”.

For the time being, Israeli leaders can claim with some justification that
their response to the new-found wealth has been measured and sensible.
There has been a notable emphasis on sustainability, not least in the way
the state intends to use the new resources. Though it will take years
before the government will reap meaningful gas revenues, it has already set
up a sovereign wealth fund to manage part of the new wealth. The fund,
which follows the model set by Norway, is expected to swell to $80bn by
2040, and is intended to provide a financial cushion for future crises. But
some of the expected government take (“some” meaning about $60bn over the
next three decades) will flow straight into the state budget to fund
education projects and bolster national security.

For a state that spent so many decades as an economic backwater, and that
continues to rely on financial support from the US, this new largesse will
take some getting used to. The same pleasing challenge faces Tadmor and the
handful of other businessmen who believed in Israel’s gas potential long
before the first drills broke through to fields such as Leviathan.

“It has topped all my expectations,” says Tadmor.“So what I need to do now
is raise my expectations,” he adds with a grin.

Tobias Buck is the FT’s Jerusalem bureau chief

Title: Baraq throws Israel under the bus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 03, 2012, 07:41:39 PM

World


 Paper Details Obama Adminâ??s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If
 Israel Attacks, We Won't Get Involved

Posted on September 3, 2012 at 8:13am
The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published a startling report Monday detailing a message it says was conveyed by the Obama administration â?? via two European countries â?? to Iranian officials. The request: if Israel decides to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, the U.S. will not support it and the Islamic Republic should refrain from retaliating on U.S. military installations in the Persian Gulf.

From the report by the well-connected diplomatic correspondent Shimon Schiffer [translated via hard copy by TheBlaze in Israel]:

   The message that the U.S. conveyed to Iran via the most sensitive
   secret channels is unequivocal: if Israel attacks, we won't stand
   behind her and we won't be drawn into war.

   In recent days, senior American administration officials turned to
   their Iranian counterparts via two countries in Europe which act as
   a back-channel during times of crisis. They made clear to the
   Iranians that the U.S. does not intend to be sucked into a campaign
   if Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance
   coordination [with the U.S.], and they said that they expect from
   Iran that it will not attack strategic American targets in the
   Persian Gulf. That means, among other things, Army bases, Navy ships
   and aircraft carriers sailing in the region.

Report: Obama Administration Passed Secret Message to Iran: U.S. Wont Support Strike Against Iran <http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Israel-story-photo.jpg>

Israeli outlet Yediot Ahronot shows strategic U.S. military installments in the Middle East.

Accompanying the article, the newspaper created a graphic map (pictured above) of various U.S. assets in the region including troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia as well as U.S. vessels in the Gulf.

The secret contacts with the Iranians combined with a public statement last week by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey that he won't be complicit? <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/israeli-paper-details-alleged-tense-confrontation-between-netanyahu-and-u-s-ambassador-over-obamas-iran-policy-lightening-and-sparks-flew/> in an Israeli attack is being interpreted in Israel as a message from the U.S. that the Jewish state is on its own in stopping Iran from obtaining a doomsday weapon with which to threaten the very existence of Israel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders have articulated a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Schiffer writes:

   Israeli sources point to the unprecedented low-point in relations
   between the U.S. and Israeli defense establishments. It appears that
   the Obama administration decided to warn decision-makers in Israel
   of the destructive results of an attack without coordinating with
   the U.S. [â?¦]

If true, the report begs the question: If he truly wants to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, why is President Obama investing in secret contacts with Iran about an Israeli strike aimed at destroying â?? or at least setting back â?? the nuclear program? Wouldnâ??t his efforts be better focused on warning Ahmadinejad of the dire consequences of his apparently accelerated efforts at one day possessing a military nuclear capability?

The Wall Street Journal may have an answer in an editorial <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wall-street-journal-slams-obama-for-his-head-in-the-sand-performance-on-iran/> this weekend. Though President Obama likes to say he has Israelâ??s â??back,â?? â??his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iranâ??s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasnâ??t failed after three and half years.â??

Also on Monday, The New York Times reported <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/world/middleeast/us-is-weighing-new-curbs-on-iran-in-nod-to-israel.html?_r=1&hp> that President Obama is trying to find non-military ways to stall an Israeli attack and restrain Iranâ??s nuclear march, including naval exercises and new antimissile systems in the Persian Gulf. The Times reports that Obama officials are also considering implementing previously rejected covert activities as well as a new declaration by the president over what would prompt a U.S. military strike.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/paper-details-obama-admins-alleged-secret-note-sent-to-iran-if-israel-attacks-we-wont-get-involved/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2012, 08:42:10 AM

"Baraq throws Israel under the bus"

No, he just said if you are going to take the bus without our permission, you (Israel) will be solely responsible.


"They made clear to the Iranians that the U.S. does not intend to be sucked into a campaign if Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance coordination [with the U.S.], and they
said that they expect from Iran that it will not attack strategic American targets in the Persian Gulf."


THAT is in America's best Interest. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2012, 12:04:07 PM

Well, so much for "All options are on the table".  Never mind this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/14/iran-admits-giving-wmds-to-terrorists/   

As feared, and as predicted here, we have been bluffing all along.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2012, 12:28:51 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2012, 12:04:07 PM

Well, so much for "All options are on the table". 
As feared, and as predicted here, we have been bluffing all along.

Actually, that's not true.

Obama has not necessarily taken military action off the table.  Rather, appropriately so, he has taken "unilateral" action by Israel off OUR table. 
"Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance coordination [with the U.S.]..."

Until AMERICA decides it's in AMERICA'S best interest to take action, AMERICA should stay out of it.  Israel can do what it wants, but I'm glad/hope that Israel has clearly been told they are on their own if they act "unilaterally".  We should not be "sucked in" to their unilateral decision.

Title: A nuclear Iran...
Post by: objectivist1 on September 04, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

President Obama has made it abundantly clear by his actions from the start of his term in office that he has zero interest in helping to defend the state of Israel.
He's also demonstrated that he doesn't believe a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the United States.

The idiocy of that belief is staggering.  I'd go so far as to say that Obama is exhibiting dereliction of duty when it comes to protecting the United States by ignoring the clear and present danger of an Iran with nuclear weapons.  I will also say that G.W. Bush ought to have done something about this before the end of his term, as was strenuously argued by Dick Cheney (according to Cheney's statements after he left office.)  Cheney correctly anticipated that if Obama were elected, he would do nothing to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb.

Israel is only the canary in the coal mine, as understood by anyone who has paid attention to Iran's statements and actions over the past 10+ years.  Israel is only the "little Satan" in their eyes.  The U.S. is the "Great Satan," and we will be their next target after Israel.

Our leaders have failed us miserably in this regard.

Title: WSJ: Maybe
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2012, 01:25:25 PM

Maybe Obama Has Israel's Back Or maybe it's time to realize that Israel is on its own.
By BRET STEPHENS

Maybe Martin Dempsey chose his words poorly.

Maybe the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't mean to imply Israel would be committing a crime when he told reporters last week that the U.S. would not be "complicit" with an Israeli attack on Iran. Maybe he hadn't yet read the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, noting that Iran continued to enrich, continued to obstruct, continued to deceive. Maybe Gen. Dempsey wasn't speaking for the president at all, just offering opinions above his pay grade.

Or maybe he was speaking directly for a president who, politics being what they are, can't yet say such things himself.

Maybe it isn't true, as the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot reported yesterday, that the U.S. has told Iran via European channels that it would not back an Israeli strike provided Iran did not retaliate against U.S. assets in the Persian Gulf. Maybe it's a slur to suggest this administration would ever broach, much less cut, a deal with Tehran at the expense of Jerusalem.

Or maybe it would cut that deal in a heartbeat.

Maybe it's no big deal that the U.S. is walking away from a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise scheduled for October and cited last year by the State Department as evidence of the "new heights" to which Mr. Obama had carried America's "unwavering commitment to Israel's security." Maybe "slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise," as Time magazine reports, was merely the result of ordinary budgetary pressures.

Or maybe that's another piece of Gen. Dempsey's non-complicity policy.

Maybe the president is serious when he says he will prevent Iran from getting a bomb in the first place, rather than try to contain a nuclear Iran after the fact. Maybe the elaborate antimissile systems the U.S. is racing to set up in the region—so that, according to the New York Times, "even if [Iran] developed a nuclear weapon and mounted it atop its growing fleet of missiles, it could be countered by antimissile systems"—is not about containment at all.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press/Jacquelyn Martin
 
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.
.Or maybe the administration thinks containment is a viable option after all, or at least a better one than military strikes, which is why it's now spending its money on it.

Maybe the administration thinks that it can pursue an effective covert strategy against Iran while also telling the media that it is pursuing such a strategy. Maybe someone forgot to tell whoever is leaking the details of this strategy that "covert" is another word for "secret."

Or maybe the Obama administration is happy to brag about its covert accomplishments, even when the bragging betrays Israel's secrets as well.

Maybe the administration knows that diplomacy has run its course with a regime that has rejected one overture after another.

Or maybe the administration really thinks it can still tempt the mullahs with a grand bargain in which they give up their nukes in exchange for a U.S. embassy in Tehran (they loved the last one) along with spare parts for their airplanes.

Maybe President Obama is, as some senior Israeli decision makers claim, a sincere and fabulous friend of Israel.

Or maybe such statements are simply a matter of being polite about an administration that knows it has a problem with disenchanted Jewish voters and distrustful donors.

Maybe Mr. Obama has privately offered Israel realistic assurances that the U.S. is prepared to use force to stop Iran as soon as the election is behind him. Maybe the near-hysteria that has gripped the Israeli government is an ingenious head fake designed to make the Iranians think they can exploit the discord between the two Satans.

Or maybe the only head fake is the president's attempt to woo skeptical voters that he really has Israel's back.

Maybe, dear Western reader, you think the administration is right to stay Israel's hand—because you'd rather have the U.S. do the job cleanly, after exhausting whatever other options remain, rather than risk having Israel do the job messily. Maybe you have a fair and defensible point.

Or maybe you think that the mullahs nuclear ambitions are their own business and they'll leave us alone if only we leave them. Maybe you're Ron Paul.

Maybe, dear Israeli reader, you think it oughtn't be the responsibility of a small power to confront Iran alone, especially when Iran's threat goes well beyond Israel alone. Maybe you, too, have a fair and defensible point.

Or maybe you think that, whatever the merits of that argument, Israel will not find its security on the strength of its debating points. Maybe you think, too, that Israel puts its sovereignty and security at risk when it allows any other nation to seek a veto over its actions.

Maybe the risks of Israeli inaction—not least to its reputation and deterrent power—are greater than the risks of action, real as they surely are. Maybe it's true that those who dare, win. Maybe it's time to stop letting the Iranians do all the daring.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2012, 01:31:15 PM

Top U.S. Military leaders Intelligence leaders are AGAINST the US taking action at this time.

Nearly everyone agrees that IF we take action, we need to do it on OUR timeline.  IF Israel takes unilateral action, that is their choice, but then they should be on their own; America should not get involved. 


Former CIA Director Says No Need to Attack Iran Now
A former U.S. Air Force General and CIA director says Iran cannot get the bomb before next year. "Let the US attack - it can do it better."
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 9/4/2012, 11:32 AM


US Department of Defense
A former U.S. Air Force General and CIA director says Iran cannot get the bomb before next year, when the US is better able to attack.

Michael Hayden, who headed the CIA when Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction, told the Haaretz newspaper in an interview, "While it is probably true that the so-called 'window' regarding effective action is closing, there is still some time, as real decisions are to be made in 2013 or 2014."

Hayden added, "I do not underestimate the Israeli talent, but geometry and physics tell us that Iran's nuclear program would pose a difficult challenge to any military, as it is not a raid, and Israel's resources are more limited than those of the U.S.”

Now a security consultant and previously mentioned as a possible national security advisor during Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Hayden is in Israel to attend an Institute for National Security Studies seminar on Tel Aviv.

He echoed several reasons stated by others who are against Israel’s staging a military strike to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

"There is no absolute certainty that all targets are known," according to Hayden. "They will have to be revisited - which only the U.S. Air Force would be able to do - and the operation will only set the Iranians back some time and actually push them to do that which it is supposed to prevent, getting nuclear weapons."

He also revealed that following the Israeli attack on the Syrian reactor site in September 2007, the United States feared that Syrian would retaliate and spark a war. Hayden said that the Bush administration coordinated with Israel that no statements would be made implying Israel carried out the pre-emptive strike.

Six months later, he estimated that the self-imposed gag policy no longer was necessary.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2012, 01:37:02 PM

Agreed that the US military seems to have little desire for tangling with Iran.  (Perhaps we would have had a better hand if we had not bugged out of Iraq?)

A big part of the problem, not really addressed in JDN's posted piece, is the ongoing hardening of Iranian defenses.

Also, is the argument here that the US will do the job once Baraq has more "flexibility" after the election?  Or is this just disingenuous horse excrement?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 04, 2012, 01:40:15 PM

Yes as feared the military option never was really on the table.  It was all talk the last couple of months to keep liberal Jews sending in the money for his campaign.

I am a bit concerned even MR is now equivicating by saying we need "crippling" sanctions.  It is painfully obvious this will not and cannot work.

The only ones who want war is Iran.

The Romans would have known what to do - "you want war we will give you war, you want peace we will give you peace".

John Bolton keeps saying as some of us here - if one thinks iran is a pain now just imagine what they would be like with nuclear weapons.

I guess the only other option would have been to take a John McCain route and have supported the protesters a few years ago and try to get them to overthrow the mullahs.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 04, 2012, 01:45:34 PM

"not really addressed in JDN's posted piece, is the ongoing hardening of Iranian defenses"

Precisely!   We keep hearing one excuse after another why not to attack.  "We don't know where all their targets are known".

This can always be the case.  So next year would be a better time to attack then this year?  These excuses have been ongoing for years now.

Title: Democratic Platform Betrays Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on September 05, 2012, 03:39:36 AM

New Democratic Party Platform Betrays Israel

Posted By Joseph Klein On September 5, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com

Despite some introductory bromides proclaiming the “unshakable commitment” of President Obama and the Democratic Party to Israel’s security, the 2012 Democratic National Platform, titled “Moving America Forward,” mirrors perfectly President Obama’s decision to turn his back on our closest ally in the Middle East. It represents a radical break with prior Democratic Party platforms, not to mention its counterparts issued by the Republican Party, that have expressed unequivocal support for the Jewish state.

Obama has demanded publicly that Israel agree to return to the indefensible pre-1967 armistice lines with some unspecified land swaps. However, he made no comparable demand on the Palestinians to give up their “right of return” claim under which millions of “refugees” and their descendants would be permitted to populate pre-1967 Israel and destroy the Jewish character of Israel in the process.

In keeping with this totally unbalanced approach, the 2012 Democratic Party platform removes language that has appeared in previous Democratic Party platforms on the Palestinian refugee issue.  The 2004 and 2008 platforms had stipulated that, as part of the peace process in creating a Palestinian state, “the issue of  Palestinian refugees” should be resolved “by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.” The 2012 Democratic Party platform is silent on the issue.

The 2012 Democratic Party platform is also silent about the status of Jerusalem. Again, while Obama has insisted that Israel negotiate a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 armistice lines, Obama does not appear to have a problem with the Palestinian demand that, as part of the final negotiations for a Palestinian state, the holy city be divided, with East Jerusalem (where Jewish holy sites are located) becoming the Palestinian capital.  This would mean that the people with the longest historical connection to the undivided city of Jerusalem as their most sacred ground have to give up control over their holiest sites based on an artificial division that occurred when Jordan illegally seized the eastern half of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population and annexed it.

What a difference four years makes. The 2008 Democratic Party platform, on which Obama ran for president the first time, was unequivocally supportive of Israel’s position on Jerusalem: “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

The only reason why the Obama administration did not insist on explicitly reversing this plank in the current platform and chose to remain silent is that they are afraid of the political repercussions among their key Jewish-American constituency.  Just remember Obama’s statement to former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” If re-elected, an unleashed President Obama will have the “flexibility” to side fully with the Palestinians’ demands.

The 2012 Republican Party platform has not broken faith with the Jewish state on the final status of Jerusalem:

“We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security.”

The current Democratic Party platform omits any reference to the Hamas terrorists, let alone the decision of the supposedly more moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate a “unity” government with the terrorist organization while it still launches rockets against Israeli civilians.  The current Republican Party platform, by contrast, states that “radical elements like Hamas and Hezbollah must be isolated because they do not meet the standards of peace and diplomacy of the international community.”

The United Nations is a hotbed of Israel-bashing, among its many other failings.  Nevertheless, the 2012 Democratic Party platform calls the UN “a centerpiece of international order.” It takes great pride in the Obama administration’s “reversing the previous administration’s disdain for the UN.”

What the Obama administration has actually done is to engage the dysfunctional United Nations as if it were the central part of its foreign policy, as well as the sole arbiter of international law – all while the UN itself is rapidly succumbing to the influence of radical Islam.  Obama decided that the United States should join the travesty known as the UN Human Rights Council, which is dominated by the 57 member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. When the Human Rights Council is not busy dutifully passing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s resolutions restricting freedom of speech that is critical of Islam, it goes after Israel while conveniently whitewashing the records of the real serial human rights violators the world over, some of whom sit on the Council.

Between the UN Human Rights Council, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, more UN resources and time are devoted to the advocacy of the Palestinian cause than to any other issue. And the United States is picking up nearly a quarter of the tab.

Incredibly, the Obama administration wants to reverse years of bipartisan support for cutting off funding to any UN agencies that admit the Palestinians as a member state.  U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice testified before a House subcommittee in March 2012 that “longstanding legislative restrictions,” which require withholding of U.S. funding from such agencies “only harms U.S. interests.”  Which interests are those – to appease the Palestinians and pave their way for full UN member state status when they have not yet met the standards for international recognition of statehood including a viable governing authority?

This year’s Democratic Party platform claims that “the President and the Democratic Party” are “working to reform international bodies.”  Which international bodies would those be, since the Obama administration’s actions certainly do not indicate any seriousness about reforming the UN? This is evidenced in Rice’s own testimony that the Obama administration opposes “legislation that would link efforts to reform the UN to withholding dues.”

The Republican Party platform does not gloss over the UN’s failings, especially its use as a forum for Islamists and other human rights abusers to try and delegitimize the democratic Jewish state:

As long as its scandal-ridden management continues, as long as some of the world’s worst tyrants hold seats on its Human Rights Council, and as long as Israel is treated as a pariah state, the U.N. cannot expect the full support of the American people.

Anyone who cares about the future of the Jewish state of Israel need only look at the two major political parties’ platforms to see which of them also cares.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on September 05, 2012, 08:55:32 AM

How can it be said that Israel didn't try to coordinate with the US on this. How can they know what the administration's position by judging their ever-changing, contradictory words.  Like it or not and take action or not, it affects us when our enemies and terrorists acquire nuclear weapons. 

If Israel strikes and if a drawn out war ensues, we are going to sit on the sidelines during the destruction of Israel.  REALLY?

If so, this is why we have elections. I don't wish to change your morally neutral mind. I wish to defeat that kind of dangerous indifference and elect responsible leaders interested in OUR security.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 05, 2012, 09:21:10 AM

Doug, perhaps Israel did try to coordinate with the U.S.  However in the expert opinion of our military, we rejected their conclusion and our military decided now is not the time.
OUR military is only interested in OUR security.  It's not indifference; in fact is unbridled loyalty to America.  What's best for America should be the only question on their table.

Frankly, I think it's absurd to think we would immediately come to anyone's aid if they took unilateral action directly against our advice.

Imagine for a moment the possible worldwide negative effects of a military attack on Iran. It's HUGE!
Especially when OUR military says now is not the time.

Why should we be be suckered in and suffer the negative consequences?

That said, if a drawn out war ensues, no one is saying that we won't step in before Israel is destroyed.  Of course we would.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 05, 2012, 01:49:07 PM

"That said, if a drawn out war ensues, no one is saying that we won't step in before Israel is destroyed.  Of course we would."

JDN this totally misses the point whether accurate or not.

Once Iran achieves a couple of deliverable nuclear devices Israel can be destroyed in minutes.

The whole point is Iran needs to be prevented from doing this at the outset.  The longer we wait the more difficult it becomes to stop them.

I suppose one other possibility is the US is waiting for more inside intelligence data to better prepare for as close to a knockout blow as possible but this seems very wishful thinking.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: JDN on September 05, 2012, 02:18:54 PM

CCP; No Doug specifically referred to a "drawn out war".

My point CCP is not whether Israel should "unilaterally" attack Iran; that is THEIR choice.  Just don't ask us to fight and suffer
their war.

OUR choice is whether to become "sucked in" to an action America does not agree with;
my answer, and the answer of our Military and Intelligence Leaders is "don't do it". 

The question, as even you identified, is whether it is in America's best interest; do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

And the answer is a resounding "NO".  Not at this time according to our Experts.

I mean think about it CCP; if Taiwan who is also our ally unilaterally decided to attack China, should we be sucked in?
or IF South Korea unilaterally decided to unilaterally attack North Korea, should we be sucked in?

And the answer is clearly "No"; before we are "sucked in" we have a right to decide what's best and if they want us
to help, they better follow our advice or they are on their own.  The same should apply here.

I know you support Israel.  I respect that.  I too have a love and respect for Israel.  But.....
Don't you agree?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 06, 2012, 10:24:35 AM

Taiwan/China and the Koreas are at this time a standoff.

Iran leadership has made their intentions known.  Different situations.

As for our military we have a commander in chief who has made his intentions known.]

Top military brass traditionally do not contradict him in public.

I don't agree with the US taking the risk of Iran getting nuclear devices and possibly murdering tens of thousands or more.

Preemptive action should have been taken years ago in my armchair opinion.

The risk of nuclear war is going to be far higher when Iran gets nuclear weapons.   sanctions will not work and cannot work - not with China and Russia not supporting them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 06, 2012, 05:18:25 PM

It is heartwarming to know that the US military agrees with Russia on this issue.  Israelis should sleep well at night:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-attacking-iran-disastrous-ifax-064755751.html

Title: David Horowitz's Reflections on Zionism...
Post by: objectivist1 on September 07, 2012, 07:01:37 AM

Reflections of a Diaspora Jew on Zionism, America and the Fate of the Jews

Posted By David Horowitz On September 7, 2012

Editors’ note: In the following speech accepting the Ben Hecht Award for Outstanding Journalism from the Zionist Organization of America, David Horowitz notes that he wants everything that the Zionists want–a muscular Israel willing and able to defy the growing Jew hatred in the world; a Jewish State “armed to the teeth” and ready to use its military; an Israel augmented by the addition of its historical birthright of Judea and Samaria. Yet the paradox is that until now, Horowitz notes, he has never considered himself a Zionist in the sense that Theodor Herzl and other founders used that term. Herzl’s dream was that a Jewish homeland would “normalize” the Jewish people in the eyes of an historically hostile world, end their persecution, and “solve” the “Jewish problem.” Horowitz states that he always considered this possibility to be a “fairy tale” because of his understanding of the way envy and hatred operate on the international scene, especially with the advent of “Third Worldism.”  In addition to becoming a refuge, Israel also became a magnet for homocidal intentions. The events of 9/11 changed everything. Because of the rise of Islamism in the U.S.–especially influencing those who were once Israel’s strong defenders–as well as in the Middle East, Horowitz says that “supporters of freedom are all Zionists now.” Below is the text of the speech that Horowitz gave last night, Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012, in Philadelphia.

Let me begin by saying how honored I am to be invited to this podium by the Zionist Organization of America and Mort Klein, its courageous leader.  For decades Mort Klein and the ZOA have stood on the frontline defending the state of Israel and American Jews, and they are doing it now in what is certainly one of the darker periods for the Jewish people – darker all over the world – in our 5,000-year history. I applaud you for supporting Mort Klein and his team. I am touched by the recognition of an organization like this for the modest work I have done in behalf of Israel and the Jewish people.

Still, there is a paradox at the heart of this honor awarded me by the Zionist Organization of America, which will take me a moment to explain. It is true that I am widely attacked by anti-Semites and Jew-haters and the enemies of Israel as a Zionist — and an arch Zionist at that. I have been called variously a Zionist Jew, an “Israel Firster Zionist Jew,” “a rabid Zionist” (by Julian Assange no less), a “radical right-wing Zionist,” an “extreme Zionist,” an “extremist Zionist stalwart,” an “unrepentant Zionist,” an “ultra Zionist” and a “Zio-Nazi.”

Today, anti-Zionism is the cause of Jew-haters and anti-Semites the world over, and for Jews embarrassed by the fact that they are Jews and that others fear and despise them for that reason. Even the rare Jewish magazine of the left that is actually a supporter of Israel, is uncomfortable with the connotations of the Zionist label, and with what it means for Jews to defend themselves. In a recent unflattering profile, the Tablet magazine described me as touring the country “making the case for a muscular Zionism.”

I plead guilty to this charge. I plead guilty though I have never actually been a Zionist, or made a case for Zionism in the sense that Herzl and traditional Zionists understand it. Yes, I want muscular Jews and a muscular Israel. I want Jews proud of the extraordinary nation-state Jews created in 1948 out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. I want Jews who are armed, and Jews who will defend themselves with arms if necessary. Muscular in every way. Yes.

I want more than just individual Jews armed. I want a Jewish nation-state possessing in its arsenal the most advanced modern weapons available, a state that can be counted on to defend Jews from their global enemies, and particularly their enemies in the Muslim world who are legion and who have sworn our destruction, and who are openly planning to complete the job that Hitler started. I want a Jewish state, armed to the teeth, because Islamic Nazis, who are the storm troopers of a second Holocaust, are already mobilized, and because — as we discovered during the first Holocaust — there are not enough non-Jews in the world who are willing and prepared to defend us.

I am glad that Israel exists. I am glad that there is a country that will preserve Jewish culture, and be a model to the world of what Jews can do when they are given the chance. Today Israel is per capita the world’s leading scientific and technological innovator and contributor to human advancement. As a Jew I am proud of that.

I am also thrilled that in the creation of Israel Jews have regained their birthright. After 2,000 years of exile, the oldest surviving indigenous people in the world has won the right to some of its stolen homeland. I look forward to the day when Judea and Samaria, the historic centers of Judaism, become part of the Jewish homeland as well.

That homeland is now occupied by Palestinian Arabs who are at war with Israel, who have proclaimed their Jew-hatred to the world, and who have forfeited any right to the territories by conducting five unprovoked, armed aggressions against the Jewish state. The official policy of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is to make Jerusalem and the entire region of Palestine Judenrein. No other country in the world is expected to suffer such genocidal assaults without securing borders that are defensible, and Israel should not be expected to either.

Nonetheless, there is a paradox in this honor given to me, a Jew who has never been to Israel and who has never considered himself a Zionist in the sense that its founders intended. Theodor Herzl and his followers embraced the Zionist idea because they believed that the creation of a Jewish nation would provide a solution to the “Jewish Question” – the fact that Jews had been a homeless people for nearly two thousand years and were ghettoized and persecuted in the alien lands to which they were driven.

Herzl’s Zionist idea was grounded in the belief that the establishment of a Jewish state on Jewish land would finally “normalize” the Jewish people and end their persecution. The Zionist idea was that by including Jews among the nations, Jews would become ordinary, and like other peoples — that their inclusion would finally “solve” the Jewish problem. That was the meaning of Zionism as Herzl understood it, and indeed as it was understood until the Holocaust and the actual creation of the Jewish state.

But Herzl’s dream proved to be a fairy tale, as delusional in its way as the dreams of socialism, communism and progressivism, whose believers hoped would provide solutions to the conflicts and sufferings that blight our human state. All these isms took hold in the 19th Century, and became forms of modern faith. The traditional religions they supplanted had trusted in a Divinity for such a solution, but were forced into retreat before the advance of Darwinian theory and modern scientific developments. All the messianic visions of the modern age were driven by the desire for an earthly redemption that would resolve our human dilemmas and achieve what the heavenly redemption could no longer convincingly offer.[1]

Among these fantasies of a better world than the one we inherited, Zionism was the most conservative, and the most practical. The quests for a socially just future are based on no human reality but on the expectation of a human miracle, a transformation of who we are and what we have been into something wonderfully different. Zionism by contrast was based on the experience of actual peoples who had already taken their place among the nations. It was a quest for normality. Not for a world transformation but for an integration into the existing world of others.

But even this modest hope of the Jews has proved an impossible dream. It is true that half of Herzl’s goal has been realized, and in an astounding way. Yet its very realization has proved the hope that inspired it to be a folly. By all standards of civilization and modernity Israel should be admired and emulated by the rest of the world. Instead, the Jewish state is hated and is a pariah among the nations, just as Jews themselves are pariahs in most of the world outside America today.

Far from creating a refuge, Israel has become the focal point of all the genocidal intentions against the Jews, which have never been more overt or more global. Today Israel is the site of a Holocaust for which the Islamic world openly yearns, and which the rest of the world – with the possible exceptions of America and Canada — will not lift a finger to prevent.  This sobering reality has changed the meaning of Zionism, and has made it a more comfortable fit for me. Call it the Zionism of Survival.

In the household I grew up in, I was not brought up to be a Zionist because my parents were Marxist progressives who looked to a socialist future to provide an earthly salvation, and an end to the persecution of the Jews. My parents and their comrades believed that mankind’s conflicts would be resolved by a universal class whose revolution would abolish all nations and unite all peoples, and thus remove the distinctions that made them Jews.

My realization that this was not going to happen occurred through my relationship with a Marxist mentor named Isaac Deutscher. Deutscher had written a book called The Non-Jewish Jew, by which he meant Marxists like us – Jews who were of Judaism but not in it. By the time I came under his influence in the 1960s, he had become a defender of Israel and had been one since the Second World War. Deutscher viewed Israel as a “raft” state – a refuge that Jews could cling to after they had been shipwrecked in the storms that periodically engulfed them. The particular storm he was referring to was Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

During the interwar years, a debate had raged in Europe’s leftwing circles, which carried momentous consequences for those who participated in it. The debate was about how Jews should respond to the looming fascist threat. The Zionists were urging Jews to flee the continent and take refuge in the Palestine Mandate. Marxists like Deutscher argued that the Jews should stay in Europe and fight for the socialist revolution. But as Deutscher ruefully acknowledged later, the Jews who listened to the Zionists were still alive, while those who listened to Marxists like him were dead.

Under Deutscher’s influence, I became a quasi-Zionist, a believer in the raft state. Israel should exist and be defended until the socialist transformation abolished nation-states and solved the problem of the Jews once and for all.

Don’t think for a moment that this is some quaint Marxist delusion now consigned to the historical dustbin. The idea of a world without borders is alive and well in the international left and among liberals and progressives in America. It is the idea that animates the Democratic Party’s attacks on American sovereignty, and it is a vision whose intellectual leaders are Jews.

One of its canonical articles is called “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” — for the latter and against the former. It was written by Harvard philosopher Martha Nussbaum.  According to Nussbaum, the cosmopolitan ideal which progressive people should aspire to is “the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world.” This attitude – that we are not Jews or Americans – but “citizens of the world” — explains why people on the left are so uncomfortable with — or simply hostile to — issues of national security and patriotism. It explains why progressive Jews can be indifferent to the survival of the Jewish state.

Even as I absorbed Deutscher’s lesson about the raft state, my belief in the progressive fantasy was rapidly eroding. I had begun to doubt the possibility of a redeemed future, a future fundamentally different from those with which we were historically familiar. As these doubts grew, they were changing my view of the unredeemed present. By the middle of the next decade I no longer believed in a new world order. This had immediate and profound consequences for my attitude towards Israel and my identity as a Jew, and as an American as well.

There was not going to be a future in which there were no longer nations or peoples in conflict; there was not going to be a future in which Jews would cease to be the objects of envy and resentment, and virulent hatred. There was not going to be a future in which a refuge – a raft state — was no longer useful.

Then came 9/11 and the Islamic attack on the World Trade Center. It was an event that made millions of people aware of the Islamist movement in the Muslim world and the fact that they were conducting a holy war against infidels in general, and Jews in particular. The incubator and leading force of this holy war is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded by an admirer of Hitler and a godfather of the call to push the Jews of Palestine into the sea. Today, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood is the Egyptian imam, Yusef al-Qaradawi, who has publicly prayed that the Muslim believers will finish the job that Hitler started.

Millions of Jews are in denial when it comes to the determination of Islamists to kill them. In part, this denial is psychological and familiar as when people face a prospect that is too terrible to contemplate. There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world today who worship a prophet who has told them that “the day of redemption will only come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.’” For a billion and a half Muslims that is the word of God. Denial is one convenient way of dealing with this fact.

This particular death warrant for the Jews can be found on the official website of the University of Southern California, where it was placed by the Muslim Students Union, which is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. When I asked a leader at the Wiesenthal Center to demand that this genocidal incitement be removed, his initial response was, “But it’s a religious statement.” Well, yes, but it is also a summons to kill the Jews. Such is the force of denial.

One of the chief instruments of the Muslim Brotherhood is the Muslim Students Association, which sponsors “Israeli Apartheid weeks” at universities across America and throughout the Western world calling for Israel’s destruction. Muslim Students Association members chant “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” – that is from the eastern boundary of Israel to the western one. It is a call for the liquidation of the Jewish state because it is Jewish. Yet all across America, campus rabbis hold ecumenical dialogues with the Muslim Students Association, and defend it against its critics.

I have traveled to many universities to oppose these Jew-haters, and everywhere I go I am protested against and defamed by the Muslim Students Association and by their Jewish enablers. I have met with numerous campus rabbis and asked them to set conditions for their ecumenical outreach: first, that their Muslim counterparts desist from sponsoring Israeli Apartheid Weeks, and denounce those who conduct them; and second, that they only hold dialogues with people who publicly support the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East.

For these efforts I have been attacked by Hillel rabbis at Yale, the University of North Carolina, the University of California Santa Barbara, and the University of Florida, and by Hillel student leaders at the University of Pennsylvania and other schools. For voicing these concerns, they have called me a bigot, a racist and an “Islamophobe,” which is a smear invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics.

Last year I published a full-page ad in the Yale Daily News whose headline read: “The Palestinian Case Against Israel Is Based On A Genocidal Lie.” The genocidal lie is the claim that all of Israel – or any of Israel — is occupied Arab land. It is a claim used to justify all of the murderous acts committed against the Jews of Israel. In fact, Israel was created out of the ruins of the Turkish Empire, as were Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Turks are not Arabs, and Israel does not occupy any Arab land.

The Middle East conflict is not about land or a Palestinian state. It is a sixty-year war of aggression first by the Arab League and then by Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to destroy the Jewish state and push the Jews into the sea. This war is now a religious war, an expression of Islamic Nazism.

To be perfectly clear, I am not referring to all Muslims as Nazis. I am referring to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic forces now ascendant in Egypt and the Middle East who are actively promoting a second genocide of the Jews, along with their supporters in America and their secular allies on the political left.

When my ad about the Palestinian lie appeared in the Yale paper, the Slifka Center, the focus of Jewish life on campus, was outraged. They were not outraged by the Palestinian lie but by my ad, which told the truth. They were outraged because the truth offended the Muslim Students Association with whom they wished to be friends. To counter my ad the Slifka Center published its own full- page statement. It affirmed the Slifka Center’s “respect” – and I quote their words – “for the Muslim Students Association, which does not spread hateful lies about Israel.”

The Slifka statement then attacked my ad as the purveyor of “hateful ideas,” which it said would “lead to tragic rifts between the Jewish and Muslim communities,” as though campuses across the country were not already reverberating to the chants of “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea,” or as though Muslim masses were not already chanting “death to the Israel” at the call of Hizbollah and Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Having made its commitments clear, the Slifka ad then invited students to an evening with the Ground Zero Mosque Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, hosted by Slifka Center director James Ponet, the celebrity rabbi who officiated at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

The suicidal tendencies of the intended victims of Islamic supremacy are tragically familiar. They recall the sad delusions of members of the Judenrate – the Jewish Councils in the Nazi ghettos – who organized the Jews for Hitler’s death camps, while pretending to themselves that the Germans were too civilized to kill them.

Delusions about Islamic Nazis are hardly confined to Jews, however. In the eyes of the Islamic fanatics, Israel may be the “Little Satan,” but America is “The Great Satan,” the arch demon that must be destroyed in the name of Allah. In his fatwas Osama Bin Laden identified Islam’s enemies as “Jews and Crusaders,” America being Christian and therefore the “Crusader Nation.” Every Islamist leader and organization from Ahmadinejad to Qaradawi, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hizbollah and Hamas has promised death to Israel and America as the necessary means to their malignant ends.

Meanwhile, the Crusaders – like the Jews — are asleep. It is an old story. Just before the Second World War, Whittaker Chambers, a Communist defector, attempted to warn Roosevelt that a White House advisor named Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent and that his administration had been penetrated by Communist operatives. When Roosevelt was informed of Chambers’ charges he laughed and dismissed them. Hiss then accompanied Roosevelt to Yalta where he helped conclude the deal that delivered Eastern Europe to the Soviet Empire and triggered the Cold War.

Here is a story that may prove worse than that of Alger Hiss. In a series of foreign policy disasters the Obama Administration has assisted the Muslim Brotherhood in transforming the Arab Spring in the Middle East into an Islamist winter, beginning with the toppling of an allied regime in Egypt and the accession to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its expansion throughout the region. In August, the new Egyptian president sacked his military commanders, abrogated the Constitution, and assumed dictatorial powers greater than those possessed by his predecessor, and transforming Egypt into an Islamist state. Opponents of the dictatorship were crucified – literally nailed to crosses – in front of the government headquarters. It was the Brotherhood’s way of dramatizing its intentions to turn Egypt into a Medieval totalitarian state.

This was exactly what the American State Department had assured the world the Muslim Brotherhood would not do as it paved the way for the Brotherhood’s accession to power. The intelligence chief of the Obama White House had officially described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” and “secular” organization, which had embraced democratic and constitutional government.

The betrayal of these promises, and the violation of every principle the American government claimed to be supporting in the Middle East’s most important state, took place without a word of protest from the American government or the American Secretary of State.

As it happens the chief adviser on Muslim affairs to the American Secretary of State is Huma Abedin, one of whose mentors was the Nazi imam, Yusef Qaradawi. Abedin is an operative for the Muslim Brotherhood and a lifelong servant of its agendas. In the twelve years directly proceeding her hiring by the U.S. Government, where she became deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, Abedin worked for Abdullah Omar Naseef, one of the principal financiers of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and a Muslim Brotherhood eminence. Huma Abedin’s mother and brother are Muslim Brotherhood leaders, as was her father before them.

In their work for the Brotherhood, the Abedin family was specifically tasked with running Abdullah Omar Naseef’s jihad operation, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. The title sounds innocuous enough until you understand that the express goal of the Institute is to transform the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries into Muslim majorities as part of the Islamic jihad, with the express intent of creating Islamic states — in short, to conquer those countries for totalitarian Islam. To accomplish this goal Muslim minorities must be prevented from assimilating into non-Muslim societies and also be indoctrinated in Islamic supremacist ideas. That was and is the mission of the Abedin family. In addition to the network of Saudi-funded mosques in target countries like the United States, the chief organizations for accomplishing this goal are the Muslim Students Association, on whose Executive Board Huma Abedin served, and its offshoot, the Islamic Society of North America, which is now the principal source of advice on Muslim affairs for the Obama administration.

In other words, at the right hand of the American Secretary of State and the center of American foreign policy, is a woman whose family are leaders of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “grand jihad” — its plan to infiltrate non-Muslim societies, and “destroy the Western civilization from within” — in those exact words. And what people do these jihadists regard as the chief obstacle to their sinister designs? The Jews.

In the words of their own manifesto:

“The greatest challenge that faces Muslims in America and Canada are the Jews, who take advantage of their material ability and their media to distort the image of Islam and Muslims thereby spreading lies in the minds of the people of these countries.” The Jews also “serve Zionist interests in the Arab regions.”

In the hands of the Islamists and their allies, Zionism has become the name of all the opponents of Islamist supremacy and its holy war against infidels, against Jews and Christians, Israel and the United States. Americans and Israelis, Jews and Christians have their backs to the same wall. One cannot be defended without defending the other. Supporters of freedom are all Zionists now. And that includes myself. That is the way this war of the civilizations, or — as I prefer it – this war between Islamist barbarism and civilization, will continue until it is finally concluded, and the next conflict begins.

I say this, because as a conservative I understand that conflicts are endless, and these battles are without end. To be a conservative is first to understand that there is no solution to the dilemmas of the human condition. Second, it is to understand that to escape these dilemmas, human beings will inevitably embark on desperate quests for redemptions in this life. These redemptions, in turn, will require holy wars to purge the world of demons – of those who do not share their faith, and who stand in their way. In this regard, totalitarian Islam is really no different in its heart from totalitarian socialism or progressivism, even though the latter are secular and the former is pursued in the name of a vengeful and malignant God. Both seek to cleanse mankind of its irreparable imperfections.

To remain free beings, we are continually forced to defend ourselves and our breathing space, against the efforts of the redeemers to perfect us — against the armies of the saints who are determined to make the world a better place than it can ever be. That is how I see the political wars we face, and why they will never end.

On a personal level, and to answer the question I raised at the beginning of this talk about my identity: I am comfortable being a Diaspora Jew, both in this present struggle with the enemies of America and Israel, and beyond. Diaspora is the name of our Jewish exile, but exile is also the name of our human condition. We are thrust into this life, and remain here for awhile, and then we are gone. If there is a home for us that is truly permanent, it is not of this time or of this place.

My country, America, and the country of my people, Israel, share a common destiny. They are the gathering places of exiles, of those who understand better than others that we have no permanent abode in this world. It is because of this that we cherish the freedoms and the homes we do have, and we are not afraid to fight for them.

Notes:

[1] This is the subject of my book, A Point In Time: The Search for Redemption in this Life and the Next, 2011.

Title: Caroline Glick on Obama's Anti-Israel, Anti-U.S. Foreign Policy...
Post by: objectivist1 on September 07, 2012, 10:41:03 AM

God, Jerusalem and American foreign policy

Caroline Glick - September 7, 2012 - www.carolineglick.com


Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama and his supporters have been dogged by criticism of his position on Israel. From the very outset of his tenure in office, critics and supporters alike have not been able to shake the sense that Obama is deeply hostile to the Jewish state.

Obama and his supporters have responded to every criticism of his treatment of Israel by pulling out a list. Every time his record on Israel is criticized, Obama and his supporters pull out a list of the things he has done for Israel. Just this week, in an op-ed in The New York Times, Democratic donor Haim Saban pulled out the list to justify his support for Obama.

As the list notes, Obama has given billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel. He has gotten stiff sanctions passed against Iran by the UN Security Council. He has agreed to sell F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Israel. During his presidency, they say, the US has expanded its intelligence and military coordination with Israel. Obama has opposed some anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.

Obama's critics respond to Obama's list with a series of points. They note that in approving increases in US military assistance to Israel, including for the Iron Dome rocket defense system, Obama is simply carrying out a pledge made by his predecessor George W. Bush. They note that the UN Security Council sanctions have had no impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So, too, Obama opposed even stronger sanctions against Iran passed with the overwhelming support of both houses of Congress.

He had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to sign those sanctions into law. And since he signed the sanctions law, he has used his presidential power to water them down.

Obama's critics mention that due to his insistence on appeasing Iran, last week Iran enjoyed its greatest diplomatic triumph since the 1979 Iranian revolution. More than a hundred nations sent representatives to Tehran to participate in the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit. And in the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon, those nations expressed support for Iran's nuclear program.

And while it is true that Obama has blocked two anti-Israel initiatives at the UN, he has been more supportive of the inherently anti-American and anti-Israel UN system than any of his recent predecessors.

As for Israeli-US intelligence cooperation, under Obama for the first time, the US has systematically leaked Israel's most closely guarded secrets to the media.

Indeed, critics of Obama's policy towards Israel have their own list. It includes Obama's repeated humiliations of Israel's prime minister. It includes the multiple clashes Obama has initiated with Israel with regards to Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. It includes Obama's adoption of the Palestinians' position on Israel's borders.

But still, as Obama and his supporters will say, facts are facts and they have a list. And because the list is true - as far as it goes - they can argue that Obama is supportive of Israel.

Given its superficially compelling argument, it is remarkable that Obama's list has failed to end the debate about his position on Israel. Today Americans have no interest in foreign policy.

They don't want to hear that by leaving Iraq as he did, Obama squandered everything that the US fought for. They don't want to hear that he effectively handed the country over to Iran, which now has the ability to use Iraq as its forward base for operations in Syria, Lebanon and beyond.

They don't want to hear that Obama's surgeand- leave strategy in Afghanistan is fomenting a US defeat in that war and setting the conditions for the reinstitution of the Taliban government.

They don't want to hear about how Russia and China view the US with contempt and challenge its economic and strategic interests every day.

They don't want to hear how Obama played a key role in overthrowing the US's key ally in the Arab world, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They don't want to consider the implications of the fact that the US is now bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood's transformation of Egypt into an anti- American, radical Islamic regime.

And yet, in the face of this absence of interest in the world outside their borders, Americans remain interested in the question of whether or not Obama is supportive of Israel.

There are two reasons for Americans' enduring interest and concern about Israel. And they were both revealed this week at the Democratic National Convention when the story broke about how this year's Democratic platform differs from its 2008 platform. First it was reported that the platform contained no mention of God.

Then it was reported that unlike the 2008 platform, this year's Democratic Party platform made no mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This year's platform watered down the language on Israel in other significant ways as well.

It did not refer to Israel as the US's "strongest ally" in the Middle East. It did not call for the continued eschewal of the Hamas terror group by the international community. It did not mention US opposition to the Palestinian demand for the so-called "right of return" - through which Israel would be destroyed by an influx of millions of foreign Arabs in the framework of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. But whereas these other deletions were generally ignored, the platform's silence on Jerusalem generated a maelstrom of criticism that exceeded even its deletion of God.

Significantly, rather than treat the deletions of God and Jerusalem as separate issues, the media and the Democrats themselves presented them as two sides of the same coin. When on Wednesday the party's leadership decided to restore the language of the 2008 platform on God and Jerusalem - but not on Hamas, the so-called "right of return," and Israel's strategic significance to the US - they opted to do so in the same amendment.

The widespread perception of God and Jerusalem as related issues tells us something important about the American character. And it tells us something equally important about Obama and the party he leads.

Prof. Walter Russell Mead described Israel's place in the American mindset last year. As he put it, "Israel matters in American politics like almost no other country on earth. Well beyond the American Jewish and the Protestant fundamentalist communities, the people and the story of Israel stir some of the deepest and most mysterious reaches of the American soul. The idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism is profoundly tied to the idea of American exceptionalism. The belief that God favors and protects Israel is connected to the idea that God favors and protects America."

Mead continued, "Being pro-Israel matters in American mass politics because the public mind believes at a deep level that to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America and pro-faith. Substantial numbers of voters believe that politicians who don't 'get' Israel also don't 'get' America and don't 'get' God."

By removing both God and Jerusalem from the platform, Obama and his fellow Democrats stirred the furies of that American soul at its foundations.

They showed they don't "get" Israel or God. And by extension, they don't "get" America.

The intellectually confusing decision to lump Jerusalem and God together in the same amendment no doubt owed to the fact that someone in the party recognized how disastrous the deletions were for their ability to convince wavering voters that the Democratic Party has their back.

And this brings us to nature of the Democratic Party today. For the amendment to the platform to pass, it needed the support of two-thirds of the convention's delegates. And so, on Wednesday morning, the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, brought the amendment to the floor for a voice vote.

Much to his obvious shock, the amendment did not receive the requisite support. Calls supporting the amendment were met by at least equally strong calls opposing it. Villaraigosa was forced to call the vote three times before declaring - contrary to the evidence - that the amendment had passed.

More than anything else, the floor vote showed how out of step a large and significant constituency in the Democratic Party is with the basic character of their country. The spectacle should raise concerns among all supporters of Israel who believe Obama's pro-Israel list is proof they have a safe home today in the Democratic Party.

Jerusalem's conflation with God in the American imagination is not the only reason so many people attacked the platform's watered-down language on US-Israel ties. The second reason for the uproar explains why the issue of Obama's support for Israel is the only foreign policy question that has dogged his administration since he took office. It explains why American support for Israel is a more salient issue for Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan, Britain, Turkey or Russia.

Here, too, Israel's symbolic importance in the American imagination is central for understanding the matter. Beyond its religious significance, there is a widespread perception that Israel is on the front line of the war against America. As a consequence, Israel is the only foreign policy issue that telegraphs messages about the nature of America's foreign policy to an otherwise disengaged and largely indifferent American public.

For most Americans - if not for most Democrats - support for Israel is the most important plank of US foreign policy because it indicates the nature of that foreign policy as a whole. A president who supports Israel is a president who has his priorities straight. A president who is hostile to Israel is a president who can't be trusted on Iran or Russia or China or anything else.

In an apparent effort to end this state of affairs, Obama has adopted a policy towards Iran - whose nuclear program represents the greatest rising threat to US national security - that frames the issue as Israel's problem.

In so doing, Obama seeks to achieve two goals. First, he seeks to decouple Israel's national security from America's national security in the popular imagination. And second, he seeks to diminish popular support for Israel by presenting Israel as a country that is pushing America into an unnecessary war.

Obama's list of pro-Israel actions is essential to his ability to achieve this specific goal, and through its achievement to convince Americans of the overall success of his foreign policy. The list is essential because it transforms Israel in the public mind from a strategic ally into a strategic basket case in need of America's constant assistance.

In line with this, it is telling that the amendment of the Democratic platform did not return the 2008 platform's characterization of Israel as America's "strongest ally" in the Middle East.

But as the outcry the platform changes provoked demonstrated, Obama has failed to achieve this goal. And this is wonderful news.

On the other had, as long as he has supporters willing to publish op-eds and give interviews devoted to repeating the list, Obama will continue to make the case that he can be trusted on foreign policy despite his abandonment of God, Jerusalem and America's most vital interests.
 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Title: Re: Israel and Iran
Post by: JDN on September 12, 2012, 08:54:18 AM

Who Else Opposes An Iran Attack?
by Ali Gharib  | September 11, 2012 8:45 AM EDT
The bad news is that most Americans are ill-informed about the Iranian nuclear program; the good news is that they still don't want to attack Iran. Those are results of the biennial Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey of public opinion on foreign policy (PDF).

The bad news first: Who can blame them? There's a constant stream of misinformation out there, and so a stunning majority of 66 percent of Americans don't know that U.S. intelligence agencies think Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. Here's the chart from the Chicago Council:


Screen capture of a chart from Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2012 survey report.

While nearly two-thirds of Americans see Iran as a threat (down a bit from two years ago), slightly more still want their government to talk to the Iranians. What don't Americans want? A war with Iran, especially not a unilateral one (my emphasis):

A slim majority (51%) opposes UN authorization of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, with a substantial minority (45%) supporting such action. A far broader majority (70%) opposes a unilateral strike by the United States if Iran continues to enrich uranium but the Security Council does not authorize a military strike.

That means even some of those Americans who think Iran is hellbent on developing weapons—or that Iran already has them—don't support an attack.

Americans aren't that keen on the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program either: 59 percent of respondents to the Chicago Council said the U.S. shouldn't commit military forces to help Israel in the event that an Israeli initiated-strike touches off a broader conflict. Nearly four-in-ten said the U.S. should jump in.

Instead of an attack, Americans support unilateral and multilateral sanctions (such as pressure from the U.N. Security Council), and direct diplomacy. Whose policy does that sound like?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 12, 2012, 12:07:47 PM

OK, I am in the minority.

I support an all out attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and whatever else it takes.  Should have been done years ago.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 12, 2012, 12:32:54 PM

Well the original plan was to be in Iraq in support of its movement forward-- which sure would have facilitated things.  Being on its northern border in Afg and Azerbaijian also being part of the plan.  Also, if Bush had listened to Cheney and tumbled Syria in the early days of the Iraq War that too might have helped.  However, the fight will be what the fight will be and we are where we are. 

I think the numbers cited by JDN are probably fairly accurate.  As a war of choice, an act of Congress is necessary, yes?  And the chances of that are about zilch, yes?  So, the play would seem to back and enable Israel and then when the Iranians hit us to go after the Iranians.  Unfortunately Baraq seems to be intent on divulging intel (e.g. Israel's deal with Azerbaijian) so as to block it from acting.

Title: Costs and benefits of military action v. Iran
Post by: bigdog on September 14, 2012, 01:54:45 AM

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-AGD8AgY-94WVYtbGVhZW9mWmc/edit?pli=1

A look at the pros and cons of acting toward Iran. No recommendations; no conclusions. Endorsed by major players in national security.

Title: What will Israel do?
Post by: JDN on September 14, 2012, 08:14:51 AM

By Danny Danon
September 14, 2012
JERUSALEM — As the war of words heats up regarding a possible Israeli military strike on Iran, now is the time to look at one of the key arguments used by those opposed to such an act of self-defense. Time and again we have heard the question "Why now?" asked whenever an Israeli prime minister must make a decision that placed our nation's very existence in jeopardy. Each time, our leaders knew to focus on the real question — "What is the alternative?" — and then go forward on the lonely path toward a more secure and free Israel.

There are many examples of such decision-making, but three key ones stand out.

In the spring of 1948, it was far from an obvious decision that the pre-state Jewish community would declare its independence the minute that the British Mandate rule ended. The nascent state had been, for all intents and purposes, at war since the approval of the November 1947 United Nations partition plan. As the British were preparing to leave, armed Arab militias were rising up throughout the Holy Land, and the Arab states that surrounded it had begun to amass troops and arms on the borders.

Meanwhile, the Jewish leadership in Palestine was at odds about how to act. Most analysts warned David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel's first prime minister, that a declaration of independence would not be accepted by the international community, and the existing arms embargo and blockade on immigration would continue.

In May 1948, Ben-Gurion was finally able to persuade a majority of the People's Administration (the legislative precursor to the Knesset) to approve such a declaration. The final vote was 6 to 4, with three members missing. Almost half the members were positively considering the alternative of a U.S.-sponsored cease-fire and promises of support if they delayed the declaration. But Ben-Gurion understood that the time for a decision was upon them and that he could not worry about world opinion and warnings of doom if the Jews declared their independence.

Another example was the Six-Day War. In mid-May 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled the U.N. peacekeeping force in the Sinai desert, which served as a buffer between Egypt and Israel, and began amassing troops in the formerly demilitarized zone. On May 22, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping — a vital waterway that international law had declared must remain open to all countries. As Egypt increased the number of troops in the Sinai, Israeli fears were compounded when Nasser signed military pacts with Syria and Jordan.

During this tense time, President Lyndon B. Johnson implored Prime Minister Levi Eshkol not to attack the Arab countries and promised increased aid and oil supplies to Israel if it waited for an internationally accepted solution. The Israeli newspapers were full of editorials calling on the government not to attack without prior agreements with international powers.

In fact, in a Cabinet meeting June 2, 1967 the Israeli government decided not to attack and to continue to wait for the international community to provide a solution. By June 5, however, Eshkol and his Cabinet had had enough. They realized that no outside power, no matter how friendly, could be trusted to ensure Israel's security or even its survival. The decision was taken to launch a surprise attack that would guarantee Israel's security for years to come.

A more recent example that is perhaps most analogous to today's situation was Prime Minister Menachem Begin's 1981 order to destroy the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq. As the evidence mounted in the late 1970s and early 1980s about Iraq's nuclear program, the Israeli government was faced with a difficult choice. Saddam Hussein declared repeatedly that his country was working on a civilian nuclear program. All of Israel's allies urged patience and spoke of the need to negotiate with the Iraqis for a peaceful resolution.

The prime minister was not exempt from criticism at home, either. Shimon Peres, then the opposition leader and candidate for prime minister, criticized the Begin government and warned against any strike on the facility without full cooperation from the international community.

Despite the immense pressure from abroad and at home, Begin made the difficult decision to send Israeli pilots on a complicated (many thought impossible) mission to disable the Iraqi nuclear program. International reaction was swift. The U.N. General Assembly and the International Atomic Energy Agency harshly condemned Israel. Even the U.S. voted for a Security Council resolution denouncing the attack and suspended a long-planned delivery of F-16s.

The international community, including the U.S., sounded very different in 1991 when they invaded Iraq to liberate Kuwait. Many of the same countries that condemned Israel in 1981 have since sung the praises of that preemptive attack and thanked Israel for saving them from dealing with a nuclear Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.

Today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government are being told that the time for military action against the Iranian nuclear program is not yet upon us. Even as Iran continues to call for the destruction of the Jewish state while developing its nuclear program at an alarming rate, the Israeli government is urged to show restraint and to give time for negotiations and sanctions to work.

At home, we are again witness to a cacophony of experts and former officials who warn of international isolation and the destruction of our home front if we act alone. Peres, now Israel's president, has warned of dire consequences if we do not act in perfect union with other Western powers.

Once again, an Israeli prime minister is faced with a difficult choice. Once again, the international community is urging Israel to take a wait-and-see approach. In the end, this is a judgment that can be made only by Israel's democratically elected government. Whatever decision is ultimately taken, I know Netanyahu is a keen student of history who realizes that when it comes to protecting Israel's security, our very survival, there is no time like the present.

Danny Danon is deputy speaker of the Knesset and the author of "Israel: The Will to Prevail."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2012, 08:27:33 AM

Morally the case is certainly there.

As a practical matter, a two year delay (see e.g. BD's post) with the price tag that would come with it presents some serious cost/benefit ratio questions , , ,

Title: Special IDF unit warming up and mowing the lawn
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2012, 11:18:23 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-armys-elite-undercover-unit-in-training-for-a-feared-third-palestinian-intifada/

Fearful that the current fragile calm in the West Bank could give way to a return to Palestinian violence, an elite Israeli undercover unit is carrying out nightly missions into Palestinian territory and training for the possible outbreak of a third intifada.
 
“We need to be alert and stay one step ahead,” the commander of the IDF’s Duvdevan unit told Israel’s Channel 10 news Tuesday night. “The potential for another uprising exists and we have to prepare ourselves for such an eventuality,” said the officer, a lieutenant-colonel who was identified only as S.
 
According to the TV report, Duvdevan soldiers take to the streets of West Bank cities on a nightly basis to arrest terror suspects and foil plots before they can come to fruition. Israel battled a mass uprising in the territories between 1987 and 1993 — the first intifada — and an onslaught of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks from late 2000 — the second intifada. That terrorism declined after Israel built a security barrier, physically cutting off access from the West Bank into Israel.
 
The PA has long been urging the Israel Defense Forces to cut back in operations inside territory that it controls. Tuesday’s report indicated that the Duvdevan unit, at least, is still routinely operating in PA cities.
 
The TV report said Israel was particularly concerned that the ongoing civil war in Syria, or the consequences of any upsurge in tension with Iran — Israel is widely reported to be contemplating carrying out a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities — might lead to an upsurge in Palestinian violence.
 
Last week, furthermore, saw large protests in several West Bank cities against the Palestinian Authority over austerity measures taken by the government, and calls for the resignation of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Some in Israel fear that Palestinian public bitterness in the West Bank could turn quickly against the Jewish State, the report said, with the PA already complaining that its interim peace accords with Israel are harming Palestinian financial affairs.
 
The last few days have also seen low-level Palestinian protests, directed at the US and Israel, over the anti-Islam movie “Innocence of Muslims” — underlining the potential for violence.
 
While the military, for the first time in several years, placed no extra restrictions on Palestinian movement during the Jewish Rosh Hashanah holiday this week, the army believes the current calm in the territories is misleading, the report said.
 
Later this month, PA President Mahmoud Abbas is set to fly to New York to again seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state. Stymied at the Security Council last year, he is set to seek upgraded status at the General Assembly this time, but is being pressured by the US to abandon the gambit. Tensions could flare on the ground over this issue too.
 
“Nobody knows what the future holds,” said S. “A year and a half ago, who could have predicted what’s taking place in the Arab world today. I’m sure we’re in for surprises,” he added. “We are getting ready, honing our skills, for when we are required to use them.”
 
The report said the army has set up a detailed mock Palestinian village, where soldiers train in carrying out surprise raids, with fellow soldiers playing the parts of Palestinians.
 
In the field, accompanied by Shin Bet intelligence officers, Duvdevan soldiers often work undercover, themselves dressed as Palestinians, swooping on suspects by closing in on them unnoticed.
 
The unit goes into Palestinian population centers with aerial drones flying above and scanning the territory, on missions referred to as “lawn-mowing” operations — aimed at ensuring that nascent terror plans do not grow into full-fledged bombings and other operations, by arresting conspirators.
 
S. said Duvdevan’s work has become more complex since the second intifada terrorism tailed off, because the PA now has a legally armed security force. ”It used to be a simple equation,” said S. “An armed person equalled a terrorist. Today there are Palestinian police and security officials carrying guns and rifles. There are many shades of grey in what was once a black-and-white world.”
 
Another new factor is that the unit has found itself arresting Palestinians only recently released from Israeli prisons. More than 1,000 Palestinian security prisoners were freed last October in a deal that saw Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped inside Israel and held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, finally freed after five years. According to the report, Duvdevan soldiers have arrested over 10 of the Palestinians who were freed in the Shalit deal, because they had resumed unlawful activities.
 
“Our job is to capture wanted men,” said S. “What the state does with them is not up to us.”
 
Still, remaining detached is not always easy, he said. S. and his men were the ones charged with capturing the perpetrators of a particularly brutal act of Palestinian terrorism last year, in which a mother, father and their three young children — one of them a three-month-old baby — were murdered in their beds in the West Bank settlement of Itamar last year. More than 100 people from a nearby Palestinian village were questioned over the killings of the Fogel family — which brought considerable criticism from human rights groups, S. noted — before the murderers were identified.
 
S. said he had expected to capture monsters, but that the young men appeared to be ordinary youths, at least superficially, with posters on the walls of their bedrooms. ”It reminds me of ‘Lord of the Flies,’” he said. “Anyone can turn into a beast.”

Title: WSJ: Border shootout test ties
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 22, 2012, 07:06:18 AM

Border Shootout Tests Ties Between Israel and Egypt .
By MATT BRADLEY in Rafah, Egypt, and CHARLES LEVINSON in Tel Aviv

Militants crossed into Israel from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Friday and attacked an Israeli border patrol, leaving one Israeli soldier and three militants dead. The attack is the latest in a series that has heightened concerns on both sides of the border about growing lawlessness and instability in the Sinai.

The militants, armed with automatic rifles and at least one explosive device and wearing bulletproof vests, crossed into Israel at around noon Friday and opened fire on Israeli soldiers guarding the border, a spokesman for the Israeli military said.

During the ensuing gunbattle, one of the militants detonated an explosive device, an Israeli military spokesman said. A 20-year-old Israeli private, Netanael Yahalomi, was killed in the clash, the spokesman said.

Since last year's uprising in Egypt ousted former President Hosni Mubarak from power, relations between the Israeli and Egyptian military have frayed. Egypt's top generals and new political leadership have sought to distance themselves from the old regime's unpopular policies.

Meanwhile, since the revolution upended Egypt's former regime and crippled its once-powerful security services, the sparsely populated peninsula on Israel's southern border has slipped beyond the authority of the central government in Cairo.

Despite the new presidency of a former leader in the powerful Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, the violence along the border area has forced the two countries to cooperate to try to subdue militancy in the Sinai.

Israeli and Egyptian officials have acknowledged that the two sides have worked closely together over the past several months.

During Friday's cross-border attack, the Egyptian and Israeli militaries maintained "tactical cooperation throughout the event," an Israeli military official said. The two militaries have agreed to set up a joint committee to investigate the incident, Egyptian and Israeli military officials said.

Friday's violence was the deadliest since 16 Egyptian soldiers were killed on Aug. 5 when heavily armed assailants attacked an Egyptian military camp. The attackers stole a military armed truck and rammed it into the Kerem Shalom border crossing before Israeli Air Force jets destroyed the vehicle.

The incident set off a manhunt throughout Egypt's northern Sinai region. In response to the attacks, the Israeli government relaxed terms of the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty that forbids military personnel from approaching the border.

Egyptian state press and the Israeli military said they didn't immediately know the militants' nationalities. In the past, Palestinians from the Gaza Strip have crossed into Israel from the Sinai to carry out attacks against Israel since that border is far more porous than Gaza's heavily fortified border with Israel.

But other extremist groups, Egyptian and otherwise, have also increasingly turned to the rugged and mountainous Sinai as a haven. Egyptian security forces have weak control of the governorate, which is populated largely by impoverished and disaffected Bedouin tribes.

Israel began construction of a fence along the 150-mile border with Egypt in late 2010. All but 18 miles of the fence have been completed. The militants crossed Friday at a stretch of border called Har Harif, which is roughly midway between the Gaza Strip in the north and Eilat at the border's southern tip.

It was unclear whether the militants intended to attack the Israeli soldiers or had their sights set on other targets inside Israel.

The border shootout was the latest incident to afflict Egypt's increasingly unstable border with Israel. Police and military authorities have suffered nearly constant harassment at the hands of local Islamist militants.

Title: POTH
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 25, 2012, 08:51:46 AM

Before Palestinians Act at U.N., Israeli Officials Urge Other Steps
 
By JODI RUDOREN
 
Published: September 24, 2012

JERUSALEM — With the Palestinians planning to make their case this week to upgrade from organizational status to nonmember status at the United Nations General Assembly, one senior Israeli minister condemned the move as “the easy and wrong way out” on Monday, while another said the time had come for Israel to consider its own unilateral move toward a separate state: annexing parts of the West Bank and withdrawing from others.

The first, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, said at a briefing for journalists here, “The goal is not a statement but a state; the way is not condemnation of Israel, but negotiations.” Of the Palestinian bid, he said: “It’s easier, but it won’t bear fruit. A statement in the U.N. will give him some advantage in the public opinion, but this is it. Nothing will change on the ground.”

But even as Mr. Meridor, a veteran politician whose voice is one of the most moderate in Israel’s inner cabinet, emphasized the need to return to the negotiating table after a four-year stalemate, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the time might have come “to take action to start the separation process” without waiting for a deal with the Palestinians.

In an interview with the right-wing daily Israel Today, parts of which were published on Monday, Mr. Barak called for the annexation of three large settlement blocs — Gush Etzion, Maale Adumim and Ariel — where a vast majority of the 350,000 Jews in the West Bank live, and the removal of up to dozens of smaller settlements scattered across the area. He proposed that those in the farther-flung areas be offered money to move — as individual families or whole communities — either to the annexed blocs or to what is now Israel, and that those unwilling to leave remain under the rule of the Palestinian Authority for a five-year trial period.

“This will not only help us with the Palestinians, but also with other countries in the region, with the American administration, and of course ourselves,” said Mr. Barak, who mentioned his interest in unilateral action at a conference in May but did not provide details.

“This isn’t an easy decision,” he added. “The time has come to make decisions that are not only based on ideology and gut feelings, but also a cold, realistic reading of reality.”

The call for unilateralism is out of sync with the public diplomacy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly at a time when his office is criticizing the Palestinians’ unilateral attempt to upgrade their status at the United Nations.

Mr. Barak’s proposal is anathema to settlers and their supporters, who see uprooting so many people as unimaginable. They point out that a similar, though smaller, disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was traumatic for Israeli society and created an opening for the militant Hamas wing that now rules the area. The plan is equally derided by Palestinian leaders, who loathe the notion of having their future borders determined by Israeli’s decisions on annexations and withdrawals and complain that the large settlement blocs compromise the viability of a new state.

“What he’s talking about, if we’re going to think in terms of geography, is disastrous,” said Nour Odeh, a Palestinian Authority spokeswoman. “It represents an agenda that has nothing to do with a two-state solution.”

She noted that the Ariel bloc stretches more than 10 miles into the West Bank and sits on an important water source. “Ultimately all these settlements — their presence, their expansion, their expanded borders and so on — they’re all illegal, and we don’t recognize their legitimacy,” she said.

Many in Israel saw Mr. Barak’s statements less as a serious new policy initiative and more as an attempt to distinguish himself politically from the rest of the cabinet amid increasing talk of elections being called for early next year rather than as scheduled in October 2013. Mr. Barak, who is not a member of Mr. Netanyahu’s right-leaning Likud Party but leads his own small Independence Party, in recent weeks has spoken out against the elevation of an educational institution in Ariel to university status and has harshly criticized the prime minister’s budget proposal.

“As Henry Kissinger once aptly said, ‘Israel has no foreign policy, only a domestic political system,’ ” Dani Dayan, the head of the settler movement, said in an interview. “Barak’s plan is a nonstarter with the Israeli public that totally opposes unilateral withdrawals. It caters to a small portion of the electorate on which Barak bases his political calculations for his future.”

Title: Correcting the lies about Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on September 28, 2012, 06:36:38 AM

Are Jewish Settlements Built on Arab Land?
Posted By Rachel Neuwirth and John Landau On September 28, 2012 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Is it really true, as much of the European and American press have been reporting for years, that Jewish “settlers” in the “West Bank” (more properly known as Judea and Samaria) are living on land that they have stolen from Palestinian Arabs?

This is in fact utterly impossible. Every time that the Israeli government has proposed or given tentative approval for the construction of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, it has first advertised its intentions in Arab newspapers, and invited any Arabs who have claims to the land to come forward with them. Only if no such claims were put forward for at least six months; or if, after such claims were made, the Israeli court system had ruled against them following a painstaking and thorough review of the facts, in which the courts bent over backwards to be fair to all Arab claimants, did the Israeli government actually authorize the construction of Jewish communities in this disputed area. Israeli courts have forbidden the Israel government from confiscating any Arab-owned land for Jewish settlement since 1980. And the Israel government has not authorized any new settlements since the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” began in 1993.

Not even the so-called “unauthorized” or “illegal” Jewish settlements, those that the Israeli government has not fully and expressly authorized, are built on Arab-owned land. Both the authorized and unauthorized Jewish communities were all built on what had been completely unoccupied, uncultivated and uninhabited “waste land.” No Arab homes were destroyed, no Arab residents were expelled, and no Arab farmland was seized in creating any of these Jewish communities—whether their construction was fully authorized by the Israeli government or not. And under the land ownership laws of Judea and Samaria — which date to when these territories were under Turkish rule, and which have been respected by all subsequent governments, including the Israeli administration — nearly all uninhabited and completely undeveloped “waste land” belongs either to the state, not to any private owner. While such land could legally be purchased from the state, there were almost no instances in which Arabs actually did purchase such “waste land,” because they would have had to pay taxes on it while deriving no benefit for the foreseeable future. Whatever few purchases of such land were made, were made by Jewish philanthropists hoping to provide land for future Jewish refugees or immigrants.

Why, then, have the notions that all of the Jewish “settlements” are “illegal” and, what is more, built on Arab-owned land taken such a firm hold on the belief-systems of the world’s governments and news media? One major reason has been the activities of Israel-based “Human rights” NGOs (“non-governmental organizations”) such as Peace Now, B’tselem, Yesh Din, Yesh Gvul and many others. These soi-disant human rights organizations, which are committed to ending the Israeli “occupation” of all land outside the country’s June 3, 1967 cease-fire lines, and to forcing the expulsion of the 300,000 Israelis who live outside those cease-fire lines (which were never legal borders), have published a series “reports” claiming that up to 30 percent of the land on which Israeli-Jewish “settlements” on the “West Bank” are built exist on what these groups describe as “privately owned Arab land” (or is it 38%? Or 32%? or 24% ? or 16%? Each “report” gives a different percentage figure, and sometimes there are even two contradictory figures within one “report”). These figures, as well as many other claims by the soi-disant human rights groups, are then immediately published as facts—first by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which despite being published in Israel is actually a mouthpiece for the Palestinian Authority and its network of affiliated organizations—and then by The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the The Washington Times, NPR, the BBC and a thousand other newspapers and electronic media services throughout the Western world.

However, when one actually reads in detail the lengthy reports on the web sites of these “human rights” groups that purport to document the supposed settler “land grabs,” one finds no credible evidence for these percentage claims, despite many footnotes and long statistical tables, charts, etc. Either these “reports” a) fail to give any original source at all for the statistics, or b) they claim that they are supported by thousands of Israeli government documents that these groups have received under Israel’s Freedom of Information law—but without quoting from a single specific document that supports their claims about Jewish settlements on “privately owned Arab land.”

A report issued by Peace Now titled “Breaking the Law in the  West Bank,” first published in November 2006, is a case in point. It is the one that claims that “nearly 40 per cent” (later, in the report’s fine print, specified down to  “38.76” per cent”) of settlements are built on “privately owned Arab land.” The report is also filled with graphs and charts, much of them about irrelevancies such as the exact number of square kilometers in each settlement, maps of the settlements and of the entire “West Bank” showing the location of settlements, even photographs (some of them, ironically, showing the beauty of these communities), which give a semblance of verisimilitude and accuracy to the report. But whenever claims are made about the amount of land in the settlements that belongs to Arabs, no documentary source is given. Despite all the graphs, charts, tables and maps in the 21-page report, we are never told precisely how Peace Now reached its conclusions about the extent of land owned by Arabs in the Jewish settlements

After the 2006 report aroused some criticism and questions in Israel, Peace Now issued a second report a year later, “clarifying” and “correcting” the one issued a year earlier. Peace Now claimed that this report was based on more than 3,500 documents received from the Israeli government since the original 2006 report was published. This of course raised the question as to how Peace Now had compiled the earlier report, complete with all those statistics and other detailed data without these documents. Be that as it may, the 2007 Peace Now report admits that the previous report had been wrong in claiming that 83.4% of the “settlement” of Maale Haadumim (actually a suburb of Jerusalem less than 5 miles outside the city limits) was owned by Arabs, and scaled down that claim to 0.5 percent—a 99.95 percent decrease in the amount of land in the community that Peace Now claimed was “privately owned” by Arabs. The total percentage of land in Jewish “settlements” alleged to be “privately owned” by Arabs was revised downward from 38 percent to 32 percent in the 2007 report. At the same time, the revised report stood by Peace Now’s earlier claims about Arab ownership of land in the other Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and even increased the amount of land that it alleged was owned by Arabs in some of these communities. But even the “new” revised report, despite its claim to be based on Israeli government documents, fails to quote even one such document in support of these statistical claims, or even a specific document that states that any land at all in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is owned by Arabs and illegally occupied by Jews.

The claims made in these Peace Now reports were further undermined by a successful libel suit brought against the organization by the Jewish community of Revava, which Peace Now had claimed was 71.15 percent owned by Arabs. The community was able to prove in court that Jews owned 100 percent of its land and Arabs owned none of it. Peace Now was forced to pay a settlement of 20,000 shekels (about $5,000) in compensation and issue an apology.

However, even though both reports have been proven to contain serious inaccuracies, and even though Peace Now has even admitted that its 2006 report contained at least one major inaccuracy, Peace Now continues to display both reports on its websites. It has not even removed the false allegations about Maale Haadumim and Revava from the two reports, which it continues to publish on both its Israeli and U.S. web sites.

The world’s media and governments have accepted the false accusations against Israel of Peace Now, B’tselem and similar Israel-based groups because they are supported by plausible, scholarly-sounding language, by detailed (although completely undocumented) statistics, graphs and charts; because the authors are Israelis and Jewish, and most people can’t imagine that anyone could be so self-destructive and disloyal as to lie  about their own country; and of course because the claims of the “human rights” NGOs confirm the anti-Israel prejudices and predilections of most of the world’s governments and news media. The claims of the Israeli “human rights” groups, like those of similar Palestinian and Israeli Arab groups, are nevertheless falsehoods. It is high time that honest and responsible journalists and scholars, Israeli and non-Israeli, Jewish and non-Jewish, expose them for the frauds and lies that they are.

Documentation

Israeli policies for establishing settlements on undeveloped state land:

See: David Bar-Illan, Eye On the Media, Gefen Books, 1993, available from Amazon; David M. Phillips, “The Illegal-Settlements Myth,” Commentary Magazine,  Dec 01, 2009; CAMERA, “Backgrounder: Jewish Settlements and the Media,” by Ricki Hollander, October 5, 2001, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=10&x_article=259;  CAMERA report of July 7, 1995, “Media Mangles Land Issues”; CAMERA report, April 5, 2011; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Israeli Settlements and International Law,” 20 May 2001.

Real property laws in force in Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”):

See: “Mawat Land,” Zionism and Israel—Encyclopedic Dictionary, and “The Land Question in Palestine”; Nadia Forni, “Land tenure policies in the Near East”; Moshe Dann, “Blood Libel; The Myth of  ”private Palestinian land,” Jerusalem Post, December 28, 2011 reprinted; “Palestine Papers: Jews legally own land in the territories,” February 9, 2011, 2011; “ Maayana Misken, “Jews to Reclaim Land in Jordan?”; Green-lined, “PA: Jews Owned Land in Judea and Samaria,”  Feb. 10, 2011.

Peace Now reports and international media coverage of them:

See: Peace Now, “Breaking the Law in the West Bank — One Violation Leads to Another: Israeli Settlement Building on Private Palestinian Property”; “G U I L T Y! Construction of Settlements upon Private Land – Official Data”; and http://peacenow.org/entries/archive3189#more, all on Peace Now’s Israeli web site; Steven Erlanger, “West Bank Sites on Private Land, Data Shows,” New York Times, March 13, 2007; Nadav Shragai and Agencies, “Peace Now:: 32% of Land Held for Settlements is Private Palestinian Land,” Haaretz.com, March 13, 2007.

Critical analyses of errors in the peace now reports:

CAMERA , “Update: Peace Now Map Based Only on Palestinian Claims,” December 2, 2006; Alex Safian, CAMERA, “Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma’ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Per Cent,”March 16, 2007; “Subject: Civil Administration Response to the ‘Peace Now’ Report“; Moshe Dann “Peace Now Flakes Out”; Maayana Miskin, “Peace Now to Pay and Apologize for Maligning Town,” December 11, 2008; CAMERA, Alex Safian, “Israeli Court : Peace Now Lied, Must Pay Now,” December 23, 2008.

Title: An interesting history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 03, 2012, 02:07:30 PM

About ten minutes, seems interesting to me , , ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb6IiSUxpgw

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 05, 2012, 07:57:17 AM

A friend whose knowledge and astuteness I respect greatly comments:

Marc,

The Azerbaijani students who produce this channel do a good job with their videos.

It’s a very good summary of the history of the region that does not get taught to us.  It explains why Israel gets scapegoated by its surrounding nations.  It is a convenient punching bag that can cover up the natural tribal tensions that still exist today.  The explanation of the Hashemites is very good and accurate.  People forget that the Hashemites were in charge of Iraq before the Baathists and other military officers revolted.  I am surprised that the video did not mention or discuss Nasser’s intervention in Yemen that preceded the 1967 war with Israel. 

Another thing to remember about Israel:  initially it was more aligned with the USSR than the US.  However, the USSR decided that Nasser was the better bet in the region and Israel drifted into alignment with the western powers.  That led to its participation in the 1956 Suez crisis.

Title: Heh heh heh
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2012, 08:15:17 PM

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/10/13/243540.html

Title: WSJ: When the Arab Jews fled
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2012, 07:22:55 AM

When the Arab Jews Fled
A new movement insists that the founding of Israel created more than one set of refugees.
By LUCETTE LAGNADO

Fortunée Abadie is still haunted by the day in 1947 when mobs stormed the Jewish Quarter of the ancient Syrian city of Aleppo, shortly after the United Nations vote that laid the groundwork for the creation of Israel.

Aleppo, a city where Jews and Muslims had lived together for centuries, exploded with anti-Jewish violence. Mrs. Abadie, now 88, remembers watching attackers burn prayer books, prayer shawls and other holy objects from the synagogue across the street. She heard the screams of neighbors as their homes were invaded. "We thought we were going to be killed," she says. The family fled to nearby Lebanon. Mrs. Abadie left behind all she had: clothes, furniture, photographs and even a small bottle of French perfume that she still misses, Soir de Paris—Evening in Paris.

 
Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis
 
A group of Yemenite Jews, newly arrived to Lod, Israel, in 1948 after being airlifted en masse.
.
The Abadie family's story is moving from the recesses of history to a newly prominent place in the debate over the future of the Middle East. Arab leaders have insisted for decades that Palestinian refugees who fled their homes following Israel's creation should be allowed to return to their former homes.

Now Israeli officials are turning the tables, saying the hardships faced by several hundred thousand exiled Arab Jews, many forced from their homes, deserve as much attention as the plight of displaced Palestinians. "We are 64 years late," says Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister. "The refugee problem does not lie only on one side." Mr. Ayalon, whose father is an Algerian Jew, led a U.N. conference last month sponsored by Israel and dubbed "Justice for Jews From Arab Countries."

Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, an estimated 850,000 Jews lived in the Arab world. In countries across the Middle East, there were flourishing Jewish communities with their own synagogues, schools and communal institutions.

Life changed dramatically by 1948 as Arab governments declared war on the newly created Jewish state—and on the Jews within their own borders. At the U.N., an Egyptian delegate warned that the plan to partition Palestine into two states, one for Jews and one for Palestinians, "might endanger a million Jews living in the Muslim countries."

Arab Jewish Life Before - and After - 1948
View Slideshow


Wedding of Mamus and Dora Rumani in Benghazi, Libya, circa 1955.
.
.Jews began fleeing—to Israel, of course, but also to France, England, Canada, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. Yemen was home to more than 55,000 Jews; in Aden, scores were killed in a vicious pogrom in 1947. An airlift dubbed "Operation Magic Carpet" relocated most Yemenite Jews to Israel. In Libya, once home to 38,000 Jews, the community was subjected to many brutal attacks over the years. In June 1967, there were anti-Jewish rampages; two Jewish families were murdered—one family clubbed to death—and schools and synagogues were destroyed, says Vivienne Roumani, director of the documentary "The Last Jews of Libya." "We were there for centuries, but there is no trace of Jewish life," she says.

Among the Jews forced out of their homes was my own Egyptian-Jewish family, departing on a rickety boat in the spring of 1963. Egypt had once been home to 80,000 Jews. My parents, both Cairenes whose stories I chronicled in two memoirs, were especially pained at leaving a country they loved, without being allowed to take money or assets.

Within 25 years, the Arab world lost nearly all its Jewish population. Some faced expulsion, while others suffered such economic and social hardships they had no choice but to go. Others left voluntarily because they longed to settle in Israel. Only about 4,300 Jews remain there today, mostly in Morocco and Tunisia, according to Justice for Jews From Arab Countries, a New York-based coalition of groups that also participated in the U.N. conference.

Many of the Palestinians who fled Israel wound up stranded in refugee camps. Multiple U.N. agencies were created to help them, and billions of dollars in aid flowed their way. The Arab Jews, by contrast, were quietly absorbed by their new homes. "The Arab Jews became phantoms" whose stories were "edited out" of Arab consciousness, says Fouad Ajami, a scholar of the Middle East at Stanford's Hoover Institution. "We are talking about the claims of the Palestinians," he says. "Fine, but there were 800,000 Arab Jews, and they have a story to tell."

Palestinians bristle at the effort to equate the displacement of Arab Jews with their own grievances. Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Executive Committee, says Mr. Ayalon "opened up a can of worms for political purposes" with the U.N. conference. She says that Israeli officials are trying to use a "forced and false analogy…to negate or question Palestinian refugee rights." The Palestinians, she says, "have nothing to do with the plight of the Jews or other minorities who left the Arab world." Still, Dr. Ashrawi recently proposed that Arab Jews should also have a "right of return" to the countries they left.

At the U.N. conference, Mr. Ayalon called Dr. Ashrawi's suggestion to have Jews return to Arab countries "totally ridiculous." Mr. Ayalon and the Israeli government are pushing ahead with efforts to raise the profile of Arab Jews. Israel has pledged to establish a national day in honor of Arab Jews and build a museum about their lost cultures. Mr. Ayalon has decided to make the Arab-Jewish refugees part of any negotiations, which has never been the case before. Looking ahead to a settlement, he would like to see both Palestinian and Jewish refugees compensated by an international fund. Meanwhile, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, has called on the U.N. to research the refugees' history.

Mrs. Abadie attended the conference with her son Elie, now a physician and rabbi who leads Congregation Edmond J. Safra, a Manhattan synagogue attended by Lebanese and Syrian Jews. Until 1947, Syria had an estimated 30,000 Jews living in Aleppo and Damascus. But like Mrs. Abadie, many departed in the wake of the violence that left 75 dead and synagogues in ruin.

The Abadies were refugees twice. After leaving Aleppo, the family ended up in Beirut, Lebanon. For a time, life was good in the cosmopolitan city. But by 1970, the climate had turned hostile. Armed militants appeared in the streets. Rabbis, including Elie's father, Abraham, had their pictures posted in the city's mosques, identifying them as "Zionist-Jewish leaders," an act the family took as a death threat. The Abadies decided once again it was time to move.

Some Jewish refugees, like Sir Ronald Cohen, find hope in the new initiatives to call attention to Arab Jews. Mr. Cohen, a London-based businessman, was a student at a French Catholic school in Cairo in 1956, friendly with his Muslim and Christian classmates. His father owned an import-export firm that specialized in appliances, and "Ronnie," then 11, loved to visit him and play with the radios.

Then in October 1956, Israel, France and England waged war against Egypt over the Suez Canal. Mr. Cohen's parents pulled him out of school after another Jewish boy was injured. His mother, a British citizen, was placed under house arrest. His father's business was "sequestered"—effectively taken from him—and he wasn't welcome at his own office. In May 1957, the family left on a plane bound for Europe. Mr. Cohen still remembers his father crying on the plane. "There is nothing left here," he recalls his mother saying. "It is all over."

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jews continued to pour out of the Muslim countries. When Desiré Sakkal and his family left Egypt as stateless refugees in 1962, he says, "there were very few Jews left." Stranded in Paris in a hotel, Mr. Sakkal's little brother was diagnosed with cancer, and he still remembers how his parents went to the hospital every day. The brother died a year later in New York, at the age of 10. Mr. Sakkal went on to found the Historical Society of Jews from Egypt, which seeks to recall the life left behind.

The Six-Day War of June 1967 brought some of the most violent anti-Jewish eruptions. As Arab countries faced defeat by Israel, they turned their rage on their own Jewish residents—what remained of them. In Egypt, Jewish men over 18 were rounded up and sent to prison. Some were kept for a few days. Others, like Philadelphia Rabbi Albert Gabbai, a Cairo native, remained imprisoned for three years. Rabbi Gabbai was only 18 when he was thrown in jail, along with three older brothers. He still remembers the cries of his fellow prisoners—Muslim Brotherhood members who were being tortured—echoing through the jail. He and his brothers feared that they were going to be killed. After three years of "despair," he says, they were driven to the airport and escorted to an Air France AF.FR +0.76%flight.

Mr. Cohen, who left Egypt in 1957,grew up to become a pioneer in European venture capital and private equity. In recent years, he has worked to develop the Palestinian private sector. He believes that the focus on Jewish-Arab refugees could spur the Arabs and Israelis toward peace. "There are refugees on both sides, so that evens the scales, and I think that it will be helpful to the process," he says. "It shows that both sides suffered the same fate."

Write to Lucette Lagnado at lucette.lagnado@wsj.com

Title: Hamas getting outflanked by Salafists
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2012, 05:16:44 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/world/middleeast/hamas-works-to-suppress-militant-groups-in-gaza.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121020

Title: No doubt SecState Rice would put a stop to this , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2012, 07:49:05 PM

WSJ

Here's another post-election news flash: The tide of war is not receding. The latest Middle East flash point among so many is the Gaza Strip, where Israel on Wednesday launched retaliatory airstrikes on Hamas commanders and weapons storage sites.

The strikes were in response to the latest rocket fire from Gaza launched willy-nilly into southern Israel. Hamas has escalated its assaults, and in recent days the number of missile and mortar attacks has run into the dozens. It is only a matter of time before one of these attacks hits a school or shopping mall. Hamas's missiles may be inaccurate but their goal is terror, especially against civilian targets, and their range is getting close to the suburbs of Tel Aviv.

One of the Israeli strikes killed Ahmed Jabari, the chief of Hamas's military arm who is believed to be responsible for kidnapping Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas promised to "open the gates of hell" in response, as if it already hasn't. Israeli officials said if Hamas does escalate, its ground forces are prepared to move into Gaza as they did four years ago.

All of this is more dangerous than four years ago because the entire Middle East is so much less stable. Egypt, which recalled its ambassador to Israel Wednesday, is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood that sympathizes with Hamas. Syria's civil war is spilling outside its borders. And Iran, which is Hamas's main weapons supplier, is that much more brazen as it watches the U.S. care more about deterring an Israeli strike against Iran than stopping Iran from getting a weapon.

U.S. influence is ebbing in the region, and the local thugs are filling the vacuum. As that retreat continues, the Obama Administration needs to give Israel the material and diplomatic support to defend itself.

Title: Re: No doubt SecState Rice would put a stop to this , , ,
Post by: G M on November 14, 2012, 07:55:07 PM

I have been told that Obama wore a kippa at AIPAC, so there is no reason to worry.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2012, 07:49:05 PM

WSJ

Here's another post-election news flash: The tide of war is not receding. The latest Middle East flash point among so many is the Gaza Strip, where Israel on Wednesday launched retaliatory airstrikes on Hamas commanders and weapons storage sites.

The strikes were in response to the latest rocket fire from Gaza launched willy-nilly into southern Israel. Hamas has escalated its assaults, and in recent days the number of missile and mortar attacks has run into the dozens. It is only a matter of time before one of these attacks hits a school or shopping mall. Hamas's missiles may be inaccurate but their goal is terror, especially against civilian targets, and their range is getting close to the suburbs of Tel Aviv.

One of the Israeli strikes killed Ahmed Jabari, the chief of Hamas's military arm who is believed to be responsible for kidnapping Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas promised to "open the gates of hell" in response, as if it already hasn't. Israeli officials said if Hamas does escalate, its ground forces are prepared to move into Gaza as they did four years ago.

All of this is more dangerous than four years ago because the entire Middle East is so much less stable. Egypt, which recalled its ambassador to Israel Wednesday, is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood that sympathizes with Hamas. Syria's civil war is spilling outside its borders. And Iran, which is Hamas's main weapons supplier, is that much more brazen as it watches the U.S. care more about deterring an Israeli strike against Iran than stopping Iran from getting a weapon.

U.S. influence is ebbing in the region, and the local thugs are filling the vacuum. As that retreat continues, the Obama Administration needs to give Israel the material and diplomatic support to defend itself.

Title: War looms over Gaza
Post by: bigdog on November 15, 2012, 09:39:05 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-hammers-hamas-gaza-offensive-004808421.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 15, 2012, 01:50:43 PM

What will Morsi and the MB do?

Title: Michael Oren: It’s May 1967—or May 1948
Post by: Rachel on November 16, 2012, 08:47:50 AM

If you want to follow the war on Twitter

http://twitter.com/AmbassadorOren
http://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson
http://twitter.com/haaretzcom
http://twitter.com/Jerusalem_Post


Gov Romney  would have certainly been better on  Israel and other foreign policy than President Obama but here is recent tweet from  AmbassadorOren  "Israeli Amb. Michael Oren praised "outstanding support from all branches of the US government. We could not ask 4 more" #Gaza".    President Obamas statements on Pillar of Defense  so far have been excellent.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-unanimously-passes-resolution-supporting-israels-right-to-defend-itself/

---

THE SCROLL
Michael Oren: It’s May 1967—or May 1948
The ambassador talks Operation Pillar of Defense, ‘monumental threats’

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/116870/michael-oren-its-may-1967%E2%80%94or-may-1948

Michael Oren has served as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. for the past three years. But his real trade isn’t diplomacy, it’s the past: Before Oren took on arguably the toughest job in Washington, he wrote books about Mideast history. So when I spoke to the ambassador yesterday afternoon about Operation Pillar of Defense, I asked him what historical moment he’d compare this one to: “In the best of circumstances, it’s May 1967. And the worst, May 1948. Rarely in our history have we ever faced such a broad spectrum of monumental threats.”

There’s the Iranian regime bidding for nuclear weapons, a Muslim Brotherhood government running Egypt, Hamas ruling Gaza, Hezbollah controlling southern Lebanon, and the civil war raging in Syria that spilled into Israel earlier this week. Jordan, a reliable Israeli ally since the mid-1990s, has become even more critical since Hosni Mubarak was ousted in Egypt. But many suspect it’s only a matter of time before the Arab upheaval fells King Abdullah II—especially given current protests.

That would be a worst-case scenario for Israel. “Jordan is what keeps Iran out of our backyard,” said Oren. “Our defense border is the Jordanian-Iraqi border”—that is, not the Jordanian-Israeli one.

It’s difficult not to see this operation— pinpointing and targeting Hamas leaders, while taking out underground missile sites—as intended for an audience beyond the Strip, namely the one watching in Tehran. (The Iranians have undertaken major air drills in the past few days, and revealed new missile systems.) But Oren insists the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with this operation: “This is not about sending a message to Iran. This is a message about defending a million of our citizens,” he said. “It would be the equivalent of 40 million Americans in bomb shelters.”

And yet Iran was the subject we kept coming back to. “I think that the key to it all is Iran,” Oren said. “Gaza’s basically an outpost of Iran. Lebanon is an outpost of Iran. Assad is a lackey of Iran.” Indeed, one key lesson Oren draws from Israel’s previous territorial withdrawals is that Iran’s proxies tend to fill the vacuum left behind. “Wherever we have withdrawn, the Iranians have filled it. In Lebanon, in Gaza.”

Since Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005), the IDF has played an ongoing game of whack-a-mole with Hezbollah and Hamas. Oren argued that this tactic has been more successful than some have claimed. “After the Lebanon war [of 2006] we were very tough on ourselves, with the whole Winograd Commission. But I think we were too tough on ourselves. In fact, we deterred Hezbollah” in that war.

Four years since Operation Cast Lead, deterrence is once again the name of the game for the IDF in Gaza: “Hamas may have to just be reminded again, and reminded in large scale, that we will not allow our citizens to be shot at with impunity,” Oren said. “It will go on for as long as Hamas continues to escalate.” Israel said Wednesday that it is prepared to expand this campaign into a ground operation.

“We have nothing to be ashamed about, nothing to apologize for. This is our right,” said Oren. “Ahmed Jabari killed dozens and dozens of Israelis.”

And what would victory look like? “Victory looks like security restored to the inhabitants of the south,” said Oren. Longer term, the goal is a change in mindset. “The Palestinian people have to internalize that as long as they choose leadership like Hamas, that will bring them no closer to statehood, no closer to economic and social development, and no closer to peace.”

With weeks until Israelis go to the polls, some see a clear connection between the election and this operation. Oren dismissed the question: “This is not about the elections. We didn’t want war,” he said. “This government has exhibited superhuman restraint: 2,500 rockets since 2009. Last month, 800 rockets. In the last week, 300 rockets. What government in the world wouldn’t have responded with war a long time ago?”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 16, 2012, 03:44:51 PM

Gov Romney  would have certainly been better on  Israel and other foreign policy than President Obama but here is recent tweet from  AmbassadorOren  "Israeli Amb. Michael Oren praised "outstanding support from all branches of the US government. We could not ask 4 more" #Gaza".    President Obamas statements on Pillar of Defense  so far have been excellent.

I doubt that if Romney were president elect, that Israel's (and America's) enemies would feel like this was a good time to launch an attack. Israel is smart enough to not say anything that would antagonize Rev. Wright's most famous parishoner, who aside from being hostile to "imperialist countries" (meaning Israel and America) is famously thin skinned and vindictive.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 16, 2012, 06:27:00 PM

Agreed GM.   Certainly more resolve on the part of the US to defend and fight with Israel might have prevented this flagrant militancy,

but that is all water under the bridge now.
--

The ongoing war is escalating.  Israel might be better off dealing with Hamas and probably Hezbelloh first before attacking Iran nuclear sites.

Maybe they could dampen or weaken the inevitable counterattacks that would come if they went after Iran first.

It clearly remains to be seen if Obama will in fact lift a finger for Israel.  (hopefully not his middle finger).

Whether or not he does will never change my disgust at my fellow Jews for helping this monstrosity into office not once but twice.

The dismantling of our beloved country continues.  The flower children haven't a clue what they are unleashing. And the rest are bribed.  Sorry Bobby J. Romney is right.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2012, 06:48:17 PM

As has been discussed in the Egypt thread, Egypt faces very serious issues of food shortage in very short order in the absence of US money i.e. WE HAVE THE MEANS TO YANK ON MORSI'S LEASH.

We shall see what happens.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 16, 2012, 06:59:41 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2012, 06:48:17 PM

As has been discussed in the Egypt thread, Egypt faces very serious issues of food shortage in very short order in the absence of US money i.e. WE HAVE THE MEANS TO YANK ON MORSI'S LEASH.

We shall see what happens.

You think the president that put the Muslim Brotherhood into power is going to undercut them now?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2012, 07:11:51 PM

Intelligent conservatives, a term which excludes the Rep leadership, can point this out i.e. Baraq will have no "But what can I do excuse". 

We shall see , , ,

Title: Hamas' Godless Killers
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2012, 12:01:44 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-godless-killers/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 17, 2012, 02:40:19 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2012, 07:11:51 PM

Intelligent conservatives, a term which excludes the Rep leadership, can point this out i.e. Baraq will have no "But what can I do excuse". 

We shall see , , ,

Israel will get vilified by the MSM to such a degree that you'll think they are the Tea party. Buraq will take the same accountability for this that he did for Benghazi and Fast and Furious.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 18, 2012, 01:31:04 PM

Israel will get vilified...

That is what happened when they went into Lebanon to stop the rocket attacks.

Meantime Iran keeps moving forward with nuclear weapons.

Title: Rocket Fire
Post by: Rachel on November 18, 2012, 07:59:17 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLYVSCL5usA


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLYVSCL5usA[/youtube]


http://bogieworks.blogs.com/

Sunday, November 18, 2012

When 10 minutes feels like 10 years

 [A guest-post by Zahava]

There is really nothing that adequately prepares you for the sound. You learn about it. Your kids have drills in school. Your community tests its siren and emergency broadcast system intermittently through out the year.

You know what to do. You know how much time you have to do it.

But.

Until it actually happens – until you are forced to put the practice into action – you really don’t know.

You anticipate that the siren will be terrible. But what you are really unprepared for is the fact that the siren is not the most terrible aspect of the experience.

As a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, and a friend, there were a thousand things that flashed through my frenzied thoughts as my brain registered and processed that our community’s air raid sirens were in fact actually shrilling their warning to take cover. Immediately.

90 seconds.

We in Gush Etzion are incredibly lucky. We have a full 90 seconds to get to safety. We have 6 times the amount of time as our compatriots in the south.

The sound.

I think it only took about 10 seconds to absorb it. Good thing I live in Gush Etzion. 5 seconds would not have been adequate time to: 1) finish drying off after my shower, 2) race up the stairs while simultaneously stabbing my limbs into garments, and 3) rattle off the names of my husband, kids (who were home) and Shabbat guest, while also screaming 4) “get into the mamad (re-inforced room), this is probably not a drill.”

Somehow, the five of us all made it before the siren ceased its wail.

Head check.

Again.

Wait.

Boom. Boom.

Quiet. Muffled.

A bit of pressure accompanies the sound.

Sort of reminiscent of a sonic boom.

Except so much more sinister than the sound of an airplane breaking the sound barrier.

Designed to terrorize. Designed to kill.

We waited the required time – 10 minutes according to home front command – before exiting the mamad, wondering the entire time. Worrying the entire time.

It was 10 minutes. But it felt like 10 years.

We emerge grateful that we are all accounted for and unharmed. We hope that everyone in our area can say the same.

In shul, the boys hear from the men who serve on the community’s security squad that the rockets landed in an open area causing little damage and no injuries.

We finish our entry into Shabbat profoundly grateful that we and those we love and those we live among have been spared harm.

We worry.

We worry about our compatriots. We worry about our soldiers. We worry about the Gazan civilians. We worry about the worrying of overseas family and friends.

Shabbat remains quiet, though we are all edgier than normal. The howl of the traffic from 60 plays tricks on our ears and on our minds.

Was that the start of the siren?

No. For us, mercifully, it was not.

Each moment that carries us further from those 10 minutes. Those 10 minutes which felt like 10 years.

It is Sunday. I, like every news-junkie Israeli, move between productive work and the news sites. Checking. Praying. Listening. Worrying.

And it occurs to me.

If that one time experience of 10 minutes felt like 10 years, what does 3 rockets a day feel like? 30 years?

What does 12 years of rockets feel like?

My heart is broken for the one million residents of southern Israel for whom these exaggerated moments have already stretched on for eternity.

It is enough. Enough is enough.

Kol Yisrael arevi’im zeh la zeh – loosely translated, this means all Israel is responsible for one another.

The time has come to put aside political, philosophical and theological differences. Our citizens may not be subjected to rocket fire.

Ever.

You want to talk about all the ways that Israel can improve her international standing, her civil policies, her democratic process? Great. Me too. There is, admittedly, much work to be done.

But.

Not now.

At the moment, our only responsible action is to defend our citizens.

And know that we do this while taking extraordinary measures to simultaneously protect the innocent lives of non-militant Gazans.

It turns out the old axiom is true: time flies when you’re having fun.

Time should fly.

Missiles should not.

---

Murphy is alive and well in Beer Sheva

Despite the chaos going on elsewhere in the south, it was a quiet morning in Beer Sheva.  So much so, that I allowed myself to be lulled into a sense of normalcy.

In fact, I felt so relaxed that I actually made an appointment to go over to the Optician and pick up my new frames which they told me via SMS were ready.

No sooner was I away from the fortified protection of my office campus, I heard the Code Red sirens start to go off all around me.  Following procedure, I pulled over and ran (hah!, my knee said, no... you'll stroll) to find the nearest shelter.

Nothing nearby.  Not a building.  Not a house.

So I stretched out in the dirt by the curb and prayed.

As the sirens were fading away a second set of sirenscame to life... this was a multiple rocket attack.

After a short time I hear seven distinct explosions off to my left and over head.  Some were likely interceptions by the Iron Dome system and some were rockets that got through.

Murphy's law that I would pick that moment to venture out.

Silly me.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2012, 09:52:00 PM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/255180#.UKk_yOR18mQ

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-anchor-tells-israeli-ambassador-hamas-rockets-rarely-do-damage/

Title: Turkey's Erdogan calls Isreal "Terrorist"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2012, 08:39:20 AM

WSJ

ISTANBUL—Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of being a "terrorist state" on Monday and criticized world powers for supporting the weeklong bombardment of Gaza that has killed almost 90 people, signaling that the three-year-old rift between Jerusalem and Ankara is deepening.

Speaking in Istanbul shortly after returning from Cairo, where he held emergency talks on Gaza with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Mr. Erdogan also railed against Western powers' failure to take concerted action to stop bloodshed in Syria.

But he saved his harshest words for one-time ally Israel.

"Those who speak of Muslims and terror side by side are turning a blind eye when Muslims are massacred en masse," the prime minister told a gathering of the Eurasian Islamic Council. "Those who turn a blind eye to discrimination toward Muslims in their own countries, are also closing their eyes to the savage massacre of innocent children in Gaza…Therefore, I say Israel is a terrorist state."

The comments point to a new nadir for relations between Turkey and Israel, which have been strained since Israel's 2008 offensive in Hamas-controlled Gaza. In early 2009, Mr. Erdogan won fame and popular support on the Arab street when he rebuked Israeli President Shimon Peres at a World Economic Forum event in Davos, Switzerland.

Since then, ties between the countries, once the closest allies in the Middle East, have deteriorated to a historic low. Turkey's prime minister has been vehemently backing Palestinians and their push for statehood, especially after Israel killed Turkish activists on a humanitarian-aid ship that had been seeking to breach Jerusalem's blockade of Gaza in 2010.

Mr. Erdogan, whose anti-Israel outbursts are at odds with Ankara's leading Western ally, the U.S., has sought to capitalize on his popularity to expand Turkey's regional influence.

His comments came after Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, stepped up its diplomatic involvement in the Gaza conflict over the weekend, when Mr. Erdogan visited Cairo to help Egypt's Mr. Morsi push negotiations for a cease-fire. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu plans to travel to Gaza on Tuesday with a group of foreign ministers from the Arab League, Turkey's state news agency Anadolu reported on Sunday.

In a veiled criticism of U.S. President Barack Obama, who lists the Turkish premier among his top-five closest leaders world-wide, Mr. Erdogan said it was unfair to cite a country's right to defend itself to justify Israeli attacks when Jerusalem is the aggressor.

On Sunday, the U.S. and Britain both reiterated their support for Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian rocket fire.

Israel says its military action against Gaza is a response to Hamas-fired rockets, which have struck Tel Aviv in the first successful attacks on Israel's largest metropolitan area since the 1991 Gulf War.

Turkey's prime minister also criticized the United Nations, which called on Israel and Hamas to work with Egypt to achieve a cease-fire in the conflict. Mr. Erdogan has repeatedly lambasted the U.N. Security Council for failing to take concerted action on Syria, Turkey's neighbor, where an uprising has led to civil war.

"I'm asked how much I trust the U.N., I don't trust it," Mr. Erdogan said, urging once again to reform the world body to make the Security Council more inclusive and effective in stopping bloodshed world-wide.

Title: STratfor: George Friedman on Gaza and Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2012, 10:06:52 AM

Third post of day:


Israel and Gaza: Then and Now
November 19, 2012
Four years ago on Nov. 4, while Americans were going to the polls to elect a new president, Israeli infantry, tanks and bulldozers entered the Gaza Strip to dismantle an extensive tunnel network used by Hamas to smuggle in weapons. An already tenuous truce mediated by the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak had been broken. Hamas responded with a barrage of mortar and rocket fire lasting several weeks, and on Dec. 27, 2008, Israel began Operation Cast Lead. The military campaign began with seven days of heavy air strikes on Gaza, followed by a 15-day ground incursion. By the end of the campaign, nearly 1,000 poorly guided shorter-range rockets and mortar shells hit southern Israel, reaching as far as Beersheba and Yavne. Several senior Hamas commanders and hundreds of militants were killed in the fighting. Israel Defense Forces figures showed that 10 IDF soldiers died (four from friendly fire), three Israeli civilians died from Palestinian rocket fire and 1,166 Palestinians were killed -- 709 of them combatants.

The strategic environment during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead was vastly different from the one Israel faces in today's Operation Pillar of Defense. To understand the evolution in regional dynamics, we must return to 2006, the year that would set the conditions for both military campaigns.
Setting the Stage
2006 began with Hamas winning a sweeping electoral victory over its ideological rival, Fatah. Representing the secular and more pragmatic strand of Palestinian politics, Fatah had already been languishing in Gaza under the weight of its own corruption and its lackluster performance in seemingly fruitless negotiations with Israel. The political rise of Hamas led to months of civil war between the two Palestinian factions, and on June 14, Hamas forcibly took control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah. Just 11 days later, Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalt and killed two others, prompting a new round of hostilities with Israel.

In what appeared to be a coordinated move, Hezbollah on July 12 launched its own raid on Israel's northern front and kidnapped two additional soldiers, kicking off the month-long Second Lebanon War. As Israel discovered, Hezbollah was well-prepared for the conflict, relying on an extensive tunneling system to preserve its launching crews and weaponry. Hezbollah made use of anti-tank guided missiles, improvised explosive devices that caught Israel Defense Forces by surprise and blunted the ground offensive, and medium-range rockets capable of reaching Haifa. Hezbollah incurred a heavy toll for the fight, with much of the infrastructure in southern Lebanon devastated and roughly 1,300 Lebanese civilian casualties threatening to erode its popular support. Casualty numbers aside, Hezbollah emerged from the 2006 conflict with a symbolic victory. Since 1973, no other Arab army, much less a militant organization, had been able to fight as effectively to challenge Israel's military superiority. Israel's inability to claim victory translated as a Hezbollah victory. That perception reverberated throughout the region. It cast doubts on Israel's ability to respond to much bigger strategic threats, considering it could be so confounded by a non-state militant actor close to home.

At that time, Hamas was contending with numerous challenges; its coup in Gaza had earned the group severe political and economic isolation, and the group's appeals to open Gaza's border, and for neighbors to recognize Hamas as a legitimate political actor, went mostly unheeded. However, Hamas did take careful note of Hezbollah's example. Here was a militant organization that had burnished its resistance credentials against Israel, could maintain strong popular support among its constituents and had made its way into Lebanon's political mainstream.

Hezbollah benefited from a strong patron in Iran. Hamas, on the other hand, enjoyed no such support. Mubarak's Egypt, Bashar al Assad's Syria, Jordan under the Hashemites and the Gulf monarchies under the influence of the House of Saud all shared a deep interest in keeping Hamas boxed in. Although publically these countries showed support for the Palestinians and condemned Israel, they tended to view Palestinian refugees and more radical groups such as Hamas as a threat to the stability of their regimes.

While Hamas began questioning the benefits of its political experiment, Iran saw an opportunity to foster a militant proxy. Tehran saw an increasingly strained relationship between Saudi Arabia and Hamas, and it took advantage to increase funding and weapons supplies to the group. Forces from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, along with Hezbollah, worked with Hamas to expand the group's weapons arsenal and build elaborate tunnels under the Gaza Strip to facilitate its operations. Israel soon began to notice and took action toward the end of 2008.

Operation Cast Lead

Hamas was operating in a difficult strategic environment during Operation Cast Lead. Hezbollah had the benefit of using the rural terrain south of the Litani River to launch rockets against Israel during the Second Lebanon War, thereby sparing Lebanon's most densely populated cities from retaliatory attacks. Hamas, on the other hand, must work in a tightly constricted geographic space and therefore uses the Palestinian population as cover for its rocket launches. The threat of losing popular support is therefore much higher for Hamas in Gaza than it is for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. At the same time, operating in a built-up urban environment also poses a considerable challenge for the Israeli military.

During Operation Cast Lead, Cairo did little to hide its true feelings toward Hamas. Though Egypt played a critical role in the cease-fire negotiations, it was prepared to incur the domestic political cost of cracking down on the Rafah border crossing to prevent refugees from flowing into Sinai and to prevent Hamas from replenishing its weapons supply. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, then in the opposition, took advantage of the situation to publicly rally against the Mubarak regime, but its protests did little to change the situation. Hamas was boxed in by Egypt and Israel.

The rest of the region largely avoided direct involvement. Turkey was focused on internal affairs, and Saudi Arabia remained largely aloof. Jordan's Hashemite rulers could afford to continue quietly cooperating with Israel without facing backlash. The United States, emerging from an election, was focused on shaping an exit strategy from Iraq. Many of Hamas' traditional wealthy Gulf donors grew wary of attracting the focus of Western security and intelligence agencies as fund transfers from the Gulf came under closer scrutiny.

Iran was the exception. While the Arab regimes ostracized Hamas, Iran worked to sustain the group in its fight. Tehran's reasoning was clear and related to Iran's emergence as a regional power. Iraq had already fallen into Iran's sphere of influence (though the United States was not yet prepared to admit it), Hezbollah was rebuilding in southern Lebanon, and Iranian influence continued to spread in western Afghanistan. Building up a stronger militant proxy network in the Palestinian territories was the logical next step in Tehran's effort to keep a check on Israeli threats to strike the Iranian nuclear program.

In early January 2009, in the midst of Operation Cast Lead, Israel learned that Iran was allegedly planning to deliver 120 tons of arms and explosives to Gaza, including anti-tank guided missiles and Iranian-made Fajr-3 rockets with a 40-kilometer (25-mile) range and 45-kilogram (99-pound) warhead. The Iranian shipment arrived at Port Sudan, and the Israeli air force then bombed a large convoy of 23 trucks traveling across Egypt's southern border up into Sinai. Though Israel interdicted this weapons shipment -- likely with Egyptian complicity -- Iran did not give up its attempts to supply Hamas with advanced weaponry. The long-range Fajr rocket attacks targeting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in the current conflict are a testament to Iran's continued effort.

The Current Geopolitical Environment

Hamas and Israel now find themselves in a greatly altered geopolitical climate. On every one of its borders, Israel faces a growing set of vulnerabilities that would have been hard to envision at the time of Operation Cast Lead.

The most important shift has taken place in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood carefully used the momentum provided by the Arab Spring to shed its opposition status and take political control of the state. Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, then faced an important decision. With an ideological ally in Cairo, Egypt no longer presents as high a hurdle to Hamas' political ambitions. Indeed, Hamas could even try to use its ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to achieve political legitimacy. When unrest spread into Syria and began to threaten Iran's position in the Levant, Hamas made a strategic decision to move away from the Iran-Syria axis, now on the decline, and to latch itself onto the new apparent regional trend: the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist affiliates across the Arab world.

This rise of the Muslim Brotherhood spread from Egypt to Syria to Jordan, presenting Israel with a new set of challenges on its borders. Egypt's dire economic situation, the political unrest in its cities, and the Muslim Brotherhood's uneasy relationship with the military and security apparatus led to a rapid deterioration in security in Sinai. Moreover, a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo on friendly terms with Hamas could not be trusted to crack down on the Gaza border and interdict major weapons shipments. A political machine such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which derives its power from the street, will be far more sensitive to pro-Palestinian sentiment than will a police state that can rule through intimidation.

In Syria, Israel has lost a predictable adversary to its north. The balkanization of the Levant is giving rise to an array of Islamist forces, and Israel can no longer rely on the regime in Damascus to keep Hezbollah in check for its own interests. In trying to sustain its position in Syria and Lebanon, Iran has increased the number of its operatives in the region, bringing Tehran that much closer to Israel as both continue to posture over a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

To Israel's east, across the Jordan River valley, pressure is also growing on the Hashemite kingdom. An emboldened Muslim Brotherhood has been joined by disillusioned tribes from the East Bank in openly calling for the downfall of the king. High energy costs are severely blunting the kingdom's ability to contain these protests through subsidies, and the growing crisis in Gaza threatens to spread instability in the West Bank and invigorate Palestinians across the river in Jordan.

Beyond its immediate periphery, Israel is struggling to find parties interested in its cause. The Europeans remain hostile to anything they deem to be excessive Israeli retaliation against the Palestinians. Furthermore, they are far too consumed by the fragmentation of the European Union to get involved with what is happening in the southern Levant.

The United States remains diplomatically involved in trying to reach a cease-fire, but as it has made clear throughout the Syrian crisis, Washington does not intend to get dragged into every conflagration in the Middle East. Instead, the United States is far more interested in having regional players like Egypt and Turkey manage the burden. The United States can pressure Egypt by threatening to withhold financial and military aid. In the case of Turkey, there appears to be little that Ankara can do to mediate the conflict. Turkish-Israeli relations have been severely strained since the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident. Moreover, although the Turkish government is trying to edge its way into the cease-fire negotiations to demonstrate its leadership prowess to the region, Ankara is as wary of appearing too close to a radical Islamist group like Hamas as it is of appearing in the Islamic world as too conciliatory to Israel.

Saudi Arabia was already uncomfortable with backing more radical Palestinian strands, but Riyadh now faces a more critical threat -- the regional rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamist political activism poses a direct threat to the foundation of the monarchy, which has steadfastly kept the religious establishment out of the political domain. Saudi Arabia has little interest in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood encouraging Hamas' political rise, and Riyadh will thus become even more alienated from the Palestinian theater. Meanwhile Gulf state Qatar, which has much less to lose, is proffering large amounts of financial aid in a bid to increase its influence in the Palestinian territories.

Iran, meanwhile, is working feverishly to stem the decline of its regional influence. At the time of Operation Cast Lead, Iran was steadily expanding its sphere of influence, from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. A subsequent U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf and an intensifying U.S.-led economic warfare campaign slowed Iran down, but it was the decline of the al Assad regime that put Iran on the defensive. An emboldened Sunni opposition in Syria, backed by the West, Turkey and the Arab Gulf states, could spill into Lebanon to threaten Hezbollah's position and eventually threaten Iran's position in Iraq. With each faction looking to protect itself, Iran can no longer rely as heavily on militant proxies in the Levant, especially Palestinian groups that see an alignment with Iran as a liability in the face of a Sunni rebellion. But Iran is also not without options in trying to maintain a Palestinian lever against Israel.

Hamas would not be able to strike Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with long-range rockets had it not been for Iran, which supplied these rockets through Sudan and trained Palestinian operatives on how to assemble them in Gaza. Even if Hamas uses up its arsenal of Fajr-5s in the current conflict and takes a heavy beating in the process, Iran has succeeded in creating a major regional distraction to tie down Israel and draw attention away from the Syrian rebellion. Iran supplied Hezbollah with Zelzal rockets capable of reaching Haifa during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Hamas was limited to shorter-range Qassam and Grad rockets in Operation Cast Lead but now has Iranian-made Fajr-5s to target Israel's most cherished cities.

Hamas is now carrying the mantle of resistance from Hezbollah in hopes of achieving a symbolic victory that does not end up devastating the group in Gaza. Israel's only hope to deny Hamas that victory is to eliminate Hamas' arsenal of these rockets, all the while knowing that Iran will likely continue to rely on Egypt's leniency on the border to smuggle more parts and weaponry into Gaza in the future. The Hamas rocket dilemma is just one example of the types of problems Israel will face in the coming years. The more vulnerable Israel becomes, the more prone it will be to pre-emptive action against its neighbors as it tries to pick the time and place of battle. In this complex strategic environment, Operation Pillar of Defense may be one of many similar military campaigns as Israel struggles to adjust to this new geopolitical reality.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2012, 11:18:49 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-seems-the-dead-boy-used-as-symbol-of-israeli-aggression-was-killed-by-hamas-warning-graphic-photo/

Title: Little Lives and Big Lies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2012, 01:13:04 AM

Little Lives and Big Lies
On the Front Lines of the Hamas Propaganda War
IPT News
November 19, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3820/little-lives-on-the-front-line-of-the-propaganda
 
Throughout the years, terrorist organizations have deliberately targeted Israeli civilians with rockets fired from Gaza for the purposes of maximizing innocent casualties and striking fear into the population.

By firing from schools and hospitals, Hamas is essentially committing a double war crime – striking innocent civilians while embedding itself among its own population centers. Its fighters even fired rockets towards Jerusalem recently without regard to the Muslim holy sites—something that even Saddam Hussein never dared to do. One could only imagine the consequences of a Hamas rocket hitting the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.

The use of women and children as human shields serves a dual purpose. Terrorists believe this tactic deters extensive Israeli retaliation because the Jewish state makes great efforts to minimize non-combatant casualties. When Israel drops mass leaflets and sends text messages to warn the Palestinians of an impending response, Gazan terrorists are given ample time to desert their positions and avoid harm. However, an often overlooked perspective is that Hamas actually gains from increasing Palestinian collateral damage in the crucial public relations war against Israel.

The more pictures of civilian Palestinian women and children killed, the more Israel is perceived to be the aggressor, leading to further deterioration in the international community's support for its actions. Israel's military superiority leaves Hamas knowing that the propaganda war is the only battle they can win.

There is tremendous incentive for Hamas to inflate the statistics regarding Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire. But what if Hamas' rockets are causing innocent Palestinian casualties?

This issue has come to the fore in the recent violent escalation between Israel and Hamas. An infamous image has been disseminated throughout mainstream media outlets showing senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Kandil embracing the body of a dead Palestinian boy (Mahmoud Sadallah), who was allegedly killed by an Israeli air strike.

Despite Israel's observance of a cease fire during the Egyptian Prime Minister's visit to Gaza, CNN's report by Sara Sidner of the Sadallah incident alleges that the boy was killed by the Israeli Air Force.

However, CNN's narrative was challenged by Britain's Sunday Telegraph on Saturday:

"… there were signs on Saturday that not all the Palestinian casualties have been the result of Israeli air strikes. The highly publicized death of four-year-old Mohammed Sadallah appeared to have been the result of a misfiring home-made rocket, not a bomb dropped by Israel.

The child's death on Friday figured prominently in media coverage after Hisham Kandil, the Egyptian prime minister, was filmed lifting his dead body out of an ambulance. "The boy, the martyr, whose blood is still on my hands and clothes, is something that we cannot keep silent about," he said, before promising to defend the Palestinian people.
But experts from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights who visited the site on Saturday said they believed that the explosion was caused by a Palestinian rocket." [Emphasis added]

Even the New York Times in an article on Friday stated otherwise:

"The Abu Wardah family woke up on Friday morning to word that a hudna — Arabic for cease-fire — had been declared during the three-hour visit of the Egyptian prime minister to this embattled territory. So, after two days of huddling indoors to avoid intensifying Israeli air assaults, Abed Abu Wardah, the patriarch, went to the market to buy fruits and vegetables. His 22-year-old son, Aiman, took an empty blue canister to be refilled with cooking gas. The younger children of their neighborhood, Annazla, in this town north of Gaza City went out to the dirt alley to kick a soccer ball.

But around 9:45 a.m., family members and neighbors said, an explosion struck a doorway near the Abu Wardah home, killing Aiman Abu Wardah as he returned from his errand, as well as Mahmoud Sadallah, 4, who lived next door and had refused his older cousin's pleas to stay indoors.
It is unclear who was responsible for the strike on Annazla: the damage was nowhere near severe enough to have come from an Israeli F-16, raising the possibility that an errant missile fired by Palestinian militants was responsible for the deaths. What seems clear is that expectations for a pause in the fighting, for at least one family, were tragically misplaced." [Emphasis added]

Furthermore, the Associated Press reported Friday that:

"Mahmoud Sadallah, the 4-year-old Gaza boy whose death moved Egypt's prime minister to tears, was from the town of Jebaliya, close to Gaza City.
The boy died Friday in hotly disputed circumstances. The boy's aunt, Hanan Sadallah, and his grief-stricken father Iyad — weak from crying and leaning on others to walk — said Mahmoud was killed in an Israeli airstrike. Hamas security officials also made that claim [Emphasis added].

Israel vehemently denied involvement, saying it had not carried out any attacks in the area at the time [Emphasis added].

Mahmoud's family said the boy was in an alley close to his home when he was killed, along with a man of about 20, but no one appeared to have witnessed the strike. The area showed signs that a projectile might have exploded there, with shrapnel marks in the walls of surrounding homes and a shattered kitchen window. But neighbors said local security officials quickly took what remained of the projectile, making it impossible to verify who fired it." [Emphasis added]

According to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office spokesman, 60 Gazan rockets landed within the Gaza Strip on Palestinian civilians. Moreover, the Israel Defense Forces revealed that 99 rockets fired at Israel have actually landed within Gaza in the first four days of the conflict.

This Palestinian tactic is nothing new, since previous accounts of errant Hamas rockets inflicting death and injuries on Gazans has been reported in previous conflicts with Israel. For example, a Palestinian rocket aimed at Israel in 2006 ended up striking a home in the Gaza Strip, wounding a two-year-old boy sleeping in his bedroom.

It is time for all reputable media outlets to engage in real investigative techniques, avoid hasty conclusions, and prevent biased reporting from perpetuating the terrorists' narrative.

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization. 


To subscribe: http://www.investigativeproject.org/list_subscribe.php
The Investigative Project on Terrorism
202-363-8602 - main
202-966-5191 - fax

Title: WSJ: The Truth About Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2012, 02:16:57 AM

second post

The Truth About Gaza I was wrong to support Israel's 'disengagement' from the Strip in 2005
By BRET STEPHENS
 
Sometimes it behooves even a pundit to acknowledge his mistakes. In 2004 as editor of the Jerusalem Post, and in 2006 in this column, I made the case that Israel was smart to withdraw its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip. I was wrong.

My error was to confuse a good argument with good policy; to suppose that mere self-justification is a form of strategic prudence. It isn't. Israel is obviously within its rights to defend itself now against a swarm of rockets and mortars from Gaza. But if it had maintained a military presence in the Strip, it would not now be living under this massive barrage.

 
Columnist Bret Stephens on the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Photo: Associated Press
.
Or, to put it another way: The diplomatic and public-relations benefit Israel derives from being able to defend itself from across a "border" and without having to get into an argument about settlements isn't worth the price Israelis have had to pay in lives and terror.

That is not the way it seemed to me in 2004, when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to pull up stakes, reversing the very policy he had done so much to promote as a general and politician in the 1970s. Gaza, I argued, was vital neither to the Jewish state's security nor to its identity. It was a drain on Israel's moral, military, political and diplomatic resources. Getting out of the Strip meant shaving off nearly half of the Palestinian population (and the population with the highest birthrate), thereby largely solving Israel's demographic challenge.

Withdrawal also meant putting the notion of land-for-peace to a real-world test. Would Gazans turn the Strip into a showcase Palestinian state, a Mediterranean Dubai, or into another Beirut circa 1982? If the former, then Israel could withdraw from the West Bank with some confidence. If the latter, it would put illusions to rest, both within Israel and throughout the Western world.

Finally, I argued that while direct negotiations with the Palestinians had proved fruitless for Israel, Jerusalem could use its withdrawal from Gaza to obtain political and security guarantees from the United States. That's just what Mr. Sharon appeared to get through an exchange of formal letters with George W. Bush in April 2004.

Things didn't work out as I had hoped. To say the least.

Within six months of Israel's withdrawal, Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections. Within two years, Hamas seized control of the Strip from the ostensible moderates of Fatah after a brief civil war.

In 2004, the last full year in which Israel had a security presence in Gaza, Gazans fired 281 rockets into Israel. By 2006 that figure had risen to 1,777. The Strip became a terrorist bazaar, home not only to Hamas but also Islamic Jihad and Ansar al-Sunna, an al Qaeda affiliate.

In late 2008, Israel finally tried to put a stop to attacks from Gaza with Operation Cast Lead. The limited action—Israeli troops didn't go into heavily populated areas and refrained from targeting Hamas's senior leadership—was met with broad condemnation, including a U.N. report (since recanted by its lead author) accusing Israel of possible "crimes against humanity."

Nor did the reality of post-occupation Gaza do much to dent the appetite of the Obama administration for yet another effort to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace. That included a settlement freeze in the West Bank (observed by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, to zero benefit) and calls by President Obama for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 lines "with mutually agreed swaps."

In 2009, Hillary Clinton disavowed the Bush-Sharon exchange of letters, saying they "did not become part of the official position of the United States government." Even today, the Obama administration considers Gaza to be "occupied" territory, a position disavowed even by Hamas.

Put simply, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza yielded less security, greater diplomatic isolation, and a Palestinian regime even more radical and emboldened than it had been before. As strategic failures go, it was nearly perfect.

Now Israel may be on the cusp of purchasing yet another long-term strategic failure for the sake of a short-term tactical success. The Israeli government wants to bomb Hamas into a cease-fire—hopefully lasting, probably orchestrated in Cairo. That way Israel gets the quiet it seeks, especially on the eve of elections in January, and the Egyptians get the responsibility for holding the leash on Hamas.

That is largely how it played out during Cast Lead. But as one leading Israeli political figure told me in January 2009, just as the last cease-fire had been declared, "Notwithstanding the blows to the Hamas, it's still in Gaza, it's still ruling Gaza, and the Philadelphi corridor [which runs along Gaza's border with Egypt] is still porous, and . . . Hamas can smuggle new rockets unless [the corridor] is closed, to fire at Israel in the future."

That leading political figure was Benjamin Netanyahu, just before he returned to office as prime minister. He might now consider taking his own advice. Israel can afford to watch only so many reruns of this same, sordid show.

Title: The man who keeps Tel Aviv safe from rockets
Post by: Rachel on November 20, 2012, 12:29:23 PM

The man who keeps Tel Aviv safe from rockets
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
20/11/2012   
“We set up this Iron Dome battery in only 24 hours."
 
Maj. Itamar Abu is keeping the millions of residents of the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area safe from death and destruction.

As commander of the hastily assembled Iron Dome battery wheeled out on Friday to defend Israel’s largest metropolis, Abu is playing a critical role in ensuring that the powerful Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets fired from Gaza do not cause carnage on the city streets.

“It’s an amazing feeling when we make an interception,” Abu said on Monday.

“We set up this battery in only 24 hours. All of the people involved in this – when we see a missile strike, the incoming threat – feel an enormous sense of satisfaction.”

Three days ago, Abu was pursuing his university studies, when he was called back by the air force to command the new battery, the fifth of its kind deployed to defend the lives of civilians from Palestinian terrorists’ rockets.

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=292639

Title: Re: Hamas' Godless Killers
Post by: AndrewBole on November 20, 2012, 03:58:15 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2012, 12:01:44 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-godless-killers/

"The task of weakening Hamas’s capacity to do harm would be helped, though, if a watching world displayed a greater intellectual honesty when looking at Hamas, and at Israel’s efforts to deny Hamas the capacity to kill. Perhaps those rockets fired at Jerusalem will promote a greater clarity of thought and thence of judgment."

Now to clear the air first, there is no doubt in the case presented who the agressor is nor who incited this particular event.

but it would likewise, do people very good were they to display greater intellectual honesty when looking at Israel retailation policy and Hamas' actual capacity to kill.

Some numbers regarding victims during operation Cast Lead and since....mind the block about minors and kids.

http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=27&sM=12&sY=2008&eD=18&eM=01&eY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=during

http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=19&sM=01&sY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=after

One thing seems certain. The IDFs capacity to kill is looking quite more daunting than Hamas'.


 Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely-accepted definition of military objective: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage"

Good thing Protocol 1 (victims in international conflicts) and protocol 2 ( non international conflicts) have not been ratified let alone signed by Israel. They were however signed by Iran. Perspective ?

woof from Ljubljana

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 20, 2012, 05:12:39 PM

Meaningless. If the islami-savages wish to martyr themselves why should some antiquated and irrelevant document that none of the parties signed matter?

Perhaps I missed it, Andrew. Did you have the same concerns about Syria ?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2012, 05:33:20 PM

Woof Andrew:

Glad we agree on who started it 8-)

That said, before going further I want to see if I understand your point correctly:

Because Hamas' aim is bad and Isreal's anti-rocket technology (like so much technology out of Israel) is rather outstanding, Israel should let it shoot thousands of rockets of ever increasing capabilities supplied by an enemy sworn to Israel's elimination at half of its country?  And/or it should not retaliate effectively?

Do I have this right?

Marc

PS:  Tangential question for rumination:  Why does Hamas lack its own technology?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rachel on November 20, 2012, 06:46:41 PM

Children in the town of Kiryat Malachi moments before an air siren alarm goes off. Two days before, three civilians were killed by a rocket hit in the town.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=488194657870076&set=pb.125249070831305.-2207520000.1353465022&type=3&theater




Moments Later Running for Shelter

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=488194687870073&set=pb.125249070831305.-2207520000.1353465022&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=488194711203404&set=a.488194521203423.106467.125249070831305&type=3&theater

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 20, 2012, 09:27:26 PM

I have more questions than answers.  I don't understand what is the other side of the story.

Hamas was sending rockets with into Israeli neighborhoods.  It does not require much killing to accomplish terror and elicit a response; more would have been killed if not for Israel air defense.

Israel is known to fight back disproportionately; this is nothing new.  They intend to both disable the source of the bombings and provide a deterrence for attacks.  If the disproportionate response does not deter, why would we expect less of a response? 

Now we all go to the peace table (again) and negotiate what?  A piece of paper that again, with a straight face, says never again. 

There is something bizarre about this.  What did Hamas intend to accomplish?   Was Hamas intentionally baiting a disproportional Israeli attack to take more casualties and make Israel look bad?

Israel wants survival and peace and has strong defense and strong counter-punch.  Hamas wants the destruction of Israel.  US stands with Israel but takes no side?  We step in and say, come on guys, can't we all get along.  That ought to do it.

Why are we not siding with our ally under attack rather than taking a neutral role? 

Does say one thing but do another work effectively in foreign policy?

Title: How Long Has Hamas Been Shooting Rockets at Israel?
Post by: Rachel on November 21, 2012, 07:30:03 AM

How Long Has Hamas Been Shooting Rockets at Israel?



Many people think Hamas as only been firing rockets into Israel since the start of Operation Pillar of Defense, starting six days ago. In fact, Hamas has been targeting the Israeli Home Front since 2001, and firing rockets on a near-daily basis for years. Here’s a stream of selected tweets from the last year alone:

http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/20/how-long-has-hamas-been-shooting-rockets-at-israel/


There is an interesting chart showing the number of rocket attacks form the Gaza Strip.   In 2008 there were 3,278 rocket attacks  In 2007  2,427



Doug
Hamas is much more interested in destroying Israel than in taking care of its people.  They don't have the same values a democracy does.  It is a fascist death cult. THey will kill their own children to make Israel look bad.    Why did 9/11 happen?   Did we get a ransom note?

Was our response to 9/11  proportionate? 


It is also partly a proxy war between Israel and Iran.

Golda Meir--"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.
What bothers me most is not that Arabs kill our children, but that they force us to kill theirs."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 21, 2012, 08:46:48 AM

"The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel. This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems. Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012. Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010. In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome."

Title: Buck: Five Lessons from Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2012, 07:47:48 AM

Five lessons from the Gaza conflict
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem

Israel has learnt to end a war

Israel has now fought three inconclusive wars in six years: Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2008-09 and Gaza 2012, none of which produced a clear-cut Israeli victory. All three started in the same way, with a massive aerial bombardment that severely degraded the military capability of Israel’s adversary. In all three conflicts, the apparent success of the opening assault led to calls for a sweeping ground operation, in the hope of addressing the threat posed by Hizbollah and Hamas "once and for all."

This time, however, the Israeli leadership decided to step back, and enter a ceasefire before the tanks started rolling. Most military analysts believe it was the right decision.

In Lebanon, the ground operation achieved little, and at a significant cost in Israeli lives and the country’s international standing. The last war in Gaza turned swaths of the densely populated strip into rubble, cost 1,400 Palestinian lives and triggered a UN investigation suggesting that Israel may have committed war crimes. This time, Israeli leaders seemed ready to accept that a small war with limited gains is better than a big war with limited gains.

Hamas is a legitimate regional player

Hamas may still be listed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU, but few dare to treat it that way now. In the Arab and Muslim world, Hamas lost its pariah status long ago: its leaders have long been welcome guests in royal palaces and presidential residences from Turkey to Qatar and from Tunisia to Jordan.

Naturally, the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt is particularly close to its Palestinian offshoot. But governments in the west, and even Israel itself, appear to be modifying their stance as well.

Israeli officials insist they are no closer to recognising Hamas as a legitimate political actor than before. But the ceasefire deal clearly implies that the Islamist group is here to stay. What is more, it offers several concrete measures that will serve to bolster Hamas rule in Gaza.

It was also noteworthy that not once during the ceasefire discussions was there talk of the famous Quartet conditions – a set of political commitments the international community wants Hamas to make in return for engagement. These included forswearing violence and recognising Israel. In the end, Hamas appears to have forced Israel, the US and others to engage with it largely on its terms – as a powerful political force that will no longer be ignored.

Morsi has passed his first test

Mohamed Morsi was bathed in praise on Wednesday night, and it was easy to see why. All kinds of things could have gone wrong for the Egyptian leader, who was walking a political tightrope throughout the conflict.

A show of unconditional support for Hamas would have damaged his credibility as a mediator, deepened the rift with Israel and damaged relations with the US. Failure to come to the aid of Hamas and the Gaza population, meanwhile, would have angered his base and undermined his claim to regional (and moral) leadership.

In the end, Mr Morsi seemed to get it just right: he dispatched his prime minister to Gaza less than 48 hours after the conflict started, in a strong show of solidarity. He sharply condemned what he called Israel’s “aggression”. But in the end, he delivered a crucial service to Israel by brokering a ceasefire that prevented a potentially devastating land incursion and restoring calm to southern Israel and Gaza alike.

Mahmoud Abbas is a spent force

This was supposed to be the moment of Mahmoud Abbas, the veteran leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization and president of the Palestinian Authority.

After years of failed diplomacy, he was poised to win recognition for an independent Palestinian state in the UN general assembly. A resolution to that effect, asking for an upgrade in the Palestinians’ UN status to that of a non-member “observer state”, could still win a majority in the assembly later this month. But it would be a limp and hollow victory, at a time when Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank alike are celebrating the “resistance” offered by Hamas and other groups.

Those celebrations may, of course, turn out to be misguided. The UN vote may still lead to more important political gains.

But Palestinians will not easily forget that their president declined to visit the Gaza Strip when it was under Israeli bombardment. That failure seemed all the more striking given the long list of political leaders and senior officials from the Arab world that did make the trip.

Missile defence saves lives in Israel (and Gaza too)

This was the first real, large-scale test of Israel’s new Iron Dome system. The missile defence shield passed that test with flying colours, effectively blunting the very weapon that has become the hallmark of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza.

Though three Israelis were killed by rocket fire on the second day of the conflict, the system managed to intercept a critical number of rockets and missiles that were heading for built-up areas. The Iron Dome saved Israeli lives, while giving the government and army more operational flexibility.

Most importantly, it may have helped Israel – and Gaza – avoid a ground invasion: military officials say that the system managed to keep Israeli casualties so low that the pressure to invade the Palestinian territory was far weaker than it otherwise would have been.

Title: POTH's interpretation of the Gaza deal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2012, 07:55:47 AM

WASHINGTON — President Obama skipped dessert at a long summit meeting dinner in Cambodia on Monday to rush back to his hotel suite. It was after 11:30 p.m., and his mind was on rockets in Gaza rather than Asian diplomacy. He picked up the telephone to call the Egyptian leader who is the new wild card in his Middle East calculations.
Over the course of the next 25 minutes, he and President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt hashed through ways to end the latest eruption of violence, a conversation that would lead Mr. Obama to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the region. As he and Mr. Morsi talked, Mr. Obama felt they were making a connection. Three hours later, at 2:30 in the morning, they talked again.

The cease-fire brokered between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday was the official unveiling of this unlikely new geopolitical partnership, one with bracing potential if not a fair measure of risk for both men. After a rocky start to their relationship, Mr. Obama has decided to invest heavily in the leader whose election caused concern because of his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing in him an intermediary who might help make progress in the Middle East beyond the current crisis in Gaza.

The White House phone log tells part of the tale. Mr. Obama talked with Mr. Morsi three times within 24 hours and six times over the course of several days, an unusual amount of one-on-one time for a president. Mr. Obama told aides he was impressed with the Egyptian leader’s pragmatic confidence. He sensed an engineer’s precision with surprisingly little ideology. Most important, Mr. Obama told aides that he considered Mr. Morsi a straight shooter who delivered on what he promised and did not promise what he could not deliver.

“The thing that appealed to the president was how practical the conversations were — here’s the state of play, here are the issues we’re concerned about,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “This was somebody focused on solving problems.”

The Egyptian side was also positive about the collaboration. Essam el-Haddad, the foreign policy adviser to the Egyptian president, described a singular partnership developing between Mr. Morsi, who is the most important international ally for Hamas, and Mr. Obama, who plays essentially the same role for Israel.

“Yes, they were carrying the point of view of the Israeli side but they were understanding also the other side, the Palestinian side,” Mr. Haddad said in Cairo as the cease-fire was being finalized on Wednesday. “We felt there was a high level of sincerity in trying to find a solution. The sincerity and understanding was very helpful.”

The fledgling partnership forged in the fires of the past week may be ephemeral, a unique moment of cooperation born out of necessity and driven by national interests that happened to coincide rather than any deeper meeting of the minds. Some longtime students of the Middle East cautioned against overestimating its meaning, recalling that Mr. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood constitutes a philosophical brother of Hamas even if it has renounced violence itself and become the governing party in Cairo.

“I would caution the president from believing that President Morsi has in any way distanced himself from his ideological roots,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “But if the president takes away the lesson that we can affect Egypt’s behavior through the artful use of leverage, that’s a good lesson. You can shape his behavior. You can’t change his ideology.”

Other veterans of Middle East policy agreed with the skepticism yet saw the seeds of what might eventually lead to broader agreement.

“It really is something with the potential to establish a new basis for diplomacy in the region,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes, who was Mr. Obama’s deputy assistant secretary of state for the Middle East until earlier this year and now runs the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. “It’s just potential, but it’s particularly impressive potential.”

The relationship between the two leaders has come a long way in just 10 weeks. Mr. Morsi’s election in June as the first Islamist president of Egypt set nerves in Washington on edge and raised questions about the future of Egypt’s three-decade-old peace treaty with Israel. Matters worsened in September when Egyptian radicals protesting an anti-Islam video stormed the United States Embassy in Cairo.

Page 2 of 2)

Mr. Obama was angry that the Egyptian authorities did not do more to protect the embassy and that Mr. Morsi had not condemned the attack. He called Mr. Morsi to complain vigorously in what some analysts now refer to as the woodshed call. Mr. Morsi responded with more security for the embassy and strong public statements that the attackers “do not represent any of us.”

Washington was again leery when the Gaza conflict broke out last week and Mr. Morsi sent his prime minister to meet with Hamas. But as days passed, Mr. Obama found in his phone calls that Mr. Morsi recognized the danger of an escalating conflict.

During their phone call on Monday night, Mr. Obama broached the idea of sending Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Morsi agreed it would help. The president then called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to talk through the idea. At 2:30 a.m., having changed out of his suit into sweats, Mr. Obama called Mr. Morsi back to confirm that Mrs. Clinton would come.

After leaving Phnom Penh the next day en route back to Washington, Mr. Obama picked up the phone aboard Air Force One to call Mr. Morsi to say Mrs. Clinton was on the way. By Wednesday, he was on the phone again with Mr. Netanyahu urging him to accept the cease-fire and then with Mr. Morsi, congratulating him.

“From Day 1, we had contacts with both sides,” said Mr. Haddad, but the United States stepped in “whenever there was a point at which there would be a need for further encouragement and a push to get it across.” Mr. Haddad said the United States played an important role “trying to send clear signals to the Israeli side that there should not be a waste of time and an agreement must be reached.”

“They have really been very helpful in pushing the Israeli side,” he said.

In pushing Hamas, Mr. Morsi came under crosscurrents of his own. On one side, advisers acknowledged, he felt the pressure of the Egyptian electorate’s strong support for the Palestinian cause and antipathy toward Israel as well as his own personal and ideological ties to the Islamists in Hamas. But on the other side, advisers said, Mr. Morsi had committed to the cause of regional stability, even if it meant disappointing his public.

Analysts further noted that Mr. Morsi needed the United States as he secures a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund at a time of economic trouble. “There’s no way Egypt is going to have any kind of economic recovery without Washington,” said Khaled Elgindy, an adviser to the Palestinian negotiators during the last decade. (Ummm, POTH, wouldn't this be a good place to mention the nearly $2B we give to Egypt every year?  :roll: )

As for Mr. Obama, his aides said they were willing to live with some of Mr. Morsi’s more populist talk as long as he proves constructive on the substance. “The way we’ve been able to work with Morsi,” said one official, “indicates we could be a partner on a broader set of issues going forward.”

Title: POTH: This has been a practice run
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2012, 06:56:31 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/world/middleeast/for-israel-gaza-conflict-a-practice-run-for-a-possible-iran-confrontation.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121123

Title: Israel, and its neighbors: Krauthammer - Why was there war in Gaza?
Post by: DougMacG on November 23, 2012, 07:26:29 AM

To clarify an exchange above in the thread, I favor Israel taking disproportionate responses to protect itself.

Charles Krauthammer takes on the question I was trying to get at:  Why was there war in Gaza?

The only explanation is destruction/elimination of Israel.  The strategy seems to be to keep losing these smaller failed wars, keep the Palestinian movement tied to the Islamic movement, make Israel look like a bully and draw in more war partners.

If Israel is our ally and if destruction of Israel is the agenda, again I would ask, why are we a neutral party, a 'peace' talk facilitator?

And if land for peace is a false trade, why do we still try to advance that or when did we renounce it?
-------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-was-there-war-in-gaza/2012/11/22/c77582e8-3412-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html

Why was there war in Gaza?

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 22 2012

Why was there an Israel-Gaza war in the first place? Resistance to the occupation, say Hamas and many in the international media.

What occupation? Seven years ago, in front of the world, Israel pulled out of Gaza. It dismantled every settlement, withdrew every soldier, evacuated every Jew, leaving nothing and no one behind. Except for the greenhouses in which the settlers had grown fruit and flowers for export. These were left intact to help Gaza’s economy — only to be trashed when the Palestinians took over.

Israel then declared its border with Gaza to be an international frontier, meaning that it renounced any claim to the territory and considered it an independent entity.

In effect, Israel had created the first Palestinian state ever, something never granted by fellow Muslims — neither the Ottoman Turks nor the Egyptians who brutally occupied Gaza for two decades before being driven out by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel wanted nothing more than to live in peace with this independent Palestinian entity. After all, the world had incessantly demanded that Israel give up land for peace.

It gave the land. It got no peace.

The Gaza Palestinians did not reciprocate. They voted in Hamas, who then took over in a military putsch and turned the newly freed Palestine into an armed camp from which to war against Israel. It has been war ever since.

Interrupted by the occasional truce, to be sure. But for Hamas a truce — hudna — is simply a tactic for building strength for the next round. It is never meant to be enduring, never meant to offer peace.

But why, given that there is no occupation of Gaza anymore? Because Hamas considers all of Israel occupied, illegitimate, a cancer, a crime against humanity, to quote the leaders of Iran, Hamas’s chief patron and arms supplier. Hamas’s objective, openly declared, is to “liberate” — i.e., destroy — Tel Aviv and the rest of pre-1967 Israel. Indeed, it is Hamas’s raison d’etre.

Hamas first killed Jews with campaigns of suicide bombings. After Israel built a nearly impenetrable fence, it went to rockets fired indiscriminately at civilians in populated areas.

What did Hamas hope to gain from this latest round of fighting, which it started with a barrage of about 150 rockets into Israel? To formally translate Hamas’s recent strategic gains into a new, more favorable status quo with Israel. It works like this:

Hamas’s new strength comes from two sources.

First, its new rocketry, especially the Fajr-5, smuggled in from Iran, that can now reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, putting 50 percent of Israel’s population under its guns.

Second, Hamas has gained strategic strength from changes in the regional environment. It has acquired the patronage and protection of important Middle Eastern states as a result of the Arab Spring and the Islamist reversal in Turkey.

For 60 years, non-Arab Turkey had been a reliable ally of Israel. The vicious turnaround instituted by its Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, reached its apogee on Monday when he called Israel a terrorist state.

Egypt is now run by Hamas’s own mother organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is simply the Palestinian wing. And the emir of Qatar recently visited Gaza, leaving behind a promise of a cool $400 million.

Hamas’s objective was to guarantee no further attacks on its leaders or on its weaponry, launch sites and other terror and rocket infrastructure. And the lifting of Israel’s military blockade, which would allow a flood of new and even more deadly weapons. In other words, immunity and inviolability during which time Hamas could build unmolested its arsenal of missiles — until it is ready to restart the war on more favorable terms.

Yet another hudna, this one brokered and guaranteed by Egypt and Turkey, regional powers Israel has to be careful not to offend. A respite for rebuilding, until Hamas’s Gaza becomes Hezbollah South, counterpart to the terror group to Israel’s north, with 50,000 Iranian- and Syrian-supplied rockets that effectively deter any Israeli preemptive attack.

With the declaration of a cease-fire Wednesday, Israel seems to have successfully resisted these demands, although there may be some cosmetic changes to the embargo. Which means that in any future fighting, Israel will retain the upper hand.

Israel has once again succeeded in defending itself. But, yet again, only until the next round, which, as the night follows the day, will come. Hamas will see to that.

Title: Stratfor: Behind the killing of a Hamas commander
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 26, 2012, 06:05:32 AM

As we continue to monitor the sustainability of the current cease-fire, it is a useful time to reflect on one of the key triggers to the latest Gaza conflict: The Nov. 14 assassination of Ahmed Jabari, chief of Hamas' armed wing, the Izz al-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, and architect of the group's Iranian-made Fajr-5 rocket program.
 
Various commentators in the Israeli media have written about Jabari's past cooperation with Israel. Stratfor sources in the region claim that Jabari's fondness for money and women made him an ideal person to work with. In addition to working with the Israelis to a limited extent, he also allegedly worked with the Iranians and Qataris and was rumored to be on the payroll of all three countries' intelligence services (this information could not be verified, but the fact that Jabari played a major role in the Fajr-5 program strongly supports the claim that he was working with Iran). Jabari was also believed to be integral to the negotiations over the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. For several years, Israel viewed Jabari as essential to maintaining the balance of power in Gaza.
 
This was especially true after 2006, when Hamas had just risen to political power but had to fight a civil war with Fatah to control Gaza. Even then, Hamas had become economically isolated by the Israeli blockade and politically alienated in the Arab world. During Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Hamas paid a high price. The Israeli military operation left more than 1,000 Palestinians dead and devastated much of the infrastructure in Gaza. Hamas at this time made a conscious decision to avoid major confrontations with Israel and would occasionally clash with more radical groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad that insisted on sustaining attacks. Israel took advantage of Hamas' predicament and sought out figures such Jabari, who carried significant clout in the group's military operations and could be incentivized to help secure the border and contain Hamas' military activities.
 
But that cooperation obviously ended, as evidenced by the Israeli decision to assassinate him. A Stratfor source connected to Hamas explains that Jabari's move to discontinue cooperation with Israel came during the Arab unrest, as Hamas began to realize its growing strength with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the heavy military support it was receiving from Iran at the same time. No longer able to rely on Jabari to police Gaza and likely aware that Jabari's cooperation with Iran had turned critical, Israel presumably made the decision to eliminate him, sparking seven days of mortar and rocket fire, including, most importantly, the Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets that Jabari was instrumental in bringing to Gaza.
 
Jabari's story in many ways represents the potential shift in the balance of power that we are currently witnessing in the Israeli-Palestinian theater. If the cease-fire holds, and if Israel doesn't follow through with a military campaign that devastates Hamas, then Hamas can walk away from this conflict with a major symbolic victory as the only militant group that has demonstrated the capability to attack the Israeli heartland from its home base. To wit, the risk Hamas took in arming itself with the Iranian-made Fajr-5s may well have been worth it. This is a dynamic that many Israelis fear, as can already be seen in the rising domestic opposition to the Israeli Cabinet's decision to agree to the cease-fire in the first place.


Read more: Behind the Killing of a Hamas Commander | Stratfor

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 26, 2012, 07:14:43 AM

Odd that there was no Obama administration interest in a cease fire when Hamas was shooting unilaterally.  No talk of cancelling an Asia trip.  The crisis began when Hamas was losing.

Title: Re: Israel, and neighbors, Brokering a victory for Hamas
Post by: DougMacG on November 26, 2012, 07:19:25 AM

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/why-did-obama-broker-a-victory-for-hamas.php

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 26, 2012, 04:34:03 PM

Quote from: DougMacG on November 26, 2012, 07:14:43 AM

Odd that there was no Obama administration interest in a cease fire when Hamas was shooting unilaterally.  No talk of cancelling an Asia trip.  The crisis began when Hamas was losing.

Very good point!

Title: "He wore a kippa at AIPAC" update
Post by: G M on November 26, 2012, 05:00:42 PM

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-throws-israel-to-the-wolves/?singlepage=true

Obama Throws Israel to the Wolves
“Accepting defeat after eight days means that the Zionist regime is becoming increasingly weak." — Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. by
Robert Spencer

Bio
November 26, 2012 - 12:06 pm     Barack Obama pressured Israel to accept the current ceasefire agreement with Hamas that was devised by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi, and Israel’s worst enemies are thrilled.

Hamas declared November 22, the day the truce went into effect, a “national holiday of victory.” Israel National News reported that “mosques in Gaza City blared through their loudspeakers: ‘Allahu Akbar (G-d is great), dear people of Gaza, you won. You have broken the arrogance of the Jews.’”

A Hamas sheikh, preaching at the funeral of one of those killed in Gaza, declared that Hamas had just won a great victory, one that would prove to be “the first nail in the coffin of Israel.” The Financial Times noted that “on Friday, the midday prayers were dominated by declarations of victory, with some preachers drawing a line between the latest conflict and the Prophet Mohammed’s victory over the infidels.”

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crowed: “Zionists have reached the dead point and have no other alternative but officially recognizing and bowing to the absolute right of the Palestinian nation.” The speaker of Iran’s Parliament, Ali Larijani, agreed, saying: “The victory of Gaza highlights the necessity to continue resistance and Jihad against the Zionist regime. With their patience and perseverance, the people of Gaza showed that the only way to confront the Zionist regime is Jihad and resistance.” The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, said that “accepting defeat after eight days means that the Zionist regime is becoming increasingly weak,” and that the “counter-resistance is getting stronger.”

Meanwhile, Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal’s deputy, has already stated obliquely that Hamas has no intention of keeping to the terms of the ceasefire anyway. Marzouk rejected calls for Hamas to stop amassing weapons, saying: “These weapons protected us and there is no way to stop obtaining and manufacturing them.”

Yet the truce terms require, according to the Voice of America, “‘all Palestinian factions’ to stop all hostilities toward Israel from Gaza, including rocket fire and attacks along the Gaza-Israel border.” So if the truce forbids them to fire upon Israel, what is Hamas going to do with all these weapons? Or is Marzouk signaling that Hamas has no intention of keeping the truce at all?

For its part, Islamic Jihad was eager to emphasize that the jihad against Israel would go on. “The battle with the enemy has not ended,” a masked jihadist from the group maintained. “Our choice in fighting and getting weapons to defend our people is going on.”

Another indication that the jihad against Israel will flare up again soon enough came from the imprisoned Saudi Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al-Fahd, who praised the jihad bombings in Riyadh in 2003 and was jailed shortly thereafter. In a fatwa posted last week on a jihadi website, al-Fahd declared, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, that “the Jews are the leaders of the infidels and the greatest enemies of Islam and the Muslims in the present age,” and that therefore Muslims who waged jihad warfare against Jews everywhere would be discharging “one of the most important duties and greatest virtues.” Al-Fahd added that “any guarantees of protection granted them by tyrannical and infidel governments are meaningless, especially when the Jews are attacking Muslims as they please.”

Al-Fahd may be in prison, but his view of the jihad against Israel as a religious obligation incumbent on every Muslim is not by any means restricted to him alone. So many Muslims worldwide share it that even in far-off Indonesia, a Muslim group last week began offering “jihad registration forms” to those believers who wished to wage jihad against Israel.

Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie, meanwhile, reminded the world that “jihad is obligatory” for Muslims, and dubbed truces with Israel a “game of grand deception.”

All that may be an elaborate exercise in false bravado and self-delusion. It may be that the ceasefire is not the victory for the forces of jihad that those forces are claiming. But the signals are unmistakable: over the past year Israel wrote no fewer than twenty messages to the United Nations, asking for support in defending itself against rocket attacks from Gaza. The UN didn’t acknowledge any of those letters, but was stirred into action almost immediately when Israel began to defend itself – not to declare support for the Israeli defensive actions against the relentless rocket attacks, but to compel Israel to stop.

And after just eight days, they succeeded, courtesy of Barack Obama. When Israel’s defensive actions began, Obama declared clearly his support for the Jewish state’s right to defend itself, but now he has made another declaration – one that is just as clear, albeit tacit: that when Israel does defend itself, he will move heaven and earth to stop it from doing so, before the damage to the jihad war machine gets too extensive.

The jihadis got the message loud and clear.

Title: Latest Hamas war was Morsi's wag the dog?
Post by: DougMacG on November 27, 2012, 07:25:12 AM

The expression wag the dog has come to mean same as the shiny object theory, hey look over here!  Wag the dog came from the saying that 'a dog is smarter than its tail', but if the tail were smarter, then the tail would 'wag the dog'.  To me it just means you sometimes you need to look at things backwards to understand what happened.

The Hamas war timeline looking backwards:

6) Jay Carney representing the White House "expressed concerns over Egypt", but would not criticize Morsi.

5) Morsi declared super-constitutional powers for himself a day after the cease fire.

4) Obama interrupts Asia trip.  Dispatches Hillary Clinton.  Calls Morsi repeatedly.  Obama and Morsi broker a cease fire 'peace agreement'.

3) Doug asks on DBMA forum, what was the purpose of this war?

2) Israel responds to Hamas attacks 'disproportionately'.  Starts doing real damage.

1) Hamas attacks Israel with rockets.


Since it all happened rather predictably, doesn't it follow in logic that the purpose of the beginning, the Hamas attacks on Israel, was to get to the end point, Morsi's grab of more power in Egypt without losing US aid or support?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2012, 09:06:18 AM

Interesting thought Doug, though I suspect that Hamas and Iran had their own agendas as well , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 27, 2012, 09:21:26 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2012, 09:06:18 AM

Interesting thought Doug, though I suspect that Hamas and Iran had their own agendas as well , , ,

Agree.  Hence their eagerness and willingness to cooperate.

Title: Stratfor: Israel successfully tests new air defense system
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2012, 06:46:37 AM

In Israel, a New Air Defense System Test Is Successful
November 27, 2012 | 1130 GMT


Summary
 

Less than a week after agreeing to a cease-fire that ended eight days of hostilities with Hamas, the Israeli government announced it had successfully tested a new air defense system meant to counter long-range projectiles. According to the government, the new system, dubbed David's Sling Weapon System, intercepted a missile over the Negev Desert on Nov. 20. Rather than an improvement on Iron Dome, which was lauded for its effectiveness in the latest round of rocket fire, David's Sling is another phase in Israel's three-tiered air defense strategy, which addresses longer-range threats originating from rocket fire as close as Gaza and Lebanon and as far away as Iran.
 


Analysis
 
David's Sling and Iron Dome differ markedly, and the differences reflect the types of projectiles they are meant to counter. Iron Dome was designed to defend against short-range rockets and uses Tamir interceptor missiles, which house warheads that explode in proximity to inbound rockets. Iron Dome is well suited for dealing with rockets fired from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, and with shorter-range rockets fired from Lebanon, but it is ill equipped to deal with longer-range rockets -- its modest success at defending against the Fajr-5 rockets notwithstanding. Even considering the Fajr-5s, Iron Dome batteries are those best equipped to counter the rocket arsenals of the Palestinian territories, a fact that explains why they are deployed mostly in southern Israel.
 








VIDEO: Israel Test-Launches David's Sling Air Defense System (raw footage)
.For its part, David's Sling is capable of intercepting artillery rockets with ranges of 70 to 300 kilometers (approximately 45 to 185 miles). Developed jointly by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the United States' Raytheon, the system uses two-stage Stunner interceptor missiles that, unlike the Tamirs, hit inbound rockets directly and destroy them with sheer kinetic impact. The Stunner is also larger than the Tamir, and with its more sophisticated guidance and propulsion systems it can travel farther. David's Sling eventually will be able to intercept unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
 
A Superior Arsenal
 
As Operation Pillar of Defense showed, Israel feels threatened by the presence of rockets in the Gaza Strip. But an even greater concern for Israel is Hezbollah, the Shiite militia in Lebanon, which has far more and far better rockets than do Palestinian militants in Gaza. Hezbollah's inventory is thought to hold 100,000 rockets, ranging from 122 mm BM-21 type rockets to the much larger and longer-range 610 mm Zelzal-2 rockets. According to unconfirmed reports, the group may have even acquired Scud missiles from Syria. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah may have alluded to these weapons during his Ashura speech on Nov. 25, when he said Hezbollah could strike as far away as Eilat in southern Israel.
 
Hezbollah has enough rockets to overwhelm Iron Dome defenses. (Israel would need to deploy 10-15 batteries for full coverage.) Before reloading, each Iron Dome battery holds a maximum of 60 Tamirs, which are often fired in waves to ensure interception. Even if Iron Dome's purported 84 percent success rate were maintained, there would not be enough interceptors available to stop all short-range rockets from Lebanon. After all, during Operation Pillar of Defense dozens of rockets still managed to strike Israel.
 
An Option for Defense
 
Israel understands the threat posed by Hezbollah's large rocket arsenal and recognizes that it has few options to mitigate it; David's Sling is one such option. While Hezbollah and Hamas collectively boast an impressive arsenal of rockets, the vast majority of those rockets are short range. This makes the arsenals much easier to conceal from Israeli intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance efforts. Fajr-5s and Zelzals can travel farther and are more powerful, but they are also more visible and thus more vulnerable to detection and subsequent air and missile strikes.
 
In fact, the Israeli air force targeted Hezbollah's long-range rocket arsenal at the outset of the 2006 Lebanon War. The air force likewise targeted Hamas' longer-range rocket arsenal at the outset of Operation Pillar of Defense. How many of those rockets were destroyed is questionable: In 2006, Israel claimed to have destroyed some two-thirds of the rockets, and in 2012 Israel claimed to have destroyed the majority of the Fajr-5s even though Hamas continued to fire them at Israeli territory. Nevertheless, it is clear that Israel has been far more successful at detecting the longer-range rockets than the smaller ones.
 
Short-range rockets will always be difficult to contend with. Given their abundance, particularly in Lebanon, they could oversaturate Iron Dome's short-range air defense network. But Arab militants would find it appreciably more difficult to oversaturate David's Sling's mid-range defense network -- simply because they do not have enough rockets to do so.
 
For these reasons, the development and eventual deployment of David's Sling marks a milestone in Israel's continued efforts to protect itself from rocket fire. However, no system can provide Israel with full protection in a full-scale war, and Israel's enemies will continue to pursue more advanced weapons and to shift their tactics. Ultimately, Israel will have to continue to rely on the threat of a combined land and air invasion to deter militants within its neighbors' borders.
.

Read more: In Israel, a New Air Defense System Test Is Successful | Stratfor

Title: WSJ: Israel responds to UN vote
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2012, 01:41:52 PM

second post of day

That E-1 corredor sounds like it might be a mistake , , ,
=====================================


By JOSHUA MITNICK
TEL AVIV—Israel announced plans Friday to advance a wave of construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in what appeared to be swift retaliation against a resolution the United Nations General Assembly passed overwhelmingly the previous day declaring the territories as part of a Palestinian state.

The government authorized the building of 3,000 new housing units, an Israeli official said. Israel also gave preliminary planning approval for thousands more units, including in a undeveloped tract of land just east of Jerusalem that is highly sensitive because it interrupts the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian state by driving a wedge between Arab cities in the West Bank's northern and southern halves.

The move is a blunt challenge the Palestinians and international community. It highlights the gap between the Palestinians' resounding but symbolic international victory in winning recognition as a nonmember observer state, and the situation inside the West Bank, where Israel exercises exclusive control.

"Israel is saying, 'You are taking unilateral steps? We are taking unilateral steps, too. And whereas your unilateral steps are empty, ours are tangible," said Nathan Thrall, an analyst for the International Crisis Group.

A White House spokesman criticized Israel's approval of the homes, calling it "counterproductive" for the resumption of peace negotiations. The U.S. had been one of a handful of countries to oppose the Palestinian resolution, which it also labeled counterproductive in the process.

 
Celebratory gunfire erupted as flag-waving convoys and crowds streamed into Arafat Square in Ramallah, West Bank after the U.N. voted to recognize Palestinian statehood. WSJ's Josh Mitnick reports. wsj.com/worldstream
.
Israel's move escalates tensions between the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Abbas has insisted on an Israeli settlement freeze in recent years as a precondition to negotitations, although he had hinted that he might drop that requirement after the U.N. bid. Continued Israeli settlement expansion will narrow Mr. Abbas's room for manuever in dropping the condition.

Even so, the apparent punative measures from Israel were much less harsh than those that the government had originally promised. Israeli ministers had threatened to topple the Palestinian government in the West Bank in weeks before the vote and cut off the flow of tax revenues that Israel collects on the Palestinians' behalf.

But in the days before the decision, Israel walked back those threats and said the government would take a wait-and-see approach, and would continue to comply with previous agreements with the Palestinian Authority.

The announcement poured cold water on Palestinian celebrations of the U.N. passage of the resolution, which had bolstered Mr. Abbas's standing and spurred festivities throughout the West Bank in to the early hours of Friday morning.

"Israel did not understand the message that was sent loud and clear at the United Nations General Assembly," said Nour Odeh, a Palestinian government spokeswoman. "The announcement shows the Israeli government is commitment to investing in the occupation, not the two-state solution."

The U.N. vote provided a boost for Mr. Abbas's program of using diplomacy to win statehood—a push that appeared tarnished after eight days of fighting in the Gaza Strip won Hamas, which promotes armed conflict with Israel, wide regional acclaim.

There was no immediate comment by Israeli officials on the housing announcement.

The Israeli official who announced the 3,000 units also referred to planning authorizations for a tract of land known as "E-1," which is sensitive because it is a corridor that would connect Jerusalem to the settlement of Maaleh Adumim, a spawling suburb located several miles to the east.

Policy makers in the U.S. and Europe follow activity in E-1 closely because it if is developed, it would nearly bisect the entire West Bank, forcing Palestinians to travel in a circutous route to get from northern to south.

"E-1 will signal the end of two-state solution,'' said Daniel Seidmann, an Israeli peace advocate who focuses on Jerusalem building, in a Twitter post. "E-1 can't be built today—it requires further statutory planning, which will take 6-9 months."

Title: Ten lies, and my comments about one of them
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2012, 02:56:50 PM

Some comments by me after this piece:

IPT News
December 3, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3835/10-lies-about-the-israel-hamas-conflict

 
A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas may have been reached on paper, but evidence already indicates that it is unlikely to hold. A top Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader has already warned that the ceasefire would be short and that a "new, more savage round" of fighting with Israel lies ahead. The agreement establishes Egypt as the guarantor of peace between Israel and Hamas even though President Mohammed Morsi and members of his government openly aided and supported Hamas in the conflict.
The ceasefire will likely embolden Hamas, which views it as a victory over Israel. History shows that ceasefires do not deter Hamas from firing rockets into Israel. Further, Iran's admission that it has given improved weapons technology to Hamas serves as a warning of an increased Iranian effort to destabilize Israel. In the end, this ceasefire represents merely a lull in the fighting, not a beginning of lasting peace. Here are 10 examples of misleading assumptions and conventional wisdom:

1. Hamas Will Adhere to a "Ceasefire"
Hamas accepted a ceasefire with Israel in this latest escalation. However, the Arabic word for truce, "hudna," is perceived differently within the Hamas mentality. In this modern context, a hudna involves a temporary lull in the violence that allows Hamas the necessary time to organize and re-arm itself in anticipation of a future conflict with Israel. It is different from a ceasefire in that it is an agreement to halt hostilities for a defined period of time only, not a peace agreement.[1]
The duration of Hamas's current hudna with Israel remains unknown, and we can be assured that fighting will resume once Hamas decides to do so. Once a hudna is agreed to, observing it becomes a religious duty for the Muslim party as long as the non-Muslim party observes it.[2] It runs counter to the term sul d'aim, which means permanent peace and the recognition of the non-Muslim party's right to exist. [3]
Hudna was the first word used in Muslim history to describe a ceasefire, found in context of the 7th century Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya – referring to a truce that came six years after Muhammad and his followers deserted Mecca for Medina. This agreement allowed Muhammad and his followers to pray in Mecca, which was then under control of the Quraysh tribe, for a decade. However, when Muhammad's army became strong enough, it used an attack by the Quraysh-aligned Banu Bakr tribe two years into the pact as a pretext to give the Quraysh an ultimatum to disavow their allies, pay restitution for their attack against the Muslims or nullify the treaty. The Quraysh chose the final option and Muhammad marched on Mecca and easily conquered the city.
This event set a precedent, justifying the abandonment of operations for the purposes of regrouping and rearming, allowing for a future attack on the territory left behind.[4] The late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat alluded to the Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya while giving a speech in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1994, suggesting that peace with Israel would be temporary.
History has proven that Hamas subscribes to this perspective, and that it uses hudnas as temporary lulls in the fighting prior to renewing hostilities. In June 2003, Hamas announced a hudna with Israel, yet it ended violently with a suicide bombing two months later in Jerusalem that killed 22 people and wounded more than 130. Likewise, Israel's 2008 incursion into Gaza led to a hudna as well. However, Hamas ended this temporary truce by firing rockets into Israel sporadically since the last "ceasefire," escalating the attacks dramatically in the past month.
Modern interpretations of hudna mean there will be no end to the religiously-inspired struggle until Israel is defeated. The Hamas covenant proves this point: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." Hamas co-founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin regarded the hudna as a "tactical move" in its war with Israel.[5] Discussing the prospect of peace with Israel earlier this year, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzook indicated that his organization would be open to a hudna with Israel, but it would never renounce its goal of Israel's destruction.

2. Hamas is Interested in Peace
Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, does not distinguish between the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and pre-1967 Israel. To it, all of "Palestine" is occupied. The Hamas charter explicitly calls for the destruction of the Jewish state as its top priority. In fact, Hamas prides itself as the main "resistance" (code word for terrorism) movement against Israel. "All the energies of the people and the ummah (nation) [are needed] in order to uproot the oppressive Entity," al-Qassam Brigades Commander Muhammad al Deif said just before the current ceasefire.
Any recognition of Israel's right to exist is unacceptable to the Hamas leadership. This belief is the root of the conflict. In light of a Nov. 21 bus bombing of in Tel Aviv, Hamas member Ezzat Rishq confirmed that the attack was a "repercussion of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip." Rishq added that "the Zionist Entity should know that the continuation of aggression and crimes against our defenseless people in Gaza will double the state of rage, boiling excitement and discontent among our people everywhere against their crimes, soldiers and extremists, pointing out that the Zionists have to expect worst."

3. The Problem is Israel's Siege of Gaza
With Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, removing every Jewish resident and soldier from the territory, Palestinians were given a chance to fully govern themselves and build their society. However, instead of trying to improve Gaza's standard of living, Hamas remained focused on its hostility toward Israel by firing rockets at the Jewish state immediately after taking over. Since Hamas first exerted control in Gaza in 2006, 6,109 rockets have hit Israeli territory. It fully seized power in a bloody Palestinian civil war with the rival Fatah faction in 2007. In response, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza in an attempt to curb the flow of arms to Hamas. This year alone, 1,822 rockets have hit Israeli territory. From November 10-13, immediately prior to Israel's operation, Hamas fired 121 rockets into Israel. Hamas launched another 1,500 rockets after Israel initiated Operation Pillar of Defense on Nov. 14. Israel's blockade is by no means an "occupation" – rather, it is a necessary response to stem Hamas' weapons smuggling into Gaza, actions that threatens Israel's security. This tactic is nothing new, as the United States blockaded Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the United Kingdom blockaded the Falkland Islands during its war with Argentina in 1982. A 2011 United Nations report concluded that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law.

4. Israel Deliberately Targets Civilians
Israel went to extraordinary means to minimize innocent Palestinian casualties in response to the terrorist rocket barrage. Prior to any action, the Israeli military dropped thousands of leaflets in Arabic warning Gaza residents of impending attacks. This effort gave residents time to evacuate the area. Collateral damage happens because Hamas intentionally embeds itself in population centers in violation of international law. If Israel deliberately targeted civilians, its military superiority would allow it to inflict far greater casualties. An Israeli pilot actually aborted a strike mission on a rocket launch pad located in a playground because he saw Palestinian children nearby. That rocket ended up being fired at Tel Aviv, causing Israeli children to run for the bomb shelters. Imagine what the United States government would do if the Mexican drug cartels fired thousands of rockets at San Diego, Phoenix, or other cities along the Mexican border from the safety of Mexico.

5. There is a Moral Equivalence Between Actions by Israel and Hamas
Israel strives to minimize civilian casualties. Hamas tries to maximize Israeli civilian casualties and strike fear into the population. This is self-evident based on the fact that Israel strategically targets Hamas terrorists with accurate, pinpoint airstrikes. Hamas, on the other hand, indiscriminately fires deadly rockets at Israeli cities with the intent of killing or maiming Israeli civilians. Hamas purposefully fires from Palestinian population centers to elicit an Israeli response that occasionally results in civilian casualties that who it can use for strictly propaganda purposes. The terrorist group also uses Palestinians as human shields to protect military targets, which is considered a war crime under international law.
"Hamas … has a media strategy," Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren wrote last week. "Its purpose is to portray Israel's unparalleled efforts to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza as indiscriminate firing and children, to Israel's rightful acts of self-defense into war crimes. Its goals are to isolate Israel internationally, to tie its hands from striking back at those trying to kill our citizens and to delegitimize the Jewish state."
Unfortunately, many in the mainstream media implicitly allude to a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel by insinuating that both sides are at fault for this recent escalation. For instance, Ethan Bronner from the New York Times started his Nov. 17 report by stating: "When Israel assassinated the top Hamas military commander in Gaza on Wednesday, setting off the current round of fierce fighting …" Bronner conspicuously omitted the fact that Hamas fired more than 100 rockets in the days leading up to Israel's operations. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between actions by Hamas and Israel – this recent escalation would have been avoided had Hamas not initiated the rocket fire.

6. Hamas is a Reliable Source of Information
It is in Hamas' interest to inflate Palestinian casualty figures. Throughout the years, Hamas has used fake images, staged funerals and lied about specific casualties to enhance the perception that Israel was committing deliberate massacres. This recent escalation has been no different. A photo was circulated in the media following the start of the recent conflagration allegedly depicting a Palestinian child who was supposedly killed by Israel. In fact, the child was one of the 30,000 casualties of the Syrian Civil War. Another infamous picture making headlines shows visiting Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh embracing a dead Palestinian boy whom they label as a victim of an attack by the Israeli Air Force. However, "experts from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said they believed that the explosion was caused by an errant Palestinian rocket" that landed within Gaza. Hamas creates these fabrications and lies to gain ground in the public relations war with Israel – the only battle it can win. In the social media and communications age, the propaganda war is a vital component to get Hamas' message across.

7. Gaza is Besieged and Starving
Israel continues to transfer goods and supplies into the territory to help Palestinian civilians despite the rocket fire from Gaza. In fact, Gaza civilians do not suffer from a scarcity of food or other basic needs. Throughout this recent escalation, the Jewish state has facilitated the transfer of essential food, water, fuel and electricity. Moreover, Israel continues to treat Gazans in Israeli hospitals.
 
November 20, 2010: Trucks waiting at Kerem Shalom crossing (Photo: IDF Spokesperson)

8. Egypt Is an Reliable Mediator
Post-uprising Egypt, which is now ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, has explicitly thrown its weight behind Hamas and blamed Israel for this latest violence. Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi tweeted on Nov. 16: "Egypt stands as a protective shield for the Arab and Islamic nation" and "O People of Gaza, you are of us and we are of you. We will not abandon you." In the past, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak played a crucial role as a mediator between both sides. Morsi is personally linked to Hamas, which was created as the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Morsi panders to domestic sentiment and engages in a concerted effort to garner more global public support for the Palestinians, Egypt cannot continue to claim that it is an honest broker for truce talks between Israel and Hamas. It is clear Egypt is not a neutral party.

9. Turkey is a Constructive Player in the Crisis
President Obama has engaged Turkey as a constructive player in this crisis. Turkish Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently called Israel a "terrorist state" in response to Israel's defensive actions in Gaza. This comment is ironic, given Turkey's own terrorist insurgency conflict with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). In one incident, Turkey was responsible for the death of 35 civilians in an airstrike near a Kurdish village. Turkey has also illegally occupied Northern Cyprus since it invaded the island in 1974. In contrast, Israel has no forces stationed in Gaza. Turkey believes it is justified to retaliate against aggressive actions in its own case – but vilifies Israel for defending itself against Hamas attacks.
Furthermore, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) put Turkey on its list of "countries of particular concern." This action places Turkey among the world's most repressive states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. In addition, Turkey jails more journalists than any other country in the world, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, which reported at least 61 Turkish journalists are imprisoned directly because of their work. Under Erdoğan's Islamist government, Turkey has suffered severe setbacks on their religious and media freedom. On Nov 20, Erdoğan declared that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing in Gaza, a preposterous accusation coming from a government that refuses to acknowledge its nation's responsibility in the Armenian genocide of 1915 or the millions of Greeks, Assyrians and other minorities who were ethnically cleansed by the Turks after World War I.

10. This Conflict Has Nothing to Do with Iran
Iran's fingerprints are all over Hamas' rocket arsenal, including the Fajr-5 long range rockets which were fired at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Iran is Hamas' main benefactor – supplying weapons, providing training, and sending money. Furthermore, Iranian Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari told Iran's Fars News Agency that it has given Hamas the technology to build its own Fajr-5s. Iran may have ordered Hamas to initiate this round of violence to cause problems for Israel and distract international attention from Iran's nuclear weapons program. In its quest for regional hegemony, Iran continues to be a major state-sponsor of terrorism, and constitutes the greatest threat to global stability. By enlisting its proxy to attack Israel, the fundamentalist government in Iran is reinforcing its commitment to see Israel wiped off the map.
________________________________________
[1] Ḥarūb, Khālid. "Resistance and Military Strategy." Hamas: A Beginner's Guide. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pluto Press, 2010. 55.
[2] Tamimi, Azzam. "7: The Liberation Ideology of Hamas." Hamas: A History From Within. Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch Press, 2007. 159.
[3] Susser, Asher. Challenges to the Cohesion of the Arab State. Tel Aviv: Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University, 2008. 149.
[4] Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History (The Hague: Mouton, 1979), pp. 41-2.
[5] Cook, David. "Banu Isr'al to the State of Israel." Contemporary Muslim apocalyptic literature. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2005. 117

==============================

Concerning point #8 about Egypt as a mediator:  As has been documented and commented in the Egypt thread, Egypt is quite far from being self-sufficient in food.  Apparently the Nile River that Allah gave them is not quite enough.  Furthermore, as has also been documented and commented in the Egypt thread, Egypt does not have the money/the hard currency to buy the additional food it needs.  Indeed without the $2B or so of US aid, the people of Egypt would be starving and rioting in the streents within 2-3 months or so according to what seem to me to be the best guestimates of the Egyptian situation.

I know that some were upset that we "allowed" Hamas to win power in Gaza and that we "allowed" the MB to win power in Egypt. 

However, by becoming "the State" in Gaza it seems to be that pressures can be brought to bear on Hamas that could not be brought to bear when it was just a movement e.g. the dimunution or cessation of aid.   This is now the case with the MB in Egypt.  It seems to me that one might plausibly wonder if a grand bargain is being struck between Morsi and Team Obama.  Morsi continues to get the $2B (plus some big bucks from the IMF) which is important to him if he does not want mass rioting by starving Egyptians in short order.   Morsi gets the status of Egypt and he being a big player at the table, but in point of fact the unspoken understanding is that he is to leash Hamas.

Naturally Hamas, Iran, and he will try various perfidious deeds (e.g. ever greater armament by Iran) but the US does have considerable leverage here.

Also, in fairness we must note that Obama seems to have done a pretty good job of supplying Iron Dome to Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 03, 2012, 03:15:17 PM

"we "allowed" the MB to win power in Egypt."

You mean when Buraq undercut our ally and turned the center of political and cultural gravity in the middle east into the heart of the neo-caliphate? Who could possibly object to that?

"Also, in fairness we must note that Obama seems to have done a pretty good job of supplying Iron Dome to Israel."

Can it stop an Iranian nuke?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2012, 03:21:27 PM

a) Hence my quotation marks around "allowing".

b) Hmmm , , , let me think , , , uhhh , , , No; but then again that wasn't the question.  I'm only making the fair and true statement that Obama has done acted properly with regard to this point.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 03, 2012, 03:29:54 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2012, 03:21:27 PM

a) Hence my quotation marks around "allowing".

b) Hmmm , , , let me think , , , uhhh , , , No; but then again that wasn't the question.  I'm only making the fair and true statement that Obama has done acted properly with regard to this point.

Of course, Buraq would never leak anything to nations hostile to Israel, right?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120430/DEFREG04/304300003/U-S-Attaches-Strings-Israeli-Iron-Dome-Funds

TEL AVIV — Defense and industry leaders here are discovering that even in a U.S. election year — when bipartisan and bicameral support for Israel is at its peak — some American gift packages still come tied with strings.

In exchange for $680 million for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system, Washington wants “appropriate rights” to the Israeli-developed technology and U.S.-based coproduction of the system’s high-speed intercepting missiles.

According to language included in the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee’s markup for the 2013 defense authorization bill, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta may provide up to $680 million to Israel for Iron Dome procurement over the next 29 months.

Title: speaking of George Gilder: new book
Post by: ccp on December 03, 2012, 05:05:39 PM

"The Israel Test"  GG was on TV the other day - I don't recall which station.

His new book really speaks highly of Israel.  Ironically he speaks so proudly of Jews, their success, their capatilistic ingenuity, their democracy - ironic because 75% of Jews in America are socialist, communist, phoney, do gooder liberals.   They obviously don't believe in the individual - that is - until they lose what they have achieved.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Israel-Test-George-Gilder/dp/0980076358

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2012, 09:16:03 PM

GM:  Maybe I'm being too lineaer, , , , or maybe you are changing the subject.

Title: What a wonderful day in the neighborhood
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2012, 11:27:57 AM

As is usually the case with TLF, there's some wooly-headedness in this, but nice to see even someone of his ilk address the question of the neighborhood.

Tomas L. Friedman
 

THESE were the main regional news headlines in The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday: “Home Front Command simulates missile strike during drill.” Egypt’s President “Morsi opts for safety as police battle protestors.” In Syria, “Fight spills over into Lebanon.” “Darkness at noon for fearful Damascus residents.” “Tunisian Islamists, leftists clash after jobs protests.” “NATO warns Syria not to use chemical weapons.” And my personal favorite: “ ‘Come back and bring a lot of people with you’ — Tourism Ministry offers tour operators the full Israeli experience.”

Ah, yes, “the full Israeli experience.”

The full Israeli experience today is a living political science experiment. How does a country deal with failed or failing state authority on four of its borders — Gaza, South Lebanon, Syria and the Sinai Desert of Egypt — each of which is now crawling with nonstate actors nested among civilians and armed with rockets. How should Israel and its friends think about this “Israeli experience” and connect it with the ever-present question of Israeli-Palestinian peace?

For starters, if you want to run for office in Israel, or be taken seriously here as either a journalist or a diplomat, there is an unspoken question in the mind of virtually every Israeli that you need to answer correctly: “Do you understand what neighborhood I’m living in?” If Israelis smell that you don’t, their ears will close to you. It is one reason the Europeans in general, and the European left in particular, have so little influence here.

The central political divide in Israel today is over the follow-up to this core question: If you appreciate that Israel lives in a neighborhood where there is no mercy for the weak, how should we expect Israel to act?

There are two major schools of thought here. One, led by Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, comprises the “Ideological Hawks,” who, to the question, “Do you know what neighborhood I am living in?” tell Israelis and the world, “It is so much worse than you think!” Bibi goes out of his way to highlight every possible threat to Israel and essentially makes the case that nothing Israel does has ever or can ever alter the immutable Arab hatred of the Jewish state or the Hobbesian character of the neighborhood. Netanyahu is not without supporting evidence. Israel withdraws from both South Lebanon and Gaza and still gets hit with rockets. But this group is called the “ideological” hawks because most of them also advocate Israel’s retaining permanent control of the West Bank and Jerusalem for religious-nationalist reasons. So it’s impossible to know where their strategic logic for holding territory stops and their religious-nationalist dreams start — and that muddies their case with the world.

The other major school of thought here, call it the “Yitzhak Rabin school,” was best described by the writer Leon Wieseltier as the “bastards for peace.”

Rabin, the former Israeli prime minister and war hero, started exactly where Bibi did: This is a dangerous neighborhood, and a Jewish state is not welcome here. But Rabin didn’t stop there. He also believed that Israel was very powerful and, therefore, should judiciously use its strength to try to avoid becoming a garrison state, fated to rule over several million Palestinians forever. Israel’s “bastards for peace” believe that it’s incumbent on every Israeli leader to test, test and test again — using every ounce of Israeli creativity — to see if Israel can find a Palestinian partner for a secure peace so that it is not forever fighting an inside war and an outside war. At best, the Palestinians might surprise them. At worst, Israel would have the moral high ground in a permanent struggle.

Today, alas, not only is the Israeli peace camp dead, but the most effective Israeli “bastard for peace,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak, is retiring. As I sat with Barak in his office the other day, he shared with me his parting advice to Israel’s next and sure-to-be-far-right government.

Huge political forces, with deep roots, are now playing out around Israel, particularly the rise of political Islam, said Barak. “We have to learn to accept it and see both sides of it and try to make it better. I am worried about our tendency to adopt a fatalistic, pessimistic perception of history. Because, once you adopt it, you are relieved from the responsibility to see the better aspects and seize the opportunities” when they arise.

If Israel just assumes that it’s only a matter of time before the moderate Palestinian leaders in the West Bank fall and Hamas takes over, “why try anything?” added Barak. “And, therefore, you lose sight of the opportunities and the will to seize opportunities. ... I know that you can’t say when leaders raise this kind of pessimism that it is all just invented. It is not all invented, and you would be stupid if you did not look [at it] with open eyes. But it is a major risk that you will not notice that you become enslaved by this pessimism in a way that will paralyze you from understanding that you can shape it. The world is full of risks, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have a responsibility to do something about it — within your limits and the limits of realism — and avoid self-fulfilling prophecies that are extremely dangerous here.

Title: He wore a kippa at AIPAC update
Post by: G M on December 11, 2012, 10:01:36 AM

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/12/10/israel-gets-better-reception-from-berlin/?singlepage=true

Israel Gets a Better Reception from Berlin than Washington — That’s a Man Bites Dog Story

December 10th, 2012 - 11:04 am
     
If the re-elected Obama administration has not quite shown its true colors, it’s given the world a peek.  As former UN Ambassador John Bolton observed, the Palestine Authority could not have swung a UN vote for “observer” status without the passive support of Washington. After Israel responded to the Palestinian end-run around the Oslo Agreement by approving 3,000 new apartments in a Jerusalem suburb, five European countries–Spain, Britain, Denmark, France and Sweden–formally reprimanded Israel by summoning its ambassador, an unprecedented diplomatic step. As the Daily Telegraph wrote Dec. 4, the gang of five did so in connivance with the Obama administration.

The newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, quoted unnamed Israeli diplomats as saying the outcry could not have occurred without the complicity of the Obama administration, which has profound differences with Mr Netanyahu over settlements.

“We would not be mistaken to say that Europe was acting with Washington’s encouragement,” the paper’s commentator, Shimon Shiffer wrote. “The White House authorised Europe to pounce on the Netanyahu government and to punish it.”

One Israeli official told the Daily Telegraph that while the US was unlikely to have ordered such a move, it may have signalled approval.

“It’s more likely that they [the Americans] have been informed and have not raised any objection, but also showed some understanding and maybe even more,” he said. “There’s probably an understanding between the US and the Europeans that this is the right thing to do at this point.”

But it really doesn’t matter what Britain, Spain, Denmark, France and Sweden think. There’s only one European country whose opinion matters, and that is Germany — where Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received a warm welcome from Chancellor Angela Merkel. Washington sandbags America’s closest ally while Berlin gives it backing. The world is changing. Obama’s strategic withdrawal, while lamentable, has one good side: it limits Obama’s capacity to do damage.

Here is how Akiva Eldar read the Netanyahu-Merkel meeting in AI-Monitor, a Middle Eastern news site that tilts towards the Arab viewpoint:

The summoning of Israel’s ambassadors to the European capitals in the wake of the decision to approve the construction of some 3,200 housing units between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim took place only after those countries rejected Israel’s demand that they vote against the admission of Palestine as a nonmember observer state of the UN. The parties to the left of the right-wing Likud Party as well as some political pundits portrayed Germany’s decision to abstain at the UN General Assembly vote and its strong protest against the decision regarding E1 as a colossal diplomatic failure. They called the crisis in the relationships with Chancellor Angela Merkel — Israel’s greatest supporter in Europe — as a monumental failure by Netanyahu’s government.

But lo and behold, at the end of that week, Israeli voters saw Netanyahu sporting a broad smile while standing next to Merkel at the press conference in Berlin shortly after their meeting. The prime minister had good reason to feel content with his host; the headlines that had previously reported a rift with Germany were supplanted by the chancellor’s wishy-washy statement that “with regard to the settlements, we agreed to disagree. That topic has been addressed time and again, yet this doesn’t prevent us from exchanging similar views on security issues that are important to Israel […] As close partners, we can convey our assessment whether it would be correct or incorrect to promote the two-state solution, and there’s disagreement on this point.” Merkel explained that “Israel is a sovereign state that will make its own decisions.”

“When an important state such as Germany brushes a flagrant violation of the law and international consensus under the red-carpet treatment it gives Netanyahu, it in fact endorses the joint Likud-Beitenu slate as well as the settlements in the eyes of the Israeli voter,” Eldar fulminated.

The conservative daily Die Welt, the newspaper closest to Chancellor Merkel, interviewed Netanyahu at length and gave the Israeli prime minister space to make a full and eloquent defense of Israel’s position. Like Merkel, the Die Welt journalists registered their regret over expansion of “settlements,” but in the context of softball questions. All this praising by faint damn is of great help to Netanyahu.

What explains Chancellor Merkel’s sympathy towards Israel? Part of it is simple righteousness. Mrs. Merkel rose through the democracy movement in East Germany during the last years of the Cold War — she speaks Russian with Vladimir Putin — and came to believe in democracy the hard way. Second, the German chancellor is a righteous Gentile who believes that Germany has a special obligation to the State of Israel and the Jewish people. She has demonstrated this again and again, for example, by intervening to insure that b’rit milah — Jewish ritual circumcision– remained legal in Germany despite attempts to prohibit it. And third — and in this case most important — Mrs. Merkel is a practical woman of high intelligence, trained as a scientist and toughened by years in political life. She has no patience with Obama’s utopianism.

Germany is changing. Its economy is doing reasonably well despite the European recession, because it is exporting more to Eastern Europe, Russia and China. A recent opinion poll asked Germans to name the world’s most important economy. Sixty percent said China and only 30% said the United States. As Germany acts in its own economic interests in the absence of American leadership, it will continue to gravitate towards strong and vibrant countries such as Israel and disengage from hopeless losers like Spain — or the Arabs. Nothing succeeds like success, and Israel’s reception by the practical Mrs. Merkel is further proof of its standing in the world. A lot of things will change in the next couple of years. I just don’t know whether we’ll hear about them here in the United States.

Title: Stratfor: The Israeli Periphery
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 12, 2012, 04:52:45 AM

Stratfor
By Reva Bhalla
Vice President of Global Affairs
 
The state of Israel has a basic, inescapable geopolitical dilemma: Its national security requirements outstrip its military capabilities, making it dependent on an outside power. Not only must that power have significant military capabilities but it also must have enough common ground with Israel to align its foreign policy toward the Arab world with that of Israel's. These are rather heavy requirements for such a small nation.
 
Security, in the Israeli sense, is thus often characterized in terms of survival. And for Israel to survive, it needs just the right blend of geopolitical circumstance, complex diplomatic arrangements and military preparedness to respond to potential threats nearby. Over the past 33 years, a sense of complacency settled over Israel and gave rise to various theories that it could finally overcome its dependency on outside powers. But a familiar sense of unease crept back into the Israeli psyche before any of those arguments could take root. A survey of the Israeli periphery in Egypt, Syria and Jordan explains why.
 
Maintaining the Sinai Buffer
 
To Israel's southwest lies the Sinai Desert. This land is economically useless; only hardened Bedouins who sparsely populate the desert expanse consider the terrain suitable for living. This makes the Sinai an ideal buffer. Its economic lifelessness gives it extraordinary strategic importance in keeping the largest Arab army -- Egypt's -- at a safe distance from Israeli population centers. It is the maintenance of this buffer that forms the foundation of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
 
The question percolating in Israeli policy circles is whether an Islamist Egypt will give the same level of importance to this strategic buffer. The answer to that question rests with the military, an institution that has formed the backbone of the Egyptian state since the rise of Gamel Abdul Nasser in 1952.
 






.
 Over the past month, the military's role in this new Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt quietly revealed itself. The first test came in the form of the Gaza crisis, when the military quietly negotiated security guarantees with Israel while the Muslim Brotherhood basked in the diplomatic spotlight. The second test came when Egypt's Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi, attempted a unilateral push on a constitutional draft to institutionalize the Muslim Brotherhood's hold on power.
 
The military bided its time, waiting for the protests to escalate to the point that rioters began targeting the presidential palace. By then, it was apparent that the police were not to be fully relied on to secure the streets. Morsi had no choice but to turn to the military for help, and that request revealed how indispensable the military is for Egyptian stability.
 
There will be plenty of noise and confusion in the lead-up to the Dec. 15 referendum as the secular, anti-Muslim Brotherhood civilian opposition continues its protests against Morsi. But filter through that noise, and one can see that the military and the Muslim Brotherhood appear to be adjusting slowly to a new order of Nasserite-Islamist rule. Unlike the 1979 peace treaty, this working arrangement between the military and the Islamists is alive and temperamental. Israel can find some comfort in seeing that the military remains central to the stability of the Egyptian state and will thus likely play a major role in protecting the Sinai buffer. However, merely observing this dance between the military and the Islamists from across the desert is enough to unnerve Israel and justify a more pre-emptive military posture on the border.
 
Defending Galilee
 
Israel lacks a good buffer to its north. The most natural, albeit imperfect, line of defense is the Litani River in modern-day Lebanon, with a second line of defense between Mount Hermon and the Sea of Galilee. Modern-day Israel encompasses this second barrier, a hilly area that has been the target of sporadic mortar shelling from Syrian government forces in pursuit of Sunni rebels.
 
Israel does not face a conventional military threat to its north, nor will it for some time. But the descent of the northern Levant into sectarian-driven, clan-based warfare presents a different kind of threat on Israel's northern frontier.
 
It is only a matter of time before Alawite forces will have to retreat from Damascus and defend themselves against a Sunni majority from their coastal enclave. The conflict will necessarily subsume Lebanon, and the framework that Israel has relied on for decades to manage more sizable, unconventional threats like Hezbollah will come undone.
 
Somewhere along the way, there will be an internationally endorsed attempt to prop up a provisional government and maintain as much of the state machinery as possible to avoid the scenario of a post-U.S. invasion Iraq. But when decades-old, sectarian-driven vendettas are concerned, there is cause for pessimism in judging the viability of those plans. Israel cannot avoid thinking in terms of worst-case scenarios, so it will continue to reinforce its northern defenses ahead of more instability.
 
Neutralizing the Jordan River Valley
 
The status of the Jordan River Valley is essential to Israel's sense of security to the east. So long as Israel can dominate the west bank of the river (the biblical area of Judea and Samaria, or the modern-day West Bank) then it can overwhelm indigenous forces from the desert farther east. To keep this arrangement intact, Israel will somehow attempt to politically neutralize whichever power controls the east bank of the Jordan River. In the post-Ottoman Middle East, this power takes the form of the Hashemite monarchs, who were transplanted from Arabia by the British.
 
The vulnerability that the Hashemites felt as a foreign entity in charge of economically lackluster terrain created ideal conditions for Israel to protect its eastern approach. The Hashemites had to devise complex political arrangements at home to sustain the monarchy in the face of left-wing Nasserist, Palestinian separatist and Islamist militant threats. The key to Hashemite survival was in aligning with the rural East Bank tribes, co-opting the Palestinians and cooperating with Israel in security issues to keep its western frontier calm. In short, the Hashemites were vulnerable enough for Israel to be considered a useful security partner but not so vulnerable that Israel couldn't rely on the regime to protect its eastern approach. There was a level of tension that was necessary to maintain the strategic partnership, but that level of tension had to remain within a certain band.
 
That arrangement is now under considerable stress. The Hashemites are facing outright calls for deposition from the same tribal East Bankers, Palestinians and Islamists that for decades formed the foundation of the state. That is because the state itself is weakening under the pressure of high oil prices, now sapping at the subsidies that have been relied on to tame the population.
 
One could assume that Jordan's oil-rich Gulf Arab neighbors would step in to defend one of the region's remaining monarchies of the post-Ottoman order against a rising tide of Muslim Brotherhood-led Islamism with heavily subsidized energy sales. However, a still-bitter, age-old geopolitical rivalry between the Hejaz-hailing Hashemite dynasty and the Nejd-hailing Saudi dynasty over supremacy in Arabia is getting in the way. From across the Gulf, an emboldened Iran is already trying to exploit this Arab tension by cozying up to the Hashemites with subsidized energy sales to extend Tehran's reach into the West Bank and eventually threaten Israel. Jordan has publicly warded off Iran's offer, and significant logistical challenges may inhibit such cooperation. But ongoing negotiations between Iran's allies in Baghdad and the Jordanian regime bear close watching as Jordan's vulnerabilities continue to rise at home.
 
Powerful Partners Abroad
 
In this fluctuating strategic environment, Israel cannot afford to be isolated politically. Its need for a power patron will grow alongside its insecurities in its periphery. Israel's current patron, the United States, is also grappling with the emerging Islamist order in the region. But in this new regional dynamic, the United States will eventually look past ideology in search of partners to help manage the region. As U.S.-Turkish relations in recent years and the United States' recent interactions with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood reveal, it will be an awkward and bumpy experience while Washington tries to figure out who holds the reins of power and which brand of Islamists it can negotiate with amid messy power transitions. This is much harder for Israel to do independently by virtue of ideology, size and location.
 
Israel's range of maneuver in foreign policy will narrow considerably as it becomes more dependent on external powers and as its interests clash with those of its patrons. Israel is in store for more discomfort in its decision-making and more creativity in its diplomacy. The irony is that while Israel is a western-style democracy, it was most secure in an age of Arab dictatorships. As those dictatorships give way to weak and in some cases crumbling states, Israeli survival instincts will again be put to the test.


Read more: The Israeli Periphery | Stratfor

Title: What the Israeli Public Really Thinks:
Post by: objectivist1 on December 24, 2012, 10:07:51 AM

What the Israeli Public Really Thinks

Posted By Steven Plaut On December 24, 2012 -

I find public opinion polls fascinating, at least when they are real polls, as opposed to that manipulative pseudo-poll from a couple of weeks back, run by Peace Now’s Amiram Goldblum (Hebrew University, pharmacy studies) and his far-leftist cronies, claiming to “prove” Israelis were pro-apartheid.   In the past the Israeli media used to publish 3 or 4 polls a week.  The number dropped to near zero in recent years, and my guess is it is because the leftist media do not want you to know what Israelis actually think.

But with elections nigh, there are a lot of polls coming out.  The one in a recent edition of Maariv is, I think, interesting.  It is a survey of the general population (including Arabs), and a sub-survey just of those who identify themselves as leaning to the Right.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Of the general population, when asked if they favor the existence of a Palestinian state, 66% oppose, 11% favor, and 23% are undecided or have a more ambiguous position.  Bear in mind that about 18% of Israelis are Arabs.  When asked if they favor construction in the E-1 area between Jerusalem and the Maaleh Adumim suburb, which has been in the news recently as a “controversy,” 51% support construction, 9% oppose, and 40% are not sure (probably do not know what it is about). When asked about allowing Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, 71% support and 7% oppose.  When asked what they think of Supreme Court judicial review of laws, 48% oppose it, 41% support, and only 10% did not know.

When restricted to Israelis defining themselves as leaning Right, 54% of these are secularists, 27% say they are religiously “traditionalist,” 11% modern Orthodox, and 8% Chareidi.  This is notable because the media stereotype of the “Right” is as the ”Religious Right.”  But more than half of rightists are secularist, larger probably than the numbers among the Left or Center.  Women are more likely than men to identify with the Right, and the young more than the old.  About 24% of rightists have college or post-high school education, probably a bit less than the general population but not a lot less.  Income distribution of Rightists looks similar to that of the general population.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here. 

Title: POTH: Building supplies allowed into Gaza, Gazans not impressed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2012, 10:29:55 AM

JERUSALEM — For the first time in five years, Israel on Sunday allowed 20 truckloads of building materials into Gaza for use by the private sector, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials. One of the first tangible concessions under a cease-fire deal reached after eight days of intensive fighting in November, it signaled a shift in Israel’s approach to the Palestinian enclave.

Israeli officials said that construction materials would now be allowed in on a daily basis via the Kerem Shalom crossing on Israel’s border with Gaza.

The shipment on Sunday came in addition to 34 trucks of gravel that crossed into Gaza over the weekend from Egypt, which also had Israel’s approval. The materials from Egypt were earmarked for housing complexes and other construction projects that the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, pledged to pay for when he visited Gaza in October.

The easing of restrictions on imports is a result of continuing talks in Cairo meant to anchor the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza. Israel is holding the discussions with Egypt and has no direct contact with Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Israel has strictly controlled the entry of building materials. Israeli officials have argued that such materials could otherwise be used by militants for manufacturing weapons or constructing tunnels and bunkers.

In return for loosening the movement of goods, Israeli officials say, Egypt is expected to help prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.

Maj. Guy Inbar, a spokesman for the Israeli authority responsible for the crossings, said that Israel had approved the transfer of materials to the private sector “against the background of the talks with the Egyptians and the quiet that has prevailed” in the past five weeks along the Israel-Gaza border.

Soon after the cease-fire was announced, the fishing zone off the Gaza coast was extended for Palestinian fishermen from three nautical miles to six nautical miles, and Palestinian residents of Gaza were given more access to lands in a buffer zone imposed by Israel along the border.

Taher al-Nounou, a spokesman for the Hamas government in Gaza, said Sunday that the construction materials coming from Egypt would increase to 100 trucks a day and that as part of the cease-fire agreement with Israel, more goods, including cars, would enter Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing.

“Israel is aware now that it will lose a lot financially if it doesn’t sell its goods to the consumers in Gaza,” Mr. Nounou added.

The last round of hostilities began in mid-November when Israel began an assault on the enclave after militants there stepped up rocket attacks against southern Israel. During eight days of fighting, Israel bombed more than 1,000 targets in Gaza and the militants fired more than 1,500 rockets into Israel, leaving more than 160 Palestinians and 6 Israelis dead.

With the cease-fire, the parties agreed to begin dealing with broader issues like easing restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. The sides have revealed little detail about the progress of talks in Cairo. Israel has played down the shift in its blockade policy, presumably not wanting to feed the Hamas assertions of victory over Israel in the latest conflict, particularly ahead of Israeli elections on Jan. 22.

But Israeli officials have explained the willingness to ease restrictions in terms of trying to ensure the longevity of the cease-fire. They say that the discussions over the deal have also provided Israel with a welcome channel of communication with the new Egyptian leadership under President Mohamed Morsi, seen here as important for the preservation of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

The election of Mr. Morsi, a former Muslim Brotherhood leader, brought Hamas, a Palestinian offshoot of the Brotherhood, closer to Cairo. The ousted president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, was hostile to the Islamists and helped Israel impose a tight blockade on Gaza after Hamas took over there in 2007. But Egypt under Mr. Morsi’s leadership has also remained cautious, and expectations in Gaza that the border with Egypt would be thrown open have not yet been realized.

Israel began to ease restrictions on many imports into Gaza in 2010, under international pressure after a deadly Israeli raid on a Turkish boat that was trying to breach the naval blockade. Most everyday products were allowed in. But Israel continued to ban cement, steel and other building materials for the private sector and some other products that Israel deemed a security risk. Gaza contractors came to rely on getting construction materials that were smuggled in from Egypt through a vast network of tunnels running under the border.

For that reason, some in Gaza were not particularly impressed by news of building materials arriving from Israel. Majdi Qawalishi, who owns a brick factory in Gaza City, said that the gravel that came through the tunnels from Egypt was significantly cheaper than gravel from Israel, saving him about $300 per day.

“I am not really bothered about the Israeli building materials,” he said, “as long as those from Egypt are widely available.”


An employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Gaza.

Title: Danny Ayalon: Israeli electorate moving to the right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 10, 2013, 10:07:03 AM

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=7910

Title: Conversation with Shimon Peres
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2013, 08:13:29 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/magazine/shimon-peres-on-obama-iran-and-the-path-to-peace.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130113

Title: Morsi calls Jews "Apes and Pigs" - American Media Fails to Notice...
Post by: objectivist1 on January 16, 2013, 08:50:23 AM

Posted by Robert Spencer - January 13, 2013 - www.jihadwatch.org

I posted here at Jihad Watch on January 3 about MEMRI's report on Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi calling Jews "blood-suckers...warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs." Eight days later, Richard Behar in Forbes noted the media -- the same media that shamelessly cheerled for the so-called "Arab Spring" that was always an Islamic supremacist takeover and not a democracy movement at all -- has steadfastly refused to take notice of this fact. After all, it would upset their paradigm.

"News Flash: Jews Are 'Apes And Pigs.' So Why Is Egypt's Morsi The Elephant In America's Newsrooms?," by Richard Behar in Forbes, January 11:

Last Friday, the sitting president of Egypt – the world’s 15th most populous nation — was exposed for calling Jews “apes and pigs.” And he did it in a TV interview (in Arabic) in 2010, less than two years before he took office.
Needless to say, this was HUGE NEWS for American mass media! Only it wasn’t. (Knock, knock, New York Times? Anybody home?) In fact, to be fair to the paper of record, not a single major outlet has covered it. Not AP or Reuters. Not CBS News or CNN. Not Time magazine or U.S. News & World Report. Not the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today. Etcetera. And therein lies a story, which this column can only begin to skin open here.

Mohamed Morsi’s bizarre Apes-and-Pigs rant hit the Jerusalem Post’s homepage that same day (again, last Friday), as its lead story. Specifically, a prestigious U.S. organization named the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) — chaired by Oliver “Buck” Revell, a former deputy head of the FBI in charge of counter-terrorism – released it widely to the global media and posted it on YouTube.

Undoubtedly, the Cairo and Jerusalem bureaus of the big U.S. media outlets saw the story. But the news only found its way to certain American readers and viewers by getting picked up in Jewish and/or conservative forums over the following days.

Commentary magazine, American Thinker and Breitbart thoughtfully weighed in on the subject. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), Jewish Talk Radio, and the Christian Broadcasting Network also saw value in covering it. So did – of all things — a prominent national stock-picking and finance newspaper, Investor’s Business Daily. Fox News entertainer Sean Hannity has been pouncing on it — no surprise there. (Do I really have to tune in to that unpleasant loudmouth if I want to be sure not to miss such newsworthy information?) UPI gave it some pickup, but that news service is only a shadow of its former great self. Once nearly equaling the size and reach of AP in the 1960s, it shrunk to a virtual carcass by 2000 — when it was sold to a company founded by Reverend Moon, the self-proclaimed messiah.

The Times of Israel ran a story about it, and added the fact that Morsi was captured three months ago by MEMRI on a different video. In that tape, he can be seen in fervent prayer at a mosque in western Egypt in October, mouthing the word “Amen” after the preacher urged Allah to “destroy the Jews and their supporters.” (Virtually every big media outlet in America ignored that, too.)

I studied the Pigs-and-Apes story’s journey and trajectory through America over the past week with Sue Radlauer, the Director of Research Services here at Forbes. We gave it seven days to see if any of the so-called “mainstream media” — a pejorative phrase that too-often obscures more than it reveals — bestowed the hate speech even a few sentences of back-page ink. Nothing.

Of course, the demonization of Jews is commonplace and de rigueur in the Arab media (although most Americans wouldn’t know that because they are not being made aware of it). But what makes this omission in Big Media especially egregious is that Morsi–sometimes spelled Morsy or Mursi– went even further than genetically pairing Jews with lower beasts. As you can see and hear for yourself in the Morsi Tapes, he called for an end to any and all negotiations for a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians – droning on that all the land belongs to the latter. He called for a boycott of American goods because of its support for Israel. (Of course, he didn’t bother mentioning that American taxpayers have provided nearly $70 billion of aid to Egypt, since it made peace with Israel in 1979, and the spigot continues for now.) He even went so far as to label the Palestinian Authority an entity “created by the Zionist and American enemies for the sole purpose of opposing the will of the Palestinian people and its interests.”

Apes and pigs aside, Morsi also warned his TV listeners that Jews have never been nice people. “They have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history,” he oozed. “They are hostile by nature.” (One can almost see comedian Jon Stewart’s frozen eyes right about now, before he says something like, “A holiday in Luxor, anyone?”)

If that’s not enough to make the Morsi Tapes even a little newsworthy, consider that Egypt’s economy is on the brink of collapse, with its government desperate for a $4.8 billion IMF loan. Meanwhile, plans have long been underway for the first official visit by the Egyptian president to Washington this March, where he’ll dine with President Obama. So far, the U.S. State Department hasn’t issued a peep of dismay about the tapes. And yet this is arguably the time to do so — before (not after) the huge checks are cut.

So what’s going on here? On Monday, I raised the topic of Morsi’s 2010 language with Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. “Well, they [Muslim Brotherhood] certainly don’t have a monopoly over anti-Semitic comments in the Middle East,” said Oren, who was born and raised in America, and who has written best-selling books on Middle Eastern history. “These comments were alarming, intolerant, and cause for serious concern. Still, we want to distinguish between what they say and what they do. We expect people to act in a responsible and accountable way. That Morsi and his government today played a constructive role in reaching a ceasefire [with Hamas in November], that’s more important – because it actually saved lives.”

Fair enough. But major, seasoned reporters still need to hold Morsi’s feet to fire over such comments – if not by asking him directly about them, then at least by reporting that he uttered them. Surely, if the president of virtually any other country in the world had defamed an entire people in such a way — only a couple years before they got the top job, to boot — it would have at least gotten a few column-inches. Yet Morsi gets a free pass.

“In my view, it’s important to know just how extreme this important man really is, especially because [Leon] Panetta and [Hillary] Clinton after visits there made statements suggesting otherwise,” says MEMRI board director Elliott Abrams, who served in top policy positions under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. “You’re right that if such a tape by Putin or [Turkey's] Erdogan or [Argentina's] Kirchner, etc., etc., was discovered, it would be big news. If it isn’t, is the MSM saying, ‘Well, hell, we know all Muslims have a fanatical hatred of Jews, so no big deal?’”

On Sunday, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer spent an hour with Morsi in Cairo in what the network billed as an exclusive interview. It was a fine conversation, and he’s doing an hour-long special this weekend about his hour-long interview and visit to Egypt. Blitzer is one of my favorite TV anchors today. (He plays it straight, if sometimes dull, and doesn’t condescend to viewers. I never feel like he’s trying to drag me with a rope through my television set.)

But Wolf could have tossed a few Ape-and-Pig hardballs in Morsi’s direction — given that his reporting staff surely must have been aware of the tapes from the Jerusalem Post piece, if from nowhere else. Why not ask the anthropologist-in-chief: “Do you still believe that Jews are pigs? Invoking Koranic scripture, you claimed that Zionists descend from pigs, but since Zionists weren’t around at the time of your prophet, does this mean all Jews come from pigs, or just certain ones? Do you still believe that America should be boycotted? And does that include American cash? Or should your whole diatribe be disregarded as merely the kooky, carefree views from one’s youth – uhhh…TWO YEARS AGO?”

For several days, I attempted to speak with Blitzer about the good, the bad and the ugly of media coverage of the Middle East. But his publicist says he’s too busy – even to consider responding to a single email question prior to my publishing.

The New York Times rarely touches this stuff. In fact, a harshly critical mega-report about the newspaper’s Middle East coverage was recently released by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). The Times can’t be too happy about it. “The failure of the New York Times to cover the hate indoctrination leads the pack, in a way,” CAMERA’s head Andrea Levin told me yesterday. “The fact that they deem it to be so unimportant helps to lay down that news decision for others as well. And, to us, it’s one of the greatest derelictions in current news coverage of the conflict.”...

Read it all. And note that yesterday the New York Times, probably shamed into it by Behar's piece, finally noticed Morsi's remarks. The rest of the mainstream media, however, still doesn't find Morsi's remarks fit to print.

Title: Hitler Honored in Upscale Mall in Turkey...
Post by: objectivist1 on January 16, 2013, 08:54:14 AM

Hitler honored in upscale mall in modern, moderate Turkey

Robert Spencer - January 16, 2013 - www.jihadwatch.org

Turkey's rapid re-Islamization and abandonment of secularism has been accompanied by a sharp rise in hostility for Israel and Islamic antisemitism. "Hitler Honored in Upscale Instanbul Mall," by Lori Lowenthal Marcus in the Jewish Press, January 15:

People who have been paying attention know that relations between Israel and Turkey have been eroding, but not many realize that Turkey is now not only openly hostile to the Jewish State, but also to the Jewish people.
On Friday, January 11, a Turkish citizen took a picture to show exactly how belligerent Turkey has become.  The picture is of a huge poster with the words, “Who Would You Like to Meet if You Could?” and the last name, and only photograph, is of Adolf Hitler.  The other choices include Suleiman I, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Napolean Bonaparte, the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Vladimir Lenin, Boris Yeltsin, Leonardo Da Vinci, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Jackson.  But only Hitler warranted a picture, a huge one at that.

According to Ege Berk Korkut, an active Turkish writer and blogger, the sign was placed in the Sapphire Mall by the owners, a group of Turkish businessmen who are devoted to Erdogan. Korkut explained to The Jewish Press that the Sapphire is an ultra-upscale mall in Levent, the wealthiest neighborhood in Istanbul. The Sapphire building is one of the tallest buildings in Europe.

Korkut said that while a few people have complained about the banner – and the management has refused to remove it – most shoppers just glance at it and continue shopping.  Ho-hum, nothing startling or even mildly interesting about a huge photograph of Adolf Hitler hanging in the Turkish equivalent of Via Bellagio in Las Vegas or The Shops at Columbus Circle in New York City.

And it is not only Israel and the Jews towards which Turkey has turned its back.

The Iranian Ambassador to Turkey, Bahman Hussein Pour, discussed the close and ever-increasing Iranian-Turkish relations in an article in the January 14 MehrNews.com, an Iranian news agency.

Hussein Pour pointed out that while Western countries, “especially the U.S.,” have been pressuring Turkey to reduce economic relations with Iran, “Iran-Turkey trade volume exceeds $21b this year for the first time.”  The Iranian Ambassador concluded that Turkish-Iranian relations are irreversible.

In addition to the trade relations between the two countries which has more than quadrupled since 2008, Hussein Pour also explained that “more than 15 Turkish provinces have become sister provinces with Iranian ones.”

Title: Shock! Schumer for Hagel
Post by: ccp on January 16, 2013, 09:40:47 PM

For Democrats party is ALWAYS first:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/politics/schumer-says-hes-satisfied-with-hagel-on-mideast.html?_r=0 :roll:

Title: Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post on Michele Bachmann...
Post by: objectivist1 on January 22, 2013, 07:18:46 AM

The Left’s New Campaign to Destroy a Friend of Israel’s: Michele Bachmann

Posted By Caroline Glick On January 22, 2013 - www.frontpagemag.com

To sign the Freedom Center’s  petition to stop the witch-hunt against Rep. Michele Bachmann,  click here. And  please spread the word about this petition far and wide!

Israel has many passionate supporters on Capitol Hill, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. These are men and women who are deeply committed to Israel and understand that Israel is the US’s only reliable ally in the Middle East and America’s most vital ally in the world today in light of the rise of radical Islamic regimes, movements and leaders.

Now that Obama has officially entered his second term in office, Israel enters a period unlike any it has experienced before. It will face a hostile US president who does not fear the voters. Moreover, it faces a US president who is so hostile to Israel that his first serious act after his reelection was to appoint Chuck Hagel Defense Secretary, (and John Brennan CIA Director).

As I wrote last week, I believe that Israel will not be the hardest hit by Obama’s “transformative” foreign policy over the next four years. As an independent state, Israel has the ability to diversify its network of strategic allies and so mitigate somewhat the hit it will take from the Obama administration. The US, and first and foremost the US military, will not be so fortunate.

Not surprisingly, Israel’s biggest defenders in the US Capitol are also the most outspoken allies of the US military and the most concerned about maintaining America’s ability to remain the most powerful nation on earth both economically and militarily. They are as well, Obama’s most outspoken critics on the Hill.

For their outspoken criticism, and their competence, these men and women have been targeted for political destruction by Obama and his allies. Last November we saw this leftist machine outgun and so defeat Cong. Allen West in Florida and Joe Walsh in Illinois. Both men were targeted by Obama’s smear machine that included, among other things, J-Street endorsements of their opponents, and rancid attacks against them.

One of the voices that Obama’s machine has spent millions of dollars trying to silence is that of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

As a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a contender in the Republican presidential primaries, Bachmann has been one of Israel’s most passionate and articulate defenders and one of Obama’s most effective critics on everything from federal spending to Obama’s abandonment of the US-Israel alliance to his opening of the US federal government and intelligence apparatuses to members of the Muslim Brotherhood – that is to members of a movement dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life.

For her efforts, Rep. Bachmann has been the target of repeated media smear campaigns, often joined by skittish Republicans like John McCain who failed to recognize the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise in Libya and Egypt, and failed to understand the danger that the penetration of the US federal government by Muslim Brotherhood members constitutes to US national security.

I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting with Rep. Bachmann on several occasions over the years. She is one of the most intelligent women I know. And her grasp of the nature and importance of the US-Israel alliance is extraordinary. So too, her understanding of the challenges to US national security is clear, educated and sophisticated.

Watch for instance these speeches that she has delivered in recent months.

The day she announced her candidacy for President:



And at the Values Voters Summit shortly before the Presidential election:



In the past, every time that I have written about Cong. Bachmann, I have been bombarded with comments from readers who say that they cannot believe I can support her, since they claim, she is such an extremist. But Cong. Bachmann is not an extremist at all.

What she is is a victim of a very successful smear campaign undertaken by people who recognize her talent, conviction, intelligence and effectiveness. They set out to destroy and marginalize her, just as they set out to destroy and marginalize Mitt Romney and West and Walsh and many others, because they perceive these leaders as a threat to their agendas.

Today Cong. Bachmann is the target of a new leftist smear campaign, organized by the far Left People for the American Way. The campaign involves a petition that has reportedly been signed already by 178,000 people demanding that House Speaker John Boehner expel Rep. Bachmann from the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

The proximate cause for the petition is a series of letters Bachmann and five other (wonderful and similarly courageous) Congressional colleagues penned to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the State Department, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice asking for the IGs to conduct an investigation of the ties senior officials in these departments have with the Muslim Brotherhood.

For her efforts, Bachmann was condemned not only by the Left, but by Senator John McCain as a bigot and a McCarthyite.

But she is none of these things. And last month, her concerns were borne out when the Egyptian magazine Rose al Youssef published an article about Muslim Brotherhood operatives in senior positions in the Obama administration. According to the article, these operatives have transformed the US “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world, to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Here is the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s translation of the article.)

Among those mentioned in the articles are some of the officials that Bachmann named in her letters last July. Far from waging a McCarthyite, bigoted witch hunt against guileless American citizens, as the Egyptian article makes clear, her concerns were founded in fact and totally reasonable.

Before Obama was reelected, I heard repeatedly that supporters of Israel like Alan Dershowitz, Ed Koch, and Haim Saban who had properly criticized Obama’s hostility towards Israel but then supported his reelection bid, did so because they believed that by supporting him, they would be in a position to pressure him to support Israel in his second term. According to this line of reasoning, these men and others like them believed that Obama would listen to them in his second term if – but only if – they supported his reelection against a candidate who was clearly more supportive of Israel than Obama.

By appointing Hagel as Defense Secretary, Obama made clear even before he was sworn in for his second term that this assumption was completely wrong. By supporting his reelection they supported giving Obama four years to lead American foreign policy unconstrained by the need to feign support for Israel. When you empower your enemies, your enemies are empowered.

By the same token, when you support your friends, your friends are empowered. Rep. Bachmann is a friend of Israel’s. And she is an American patriot committed to doing everything in her power to protecting the US and defending and maintaining America as the indispensable nation.

In response to the PFAW’s petition, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, with which I am proud to be formally associated as the Director of its Israel Security Project, launched a counter-petition to Speaker Boehner voicing support for Bachmann. If you are a US citizen, please take a few moments to sign the petition.

Here is the link.

For further reading on the campaign against Bachmann see Andy McCarthy in National Review here, and Robert Spencer in Frontpage Magazine here and here.

Editor’s note: Frontpage’s editor Jamie Glazov also recently joined Robert Spencer on his show on ABNSat.com to discuss the attacks against Rep. Michele Bachmann and the Unholy Alliance behind them. Watch the whole interview below:



Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Title: WSJ: Ruell Marc Gerecht: Israel's new Islamist neighborhood
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2013, 11:44:28 AM

Israel's New Islamist Neighborhood
If Western history is any guide, the growth of democracy slowly diminishes religious imperatives. .
By REUEL MARC GERECHT

Israel last week held parliamentary elections, and many in America and Europe are interpreting the results as a triumph for moderates that means new hope for the Middle East peace process. But further negotiations without elections first among the Palestinians—and where acceptance of the Jewish state is on the winning ballot—will only further empower Islamic fundamentalists. The rising Islamist wave that has accompanied the Arab Spring should end the illusion that the Jewish state can be integrated into the Middle East through territorial concessions to nondemocratic regimes.

Supposed Israeli intransigence on the peace process isn't what fueled the growth of Hamas, which today rules the Gaza Strip. The terror group grew strong, like Muslim fundamentalists elsewhere, because modernizing elites ran roughshod over society. Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and the secular Palestine Liberation Organization's legions of heavy-handed cronies over time empowered the religious militants of Hamas.

The formula of land-for-peace was always an illusion because it did nothing but abet the growth of those most committed to destroying Israel. It is no coincidence that Hamas gained the most ground against Fatah (the dominant group within the PLO) in the 1990s, when peace-processing was all the rage. Hamas feeds off the peace process, both its perceived successes (Palestinian autonomy throughout Gaza and most of the West Bank) and failures (East Jerusalem remaining in Israeli hands).

Israel may one day be accepted by its Arab neighbors and by its most deadly foe, Iran—but only when Arab and Iranian Muslim identities allow for it. At best, that change is decades away. Modern Islam's great internal tug of war, between the search for authenticity and the love of modernity, must quiet before the Israeli-Palestinian clash can end.

Washington's bipartisan establishment has never wanted to appreciate the religious dimension to the Israeli-Arab collision, for it is a subset of an older struggle between secular and religious Muslims. It was always a dubious proposition that Palestinian Arab nationalism could accept a neighboring Jewish state because the molten core of the Palestinian identity is more Islamic than it is anything else.

For any Muslim with traditional sentiments—and especially for fundamentalists—the peace process is galling because it is premised on the faithful surrendering their God-given right to a land conquered in the golden age of the rightly guided caliphs (the Muslim rulers who immediately followed Muhammad in the seventh century). For Muslims, the great Jewish prophets are Muslim prophets whom the Jews either spurned or falsified. So accepting Israel's legitimacy, which means accepting the Jewish religious narrative in which Hebrew prophets bind their people to Israel, would be a revocation of the Quran and the foundational story of the Islamic faith.

But modernity can attenuate, as well as amplify, religious identity. Muslim fundamentalists have reared their heads so viciously in part because they know what modernity brings. They have seen their best and brightest seduced by the West. Many live in fear of democracy because it makes man, not God, the principal agent of history.

Most Israelis fear that the Arab Spring will see secular dictators replaced by religious ones. Understandably, they have little stomach for more representative government among Palestinians, which could expand Hamas's power and bring down the monarchy in Jordan, where Palestinians may now make up more than 70% of the population.

Yet if Western history is any guide, the growth of democracy slowly diminishes religious imperatives. Representative government demystifies politics and ethics, as the here-and-now takes precedence over abstract aspirations. It makes the mundane transcendent. It promotes healthy division because it puts competing visions, even competing fundamentalist visions, to the vote. It localizes ambitions and focuses people's passions on the national purse.

With the collapse of the peace process in 2000 amid Arafat's bloody second intifada, Palestinians began turning a more critical eye inward. When Arafat died in 2004, Palestinians began to have, however tepidly, a debate about leadership and political mores.

Jerusalem's decision to build a barrier between Israel and the West Bank limited the spread of suicidal fantasies among Palestinians. George W. Bush also helped by encouraging the Palestinians' first and only real elections, in 2005 and 2006, which ended in a split decision, with Hamas taking the parliament and Fatah the presidency. That government never got off the ground, and both parties now appear to fear new elections.

An electorally triumphant Hamas might be able to harness democracy to a total war against the Jews. Ditto for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its counterparts in Syria and Jordan. But we certainly know that Islamists untethered to elections spread the most extreme views at no cost. Secular authoritarians in Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan have gradually lost sway to fundamentalists partly because they have signed treaties with Israel that are blessed neither by elected governments nor referendums.

Although they are running against Islamic history, Arab secular democrats have some hope. Religious authoritarianism secularizes societies pretty quickly.

In 1979, religious millenarianism was a mass movement in Iran. But the hollowing of revolutionary fervor set in motion a popular re-evaluation of the Islamic Republic's hatred of the United States and Israel. In 2009, Iranian youths protesting for democracy pointedly mocked the Palestinian cause as not their own. The Iranian people, if their votes could rule, would surely restore diplomatic relations with Washington and possibly even with Israel.

A similar process is likely among the Arabs, where democracy will probably produce majoritarian governments ruled by authoritarian Islamists. Their attempts to enforce certain Islamic values through legislation will inevitably produce faction and fatigue. Secularists will grow stronger. And unlike their great liberal forbearers of the 19th and early-20th centuries, Muslim secularists who win at the ballot box will be much less inclined to kowtow to orthodox Islamic sentiments. Accepting Israel, though still unpleasant, will seem less a dastardly, Western-imposed act.

The age of Islamism and democracy has just arrived. The interplay may be long, arduous and ugly. But it is conceivable that Israelis, Arabs and Iranians will finally find a modus vivendi based on something more profound than land-for-peace. It will be based on free men voting.

Mr. Gerecht, a former Middle East specialist at the CIA, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of "The Wave: Man, God, and the Ballot Box in the Middle East" (Hoover Institution Press, 2011).

Title: Kippa at AIPAC update
Post by: G M on February 01, 2013, 03:20:28 PM

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2013/01/31/hey-jews-the-jokes-on-you/

Hey, Jews, the Joke’s on You!

January 31st, 2013 - 7:52 am


In the light of the comic genius of people like Jack Benny, the Marx Brothers, and Mel Brooks, it’s sometimes said that Jewish people have an especially keen sense of humor. Perhaps that would explain why so many of them voted for Barack Obama. They must’ve been anticipating the knee-slapping hilarity of Obama pulling the rug out from under them to send them falling butt first onto the hard floor of his broken promises where they’d slip on the banana peel of his deceit and go skittering into the mud pit of his betrayal.
 
What a chuckle it’s been indeed. Right after winning well over 60% of the Jewish vote in November, Obama delivered his gut-busting punchline by nominating former Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as secretary of Defense. And as if that weren’t funny enough, Hagel is now before the Senate, where he’ll almost certainly be confirmed.

 


Now the good news for Jews is that Hagel rhymes with bagel, a tasty breadstuff much beloved by our Hebraic citizens. The bad news is just about everything else. Supporters of the former senator have been reassuring various media outlets that Hagel doesn’t dislike Jewish people. And I’m sure that’s mighty Christian of him. The problem is he’s not being asked to dance at a bar-mitzvah. He’s being called to support our allies and stand up to our enemies and when it comes to the Middle East he doesn’t seem quite sure about which are which.
 
Hagel has complained about the “Jewish lobby,” he’s criticized Israel’s commitment to peace even as her citizens were being slaughtered by terrorists, he’s opposed sanctions against Syria and Iran while describing Israel’s war against terrorist Hezbollah as “the systematic destruction of an American friend,” meaning Lebanon.  He also refused to sign a 1999 letter condemning Russian anti-semitism, a letter that was signed by 99 other senators, which by my count is all of them except Chuck.
 
Can’t stop laughing? How about this one. Hagel’s supporters say Hagel’s anti-semitic comments and actions and feelings have been taken out of context. And that, coincidentally, is just what Egyptian dictator Mohammed Morsi says about his comments. Morsi, you remember, is the guy to whom Obama just sent a couple of F-16′s. Which must be another of the president’s hilarious Jewish jokes, since Morsi’s also the dude who described Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs. But like Hagel, Morsi says he was misunderstood. After all, who doesn’t love that funny pig in Babe, right? And what about King Kong where that gigantic Jew chased Naomi Watts around. That was fun.
 
Okay, Obama’s nomination of Hagel — like his weapons aid to Morsi — may not be in the best traditions of Jewish humor, but this administration is certainly a joke to anyone who supports our only true ally in the Middle East.

Title: Stratfor: Airstrike at Syria-Lebanon border
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 03, 2013, 06:56:38 AM

Summary
 


JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images
 
An Israeli F-15 fighter jet takes off on Nov. 19, 2012, for a mission over the Gaza Strip
 


Israel's strategic environment has changed since the beginning of the Syrian uprising. Instability now exists on all its borders, and Israel has behaved accordingly. On Jan. 30, the Israeli air force bombed a Lebanon-bound convoy from Syria. Two days earlier, Israel Defense Forces deployed two Iron Dome batteries to the northern part of the country. Recent diplomatic activity likewise suggests that Israel now feels threatened on its northern border.
 
Historically, Israel has undertaken pre-emptive military action when it has felt threatened. Famous examples include strikes on nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. More recently in October 2012, Israel allegedly bombed a Sudanese arms factory believed to be supplying weapons to militants in Gaza. Israel's target in the airstrike remains unconfirmed -- unnamed security officials claim the convoy carried Russian SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles -- but the incident nonetheless shows that Syria's situation has deteriorated enough to merit military action.
 


Analysis
 
Reuters initially reported the airstrike, which was later confirmed by a Stratfor source. Four Israeli aircraft entered Lebanese airspace around 4:30 p.m. the evening of Jan. 29, but were relieved four hours later by other aircraft. Then at 2 a.m. the next day, these aircraft were replaced by yet another group, which remained in Lebanese airspace until about 8 a.m.
 
The duration of the operation is significant. The Israelis clearly anticipated a target to appear in a specific window of time; bombing a fixed target would not necessitate a prolonged mission. The revelations of SA-17s notwithstanding, the target of the attack remains unconfirmed. Leaks from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office indicate that the government has been anxiously monitoring potential chemical weapons traffic into Lebanon, a haven for Hezbollah militants. Israel's anxiety may be justified: On Jan. 28, Ynet reported that Hezbollah had established several bases in Syria near suspected Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles.
 

Visit our Syria page for related analysis, videos, situation reports and maps.
 
In addition to chemical weapons, Israel also fears the transfer of advanced conventional weapons, ranging from advanced anti-tank guided missiles and man-portable air defense systems to various types of artillery systems and larger vehicle-mounted surface-to-air missile systems. Such systems could jeopardize the Israeli air force's ability to conduct operations in the region, according to an air force spokesperson. If the reports were true that the convoy carried SA-17s, the airstrike would validate some of Israel's concerns
 
Managing Multiple Threats
 






.
 The reported strike is only the latest measure Israel has taken in recent days to secure its northern border. On Jan. 27, Israel deployed two Iron Dome batteries to the North -- one in the Krayot area outside Haifa, and one in Galilee. The Iron Domes will reinforce batteries already stationed in Haifa. But more important, the new batteries could have been deployed in anticipation of retaliatory strikes for today's operation.
 
Meanwhile on the diplomatic front, Israeli National Security Council head Yaakov Amidror has been in Moscow since Jan. 28 to discuss the Syrian chemical weapons issue. Specifically, he has spoken with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, about the weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah. Notably, the strike shows Russia that Israel will not stand idly by if it feels threatened by continued instability in Syria.
 
 
 
Taken together, the strike and the diplomatic activity reflect Israel's insecurity with regard to its northern border. But the strike also comes in the context of uncertainty elsewhere. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has called into question the future of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which has shaped regional geopolitics since 1978. The situation in Jordan is no more encouraging. Economic woes have led to political problems for the ruling Hashemites, who find themselves dependent on economic support from Saudi Arabia and from Persian Gulf countries. Moreover, the Syrian crisis has prompted more than 21,000 refugees to enter Jordan over the past week alone. Jordan reportedly has since bolstered its military presence along its border with Syria.
 
 
 
Instability on every border has created a new strategic environment in Israel. And on Jan. 30, Israel clearly felt compelled to preserve its northern border proactively. Israel is continuing to develop its missile defense systems, such as Iron Dome and David's Sling. On its southern border, Israel has reorganized its military deployments, creating a new brigade under the 80th Division to increase security in Eilat and on the border with the Sinai. It has also built new fences and enacted security measures on the border. And in the north, Israel has now seen sufficient provocation to attack a target close to the Syria-Lebanon border. But unfortunately for Israel, such actions can actually make its border more dangerous.
 
 
 
The ultimate objective of the strike remains unknown. It could have been meant to take out an actual convoy of surface-to-air missile systems that challenge Israeli air superiority. Just as plausible is that it was meant as a warning to discourage Hezbollah from transferring weapons into Lebanon as the Syria crisis continues to degrade. Whatever the reason, one thing is clear: The new Israeli government faces the daunting challenge of managing multiple external threats on its borders.


Read more: Israel: An Airstrike at the Syria-Lebanon Border | Stratfor

Title: The New Silk Route, weapons to Gaza and beyond
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2013, 04:00:22 PM

The New 'Silk Route;' Weapons to Gaza and Beyond
by Paul Alster
Special to IPT News
February 7, 2013
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3904/the-new-silk-route-weapons-to-gaza-and-beyond
 
 
November's "Pillar of Defense" operation by the Israeli military included a couple of unpleasant surprises for Israeli citizens. For the first time, Palestinian terrorists fired missiles at the country's two population centers, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, sending residents scurrying for shelter. For years, Palestinian rocket fire was isolated to smaller cities in southern Israel. Israeli military officials say weapons smuggled into Gaza via the new "Silk Route," a pipeline created and protected by governments including Iran, Sudan and others, made that dramatic new range possible.

In a wide-ranging interview for the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a senior source in the Israeli Defense Force, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained how that smuggling works and what it means.

"You can see how it goes between Iran, northern Sudan, via Egypt. It didn't gradually evolve and develop like the old merchant trail, 'The Silk Route.' It's not something built thousands of years ago. It is something that we believe government officials sat down and decided on. Let me put it this way; in such countries, under such regimes, we don't believe that anything is being done without the permission and knowledge of the local power."

The official, whose assessments are based on his day-to-day experience of combating efforts to supply terror groups in Gaza, said the smuggling of more sophisticated weaponry was facilitated in part by upheaval in North Africa.

"When we are talking about the smuggling of illegal arms into the Gaza Strip" the officer began, "we should focus on a few members of this notorious community; we are talking about Iran, north Sudan, Libya as a state, not a government, and of course, the Sinai Peninsula.  Libya has become a serious problem since the fall of the Gaddafi regime because it is an open black market" he said. "Unlike Iran and Sudan, there is no government behind what is going on there. There were huge stocks of weapons (some of it western), that are now being offered to the one able to pay the highest price. The Palestinians are taking advantage of that. They will send procurements missions to look for specific items there (in Libya), or sometimes they are taking part in open auctions in Sinai to whoever will pay the most for weapons like SSR's, Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, MANPADs etc."

The flow of arms from Iran to specific groups in Gaza has long been a major concern for Israel and others seeking stability in the region. A Western intelligence report highlighted by Reuters back in September, confirmed a long-held Israeli view, saying "Planes are flying from Iran to Syria via Iraq on an almost daily basis, carrying IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) personnel and tens of tons of weapons to arm the Syrian security forces and militias fighting against the rebels.  Iran continues to be the major arms supplier to the Palestinian organisations" the officer said. They have been for quite a few years, every year spending many tens of millions of US dollars. Their main transfer route to the Gaza Strip is via north Sudan and Syria, we believe in cooperation with local governments, or at least with the awareness of such governments. The Iranians have used civilian cargo and civilian flights in order to deliver such shipments even without the knowledge of passengers taking seats on such flights."

Israel believes that some of that weaponry found its way to arm Hizballah in South Lebanon, while some also arrived further down the line in Hamas-controlled Gaza. In September, news of the shipments reportedly prompted then-U.S. Sen. John Kerry to threaten to withdraw aid from Iraq, (where the planes sometimes stop in transit and through whose airspace the flights pass), unless such planes were stopped and searched as a matter of routine.

"These were flights that originated in Tehran and went to Damascus, cargo flights or civilian flights with passengers/tourists flying without knowing that in the belly of the plane there are explosives and other such materials" the Israeli officer said. "Right now there are bans against the Iran Air cargo planes and Mahan Air (which are supposed to be civilian companies).These are restrictions led by the U.S. and Europe."

No sooner had the recent Israel/Hamas conflict ended than Iran publicly pledged to re-arm its Gazan militias. The process had been made more difficult following the much publicised destruction of the Yarmouk factory in Sudan in late-October, blown up by a series of missiles strikes attributed by the Sudanese government to the Israeli air force. Sudanese Information Minister Ahmad Bilal Osman told Al Jazeera the day after the attack, "Israel has accused Sudan of sending arms to Hamas. These allegations are not correct."

Intelligence showed that the factory was being used as an assembly point for Iranian Fajr5 missiles and other weaponry shipped to Sudan and subsequently transported through Egypt's Suez Canal. From there it was smuggled into Gaza through the network of tunnels overseen by the Hamas authorities.

A massive increase in the trafficking of missiles from Sudan to Gaza corresponds with Hosni Mubarak's fall in Egypt, and the subsequent rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, (the parent organization of Hamas), and its leader, Mohammed Morsi.

Palestinian terrorists have obtained Fajr5 rockets, anti-tank and surface-to-surface missiles and rockets that can travel 40 kilometers.

What differentiates this route from others is the quality of arms coming through. It is what we call 'Equilibrium Breaking Arms,' things that are not that common in the area. Only the participation of governments in the armament process can deliver to Sinai. You don't get coastal missiles like we caught on the Victoria in March 2011 by purchasing them on Ebay. It is something that a government planned will come from a particular ship on its way to Egypt, then on through Sinai which is the bottleneck of all smuggling activities in the Gaza Strip."

The interception of the freighter Victoria was one of three high-profile weapons seizures at sea by Israel during the last decade in which more than 450 tons of weapons were seized. Katyusha rockets, thousands of mortars, F-704 anti-ship missiles, two rocket launchers, two British-made radar systems, and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition suitable for AK-47 assault rifles, were just part of the haul. Despite those raids, weapons still get through.

"In 2009 Fajr5 rockets entered the Gaza Strip without us knowing about it. We discovered that later on. There is no 100 percent success in this field of business. We are doing our best to see that we are on any movement of such kind, but yes, of course we are never sure we know everything. We cannot allow coastal missiles to enter the Gaza Strip as then all merchant routes will be under threat. We have gas platforms now on the coast of Israel which could potentially be placed in danger by such missiles."

The discovery in recent years of vast quantities of natural gas off the coast of Israel could prove a huge boon to the Israeli economy over the next generation, but the terminals are viewed as a prime target for terrorist attacks and their security is clearly of paramount importance to the Israeli Defence Force and security services.

The other critical issue that the IDF officer touched on is the huge danger posed to both Israel and Egypt by the lawlessness in the Sinai Peninsula and the plethora of weaponry arriving there, much of it from the now dysfunctional Libya. Stopping those weapons from reaching Gaza has not proven to be a priority for Egypt, either.

"They do not want any part of the Palestinian problem on their shoulders. If they stop the tunnel industry they will have to open more border crossings and let more supplies in, and that they don't want to do. But when it comes to Libyan weapons any group can go there [Sinai] to buy, say, anti-tank missiles or MANPAD's."

Egyptian forces did intercept a consignment of U.S.-made anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles smuggled out of Libya in early January, and another again two weeks later. These came at a time when Morsi was desperately trying to convince the U.S. that its offer of billions of dollars of aid and F16 fighters should be honored despite concerns over Morsi's governance.

Last March, former IDF southern command head Yom Tov Samia went on the record on this issue, stating, "Egypt has been playing the same game since 1967: Whenever they want to be the bad guy, they're bad guys, when they want to be the good guys, they're the good guys. This situation has to come to an end. Egypt cannot continue to play the good and the bad guy whenever it's convenient for them."

Open air auctions of lethal weapons are taking place in Sinai, and whoever comes up with the most cash, whoever they are, takes the goods and walks.

"These weapons are then not under the control or 'political wisdom' of Hamas leaders or PIJ leaders. They might well end up under the control of a small group of Al Qaeda who might decide for themselves that they are now going to shoot at an airplane carrying European tourists travelling into Sharm El Sheik (Sinai resort), or shooting at an airplane landing at Aqaba [Jordan]."

Sinai's increasing instability is a concern far beyond Israel, the source emphasized, and already serves as an open market for arms, raw materials and technology flowing into the Gaza Strip.

"There are more and more contacts between Al Qaeda and the small groups in Sinai. Egypt finds it [Sinai] hard to police after years of neglect. As far I know there are a quarter of a million Bedouins that were never governed, that were, and still are discriminated against by local authorities...and they have lately become more and more religious. If at the beginning we saw these tribes supporting terror cells for the sake of money, now we see it becoming more an ideological support, and we see more and more cases that these groups of Al Qaeda-influenced extreme Jihadists are becoming more powerful than the tribes."

"The attack of August 5 that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers has brought home [to Egypt] that the threat is not only against those who don't follow Allah, but also against less religious Muslims."

This unique insight from someone so closely associated with trying to stop lethal weapons from reaching the hands of radical Islamists in the Sinai, paints a picture of a worrying broadening of the disparate groups and the massive danger that weapons from Iran and the barely functioning new Libya pose to the security of Israel and to Arab nations who don't currently espouse wholly radical Islamist views.

"I believe that most people do not understand the threat to targets other than Israel by the open markets of weapons in the Middle East" the intelligence officer concluded. "I don't think that an American, European, or British customer understands the connection between Libyan black markets and his holiday destination in Aqaba or Sharm El Sheik."
Then a final parting thought, (delivered with absolute certainty), and a wake-up call to those who believe that the reach of Islamic terror will not encroach on their daily life the way it does in other parts of the world.

"If they think this is just Israel's problem, or just a Middle East problem, it is not."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 18, 2013, 11:34:58 AM

Caught the final portion of an interview with some Israeli general on the Huckabee show last night.  Huckabee did his part well and set up things nicely for the general who graciously pointed out that maybe now that the first term of the Obama administration had revealed to them that the middle east was other than they thought (saying without saying that we have been run out of Iraq, are being run out of Afpakia, Libya, and stand irrelevant with Syria, Egypt, etc that maybe they will be ready to realize that only Israel is a true friend, and a true and highly capable ally in the region.  He seemed to hold real hope for good things coming out of Baraq's impending maiden voyage to Israel.

Title: The Truth about Hamas' Smuggling Tunnels
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2013, 08:06:31 AM

The Truth About Hamas' Smuggling Tunnels
by Paul Alster
Special to IPT News
February 15, 2013
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3915/the-truth-about-hamas-smuggling-tunnels

 
The general narrative of the situation in Hamas-controlled Gaza is of a people under siege, deprived of everyday goods, whose only means of receiving sufficient supplies is through the network of tunnels that bring a wide range of essential items from Egypt.
In fact, Israel delivers an average of 300 truckloads of goods each day through official crossing points to the Gaza Strip, basic supplies that provide steady, if unspectacular amounts of necessary items to the 1.6 million inhabitants of the Hamas-controlled enclave. The majority of everyday commodities as well as luxury items and, most significantly of all, drugs, explosives, and military hardware, come through the tunnels. They are run by a band including multi-millionaire Gazan businessmen often making vast amounts of money, and critically, paying taxes/bribes to Hamas to allow free passage of all goods.
A senior Israeli Defense Force officer, speaking exclusively to the Investigative Project on Terrorism on condition of anonymity, explained why that continues.
"Why don't Hamas pressure Israel to open more crossing points?" the officer asked. "The only crossing they insist that is open is Rafah, [the border between Gaza and Egypt], because that is a sign of sovereignty and is an international border crossing point between two countries. We are willing to transfer more goods at Nitzan crossing and Kerem Shalom crossing, but that is something they [Hamas] are not encouraging."
If goods flowed more freely into Gaza there would be no need for the tunnels. So it is in Hamas' interest to paint a picture suggesting a "population under siege" that would suffer without the tunnels bringing in food and goods. It's a story non-governmental agencies lap up and repeat throughout the world in their solicitations. The import of illegal weapons and contraband is rarely mentioned in that narrative.
Last summer, 16 Egyptian border policemen were killed by Islamist terrorists based in Sinai who later managed to breach the Israeli border before being overwhelmed by a combination of Israeli Air Force and army units. This attack, understood to have included weapons that originated from the Libyan conflict of the previous year, was a wake-up call to Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood government. Although it is Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood may recognize that it, too, is now a potential target for the weapons smuggled through Gaza's tunnels, some of which have been acquired by Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists now moving with impunity throughout the Sinai Peninsula's Bedouin tribes. These fanatical terror cells seek nothing less than achieving the introduction of strict Islamic law in Egypt, Africa's most populous Muslim nation.
That might explain a recent crackdown on the tunnels from a somewhat surprising source; Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, expected by most Gazans to offer them significant support, but who now appears shaken by the growing threat from Sinai and other major factors as he struggles to cling on to power.
On Monday, the Times of Israel reported that Egyptian security forces had surprised border smugglers around the Rafah crossing by deliberately pumping water into tunnels, flooding them and making them vulnerable to collapse.
This could be the first real indication that Egypt is responding to international pressure, Gaza-based political analyst Mkhaimar Abu Sada told the IPT.
"It is true that the U.S. Congress is not happy with the situation happening between Egypt and Gaza," Abu Sada said, "and members of the U.S. Congress have been asking Egyptian secret services to take much more decisive measures to block the smuggling of weapons and explosives from Sinai to Gaza, and also to put an end to the tunnel business between Gaza and Israel. The Egyptian government will have no other choice but to do something to please the US and the international community, because at the end of the day if Egypt doesn't take decisive measures it will lose some of the international funding from the US and the Europeans."
Many tunnel operators are getting worried.
"I know for a fact that the Egyptians have been making it harder for the Palestinians to smuggle over the past two weeks" Abu Sada said. "It seems to me that the Egyptian authorities are trying to tell Gazans that commodities that are allowed to enter the strip from Israel must not be smuggled from Egypt into Gaza. They are only allowing commodities that are prohibited by the Israelis to come from Egypt to the Strip."
If Israel unilaterally decided to double or triple the number of goods going into Gaza it would completely undermine large sections of the illegal tunnel economy. That, however, could prompt Hamas to renew its rocket fire into Israel that has been on hold since the end of the November's "Pillar of Defense" campaign. In short, Israel is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't act on any increased in the transfer of goods to Gaza.
"If Israel increased the number of trucks entering the Gaza Strip on a daily basis that would deprive Hamas and its government of collecting taxes and customs payments that are coming through the tunnels," Abu Sada explained. "The price the Palestinians in Gaza are paying for cigarettes and fuel is much, much cheaper than the price they used to pay when these came from Israel. For example, the price of gas [in Gaza] is currently one-third of what Palestinians in the Fatah-controlled West Bank are paying, and cigarettes are half of what Palestinians in the West Bank are paying."
The tunnels generate $188 million in tax revenues on things like cigarettes and gas and building materials, Egyptian journalist Sarah A Topol wrote in the Bloomberg Business Weekly on Jan. 31. But "the smugglers say their importance is waning: Access to Israeli goods is improving, and the Gazan government has begun regulating [taxing] the tunnels, sapping profits."
So, while the tunnels are essential for transporting illegal arms and materials into Gaza ready to wage war against Israel, they are also critical in maintaining the goodwill of poor Gazans by providing them with cut-price commodities, even with surcharges added by Hamas officials.
"At the end of the day it is not only food and commodities that are entering the Gaza Strip, so it will be very difficult to close down the tunnels completely. These taxes and levies are essential to the economy of the Hamas government and will never be readily relinquished," Abu Sada said.
Israeli officials have different views as to why Egypt doesn't fully open its border with Gaza and allow free movement of goods. The IDF officer, speaking to the IPT in late-January, suggested that the Egyptians simply want to keep the whole Gaza situation at arms' length, rather than take control of the issue.
"The problem is that maybe then they would have to pay more attention, pay out more money, and take responsibility for the Gaza Strip if they prevent goods, people and other supplies going through tunnels. That is something they are not willing to do," he said. "They have determined that we, Israel, must do that. They do not want any part of the Palestinian problem on their shoulders. If they stop the tunnel industry they will have to open more border crossings and let more supplies in, and that they don't want to do."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Paul Hirschson suggested that the idea that the tunnels were kept open for tax collection doesn't necessarily make sense. "Hamas runs the Gaza Strip," he said. "They could quite easily impose a tax system on goods coming across the border with Egypt. If Hamas were to get a deal with the Egyptians to pass goods on top of the border rather than under it, they could tax the goods as much as they want. But there are things going through the tunnels that wouldn't be allowed by the Egyptians anyway, such as drugs trafficking, human trafficking, and of course, arms trafficking."
Gerald Steinberg, president of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor and a professor of political studies at Israel's Bar Ilan University is the author of 'NGOs, Human Rights, and Political Warfare in the Arab-Israel Conflict.' Steinberg has no doubt as to what is behind Hamas' tunnel strategy.
"The Hamas leadership thrives on conflict and of portraying the situation in Gaza as one of Palestinian suffering. It is created for the Palestinian leadership by playing the victim card strongly and has been assisted in that by the NGO network and by the UN human rights frameworks all working together. They will always exaggerate claims that they cannot import basic materials, while at the same time seeking to downplay changes that will actually benefit the population. There is always a careful play off that Hamas does between allowing materials in [to Gaza] and playing the victim card."
Steinberg characterizes the on-the-ground situation in Gaza in relation to the NGO's as one of dangerous and often willful misinformation by organizations funded, in particular, by pro-Palestinian European governments. The suggestion is that these groups have become politicized and are prepared to turn a blind eye to the highly incendiary issue of illegal weapons trafficking into Gaza in order to further their own agendas in support of their view of the downtrodden local population.
Steinberg also feels that Israel has been guilty of being embarrassingly slow in presenting its case to the international community. "Part of the problem is the Israeli government's incompetence in countering these allegations issued by a powerful propaganda machine. The reason our organization exists is because there was no counterpoint. The Israeli leadership, until the last year or two, didn't understand that this was a major threat to national security. This isolation and boycott process was as powerful as a military process."
Anat Kurz, research director at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, agrees with Steinberg's view that NGOs are misrepresenting the situation in Gaza and are allowing themselves to be misled by Hamas.
"I think it sounds quite logical" she told the IPT. "I think Hamas is treading a fine line, because if Egypt resorts to harsher measures with regard to the tunnels there will be greater or more vocal calls from the Strip by the people to allow the transfer of goods for daily use. Hamas will have to be more attentive to such calls. It depends on the systemic dynamic between Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, what's going on in the Sinai Peninsula, and of course, Israel. There might be a change in light of developments on the ground."
Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist with a special interest in Israeli/Palestinian relations and Middle East politics. He is a regular contributor to FoxNews.com and the Times of Israel, and blogs at www.paulalster.com

Title: Obama to receive award from Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on February 19, 2013, 09:01:32 AM

Israel to award Obama prestigious Presidential Medal of Distinction

Posted by Robert Spencer - 2-19-2013 at www.jihadwatch.org

This is about as meaningful as his Nobel Prize. Pamela Geller nails it, calling it the "Please-Don't-Hurt-Us Award" and noting: "It's an interesting strategy. I am sure Israel's top psychiatrists thought this one up. Feed the narcissist. Perhaps he'll do less harm. What are they calling it? The Hagel? The Brennan? Or the Mursi? Or the Romney Walk-back?"

"Israel to award Obama prestigious medal in visit," from the Associated Press, February 18 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

JERUSALEM – Israel will award President Barack Obama the country's Presidential Medal of Distinction during his upcoming visit.
Israeli President Shimon Peres' office said Monday that Obama will be recognized for his "unique and significant contribution to strengthening the State of Israel and the security of its citizens."

Huh?

Obama is scheduled to visit Israel in March -- his first as president.
Obama has often had a tense relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Jewish state's West Bank settlement policies and the lack of peace process with the Palestinians.

But Peres and the committee behind the award noted Obama's overall friendship and backing of the Iron Dome missile defense system.

Israel's Presidential Medal of Distinction is comparable to the France's "Legion of Honor" or the "Order of Canada."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2013, 09:04:06 AM

What do you make of my post #1753?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on February 19, 2013, 09:16:02 AM

Crafty,

I think the General's hope is nothing but a pipe dream.  Obama has many Muslim Brotherhood operatives in his administration, he is sympathetic to Islam, and his actions to date have proven that he is not simply naive or misinformed, but pursuing a deliberate strategy of putting distance between Israel and his administration.  Franky, I think Obama would be just fine with the idea of Israel being wiped off the map by Iran with nuclear weapons, though he will never publicly say so.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2013, 12:57:41 PM

Well, it's not like you are without evidence, indeed I will add presumed next SecDef Hagel to your list.

Title: Israel arm twisted into apologizing to Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2013, 10:12:22 AM

Next Steps After Israel's Flotilla Apology
March 22, 2013 | 1943 GMT

Summary

The seemingly rushed circumstances in which the United States secured an Israeli apology to Turkey and the Turkish government's restrained response raises questions about how far Turkey intends to carry its purported renewal of diplomatic ties with Israel.
 
Analysis
 
Multiple reports have appeared saying that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has apologized to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in 2010 and that Israel has agreed to pay compensation for the families of the victims. The apology reportedly happened on a phone call between the two leaders that was originally initiated by U.S. President Barack Obama.
 
It first became clear that something was developing when Israeli media reported that Obama and Netanyahu held much longer talks than expected on the morning of March 22; Obama was very late for his scheduled visit to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. When Obama arrived back at Ben Gurion Airport to board Air Force One for a trip to Jordan, Israeli President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu and Obama held an unexpected lunch meeting at the airport, during which Obama reportedly initiated a call between Erdogan and Netanyahu. A few minutes before Obama boarded Air Force One to depart for Amman, the White House released a short statement that said Obama "welcomed the call between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Prime Minister Erdogan" and that he hoped it would be the beginning of "deeper cooperation" on regional peace and security.
 
The prime minister's office in Israel then released a statement that said Netanyahu had apologized to Erdogan for the flotilla incident and that he had agreed to compensate the families of the victims. It also said that the two men had agreed to "restore normalization between Israel and Turkey, including the dispatch of ambassadors and the cancellation of legal steps against Israeli soldiers."
 
Notably, this statement, quoted by both Middle Eastern news site Independent Media Review Analysis and the Wall Street Journal, differs from what the Israeli Foreign Ministry posted on its website in English as Netanyahu's official statement. In that version of the statement, the line on the exchange of ambassadors and cancellation of legal steps against Israel Defense Forces soldiers was omitted. The Israeli Foreign Ministry website in Hebrew so far does not contain any statement on the apology.
 
The prime minister's office in Turkey also released a statement, though it was far more measured. According to Hurriyet, Erdogan's statement merely stated that Erdogan has accepted Netanyahu's apology and that some restrictive measures aimed at the Gaza Strip would be lifted today and remain lifted as long as the situation there remained stable.
 
Besides these official statements, various reports in the media are attempting to shape the story according to their interests. Turkish state-owned Anatolia news agency claimed that "Israel's embargo of Gaza has been lifted," implying that Erdogan's demands on the embargo were fulfilled. Meanwhile, Israeli media organizations are claiming Erdogan had asked Netanyahu to lift the Gaza blockade but that Netanyahu refused. So far, there are no tangible indications that Israel has lifted restrictions to Gaza border crossings. In fact, Israel actually closed the Kerem Shalom crossing with Gaza and partially closed the Erez crossing after rockets landed in Israel on March 21; new Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said those crossings would remain closed until security considerations were addressed.
 
It is unclear how much coordination among Israel, Turkey and the United States took place prior to the apology announcement. The content and manner in which the statements rolled out did not give the impression that this was a carefully crafted diplomatic unveiling in which each side had their statements prepared in advance. There were factions in both the Israeli and Turkish government pushing for a diplomatic mending of relations but little indication that a breakthrough was imminent. Embattled former Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was one of the biggest obstacles on the Israeli side while Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was the major block on the Turkish side. Davutoglu preferred instead to capitalize on Turkey's hostile relationship with Israel as a way to boost the country's credibility in the Islamic world. If cooperation needed to take place between the two countries on a strategic or tactical level, it could be done quietly.
 
This may explain why the Turkish response to the apology appears to be both reactive and restrained. Turkey likely has limits on how far it wants to go with this diplomatic warming of relations in order to protect its image in the region as willing to stand up to Israel. At the same time, Erdogan will likely use this apology to show that Turkey can get results by maintaining a firm stance. Even when Erdogan made a statement to a Danish newspaper March 20 to clarify his earlier controversial comment that likened Zionism to a crime against humanity, he said he stood by his earlier statement, even if it was misunderstood, and would continue criticizing Israeli policies, especially over Gaza and the settlements. It remains to be seen what the United States will do for both Turkey and Israel to move their relationship forward, but Turkey will likely need further convincing if a more meaningful rapprochement is to take place.
.

Read more: Next Steps After Israel's Flotilla Apology | Stratfor

Title: A less awkward embrace
Post by: bigdog on March 24, 2013, 04:55:05 AM

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21574016-america-and-israel-get-closer-joint-strategy-towards-iran-during-barack?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/letstryalessawkwardembrace

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: bigdog on March 25, 2013, 04:07:34 AM

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130324/DEFREG02/303240005/U-S-Israel-Negotiate-Military-Aid-Extension?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

From the article:

The pending 10-year military aid package would commit Washington to provide up to $40 billion in additional Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel, sources here say. It would automatically kick in at the conclusion of the current 10-year, $30 billion agreement signed in 2007 under President George W. Bush and would bind Obama’s successor to continued military aid to Israel.

...

“As part of our long-term commitment to Israel’s security, the prime minister and I agreed to begin discussions on extending military assistance. Our current agreement lasts through 2017, and we’ve directed our teams to start working on extending it for the years beyond,” Obama said.

Obama’s unusually early authorization of negotiations for a follow-on aid package is one of the many confidence-building, security-enhancing measures aimed at “encouraging the Israeli government to take those risky, yet necessary steps toward peace,” a U.S. source here said.

Title: Stratfor: Israel's Cynicism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2013, 09:51:17 AM

Israel's Insightful Cynicism
By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst
Israel is in the process of watching a peace treaty unravel. I don't mean the one with Egypt, but the one with Syria. No, I'm not crazy. Since Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy in 1974, the Israelis have had a de facto peace agreement of sorts with the al Assad family. After all, there were clear red lines that both sides knew they shouldn't cross, as well as reasonable predictability on both sides. Forget about the uplifting rhetoric, the requirement to exchange ambassadors and the other public policy frills that normally define peace treaties. What counts in this case is that both sides observed limits and constraints, so that the contested border between them was secure. Even better, because there was no formal peace agreement in writing, neither side had to make inconvenient public and strategic concessions. Israel did not have to give up the Golan Heights, for example. And if Syria stepped over a red line in Lebanon, or say, sought a nuclear capacity as it did, Israel was free to punish it through targeted military strikes. There was usefully no peace treaty that Israel would have had to violate.         
Of course, the Syrians built up a chemical arsenal and invited the Iranians all over their country and Lebanon. But no formal treaty in the real world -- given the nature of the Syrian regime -- would likely have prevented those things. In an imperfect world of naked power, the al Assads were at least tolerable. Moreover, they represented a minority sect, which prevented Syria from becoming a larger and much more powerful version of radical, Sunni Arab Gaza. In February 1993 in The Atlantic Monthly, I told readers that Syria was not a state but a writhing underworld of sectarian and ethnic divides and that the al Assads might exit the stage through an Alawite mini-state in the northwest of their country that could be quietly supported by the Israeli security services. That may yet come to pass.
         
Israeli political leaders may periodically tell the media that Bashar al Assad's days are numbered, but that does not necessarily mean Israelis themselves believe that is an altogether good scenario. Indeed, I strongly suspect that, for example, when the Israelis and the Russians meet, they have much in common regarding Syria. Russia is supporting the al Assad regime through arms transfers by sea and through Iraq and Iran. Israelis may see some benefits in this. Russian President Vladimir Putin may actually enjoy his meetings with Israelis -- who likely don't lecture him about human rights and the evils of the al Assad regime the way the Americans do.
         
True, a post-al Assad Syria may undermine Iranian influence in the Levant, which would be a great benefit to Israel, as well as to the United States. On the other hand, a post-al Assad Syria will probably be an anarchic mess in which the Iranians will skillfully back proxy guerrilla groups and still be able to move weapons around. Again, al Assad is the devil you know. And the fact that he is no longer, functionally speaking, the president of Syria but, rather, the country's leading warlord, presents challenges that Israelis would prefer not to face.
         
What about Hezbollah, in this admittedly cynical Israeli view? Hezbollah is not a strategic threat to Israel. Hezbollah fighters are not about to march en masse over the border into Haifa and Tiberias. Anti-missile systems like Iron Dome and David's Sling could reasonably contain the military threat from the north. Then there are Israel's bomb shelters -- a one-time only expense. Hezbollah, moreover, needs Israel. For without a powerful Israel, Hezbollah would be robbed of the existential adversary that provides Hezbollah with its immense prestige in the Lebanese political universe, making Hezbollah so much more than just another Shiite group battling Sunnis.
 
Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006 is known as a disaster. But it did have its positive side effects: Israel has had seven years of relative peace on its northern border, even as the war usefully exposed many inadequacies in the Israeli military and reserve system that had been building for years and were henceforth decisively repaired, making Israel stronger as a consequence.
 
Threats abound, truly. The collapse of the al Assad regime may lead to a weapons free-for-all -- just like in post-Gadhafi Libya -- that might force Israel to "mow the lawn" again in southern Lebanon. As for Hassan Nasrallah, the charismatic and capable Hezbollah leader, maybe he, too, is the devil you know, informally obeying red lines with Israel since 2006. Nasrallah appears to be less extreme than his deputy, Naim Qassim, who would take over if Nasrallah were ever assassinated by the Israelis, unless the Sunnis in a Lebanon and Syria thrown into utter, post-al Assad chaos assassinate him sooner.
         
Then there is Gaza: once again, like southern Lebanon, "mow the lawn" once or twice a decade, though this might be harder in a post-Arab Spring geopolitical environment because of the greater danger of unhinging Israeli-Egyptian relations. Still, in Gaza there is no existential threat, nor a real solution, regardless of what the diplomats say. Idealists in the West talk about peace; realists inside Israel talk about spacing out limited wars by enough years so that Israeli society can continue to thrive in the meantime. As one highly placed Israeli security analyst explained to me, the East Coast of the United States and the Caribbean have periodic hurricanes. After each one, people rebuild, even as they are aware that a decade or so down the road there will be another hurricane. Israel's wars are like that, he said.
         
Presently a real underlying worry for Israel appears to be Jordan. Yes, King Abdullah has so far expertly manipulated the growing unrest there, but to speculate about the collapse of the Hashemite dynasty is only prudent. More anarchy. More reason to heed Ariel Sharon's analysis of four decades ago to the effect that Jordan is the real Palestinian state, more so than the West Bank. And because Jordan and Saudi Arabia could conceivably unravel in coming decades, maybe Israel should seek to avoid attacking Iran -- which along with Israel is the only real state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Plateau. Iran may have a repulsive regime, but its society is probably healthier than most in the Arab world. So there is some hope.
         
You get the picture. Israel had a convenient situation for decades, surrounded as it was by stable Arab dictatorships. Israel could promote itself as the region's only real democracy, even as it quietly depended on the likes of Hosni Mubarak, the al Assad clan and the Hashemites to ensure order and more-or-less few surprises. Now dictators are falling and anarchy is on the rise. Fighting state armies of the kind that the Arab dictators built in wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 was simpler compared totoday's wars: Because the Arabs never really believed in their dysfunctional states, they didn't always fight very well in state-organized formations. But sub-state militaries like Hezbollah and Hamas have been more of a challenge. In the old days, Israel could destroy an Egyptian air force on the ground and solve its security dilemma in the south. Nowadays, to repeat, there are no solutions for Israel: only sub-state adversaries that hide among civilian concentrations in order to attack your own civilian concentrations. No peace ever, therefore, just periodic wars, hopefully spaced-out.
       
The Middle East today has turned out perfectly if you are a Jewish West Bank settler. The divisions within Palestinian ranks, coupled with the increasing anarchy of the Arab world, mean the opportunities for territorial concessions on Israel's part have diminished. In fact, Israel's only option may be more unilateral withdrawals. That is probably the only thing the settlers have to worry about.
       
But the Zionist dream lives on. Jerusalem and much of the rest of Israel are thriving. Light rail and pedestrian walkways make Jerusalem more vibrant than ever. The Arabs in the Old City survive well -- under the circumstances, that is -- on the "Jewish" side of the "fence," where the standard of living and quality of life is so much better than on the Arab side. The "fence" is both a monstrosity in abstract moralistic terms and a practical solution in an age of repeated diplomatic failure and fewer and fewer diplomatic opportunities. From 28 percent of the gross domestic product in the mid-1970s, Israeli military spending is down to between 6 and 8 percent of the country's GDP. Life is good in Israel. The unemployment rate is lower than in the United States and Europe, despite high housing costs and the need for reform in health care and education. One could argue that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- so vilified in the West -- has not handled the economy altogether badly.
         
But what about idealism? What about a better, more humane Middle East? What about the wise and talented statesmen who periodically see opportunities where others see none? What about slowing down Israel's drift to a quasi-Apartheid society, characterized by Israeli domination of the more numerous Arabs and something certainly not in Israel's interest? These are all real things to constantly keep in mind and to struggle for. But the Levant remains a zero-sum struggle for physical survival. So it is a place where there will always be benefits to dealing with strong dictators. Given their geographical circumstances, Israelis can be forgiven their cynicism.

Title: Israeli Nat. Gas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2013, 03:39:18 AM

The Limited Geopolitical Clout of Israeli Natural Gas
 

April 2, 2013 | 1000 GMT
Summary


The start of natural gas production at a recently discovered field has raised hopes of energy independence in Israel, but few effects of the newfound resources will be felt outside Israeli borders. On March 30, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that natural gas had begun flowing to Israel from Tamar, a field located roughly 90 kilometers (50 miles) off Israel's northern coast. Exactly how much natural gas is being pumped from Tamar is unclear. But if projections are realized, the Tamar field could make Israeli access to energy more secure and stable than at any other point in the country's modern history.
 
The Israeli Energy and Water Resources Ministry estimates that Tamar could meet between 50 percent and 80 percent of the country's natural gas needs over the next decade. The field may also allow Israel to incentivize additional domestic energy production and reduce the country's use of coal and fuel oil in sectors where demand overlaps with natural gas, such as power generation. However, Israel's ability to leverage its energy assets to affect the policies of neighboring countries or resolve the myriad challenges it faces on its borders will be constrained by the region's enduring geopolitical realities.
 


Analysis
 
Israel estimates that its annual consumption of natural gas will increase to 8.5 billion cubic meters in 2013 and continue to rise for the foreseeable future. In recent years, the country has depended on two major sources of natural gas: In 2005, a deal was brokered through the East Mediterranean Gas Company, an Egyptian-Israeli natural gas consortium, for Egypt to supply Israel with approximately 40 percent of its natural gas needs for the next 20 years, or roughly 1.7 billion cubic meters per year. (The agreement was later increased to 2.1 billion cubic meters per year).
 
But Israel's energy partnership with Egypt has been beset with problems. Egypt, a net exporter of natural gas facing its own problems with rising domestic demand, reportedly negotiated a rate increase in 2008, and since the onset of the Arab Spring in 2011, the subsequent strain on Egyptian-Israeli relations has curtailed Israeli imports from Egypt. Moreover, militants in the Sinai Peninsula have frequently targeted the natural gas pipeline that connects the two countries, occasionally shutting down flows for weeks at a time. In April 2012, Egypt's state-owned natural gas company announced that it would pull out of the 2005 agreement, and the Israel Electric Corporation formally followed suit on March 25.
 
Tamar's Promise
 
For the remaining 60 percent of its natural gas needs, Israel has relied on production from Mari B, a domestic reservoir in the Yam Tethys field located off the coast of Ashdod. Mari B's reserves, however, have depleted faster than expected. In response, Israel in recent months has turned to stopgap measures such as expediting production at smaller natural gas fields nearby, including Noa and Pinnacle. The country has also increased its use of diesel and fuel oil for electricity production.
 








VIDEO: Energy Security in the Eastern Mediterranean (Agenda)
.In 2012, the state-owned Israel Natural Gas Lines Ltd. built a $134 million floating liquefied natural gas import terminal. Israel received its first shipment of liquefied natural gas from BP in January 2013, reportedly sourced from Trinidad, and the government hopes that as much as 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas will arrive at the terminal each year. The project was not intended to become a primary source of natural gas for Israel, but rather to bolster Israeli energy security by making the country less dependent on its pipeline. For Israel, imported liquefied natural gas is expected to cost three to four times as much as natural gas from Tamar.
 
With an estimated 246 billion cubic meters of natural gas reserves, Tamar will be particularly important to Israeli energy security, especially considering the unclear future of relations with Egypt and the inevitable depletion of Israel's natural gas fields. Still, the benefits of developing Tamar will not be felt immediately in Israel. Despite the field's initiation, electricity prices will increase by some 6.5 percent in May, and Israeli Energy Minister Silvan Shalom said on March 31 that additional increases could follow. But over the long term, production at Tamar will serve as a stable source of natural gas fully under Israeli control, and it will thus promote Israeli energy independence.
 
Export Obstacles
 
The Israeli government has yet to articulate a clear vision for exporting the reserves at Tamar -- and at Leviathan, an even larger offshore field discovered in June 2010. In 2012, the Tzemach committee, a task force commissioned by the government to review Israel's natural gas export policy, recommended that 53 percent of the country's reserves be made available for export. But this figure was based on an assumption that future discoveries would increase Israel's total reserves to around 950 billion cubic meters and that 450 billion cubic meters of natural gas would be needed to cover domestic consumption over the next 25 years. Opposition elements in the Israeli government have called for a reassessment of the committee's recommendations, asserting that the group underestimated Israeli natural gas consumption. Disappointing results from exploratory drilling at the Mira, Sara and Shimshon sites have cast further doubt on the recommendations.
 
The committee's findings have yet to be adopted, though Israel's new government is rumored to be favoring them. Proponents of exporting natural gas argue that doing so would encourage foreign investment in Israel. Perhaps more beneficial, the country could also use its newfound resources to attempt to cement strategic relationships with countries such Turkey and Jordan.
 
However, there would also be advantages to prioritizing domestic energy needs. By reserving its strategic supplies of natural gas for use at home, Israel might be able to keep consumer prices low and guarantee access to the resource. This, in turn, would make it easier for industry and household consumers to shift to natural gas and away from other energy sources. In 2011, according to the Israel Electric Corporation, roughly two-thirds of Israeli electricity was produced with coal and refined petroleum products, while natural gas provided the rest. Directing most of the reserves to the domestic market could also allow Israel to lower its import bills and reduce the country's strategic energy vulnerabilities.
 






.
 Moreover, Israel must overcome myriad technical and geopolitical hurdles before exporting natural gas from Tamar and Leviathan is even possible. The easiest way for Israel to sell the resource abroad would be to build a pipeline running along the coasts of Lebanon and Syria and eventually reaching Turkey. But Lebanon and Syria are openly hostile to the idea. Even if they agreed, neither country has a government stable enough to secure such a project in perpetuity. Syria is engulfed in conflict, and violence from the civil war has been spilling across the border into Lebanon more frequently.
 
In 2010, Israel signed an agreement with Cyprus recognizing the island's claims to certain natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean -- a deal that raised the possibility of future energy cooperation between the two countries. But Cyprus' major economic and political issues would limit its ability to build the technically advanced infrastructure needed in such a partnership. Meanwhile, geographic, technical and political issues would undermine energy cooperation between Israel and Turkey. Even Jordan, a country whose own serious energy issues could be mollified somewhat by importing Israeli natural gas, would be hesitant to cooperate openly with Israel due to domestic political concerns.
 
The launch of natural gas production at Tamar is still welcome news for Israel and will likely make the country less dependent on neighboring countries and foreign partners for energy. The field will have a positive effect on Israel's economy and, considering the mounting challenges facing the country, will lessen one area of concern for the Israelis. But the tangible effects of production at Tamar on the broader region will be subtle at best. Israel's estimated reserves are relatively small compared to other natural gas fields in the region. The region's pervasive political instability will hamper Israel's ability to navigate the major infrastructural and political obstacles that prevent it from exporting natural gas. And the type of development needed to make fields such as Tamar relevant outside Israel's domestic market is unlikely, thus blunting Tamar's possible geopolitical impact.
.

Read more: The Limited Geopolitical Clout of Israeli Natural Gas | Stratfor

Title: POTH: Even the UN gets PO'd in Gaza, suspends charity work
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 06, 2013, 06:45:27 AM

JERUSALEM — The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has indefinitely suspended food distribution in the Gaza Strip after protesters angry over the cancellation of a cash assistance program for the poor stormed the agency’s main compound in Gaza City on Thursday, an official said Friday.
 

“There will be no food tomorrow,” said Adnan Abu Hasna, a spokesman for the agency, which provides nutrition, education, health and other services to 815,000 Palestinians who are refugees and their descendants, nearly half of Gaza’s population. “The food distribution centers and the relief offices will be closed in the coming days unless there’s a real security being provided to the life of our staff, because there is a great concern about their safety.”

The agency provides three-month rations of flour, oil, sugar, rice and other staples to about 25,000 people a day through scores of centers scattered throughout Gaza’s refugee camps. Though the centers and the relief offices that provide psychological and other support are shut, the 246 schools and 21 health clinics that the United Nations runs in Gaza will operate as usual.

Ismail Haniya, the Hamas prime minister of Gaza, told reporters Friday that his government would pursue “urgent and quick talks” with the agency in hopes of restoring the food distribution and other services “in a state of security and stability.”

But Abu Ahmad al-Massri, 42, a father of seven who lives in the Beach refugee camp in Gaza City and participated in the demonstration Thursday, said he would continue to protest the ending of the cash program. A former clothes manufacturer, Mr. Massri is unemployed and said he had been relying on the grants since 2004. He said his aid had been reduced over the years to about $80 every three months from $250.

“They want to make reductions, they should reduce the costs they spend for their bodyguards,” Mr. Massri said of the agency. “I am ready to die in defending the food of my family. If I lost one of my kids it’s easier for me than losing my food.”

The violent protest Thursday followed days of smaller demonstrations after a decision Monday to cancel the cash program, which has provided 21,000 families, totaling 100,000 people, with about $4 million in direct aid per year — $10 per person every three months. The agency said that the program had been ended because of a $67 million deficit and that the agency had offered recipients three-month jobs instead. Though the jobs pay double the cash grants, refugees are concerned that they will not last.

After several smaller protests at offices of the agency throughout the week, about 100 people joined a demonstration Thursday organized by the Palestine Liberation Organization’s committee for refugees. They carried signs and banners, including one that read, “Don’t deprive our children of their rights in life.” After some of the refugees broke into the compound, the police eventually dispersed the demonstrators.

“They have the right to demonstrate peacefully and to protest any decision,” said Mr. Abu Hasna, the agency spokesman. “But to reach that level is really unacceptable. They jumped over the walls. They stormed the gates. They began to scream and to threaten, also. What happened yesterday is crossing all the red lines.”

In a statement, the P.L.O. refugee committee blamed the agency for the protest. “What happened yesterday was a result of a state of anger and boiling in the refugees,” it said, adding that the agency “has neglected our warnings.”

Though unrelated, the protests over the elimination of the cash assistance came amid days of unrest in Gaza and the West Bank over a Palestinian prisoner who died of cancer in Israeli custody, and the killing by Israeli soldiers Wednesday night of two teenagers who approached an army post during a demonstration.

Israeli and Palestinian security forces were on high alert Friday for protests after the noon prayers, and access to Al Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City was limited to women and men over 50 to prevent clashes that have become routine there in recent months.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli military said one Palestinian was injured in the northern Gaza Strip on Friday evening when Israeli soldiers, after firing warning shots, fired at a group of stone throwers approaching the border fence. Another Palestinian was hurt by a rubber-coated bullet fired by soldiers near the West Bank Jewish settlement of Beit El, the spokeswoman said, and an Israeli soldier was lightly wounded by rocks near Beit Laqia earlier in the day.


Fares Akram contributed reporting from the Gaza Strip.

Title: WSJ: access road to new Palestinian city
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2013, 10:22:19 AM

RAWABI, West Bank—A project to build what would be the first modern Palestinian city here has stumbled over an issue that has become an enduring obstacle to efforts to boost the territory's economy: access to Israeli-controlled lands that surround it.
 
Cranes with Palestinian flags mark the massive construction site at Rawabi, 5½ miles north of Ramallah, where truck drivers navigate rows of midrise buildings and prospective homeowners use iPads to select apartments. Some 3,000 people are at work on the city, and the first residents are expected to move in within a year. Rawabi, on a hilltop with a view to the Mediterranean, is slated to have a population of 40,000, its own schools, shopping mall, mosques and an office complex.
 
But developers said the city, which investors say will cost $1 billion to build, is in jeopardy because of Israel's refusal to authorize a permanent access road for construction crews and residents to cross to Rawabi through Israeli-held territory.



.

Investors want Israel to allow construction of the permanent road, and to let the Palestinians control it. Israel's government, under pressure from Jewish settlers on surrounding land, has demurred.

The impasse highlights one of the challenges facing Secretary of State John Kerry as the U.S. weighs an initiative to boost the sagging Palestinian economy to help restart peace negotiations: getting Israel to relinquish control over West Bank lands to allow for Palestinian economic expansion.

"It's stuck in politics,'' said Bashar Masri, the Palestinian entrepreneur whose investment firm, Masar International, is backing Rawabi along with Qatari Diar, the real-estate arm of Qatar's sovereign-wealth fund. "If we slow down, we'll lose most of those jobs. If we get access approval, we can add 3,000 jobs."

Israeli considers the temporary access road currently in use sufficient for now, said an Israeli official. "Israel has taken steps to support the Palestinian economy, but transferring land to Palestinian control is a political issue," the official said. "I assume that when we see progress [on peace talks] we will see movement on the building of the road to Rawabi as well."
 
In recent years, Israel loosened the reins on the Palestinian economy by removing military checkpoints and giving Palestinians more permits to work in Israel.

Now the U.S. is focusing on helping Palestinians find a way to push ahead with building projects, many of which are still on paper because they are slated for West Bank territory off limits to Palestinians, said a Western official familiar with the diplomacy. Mr. Kerry said at the end of a visit to the region on April 9 that he wanted to "move rapidly toward increased business expansion" in the West Bank.
 
Allowing Palestinians to develop lands under Israeli control would enable the expansion of agriculture, telecommunications and energy networks and the development of new tourist attractions, the World Bank said in a 2012 report.
 
In the 1990s, Israel and the Palestinians divided the West Bank into three zones: Areas A and B were Palestinian cities and villages, where they were granted self-rule. Area C comprised Jewish settlements and their access roads, military bases and all open lands, which Israel held as a security buffer and as bargaining chips in negotiations. Israel maintains full control over 60% of West Bank land.
 
"If you are going to jump-start the Palestinian economy, the place to do it is Area C," said a Western diplomat. "It's the largest area of contiguous land."
 
The World Bank warned in September, in a report on the importance of economic development in Area C, that uncertainty over access to Rawabi could deter future investment in large projects in the West Bank.
 
Rawabi has attracted a stream of foreign dignitaries because it is seen by the international community as a flagship project of a future Palestinian state.

To reach the site today, cement mixers and trucks traverse a shoulderless two-lane road that curves through an olive grove. The road is temporary and the permit for it needs to be renewed every several months, said Mr. Masri. The Palestinians want their own road linking Rawabi with Ramallah.
 
Rania Maree, a spokeswoman for Rawabi, said investors are moving ahead despite frozen peace talks. "We can't wait for the peace process to be done, because apparently it isn't going to happen anytime soon."
 
Turning over West Bank land would be a politically sensitive concession for the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jewish settlers—a key constituency of Israel's right-leaning government—consider widened Palestinian presence a security threat.
 
It seems the government has little leeway. The Israeli army needs to control about 50% of West Bank land to protect road networks between the dozens of settlements scattered across the West Bank, said Shaul Arieli, a former Israeli colonel and former adviser to Israeli governments on peace negotiations. But the West Bank's 163 Palestinian cantons must be linked together for a Palestinian state to function, Mr. Arieli said.
 
The Israel government is discussing Rawabi as well as other Area C access issues with the U.S., according to an Israeli defense official with knowledge of talks regarding access to Area C. The official suggested that if Palestinians dropped conditions for returning to peace talks, Israel would be willing to give more access to Area C.

But trust is low. The Palestinians, for now, haven't dropped preconditions because they suspect Israel will keep building settlements while stalling on peace compromises, said an official close to the negotiations.

And the Palestinians suspect Israel will only allow economic aid that they can control, stopping well short of enabling a sovereign Palestinian economy, the Palestinian official said.
 
At a sleek showroom that looks out to the Tel Aviv skyline and the Mediterranean, Palestinians walk through neighborhood models and computerized illustrations of a high-end shopping center, an amphitheater, and a belt of tiny parks linking the city's 21 neighborhoods.
 
More than half the 700 apartments in the first phase have been reserved, the developers said.

"This is a Palestinian city with a modern twist," said Ms. Maree. "We need to build five or six cities like this."

Title: WSJ: The Other Bluffer
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 30, 2013, 03:28:26 PM

The Other Bluffer Barack Obama isn't the only world leader issuing threats that he won't execute.
By BRET STEPHENS
 
Until not long ago, Israelis remained prudently coy about whether they would strike Iran's nuclear facilities. More recently, prominent Israelis have voiced doubts about whether Israel can strike those facilities, at least in any way that would make a lasting difference to Tehran's bid to acquire nuclear weapons.

Essentially, they're saying it's all a bluff.

The transition marks another decline in the quality of the Jewish state's deterrence. This would be bad news in better circumstances. Considering the way the Obama administration is acting with respect to Syria, it's much worse than that.

 
That's because President Obama has now made it clear that, when it comes to rogue regimes and weapons of mass destruction, he's exactly the bluffer he promised he wasn't. He warned repeatedly that the use by Bashar Assad's regime of chemical weapons against the Syrian people was a red line, a game changer, a thing "we will not tolerate." And he responded to the regime's use of chemical weapons by doing nothing. This is supposed to be the guy who has Israel's back and will never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon?

What's Fuhgeddaboudit in Yiddish?

That's a lesson that needs to sink in fast with Israeli decision makers. Israel has justified reservations about taking anything except covert or surgical action against Iran and Syria. Among those reservations: the limits of its military capability; its vulnerability to counterstrikes; its diplomatic isolation; the displeasure of the Obama administration.

Above all, Israelis have shied away from action on the theory that Mr. Obama's red lines were real, even if he drew them further down field than Israel would like. What's the point of rushing to do something yourself at great immediate risk, when you can wait for someone else to do it, at much less risk to them or to you, a little later?

Sound logic, one flaw: There is no someone else. Israelis are now watching how the administration reacts when a rogue regime crosses the president's red lines. It calls for a U.N. investigation to corroborate the findings of Western intelligence agencies. It justifies the exercise in the name of international consensus. It emphasizes the need to avoid the mistakes of the Iraq war.

That's the path the administration is traveling in the Syrian chemical-weapons case, and things will only get worse. As the Assad regime realizes it can use these weapons without international penalty, it will unleash them again. Sooner or later it will figure out that the more widely it uses them, the quicker it can kill enemies at home and deter enemies abroad. A twofer. The administration will go from arguing that it's too soon to intervene in Syria, to arguing that it's too late.

What Israel gets from this is a chemical-weapons free-fire zone on its Syrian border, along with the growing likelihood that the weapons will reach Hezbollah's hands along its Lebanese border. On the plus side, Israel also gets an arms deal from the administration. But the deal consists of selling Israel stuff it already has or doesn't particularly need, like aerial tankers and V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, while withholding stuff it doesn't have and dearly needs, like large bunker-busters and the means of delivering them.

Meanwhile, Israel faces an Iran that, according to former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, has already crossed the nuclear red line Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew at the U.N.'s General Assembly last September. Did Mr. Netanyahu draw that line as a means of warning Iran, or of goading the U.S. to act?

If it was the latter, it was a bad bet. Mr. Obama will treat evidence of Iran's impending nuclearization the way he has looked at Syria's use of chemical weapons, demanding a standard of proof that will be impossible to meet until it is too late to do much about it. And as in Syria, the longer he searches for proof, the tougher the military options will become.

If it was the former, however, then Israel had better be prepared to act. Soon. A threat that cannot be executed should never be issued. It invites contempt from friend and foe alike. If Mr. Netanyahu really has been bluffing all along, he'll go down as the man who made Ehud Olmert look good.

Israel's military planners have now had more than a decade to plan an attack on Iran. Let's assume their capabilities are better than advertised. (Can a country that can come up with Iron Dome be incapable of producing the required bunker busters?) Let's assume also there's a known-unknown in this plan, an element of surprise that will take even the most hardened war-gamers by surprise.

It had better work. Because Israel cannot live with a nuclear Iran. Because Israel should know by now that this American administration will not be coming to its rescue. Because the purpose of a Jewish state is never having to rely for survival on the kindness of others, even ones so charming and solicitous as Barack Obama.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 30, 2013, 04:03:54 PM

Obama abandons Israel ? Who could have seen this coming?

Title: Israel hits Syrian arms shipment to Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2013, 08:40:06 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/4/israeli-strike-syria-targeted-weapons-shipment/

Title: NYT on the "red line"
Post by: bigdog on May 05, 2013, 09:12:20 AM

"Mr. Obama now confronts the most urgent foreign policy issue of his second term, one in which he must weigh humanitarian impulses against the risk to American lives. After about two years of ineffectual diplomacy, whether or how he chooses to follow through on his warning about chemical weapons could shape his remaining time in office."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/obamas-vow-on-chemical-weapons-puts-him-in-tough-spot.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=WO_OTC_20130505&_r=0

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2013, 05:33:46 PM

"humanitarian impulses against the risk to American lives"

One might note that these are not the only variables in play here , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: bigdog on May 05, 2013, 06:41:43 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2013, 05:33:46 PM

"humanitarian impulses against the risk to American lives"

One might note that these are not the only variables in play here , , ,

Absolutely. The article is a rather long one.

Title: PLO moderate would have nuked Israel this morning had he a nuke
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2013, 12:27:22 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/13/moderate-palestinian-leader-swears-if-we-had-nuke-wed-have-used-it-this-very-morning/

Title: Team Obama backstabs Israel again or is it just bureaucratic stupidity?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2013, 10:58:15 AM

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/03/192895/us-publishes-details-of-missile.html#.Ua1bJ2R4Yhh

Title: Israel hopes US will learn
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 05, 2013, 07:51:55 PM

Israel Hopes the US Will Learn
From Egypt
[(R-L) US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, Israel's military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, then-Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak and then-US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stand together during a welcoming ceremony for Panetta in Tel Aviv, Aug. 1, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Gali Tibbon)]
(R-L) US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, Israel's military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, then-Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak and then-US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stand together during a welcoming ceremony for Panetta in Tel Aviv, Aug. 1, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Gali Tibbon)

By: Ben Caspit for Al-Monitor Israel Pulse Posted on July 5.

The residence of the US ambassador in the city of Herzliyah is one of the stateliest houses in Israel. Perched virtually on the waterfront of a particularly ritzy beach and surrounded by green lawns, walls and armed and wary guards, it overlooks the vast blue expanses of the Mediterranean. The ambassador hosts the annual US Independence Day party with much fanfare. Those who are not invited to the ambassador's residence on July 4 are, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. It's been quite a while since there was as popular a US ambassador to Israel as Dan Shapiro. He enjoys the position, and the position seems to agree with him. Immersed in the community, Shapiro exercises the Israeli way of life. He speaks the language, crisscrossing the country with the verve of a bar mitzvah boy. Even when the going was tough and there was a huge pool of bad blood between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Shapiro was always there, smiling and calm, to keep things moving and to explain that everything was, ostensibly, copacetic.
About This Article
Summary :

The Israeli political class, gathered for the Fourth of July reception, voiced hopes that the Obama administration learns from its mistakes in US policy and starts recognizing pockets of hope where they emerge.



On July 4, thousands of invitees flocked to the traditional US Independence Day celebration. Shapiro's lawn saw Israel's President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu (and family), chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, politicians, officers, members of the cultural and social elite, ambassadors, defense attaches and Israel's creme de la creme. When former President Bill Clinton was in office, tens of thousands of Israelis would display the American flag together with the Israeli one on Israel's Independence Day. There was total solidarity between the two countries. Having won over their hearts, Clinton was, by a large margin, the most popular figure in Israel. In Obama's case, it's different. Yet, the special bond between the United States and the Jewish state remains strong. There isn't a single Israeli who can imagine himself, or his country, without the protective broad shoulders of the United States, without its moral backing and the knowledge that it is there, across the ocean. The United States is a kind of insurance policy for a rainy day. And for us Jews, bracing for a rainy day is ingrained in our DNA.

At the party, the turnout was higher than usual. A day earlier, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi had been ousted from the presidential palace in Cairo. The Middle East is seething. Israelis are glued to their TV screens with eyes wide open, dumbfounded by the power whirring through Tahrir Square and awed by the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had been booted out of power more quickly than when it seized it. They watched the success of the young Egyptian masses clamoring to regain their country. They might even be saying that perhaps it's possible to toy with the idea that things might eventually turn out well.

If Shapiro had walked among the many guests and heard the murmur, he would not have particularly liked it. What dominated the event, naturally, was the buzz over the second Egyptian revolution. A day earlier, the US Department of State had called "nonessential" diplomats to leave Cairo immediately. This is a strange pathology considering the fact that Cairo had seen far more precarious days during which the Americans never contemplated bailing out so hurriedly. If someone had given Shapiro an executive summary of the chats that had gone on in his own backyard among the senior politicians, officers, opinion setters and just plain guests, this is what the document would have looked like in broad strokes:

We can't figure out the United States. How much can you not get Middle Eastern affairs? How obtuse can you be to the events, failing to identify hope when it rears its head, ignoring the special circumstances of the hour and the desires of the people in the region, their readiness to embark on political and historic processes that are imposed on them?

To use a soccer metaphor, the United States scores countless own goals. This was the case when it let Hamas participate in the first elections in the Palestinian Authority even though it was in contravention of the Oslo Accords. For this, both Israelis and Palestinians are paying a price to this day: the Gaza Strip is cut off and every arrangement is torpedoed a priori. This was also the case when it left Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to his own devices at the most critical junction. Things could have been done differently. The entire region was observing the United States' conduct, which left all of Washington's allies shocked. How naive can you be? Democracy is nice, but when you drop it on an ill-prepared society, which is not familiar with its values and which has not been brought up on its principles, what you do is to give the extremists the means to take over the moderate majority and wipe out any glimpse of hope. This is exactly what happened in Egypt, flinging it into chaos that lasted for two years.

The United States' conduct even in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process prompts derision. A whole presidential term was lost, for which the Americans are squarely to blame, and now Obama's second term appears also to be lost because of the overenthusiasm and naivete of Secretary of State John Kerry, who is trying to knock down the wall with his head instead of breaking the paradigm, drawing up new rules and trying to walk down a road not taken.

The climax, which the guests of the US ambassador alluded to at the party throughout the evening, was the US response to Egypt's second revolution. How could the Americans not see that a great miracle is taking place right before their eyes? How could they not be seizing the opportunity to give a strong, supportive hand to the millions of Egyptians who have risen up to save their country from a dictatorial regime that had won the elections under the aegis of democracy? How could the United States — the cradle of freedom, equality and democracy — make a pact with a movement like the Muslim Brotherhood? How could it be that after everything they have gone through in our region, the Americans still don't understand that the slogans of the United States and the West about "democracy" do not apply to the Middle East? That not everything achieved by the ballot box is automatically legitimate. That the radical, religious and dangerous movements are the only ones that have prepared themselves for elections, and they will always be there to reap the fruit?

Today, more than in any other time in recent history, the United States looks like an aging tourist caught up in a melee of natives on some distant continent. It is clueless about what is happening and what should be done; it makes sure that at any given moment it will take the most calamitous course of action.

The above was whispered from one person to the next throughout the evening on the manicured lawns of the US ambassador's residence in Herzliyah. I would venture to say that it probably once or twice crossed the mind of Peres, Netanyahu and Gantz. Snap out of your shell shock, Israelis as well as Egyptians are telling the Americans. Let go of your dated, stale concepts. Something new and good is happening here. Lend us your hand and help, rather than sabotage and scuttle. America — land of the free and home of the brave — happy anniversary!

Ben Caspit is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor's Israel Pulse. He is also a senior columnist and political analyst for Israeli newspapers, and has a daily radio show and regular TV shows on politics and Israel. On Twitter: @BenCaspit

Title: POTH: Service brings scorn
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 07, 2013, 09:17:33 AM

Service Brings Scorn to Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Enlistees
Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times

Posters in Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighborhood denouncing community members, currently exempt from Israel’s draft, who joined the military.
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: July 6, 2013

   

JERUSALEM — They have been labeled “Hardakim,” a derogatory term that combines Haredim, the name commonly used here to denote ultra-Orthodox Jews, with the Hebrew words for insects and germs.

As the Israeli government presses ahead with plans to enlist young Haredi men and phase out their wholesale exemption from the country’s mandatory military service, hard-line elements in the ultra-Orthodox community are fighting back by ostracizing the few thousand community members already in the armed forces.

Crude, comics-style posters have appeared in recent weeks on billboards across ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods nationwide portraying those soldiers, who volunteered under programs meant to attract Haredim, as fat, bearded, gun-toting caricatures in uniform snatching terrified Haredi children off the streets.

The strictest Haredim, who insist on the right of all ultra-Orthodox men to engage in full-time Torah study and worry about exposure to a more secular life, denounce the soldiers as “traitors” and liken them to a pestilence.

Brig. Gen. Gadi Agmon, from the Israeli military’s human resources branch, told a parliamentary committee here last week that the well-orchestrated campaign was no less vicious in style than that of Der Stürmer, the Nazi-era propaganda organ notorious for its anti-Semitic caricatures. The remark was widely reported in the secular news media and on Haredi Web sites.

Haredi soldiers have been verbally abused, spit on and humiliated while walking through their neighborhoods all over Israel. Some have been attacked with stones, or their car tires have been slashed. The children of others have been rejected by local educational institutions, and there are growing fears that enlisting could harm the marriage prospects of their siblings.

The integration of Haredim, or “those who fear God,” into the military — and providing them a path into the work force — is viewed as essential by many Israelis, not only to uphold the principle of social equality but also to ensure the economic survival of the country. More than a quarter of Jewish first graders in Israeli schools belong to the fast-growing ultra-Orthodox minority.

In recent years, hundreds have served in Nahal Haredi, a combat battalion established in the late 1990s for ultra-Orthodox 18-year-olds. About 3,000 more have served in Shahar, an army program set up in late 2007 to train young married ultra-Orthodox men as technical staff members for the air force, navy, intelligence and other branches of the military.

To attract recruits, Shahar allows soldiers to go home every night during their two-year army stint and provides a government salary.

But with Parliament working on legislation that would eventually lead to the conscription of ultra-Orthodox men, and the subsequent backlash among the Haredim, things now appear to be moving in the opposite direction.

In past years, the ultra-Orthodox community was more tolerant toward members who chose military service; some rabbis even gave their quiet blessing to recruits who were deemed unsuitable for full-time Torah study. But Haredi attitudes have hardened in response to the broad public pressure and government efforts to work toward equal service for all, barring a small quota of Orthodox youths considered Torah prodigies.

In May, up to 30,000 Haredi men flooded the streets around the recruitment office in Jerusalem to protest conscription, exposing for the first time the depth of anger. The Haredi reaction already appears to have dampened volunteer enlistment.

Elchanan Fromer, 29, who is from a small ultra-Orthodox settlement in the West Bank and works as a coordinator for the Shahar program, said the year had begun very well, with more than twice as many volunteers as in the first half of 2012. In recent weeks, however, there have been signs of a drop-off, he said.

Mr. Fromer joined Shahar in 2010 and served for 18 months. But service has become much harder for Haredi soldiers, he said, because of the potential consequences for their families now that passions on the subject have been inflamed.

“Hundreds of soldiers are facing daily problems,” he said. “Personally, if I was supposed to enlist today, I wouldn’t do it.”
======================

(Page 2 of 2)

On billboards in the ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim quarter of Jerusalem last week, black-and-white posters warned the public against the “licentious military” coming to tempt innocent Haredi youths into “the whorehouses of Nahal and Shahar.”


On central thoroughfares, the posters of children being snatched had mostly been ripped off the walls. But in the back alleys, where one hostile resident threw water from a balcony onto reporters, the posters remained untouched. Since most Haredim do not watch television, billboards and fliers are a traditional means of communication. The comics-style campaign against Haredi soldiers has been primarily aimed at children to counter what opponents of the draft said was the military’s attempt to legitimize the young men by sending them into ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods in uniform.

As part of the outreach to children, the anonymous organizers of the “Hardakim” campaign announced a children’s poster competition this summer via a Gmail account, soliciting entries showing how best to shun the soldiers.

Pini Rozenberg, a spokesman for the Haredi community in Jerusalem, said the campaign was “an internal Haredi matter meant to explain to the Haredi youth why the army institutions are not, and will never be, legitimate.”

He added: “It is not personally directed against any particular soldier. It is purely educational.”

Mr. Rozenberg also insisted that the rabbis who supported the campaign behind the scenes opposed any form of violence. Haredi critics of the campaign point out that the rabbis, like most ultra-Orthodox Jews, have remained silent, allowing more extreme community members to set the tone.  As the backlash has worsened, the military set up a 24-hour help line for Haredi soldiers to report verbal or physical violence against them and says it has received more than 80 complaints.

One 24-year-old Haredi soldier, who asked not to be identified because he feared the consequences of further exposure, explained the path he had taken to the army. Although he grew up in a strictly ultra-Orthodox area of Jerusalem and boarded at an elite yeshiva, he secretly studied for the secular high school matriculation exams. He went on to begin law studies in a special Haredi program at a private college, then joined the military through the Shahar program.

“I wanted to contribute and to be an equal citizen, to advance and to integrate,” he said.

His wife’s family still does not know he is in the military because the couple was unsure how the family would react. His parents know, but keep it quiet. He lives in Bayit Vegan, once a mixed religious-secular neighborhood of Jerusalem that was considered relatively moderate, and said he had suffered daily abuse in recent months, being spit at and chased by children and teenagers calling out “Germ!” and “Traitor!”  He now carries tear gas for self-defense and a special permit allowing him to leave his base in civilian clothes and still benefit from free bus travel for soldiers.  Some fellow Haredi soldiers have moved from their neighborhoods, but he refuses to do so.

“For me, to move is to hand them a victory,” he said. “They want to banish us from Haredi society.”

Title: Making Peace with People
Post by: Rachel on July 09, 2013, 10:41:40 AM

Excellent Article that explains why the Middle East peace processes are such failures.

http://www.aish.com/jw/me/Making-Peace-with-People.html
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=post;topic=962.1750;num_replies=1775

Making Peace with People
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel," views the Middle East from a Muslim background.


There is something dignified in the quiet, determined manner of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as she rises from the audience and walks towards the podium to deliver her lecture. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's intricate history starts in Somalia, where she was born to a Muslim family. At the age of five she underwent female genital mutilation. By her teens she was a devout Muslim. In her early 20s, upon learning of plans for an undesirable arranged marriage, she made her way to Holland, where she applied for asylum. Hirsi Ali studied at Leiden University and began publishing critical articles about Islam, the condition of the Muslim woman, and so forth.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 09, 2013, 06:20:44 PM

Good article and perspective.   She is far wiser than the guy in the White House.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 09, 2013, 09:31:19 PM

Good to see you in these parts again Rachel.

Title: Israeli sub knocked out Russian missiles in Syria?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2013, 11:38:13 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/14/Report-Israeli-Sub-Knocked-out-Russian-Missiles-in-Syria

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2013, 06:54:21 PM

 Jonathan S. Tobin, writing online for Commentary, July 30:

While in Cairo yesterday to meet with Egypt's new leaders, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas let drop a few remarks about the peace negotiations with Israel that began in Washington last night. As the Times of Israel reports, Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:

"In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands" . . .

[T]he problem here is not just that this is an absurd distortion of reality that ignores Jewish rights and security needs. The Abbas statement provides some important context for the key Israeli demand that the Palestinians refuse to accept: PA acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. If Palestinians think there is something racist about Israel being accepted as the sole Jewish state in the world, why is it OK for them to envision an independent state of their own where Jewish communities would have to be destroyed and their inhabitants be evicted?

Peace processers and Israel's critics claim this reasoning is nit-picking, but this actually goes to the heart of the problem that Secretary of State John Kerry and his aide Martin Indyk are trying to unravel in the negotiations they have worked so hard to bring about.

Title: Israeli prisons, hothouses for breeding terrorists
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2013, 09:12:23 AM

Guest Column: Israeli Prisons, Hothouses for Breeding Palestinian Terrorists
by Anat Berko
Special to IPT News
August 2, 2013
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4110/guest-column-sraeli-prisons-hothouses-for

 
Israeli society is currently dealing with the painful, emotional issue of the Israeli government's willingness to release Palestinian murderers, "security prisoners," from Israeli jails, part of the price demanded by the Palestinians for consenting to sit at a negotiating table with Israel.

When Gilad Shalit was released in 2011 after more than five years in a Hamas cellar, the prisoner exchange deal was universally accepted as the right thing to do. The entire country knew we would have to pay an outrageous price, but it was for the life and freedom on a young soldier who had been sent to defend his country. But "outrageous" did not mean too high, and Israel was willing to anything to get him back safely and restore him to his family. The prisoner exchange deal also showed all IDF soldiers that the State of Israel would never abandon them. It made everyone feel that they would be proud to serve in such an army, and people spoke about nothing else for weeks.

Israel is not America. In America, most well-educated young people begin their adult lives after college, and the U.S. Army is a professional, volunteer army. In Israel, however, military service is compulsory and universal. University studies come after army service, and even decades later, the old school tie is never where you went to school but always what you did in the army. Your unit or corps immediately identifies your ability, motivation and love of country, and is source of immense pride for parents.

In April 1987, when Adi Moses was eight years old, a Palestinian terrorist threw a Molotov cocktail into the family car as it was passing through a West Bank village. The car caught fire and Adi's pregnant mother and brother were killed; she bears the scars, both physical and emotional, to this day. Nevertheless, when it was a question of freeing Gilad Shalit, she said that painful as it was release terrorists, she could accept it, as could the entire State of Israel.

Today, as Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are resumed, Adi is worried that, to convince the reluctant, intransigent Palestinians to sit across the negotiating table from Israel and engage in nine months of dialogue (after which there will probably be another intifada), the price will be the release of the Israel Arab who deliberately burned her mother and brother to death. Interviewed on television, she said she could not imagine a universe in which the cold-blooded murderer who destroyed her life and her family would get up in the morning, drink coffee and read the paper. Should that happen, she said, there would be no reason for her to go on living.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what every cold-blooded terrorist operative killer does in an Israeli jail. He gets up in the morning, meets his friends, eats breakfast, drinks coffee and spends the rest of the in their company. If particularly motivated, he can get an Open University college degree. He will also receive first-class medical and dental care, courtesy of the Israeli taxpayer. In Israel, the attitude toward "security prisoners" – Palestinian terrorists – is less rigorously defined than, for instance in the United States.

There, terrorist murderers are sent to Guantanamo and held in solitary confinement. In Israel, although classified as terrorists, they are treated as prisoners of war. Their families are allowed to visit, the Red Cross comes to see them and the Geneva Conventions are in force – all of which were denied to Gilad Shalit. The various human rights organizations work day and night to improve their conditions, the same organizations that conveniently ignore the existence and rights of the families mourning the prisoners' victims.

Moreover, as opposed to the ordinary felons who have to deal with the prison authorities on a one-to-one basis, the security prisoners have operational autonomy. In each jail, terrorists move within their own microcosms made up of prisoners from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or even al-Qaida and Hizballah. Each group has its own spokesman. The spokesman's role is to represent whichever organization he, and sometimes she, belongs to in dealing with the prison authorities.

In 2007, I interviewed members of the Hamas parliament after Shalit's abduction. As I was speaking to deputy Hamas Prime Minister Abu Tir, he crooked a finger and a prisoner entered, a certified Hamas terrorist waiter, with a cup of coffee. For an instant, I forgot where I was. The prisoners' conditions were idyllic: the radios were blasting Arabic music, the TV sets were tuned to Al-Jazeera, people were milling about, shouting at one another, I could smell food cooking, and I might as well have been a guest in the home of a Hamas leader.

The conditions of the security prisoners are the responsibility of the Israeli government, which wants peace and quiet within the prison walls because every hunger strike ignites the Palestinian street. Between the abduction of soldiers and the peace process, the security prisoners are certain they will not serve their full terms. That certainty makes them stronger and gives them hope that they will be released fairly shortly even if they were sentenced to consecutive life terms. In the meantime, most of them are busy with their studies, planning what they will do when they are released. They often told me that the next time we met it would be in their homes in the Gaza Strip, I was invited, I had nothing to fear, they would watch over me, after all, we had drunk coffee together in prison.

The prisoners' conditions are monitored and improved by the various Palestinian prisoners' clubs, depending on their organizational affiliation. They receive money for the prison canteen and their families receive monthly allowances. The canteen overflows with food, beverages and all the popular brands. The prisoners especially like American merchandise. Timberland hiking boots are the latest fad. By way of comparison, the canteens used by IDF soldiers have less variety. According to the prison authorities, the prisoners have the same rations as IDF soldiers. In reality, the prisoners' menu is superior to that of front-line soldiers. If they like, the prisoners can cook for themselves and improve the food with additions from the canteen, and once even managed to post pictures on Facebook.

It is almost impossible to enumerate the benefits of being a security prisoner. Terrorists can finish their studies, and the younger ones get fictitious matriculation certificates certified by examiners paid by the Palestinian Authority. Until recently, adult terrorists were allowed for bachelors', masters' and doctoral degrees in the Open University, taking courses in Jewish studies, Zionism, etc., and perfecting their Hebrew.

Security prisoners also have extensive medical benefits, including advanced dental work and complex operations, as noted, courtesy of the Israeli taxpayer. They refuse to work while in prison, even though they would be paid, because they do not want to serve the "Zionist enemy." They prefer to spend their time planning terrorist attacks to be carried out by their organizations, propagandizing and paving the way for less-hardened terrorists to follow in their footsteps in a life of anti-Israeli terrorism. Many leave prison healthier, better educated, and better connected – both socially and professionally – than when they entered. With their release they can add the important note "former security prisoner in an Israeli jail" to their resumés, enabling them to advance more quickly through the ranks of their various organizations. By imprisoning Palestinian terrorist murderers, the State of Israel does not achieve deterrence; no attempt can be made to rehabilitate or reeducate them because they reject the idea and do not cooperate. They simply stew in their own juices and become more dangerous.

Depriving a person his freedom is the worst possible punishment that can be imposed, but society deserves justice, its victims have to be avenged, and that is also part of the philosophy of punishment. In the saga of the Palestinian terrorist prisoners in Israeli jails, the trials and tribulations of imprisonment, represented as overwhelming, are actually minor. The Israeli jails have turned into hothouses for breeding terrorists; they are laboratories which turn petty terrorists into specialists, and often with diplomas.
Anat Berko, Ph.D, a Lt. Col. (Res) in the Israel Defense Forces, conducts research for the National Security Council, and is a research fellow at the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Israel. A criminalist, she was a visiting professor at George Washington University and has written two books about suicide bombers, "The Path to Paradise," and the recently released, "The Smarter Bomb: Women and Children as Suicide Bombers" (Rowman & Littlefield)

Title: Iran, Syria smuggling arms into West Bank
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2013, 12:16:52 PM

Summary

There are growing indications that Iran, Syria and their local proxies may be attempting to build up militant capabilities in the West Bank to eventually threaten Israel. Physically transferring weapons into Fatah-controlled West Bank will remain a key challenge, as recent arrests of weapons smugglers in Jordan have shown. Though Iran and Syria face many constraints in trying to spread militancy to the West Bank, their quiet efforts are worth noting, particularly as Hamas and Iran are now finding reasons to repair their relationship after a period of strain.
Analysis

In the past several days, Jordanian authorities have reported two separate incidents in which groups of smugglers traveling from Syria have been caught with weapons and drugs in Jordan. A Jordanian security official speaking anonymously to local media said that five Syrian smugglers were caught the morning of Aug. 6 with anti-tank missiles, surface-to-air missiles and assault rifles in their possession. According to a Stratfor source, the arrests were made near Madaba in central Jordan. The smugglers, carrying Jordanian identity cards, allegedly hid the weapons in two pickup trucks loaded with watermelons, but when the two trucks traveled beyond the main produce market and kept heading south, the Jordanian police became suspicious. Jordan's state-owned Petra news agency said the army had thwarted another attempt to smuggle a large amount of drugs and weapons from Syria into Jordan earlier in the week.

Jordan is the primary supply route for weapons (mostly from Arab Gulf suppliers) meant for rebels in southern Syria. Therefore, weapons traveling the opposite direction -- from Syria into Jordan -- stand out. Jordan is already on high alert for attacks, given its own history with jihadist activity and the proliferation of jihadists in neighboring Syria. Moreover, Jordan's attempt to balance between supporting the rebels and maintaining a relationship with the Syrian Alawite regime could make the country vulnerable to attacks by militants on either side of the conflict. Jordanian authorities have thus tried to reinforce security on the Syrian-Jordanian border and have tightly restricted the movement of Syrian refugees in the north around the Al Zaatari camp, where militants could try to blend in with thousands of refugees.

However, Stratfor's own investigation into the latest weapons shipment traveling through Jordan reveals a different target altogether. Contacts in the area claim that the smugglers caught Aug. 6 were Palestinians from Syria who were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. The suspects allegedly were carrying weapons obtained from Syrian army warehouses in Sweida in southwest Syria. The weapons were to be transported through Jordan, from the Syrian border southward to Al Karak, to circumvent the large security presence around the Jordan River Valley. The final destination of these weapons, according to the contacts, was intended to be Hebron in the Fatah-run West Bank.

The smuggling operations fit with a pattern that Stratfor identified in November 2012, when Palestinian contacts in the region reported that Iran was working with Palestinian groups to try to transport munitions through Iraq and Jordan to the West Bank. To achieve this, Iran would likely work through Syrian intelligence and local Palestinian proxies. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the group the smugglers were allegedly affiliated with, has had a close working relationship with Syrian intelligence, and it is plausible that members would have been commissioned to transport the weapons from Syrian warehouses to the West Bank. Though the secular, left-leaning Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command is at ideological odds with Islamist Hamas, those ideological lines can be blurred in such operations, especially when they are undertaken at the behest of the groups' Syrian patrons. Hamas has a limited presence in the West Bank, but it does enjoy support in some of the surrounding villages in the Hebron Hills, where the weapons were likely to be stored.
Iran and Syria's Plans for the West Bank

Both Iran and Syria would like to build up an additional source of militant leverage against Israel. The Iranian regime grew concerned with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region that led Hamas to distance itself from the Iran-Syria axis. When the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt, and when Syrian Islamists were making gains in their rebellion against the al Assad regime, Hamas calculated that in this sectarian environment it was better to align with its ideological allies than to risk alienating itself by maintaining a close relationship with the Syrian and Iranian regimes. As sectarian tensions grew over the Syrian battle of Qusair in the spring, reports began emerging that some Hamas fighters had joined Sunni rebels in Syria against the regime. At that point, Iran had to worry about its leverage weakening among Palestinian proxies in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon, all while Iran's main ally Hezbollah was heavily preoccupied with trying to hold its ground in Lebanon while fighting Sunni rebels in Syria.

But Iran also sought ways to maintain its leverage among the Palestinians. Even as Hamas tried to publicly distance itself from Tehran, it was Iran's supply of long-range Fajr-5 rockets to Hamas that nearly led to an Israeli invasion of Gaza at the end of 2012 and exposed a still robust relationship between the ideologically opposed allies. With Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood politically sidelined, the Egyptian military bearing down on Hamas in the Sinai Peninsula and cutting off the group's supply lines and Syria's Sunni rebels in a stalemate with the regime, Hamas is likely to find even more reason to remain close to Tehran. Iran, meanwhile, is trying to compensate for the sectarian challenges confronting its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq by widening its militant proxy network wherever it can. Part of this strategy involves building up a presence in the West Bank to threaten Israel. This strategy also falls in line with Hamas' interest in undermining Fatah, especially as the Fatah-led Palestinian National Authority engages in more peace negotiations with Israel that fail to acknowledge Hamas' authority in the Gaza Strip.
Challenges to Iran and Syria's Plans

Physically operating in the West Bank is not easy, though. Fatah is the dominant party in the West Bank and controls local security forces, who frequently arrest Hamas members. The Fatah leadership will continue endeavoring to prevent Hamas from making serious inroads in the West Bank that could end up further threatening Fatah's credibility. Moreover, Jordan's increased security presence on the border with Syria, Israeli-Fatah security collaboration and Israel's heavy security presence around the Jordan River Valley also make any route through Jordan highly susceptible to detection, as the recent arrests in Jordan indicate.

These challenges have not deterred Iran and Syria from trying to use their local networks to build up weapon caches in the West Bank so that eventually Palestinian militant factions can try to ambush Israel Defense Forces patrols. The inclusion of anti-tank weapons and man-portable air-defense systems in these weapons shipments to the West Bank would be particularly alarming to Israel. The threat has not yet materialized, but these efforts bear watching closely.

Stratfor

Title: Bambi Meets Godzilla In The Middle East
Post by: Rachel on August 20, 2013, 07:16:07 PM

Bambi Meets Godzilla In The Middle East
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD

"What Americans often miss is that while democratic liberal capitalism may be where humanity is heading, not everybody is going to get there tomorrow. This is not simply because some leaders selfishly seek their own power or because evil ideologies take root in unhappy lands. It is also because while liberal capitalist democracy may well be the best way to order human societies from an abstract point of view, not every human society is ready and able to walk that road now."

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/18/bambi-meets-godzilla-in-the-middle-east/

I don't agree with everything but this article was excellent. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 20, 2013, 07:32:56 PM

Rachel:

Good read.  Would you please post it in the American Foreign Policy thread as well?

TIA

Title: Good thing the rest of the neighborhood is quiet , , , Oh wait , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2013, 02:23:06 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-dont-care-if-soldiers-felt-threatened/

Title: VDH: The Israeli Spring
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2013, 07:23:50 AM

Israel could be forgiven for having a siege mentality — given that at any moment, old front-line enemies Syria and Egypt might spill their violence over common borders.

The Arab Spring has turned Israel’s once-predictable adversaries into the chaotic state of a Sudan or Somalia. The old understandings between Jerusalem and the Assad and Mubarak kleptocracies seem in limbo.

Yet these tragic Arab revolutions swirling around Israel are paradoxically aiding it, both strategically and politically — well beyond the erosion of conventional Arab military strength.

In terms of realpolitik, anti-Israeli authoritarians are fighting to the death against anti-Israeli insurgents and terrorists. Each is doing more damage to the other than Israel ever could — and in an unprecedented, grotesque fashion. Who now is gassing Arab innocents? Shooting Arab civilians in the streets? Rounding up and executing Arab civilians? Blowing up Arab houses? Answer: either Arab dictators or radical Islamists.

The old nexus of radical Islamic terrorism of the past three decades is unraveling. With a wink and a nod, Arab dictatorships routinely subsidized Islamic terrorists to divert popular anger away from their own failures to the West or Israel. In the deal, terrorists got money and sanctuary. The Arab Street blamed others for their own government-inflicted miseries, and thieving authoritarians posed as Islam’s popular champions.

Now, however, terrorists have turned on their dictator sponsors. Even the most ardent Middle East conspiracy theorists are having trouble blaming the United States and Israel.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry is still beating last century’s dead horse of a “comprehensive Middle East peace.” Does Mr. Kerry’s calcified diplomacy really assume that a peace agreement involving Israel would stop the ethnic cleansing of Egypt’s Coptic Christians? Does Israel have anything to do with Bashar Assad’s alleged gassing of his own people?

There are other losers as well. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to turn a once-secular Turkish democracy into a neo-Ottoman Islamist sultanate, with grand dreams of eastern Mediterranean hegemony. His selling point to former Ottoman Arab subjects was often a virulent anti-Semitism. Turkey suddenly became among Israel’s worst enemies and the Obama administration’s best friends.

Yet if Mr. Erdogan has charmed President Obama, he has alienated almost everyone in the Middle East. Islamists such as former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi felt that Mr. Erdogan was a fickle and opportunistic conniver. The Gulf monarchies believed that he was troublemaker who wanted to supplant their influence. Neither the Europeans nor the Russians trust him. The result is that Mr. Erdogan’s loud anti-Israeli foreign policy is increasingly irrelevant.

The oil-rich sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf once funded terrorists on the West Bank, but they are now fueling the secular military in Egypt. In Syria, they are searching to find some third alternative other than Mr. Assad’s Alawite regime and its al Qaeda enemies. For the moment, oddly, the Middle East foreign policies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other oil monarchies dovetail with Israel‘s: Predictable Sunni-Arab nationalism is preferable to one-vote, onetime Islamist radicals.

Israel no doubt prefers that the Arab world liberalize and embrace constitutional government. Yet the bloodletting lends credence to Israel’s ancient complaints that it never had a constitutional or lawful partner in peace negotiations.

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s corrupt dictatorship is gone. His radical Muslim Brotherhood successors were worse and are also gone. The military dictatorship that followed both is no more legitimate than either. In these cycles of revolution, the one common denominator is an absence of constitutional government.

In Syria, there never was a moderate middle. Take your pick between the murderous Shiite-backed Assad dictatorship or radical Sunni Islamists. In Libya, the choice degenerated into Moammar Gadhafi’s unhinged dictatorship or the tribal militias that overthrew it. Let us hope that one day Westernized moderate democracy might prevail, but that moment seems a long way off.

What do the Egyptian military, the French in Mali, Americans at home, the Russians, the Gulf monarchies, persecuted Middle Eastern Christians and the reformers of the Arab Spring all have in common? Like Israel, they are all fighting Islamic-inspired fanaticism. Most of them, like Israel, are opposed to the idea of a nuclear Iran.

In comparison to the ruined economies of the Arab Spring — tourism shattered, exports nonexistent and billions of dollars in infrastructure lost through unending violence — Israel is an atoll of prosperity and stability. Factor in its recent huge gas and oil finds in the eastern Mediterranean, and it may soon become another Kuwait or Qatar, but with a real economy beyond its booming petroleum exports.

Israel had nothing to do with either the Arab Spring or its failure. The irony is that surviving embarrassed Arab regimes now share the same concerns of the Israelis.

In short, the more violent and chaotic the Middle East becomes, the more secure and exceptional Israel appears.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/hanson-the-israeli-spring/#ixzz2deQDs2iW
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Title: The chaos theory
Post by: Rachel on September 01, 2013, 09:28:03 AM

Israel Hayom is currently my favorite source  of  commentary on  Israel and Middle East
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5551


The chaos theory
Dr. Reuven Berko

Syria is currently on the operating table, and the question is whether, due to its lack of morals (the mass murder of civilians and use of chemical weapons), it will be allowed to die, permanently clipped by the knife of the coalition. It is not a question of leadership but rather an ethno-religious question. The Syrian leadership is trapped in the dying body of an artificially established nation that is in constant conflict with itself. Instead of resuscitating the dying country, a clumsy Western assault could actually accelerate its demise.

An artificial army

Unfortunately, the assessment is that despite the vast differences between the interests of the U.S., the West, the Arab nations and Russia, they all surprisingly share one common objective, which can be gleaned from the list of the operation's targets: To punish and deter Assad and his regime. However, the very definition of these targets suggests that the mission at hand is to preserve the existing Syrian regime, not to topple it.

Title: I don't quite understand the last paragraph
Post by: ccp on September 01, 2013, 09:55:59 AM

"Just like Cato the Elder, who insisted that "Carthage must be destroyed" over and over again, we must remind ourselves again and again: Syria is not the problem. The problem is the Iranian nuclear program, the source of Syria's and Hezbollah's power and the mother of all evils in the region. That is the real target that the coalition should have in its sights"

Rachel,

This comes in out of no where in the end of his article.   I would have liked him to clarify this logic.   So is he saying the root of all the problems is Iran's nuke program and Hezbollah?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Rachel on September 01, 2013, 11:07:49 AM

CCP,

I not very familiar with Cato the Elder but according to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

"A common modern use in order to emphasise to third parties the strength of one's opinion about a perceived necessary course of action is to add either at the beginning or the end of a statement the two opening words "Ceterum censeo?

I don't think  that Iran and Hezbollah are the root of all problems in the Middle East  but certainly they are responsible for  a great many of them.  However, a  nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel and  an attack by Syria on Israel  would be painful and deadly but not an existential threat.   Whatever actions are taken or not taken  on Syria will have an  influence on  Iran.  It is much more important to think strategically about Iran than about Syria.   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2013, 11:26:44 AM

Agreed!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 01, 2013, 04:30:59 PM

I am familiar with Cato's strategy.  Rome went on offence against Hannibal by attacking Carthage and pulling him out of Italy.  They defeated Hannibal there and later burned the city to the ground.

Take out the serpent at its head is what he means I guess. 

The head is Iran and Syria its Hezbollah it's arms. 

I get it now.

Does Brock?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2013, 08:40:07 PM

Do we?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 02, 2013, 06:55:47 AM

I nominate this Dog Brothers Forum, not Biden for President in 2016.

Most here have been advocating we hit Iran nucs for *years*.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that will happen.  It appears the plan is containment.   

There is likely a back up offensive plan but only if shoved into it.

As for what to do in Syria.   In my most expert military, strategic, political, and in international affairs opinion I think we do as Doug suggested:  hit all WMD sites in Syria (though not yet convinced about NK).

I also agree with one Middle East analyst on CNN (I don't know his name) who said a more credible "red line" would have been the Syrian air force.  Thus we should destroy Assad's planes.

Congress should stand up.   Forget idiotic "shots across the bow".  The Congressional authorization should be to do the job and not half assed laughable crap.  Get rid of all known WMD and air force.

Or, do nothing.   Forget 'face'.  We are not Japanese.   Reagan pulled out of Lebanon.   He didn't worry about his face or his reputation.   He worried about America and our military.

Frankly I prefer do nothing or as we have suggested for many years now go after Iran.

As for NK, I haven't thought about it much.  But come to think of it suppose we just get rid of that monstrous family there.   It is not the middle east.     

Title: Obama Vetoed Israeli Strike on Iran, Israel’s former NSC chief says
Post by: DougMacG on September 03, 2013, 09:39:34 AM

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/09/03/obama-vetoed-israeli-strike-on-iran-israels-former-nsc-chief-says/

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to order an attack on Iran in September 2012, but canceled the operation in response to U.S. pressure, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council said last month. Gen. Giora Eiland (retired) added that Israel “has a real ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” and that it is possible that the American veto was related to the presidential election then in progress.

“At the time [September 2012] the Prime Minister thought that we had gotten to a critical point on the Iranian issue and planned to carry out attacks,” Gen. Eiland said at a closed-door conference held on August 19, adding that “Israel did not have in principle approval of U.S. military operations, unless Americans require one – cut prevented any action. ” According to Eiland, the issue was raised at a meeting between Netanyahu and the Americans, who said that the planned attack was out of the question for them, which led to its cancellation.

Since the cancellation of the planned Iran’s nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, argues Eiland, Israel again faces a difficult choice. “Time has passed and we stand before exactly the same decision, with less time. ” He added, “The lack of resolution is dramatic.”

In an interview, Gen. Eiland said, “There are many things Israel can do things independently. In the case of construction in Jerusalem, an assault in Gaza or other issues relating to our area we do not need to ask the Americans when we act, even if they do not like it. Yet when it comes to something with broader concerns to U.S., we cannot act against their judgment. “

The best scenario for Israel, Eiland believes, is an American attack on Iran, but “the lack of U.S. enthusiasm for action in Syria signals that this possibility is not realistic.” The issue of prospective US approval of an Israeli attack remains an open question. “There are variables that have changed since last year primarily in the internal affairs of the United – States, which was then in full swing in elections,” the retired general said. In September 2012, when Eiland headed Israel’s National Security Council, Obama was in trouble due to his poor performance in the first televised debate with Romney. He may have preferred to avoid a war that could harm his re-election campaign.

Do circumstances today allow Netanyahu to attack? That is difficult to assess. But while the Syrian story and Obama’s hesitations occupy the headlines, it is important to remember that the real drama is  in Iran.

Title: Re: Obama Vetoed Israeli Strike on Iran, Israel’s former NSC chief says
Post by: G M on September 03, 2013, 09:44:07 AM

"At a certain point, you've had enough national security."

Quote from: DougMacG on September 03, 2013, 09:39:34 AM

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/09/03/obama-vetoed-israeli-strike-on-iran-israels-former-nsc-chief-says/

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to order an attack on Iran in September 2012, but canceled the operation in response to U.S. pressure, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council said last month. Gen. Giora Eiland (retired) added that Israel “has a real ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” and that it is possible that the American veto was related to the presidential election then in progress.

“At the time [September 2012] the Prime Minister thought that we had gotten to a critical point on the Iranian issue and planned to carry out attacks,” Gen. Eiland said at a closed-door conference held on August 19, adding that “Israel did not have in principle approval of U.S. military operations, unless Americans require one – cut prevented any action. ” According to Eiland, the issue was raised at a meeting between Netanyahu and the Americans, who said that the planned attack was out of the question for them, which led to its cancellation.

Since the cancellation of the planned Iran’s nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, argues Eiland, Israel again faces a difficult choice. “Time has passed and we stand before exactly the same decision, with less time. ” He added, “The lack of resolution is dramatic.”

In an interview, Gen. Eiland said, “There are many things Israel can do things independently. In the case of construction in Jerusalem, an assault in Gaza or other issues relating to our area we do not need to ask the Americans when we act, even if they do not like it. Yet when it comes to something with broader concerns to U.S., we cannot act against their judgment. “

The best scenario for Israel, Eiland believes, is an American attack on Iran, but “the lack of U.S. enthusiasm for action in Syria signals that this possibility is not realistic.” The issue of prospective US approval of an Israeli attack remains an open question. “There are variables that have changed since last year primarily in the internal affairs of the United – States, which was then in full swing in elections,” the retired general said. In September 2012, when Eiland headed Israel’s National Security Council, Obama was in trouble due to his poor performance in the first televised debate with Romney. He may have preferred to avoid a war that could harm his re-election campaign.

Do circumstances today allow Netanyahu to attack? That is difficult to assess. But while the Syrian story and Obama’s hesitations occupy the headlines, it is important to remember that the real drama is  in Iran.

Title: Kippa at AIPAC update-Who could have seen this coming?
Post by: G M on September 04, 2013, 08:45:34 AM

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/09/03/obama-and-israel-the-next-three-years/?singlepage=true


Turning Point: Obama and Israel, the Next Three Years

September 3rd, 2013 - 8:55 am

We have just entered a new era with the Middle East and its relation to the world. Not every day can you proclaim such a shift in world history; today you can. This is not a joke — definitely not — and as you will see, it is not an exaggeration.
 
For the last seven weeks I have been in the United States, mostly in Washington, D.C.; I have spoken with and listened to many people. As a result, I am in a position to describe to you with a high degree of confidence what U.S. policy regarding the Middle East will be for the remainder of Obama’s term, and perhaps for far into the future.

 


In short, the administration has crossed a line and is now backing the “bad guys.”
 
This is literally true in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Bahrain (with U.S. support for the opposition), Qatar, and Turkey. In some ways, as we will see, the war on terrorism has become the war for terrorism. Too extreme? On the contrary, this is not a conservative or liberal analysis, but merely an accurate one. Over the next few weeks, we will run here a serious analysis of Obama’s Middle East policy for the second term.
 
The real Obama administration position on Israel is that Netanyahu and Israel refuse to be moderate and flexible, unlike Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. This despite Netanyahu releasing 100 terrorist murderers in exchange for nothing, and Abbas’ constant inflexibility, escalation of demands, and rejection of U.S. strategy on the peace process. The Obama administration also finds Netanyahu to be less moderate and flexible than Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, despite the latter’s throwing intellectuals and journalists in prison, betraying U.S. strategy on Iran, backing anti-American Islamists, and sending former army officers for long jail terms on phony charges.
 
During the coming months, and even years — if they are given to me — I will pursue these themes. You may not believe what you read here today or tomorrow, but you will eventually see it occur.
 
To be absolutely clear, these policies are going to happen, and are already happening. The president is a set ideologue and will not learn, and with the current “ruling class” elitist Congress and remarkably cowardly and partisan media, nothing will change. The situation will only get worse, and the administration’s position more obvious.
 
In the coming weeks, I will describe eight things that will almost certainly happen during the remainder of Obama’s term, and will suggest how to minimize the harm to the interests of the United States and its would-be Middle Eastern-allied people and governments.
 
The first one:
 
1. Israel cannot depend on the United States.
 
This doesn’t mean that Obama and others will not provide military aid or say nice words at every event. But there is no commitment that one can assume would be fulfilled nor any Israeli initiative that will actually be implemented. The idea that Obama and his team are the greatest friends of Israel is a deadly insult. The United States has undermined Israel on many issues: Egypt (by supporting a hostile Muslim Brotherhood government); Tunisia (ditto); Sinai (by enabling an insurgency); Hamas (by the desire to keep the Brotherhood — an ally of Hamas — in power in Cairo); Turkey (by supporting the Islamist, anti-Israel government); Syria (by supporting radical Syrian Islamists); Europe (by not supporting the Israeli position on the peace process); America itself (by encouraging anti-Israel forces among the Jewish community and within Obama’s constituency); Palestinians (by the lack of criticism or pressure on Palestinian Authority).
 
And that’s a partial list.
 
Further, the most dangerous, insulting argument comes from Secretary of State John Kerry. He has repeatedly said the following (this is also a theme of administration supporters, including Jews):
 

The greatest danger to Israel is if Israel does not get peace soon.
 
This is an absurd lie. The greatest danger to Israel would be accepting a dangerous and unworkable peace agreement that the other side would not implement. In other words, the greatest danger for Israel would be to listen to the bad advice of Obama, Kerry, and their supporters.
 
Who should be more knowledgeable about the situation and more aware of Israel’s real interests, Israel or America? Do people think that Obama knows better than Israelis, that he cares more? That’s absurd and insulting. Of course, people assume that states and political leaderships put their own interests first, whether or not they understand this. And that lays the basis for overruling Israel’s democracy.
 
For example, a survey by the dovish Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) showed 65.6 percent of Israelis questioned did not expect to see a deal in talks between Israel and the Palestinians within a year. And if you take into the account the “don’t knows” and “no opinions,” that increases the percentage. Outrageously, the Reuters story on the polling notes the following:
 

The talks resumed last month after a three-year hiatus.
 
Actually, except for one week, there have not been real talks for 13 years. The article also notes:
 

Even if the Israeli government managed to defy skeptics and secure an accord, the poll … suggested it would struggle to sell it to its people.
 
This is obviously wrong, as the government and the vast majority of Israel’s people agree with each other. But the U.S. government and its supporters believe that the Israeli government — in partnership with Obama — should betray the beliefs, aspirations, and security of the Israeli people.
 
This does not only include Jewish settlements, even for those willing to give every one up for real, lasting peace. In fact, 55.5 percent of the Israeli people and 63 percent of Israeli Jews said they were against Israel agreeing to return to the 1967 lines, even if there were land swaps which would enable some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to remain part of Israel. It is not the terms ostensibly offered, but the credibility of the United States and the Palestinians. Mind you, the figure is even higher, because most people feel that this simply won’t work in terms of providing more security and stability.
 
Israel is not naïve. It was walking down a dark alley and thought that kindly old Uncle Sam — perhaps a bit grumpier lately — had his back, then looked to them for support only to find another enemy. Yet you will never ever hear an Israeli politician admit that.
 
Read Netanyahu’s unprecedented memo on the talks and the prisoner release. It reads as if he saw a ghost; he is trying to signal something very grim and serious and there is no implication that he believes in any possibility of compensation for this concession. Faced with a wasted effort of a unilateral Palestinian prisoner release, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government went along with it because they realized the indifference of the United States to Israel’s interests was extremely high. They realized that Congress was hypnotized that the Jewish community, in its Obama worship, was largely neutralized; and that rather than fighting European hostility, the White House was conducting it.
 
Looking over their shoulder in the misty night, they realized that a monster was following them. If you read Netanyahu’s unprecedented memo to the Israeli people as to why the terrorist prisoners were released, you get that clear signal. They realized that the Obama administration was extremely dangerous and that it was necessary to buy time.
 
Of course, the talks will not go anywhere because the Palestinians know they have a strong hand, and they will overplay it. But the administration’s willingness to punish Israel to win public relations points and to shore up the doomed U.S. alignment with Islamists has to be reckoned with, and for the next few years.

Title: Europe and Israel
Post by: ccp on September 29, 2013, 05:08:13 AM

After centuries of wars, conquests, empires, kingdoms, colonialism, carving out other countries like the entire middle east, Europe now has a  problem with a Jewish State.  Why?  One explanation:

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Why-Europe-Has-a-Problem-with-Israel.html?gclid=CKXW-4bH8LkCFTBnOgodPkAArA#.UkgV8xXD-Cg

Title: WSJ/Stephens: Israel's failing foreign policy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 30, 2013, 07:49:44 PM

So Israel's prime minister is now left to play the part of querulous Uncle Ben, who arrives the day after the funeral convinced his scheming siblings have already absconded with mother's finest jewelry.

Uncle Ben's suspicions may well be right. But he largely has himself to blame for not acting in time.

Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House on Monday and on Tuesday addresses the United Nations. It's a predictable routine. First he obtains the stylized assurances from President Obama—still exulting from his 15 minute phone call Friday with Iran's Hasan Rouhani—that Iran will not be allowed to get a bomb and that "all options are on the table." Then Mr. Netanyahu denounces Iran at the U.N. and issues unspecified, and increasingly noncredible, warnings that Israel may act on its own.

All hat and no cattle, as they say.

Here's a line I never thought I'd write: I wish Ehud Olmert were Israel's prime minister. Mr. Olmert has many flaws, some of them well known. But he also had a demonstrated capacity to act. It isn't clear that Mr. Netanyahu does.

Enlarge Image
image
image
chris kleponis / pool/European Pressphoto Agency

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.

In May 2007 Israel disclosed to the U.S. that Syria was constructing a nuclear reactor in its eastern desert with help from North Korea. Mr. Olmert, then Israel's prime minister, asked President Bush to bomb the facility. Mr. Bush weighed the options, said no, and proposed instead taking the matter public at the U.N.

"I told [Mr. Olmert] I had decided on a diplomatic option backed by the threat of force," the former president recounts in his memoir, "Decision Points."

"The prime minister was disappointed. 'This is something that hits at the very serious nerves of this country,' he said. He told me the threat of a nuclear weapons program in Syria was an 'existential' issue for Israel, and he worried diplomacy would bog down and fail. 'I must be honest and sincere with you. Your strategy is very disturbing to me.' That was the end of the call."

Could Mr. Netanyahu say the same to Mr. Obama? Maybe. The Israeli prime minister infuriated the White House a couple of years ago by treating the president to a public lecture in the Oval Office.

Yet Israeli policy since then has amounted to one big kowtow to Mr. Obama's needs, political and diplomatic. Israel apparently refrained from attacking Iran a year ago, largely out of deference to Mr. Obama's electoral needs. Since then it has given the administration the widest possible latitude to pursue diplomatic initiatives until they prove their futility.

A year on, here is where things stand.

(1) U.S. credibility on enforcing presidential red lines and carrying through on military threats is in tatters thanks to Mr. Obama's Syria capitulation.

(2) America's "diplomatic option" is, for Mr. Obama, a journey not a destination: He will pursue it no matter how flimsy the pretext or the likelihood of success.

(3) Iran has enriched nearly 3,000 kilos of uranium in the last year alone, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA also notes in its most recent report that "the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities . . . including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Oh, and (4): Despite this, Israel finds itself on the diplomatic back foot because Iran's new president, unlike his predecessor, has alighted on a less-uncouth way to deny the Holocaust. Israel is now in the disastrous position of having to hope that Iranian hard-liners sabotage Mr. Rouhani's efforts to negotiate a deal that, if honored, would leave Iran first-and-five at the nuclear goal line.

How does Mr. Netanyahu get out of this trap? Here's another line I never thought I'd write: by downgrading relations with Washington.

That isn't to say that Israel doesn't benefit from good relations with the U.S. But the U.S., like Britain after World War II, is in retreat from the world, and Israelis need to adapt to a global reality in which the Americans are willing to do less, and consequently count for less. What Mr. Netanyahu has been doing instead is granting Mr. Obama a degree of leverage and a presumption of authority over the Jewish state to which he is not entitled and has done little to deserve. That needs to stop.

What also needs to stop is the guessing game over Israel's intentions toward Iran. Mr. Obama will not—repeat, will not—conduct a military strike against Iran. Israelis who think otherwise are fooling themselves.

But Israel will soon have to decide whether to act alone. If so, Israelis must proceed without regard to Mr. Obama's diplomatic timetable. If not, they'll need to reconsider the concept and structure of Israeli deterrence, including nuclear ambiguity.

One last thing worth noting: Reflecting on Mr. Olmert's decision to act against his wishes, Mr. Bush wrote this: "Prime Minister Olmert's execution of the strike made up for the confidence I had lost in the Israelis during the Lebanon war. . . . The bombing demonstrated Israel's willingness to act alone. Prime Minister Olmert hadn't asked for a green light, and I hadn't given one. He had done what he believed was necessary to protect Israel."

That is the voice of respect. Better for Israel to have that than any other mark of international approval or popularity.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 01, 2013, 05:23:56 AM

The US, thanks to Obama placed enormous pressure on Netanyahu not to act.
At least Bush didn't get into Olmert's way.

Also bombing a single facility in Syria was far easier than bombing multiple facilities in Iran that have been hardened over decades.

The US will not act for sure.  Obama has a Muslim background.  Not Jewish.  (except he has no problem taking their money and their political advice).

Once again, ironically, the world is against the Jews.

Rouhani is playing the international politics well.  There must have been many in Iran who thought Amedinajad was a big mouth who was giving their game away.
If he didn't publically threaten the existence of Israel, deny the Holocaust, etc. he wouldn't have drawn as much attention to Iran's nuclear program.

Israel will have to act alone.  Or face a nuclear Iran.  That's it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2013, 07:12:03 AM

Unfortunately not only is that true, but Team Obama made Israel's logistics MUCH harder by leaking the existence of a refueling deal with Azerbaijian back when Israel was planning to bust a move.

My understanding is that Iran's program is so spread out and so dug in that a strike short of a nuclear attack would but delay the program-- AND IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD JUSTIFY IRAN GOING NUKE AND GOING TO WAR AGAINST ISRAEL. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 01, 2013, 08:41:50 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2013, 07:12:03 AM

Unfortunately not only is that true, but Team Obama made Israel's logistics MUCH harder by leaking the existence of a refueling deal with Azerbaijian back when Israel was planning to bust a move.

My understanding is that Iran's program is so spread out and so dug in that a strike short of a nuclear attack would but delay the program-- AND IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD JUSTIFY IRAN GOING NUKE AND GOING TO WAR AGAINST ISRAEL. 

Exactly the box Buraq wanted to put Israel in.

Title: Int'l Red Cross shames itself
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2013, 07:18:27 PM

http://www.yourjewishnews.com/2013/05/27143.html

Title: Israel's hit on Osirak
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2013, 09:40:22 AM

WSJ
Rogue State
Think Israel wouldn't strike Iran's nukes in defiance of America's wishes? Think again.
BY URI SADOT | OCTOBER 21, 2013

As American and Iranian diplomats attempt to reach a rapprochement that would end the historical enmity between their two governments, Israel is weary of being sidelined by its most important ally. While the U.S. incentive for diplomacy is great, it could place Washington in a short-term conflict of interests with Israel, which views Iran as an existential threat. With the renewed negotiations in place, will Israel dare strike a Middle Eastern nation in defiance of its closest allies? It seems unlikely, but 32 years ago, the answer was yes.

On June 7, 1981, Israel launched Operation Opera. A squadron of fighter planes flew almost 1,000 miles over Saudi and Iraqi territory to bomb a French-built plutonium reactor on the outskirts of Baghdad, which Israeli leaders feared would be used by Saddam Hussein to build atomic bombs.

The operation was successful, but the international reaction was severe. On the morning following the attack, the United States condemned Israel, suggesting it had violated U.S. law by using American-made military equipment in its assault. State Department spokesman Dean Fischer reiterated the American position that the reactor did not pose a potential security threat, and White House press secretary Larry Speakes added that President Ronald Reagan had personally approved the condemnation.

Israel didn't hesitate back then to bomb what it viewed as a threatening nuclear program, even at the risk of provoking a conflict with the United States -- and it will likely not hesitate today. As the strike against Iraq shows, Israeli policymakers see the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a hostile regime as an existential threat, and they will risk a breach with Israel's closest allies to prevent it.

Twelve days after the Israeli strike on Iraq, the U.N. Security Council "strongly condemn[ed]" Israel's attack as a violation of the U.N. Charter and the norms of international conduct. The wording of the resolution was carefully drafted by Jeane Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and was unanimously approved by the council.

The Reagan administration, which had entered office less than five months prior, had been caught off guard by Israel's surprise attack. Diplomatic cables from the Israeli Embassy in Washington that week reported a very difficult first few days in defending Israel's actions. Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner noted that the "fierce [critiques] of Israel were unlike previous reactions to Israeli operations in the past … and were fueled by the negative briefings given by the administration to Washington reporters."

As Pazner suggested, the media response was scathing. The New York Times editorialized on June 9 that Israel's attack "was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression. Even assuming that Iraq was hellbent to divert enriched uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons." The Washington Post stated, "the Israelis have made a grievous error … contrary to their own long-term interests and in a way contrary to American interests as well."

The American public was also largely antagonistic to Israel's attack. Some two weeks after the bombing, a June 19 Gallup poll showed that a plurality of Americans, 45 percent, did not think Israel's strike was justified. In another Gallup survey, conducted one month after the attack, only 35 percent of Americans said they were "more sympathetic to Israel" than to Arab nations. While 57 percent of Americans believed Iraq was planning to make nuclear bombs, only 24 percent thought bombing its reactor was the right thing to do.

The Arab reaction to the raid was vociferous and universal. Iraq's rivals, such as Kuwait, Iran, and Syria, denounced the attack, and Saudi Arabia even offered to finance the construction of a new Iraqi reactor. In Washington, recently declassified CIA estimates predicted that the aggravated Arabs would turn away from the United States and toward the Soviet Union. "Washington's ability to promote Arab cooperation against a Soviet threat or to bring the Arabs and Israelis to the bargaining table has been struck a hard blow," the report warned.

Within Reagan's cabinet, opinions were split. Six years after a major break in U.S.-Israel relations, triggered by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's refusal in 1975 to withdraw from strategic areas in the Sinai, strong voices lobbied the president to teach Israel a lesson. These figures -- including Vice President George H.W. Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and Chief of Staff James Baker -- were greatly concerned about Israel's offensive use of American fighter jets, in violation of the 1952 military assistance treaty.

On the other side of the table sat Secretary of State Alexander Haig and National Security Advisor Richard Allen, who argued for only a symbolic punishment to placate world opinion.

After several days of discussions, Reagan eventually adjudicated in favor of Israel. He would later write in his memoirs that he was sympathetic to Israel's position and "believed we should give [it] the benefit of the doubt." He directed Kirkpatrick not to condemn Israel itself, but only its "action." The actual punishment was also light -- a delay on the delivery of fighter jets that only lasted a few months.

Title: POTH: Hamas' educational curriculum
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2013, 09:08:37 AM

It is POTH, so caveat lector:
============================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131104
GAZA CITY — When a class of Palestinian ninth graders in Gaza recently discussed the deadly 1929 riots over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, it was guided by a new textbook, introduced this fall by the Islamist Hamas movement.

Books used by 55,000 children in eighth to 10th grade do not recognize modern Israel or mention the Oslo Peace Accords.

Asked the lesson of the uprising, one of the 40 boys in class promptly answered, “Al Buraq Wall is an Islamic property,” using the Muslim name for the site, one of the holiest in Judaism. Pleased, the teacher then inquired whether the students would boycott Israeli products, as Arabs had boycotted Jewish businesses in 1929. A resounding chorus of “Yes!” came back from the class.

For the first time since taking control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, the Hamas movement is deviating from the approved Palestinian Authority curriculum, using the new texts as part of a broader push to infuse the next generation with its militant ideology.

Among other points, the books, used by 55,000 children in the eighth, ninth and 10th grades as part of a required “national education” course of study in government schools, do not recognize modern Israel, or even mention the Oslo Peace Accords the country signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s.

Textbooks have long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which dueling historical narratives and cultural clashes underpin a territorial fight. And they are central examples of what Israeli leaders call Palestinian “incitement” against Jews, held up as an obstacle to peace talks newly resumed under American pressure.

Beyond their take on Israel, the new texts are also a salvo in the war for influence between the rival Palestinian factions: Gaza-based Hamas and Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank. They reflect a growing gulf between the 1.7 million Palestinians living in the densely populated Gaza Strip and the 2.5 million spread among the West Bank’s cities and villages.

“Textbooks are always and everywhere a very important means of representing a national ethos,” said Daniel Bar-Tal, a Tel Aviv University professor who helped lead a comprehensive recent study of Israeli and Palestinian textbooks.

“When a leader says something, not everyone is listening. But when we talk about textbooks, all the children, all of a particular peer group, will be exposed to a particular material,” he added. “This is the strongest card.”

What Gaza teenagers are reading in their 50-page hardcover texts this fall includes references to the Jewish Torah and Talmud as “fabricated,” and a description of Zionism as a racist movement whose goals include driving Arabs out of all of the area between the Nile in Africa and the Euphrates in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

“Palestine,” in turn, is defined as a state for Muslims stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. A list of Palestinian cities includes Haifa, Beersheba and Acre — all within Israel’s 1948 borders. And the books rebut Jewish historical claims to the territory by saying, “The Jews and the Zionist movement are not related to Israel, because the sons of Israel are a nation which had been annihilated.”

For contemporary history, there is a recounting of Hamas’s battle with Israel last fall that exaggerates: The books say that rockets from Gaza sent “three million Zionists underground for eight days” (somewhat fewer Israelis were in and out of shelters sporadically), that Tel Aviv was hit (one missile landed in the sea, and another fell well short) and that an attempted strike on Israel’s Parliament building “forced the Zionists to beg for cease-fire.”

Yosef Kuperwasser, a senior Israeli official who has led the charge against the incitement, said the new texts were blunter expressions of a dangerous message spread throughout Palestinian schools and news media.

“Palestinians have developed a system of deception — to English-speaking people they sell one story, and to themselves they have a different story,” Mr. Kuperwasser said. “Textbooks are one of the tools with which they tell their children what is the truth.” He added, “If you want real peace, it has to be based on a real change in the culture of hatred.”

The study that Professor Bar-Tal co-led found that Palestinian Authority books generally contained more negative characterizations of Israel and less self-criticism than Israeli books do of Palestinians, but that both sides presented the other as the enemy, failed to properly mark most maps and lacked information about each other’s religion, culture and daily life.
=========================

 Hamas officials said they had introduced the new textbooks, and doubled the time devoted to the national education course to two sessions per week, because they believed that the Palestinian Authority was under pressure from Israel to sanitize its curriculum. “We need to make sure generations stick to the national rights,” said one Hamas lawmaker, Huda Naim.
World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

The Gaza Strip is home to 465,000 students. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugee families, runs 250 schools for grades one to nine, and the Hamas government controls 400 schools serving all grades (there are also 46 private schools). Both Hamas and the refugee agency use the Palestinian Authority curriculum also taught throughout the West Bank, but Hamas has added programs, like a military training elective introduced in high schools last year that focuses on resistance to Israel.

In April, Hamas approved a law requiring gender-segregated schools from age 9, and making criminal any contact between educational institutions and Israel. Hamas has also recently increased modesty patrols to check clothing on college campuses and to stop young unmarried men and women from fraternizing in public.

Abdel-Hakim Abu Jamous, a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority’s Education Ministry in Ramallah in the West Bank, said no national education textbooks were used in West Bank schools, leaving individual teachers to run lessons as they wish. Jehad Zakarna, a senior official in the ministry, said he had not seen the Hamas textbooks, which were introduced at the start of school on Aug. 20, and therefore could not comment on them.

The new books, written by a Hamas committee, feature cover pictures of Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, a West Bank city, both sites of continuing clashes between Muslim and Jewish worshipers.

Besides their questionable treatment of Israel and Jews, the textbooks present a decidedly Hamas spin on Palestinian politics and recent history. For example, Ahmed Yassin, a Hamas founder, is given equal billing with Yasir Arafat, the former Palestinian president, who remains the definitive national hero in the West Bank.

Anound Ali, a 10th grader at another Gaza City school, expressed concern that the new books could further divide Palestinians. “School textbooks were the last thing uniting us with the West Bank — now we study something different,” she said one recent day after class.

She added: “The book has nothing about Oslo. It’s our right to know about Oslo because it’s a fact in our life.”

At Suliman Sultan School here in Gaza City, a three-story L-shaped building overlooking the rubble of a stadium destroyed by an Israeli F-16 airstrike last November, many students and teachers were thrilled to have the new textbooks.

“It shows the cruelty of the occupation,” said Ahmed Bessisso, a 15-year-old student in the class that discussed the 1929 uprising. “It encourages students to participate in national activities.”

Ahmed’s classmate Mohamed Ajour, also 15, said that he preferred “to study the history of Palestine instead of the history of Egypt or Jordan,” and that the books present the “Palestine I want to learn about — I don’t recognize that Palestine is only Gaza and West Bank.”

Munir Qatayef, who teaches another national education section in the school, said the book had been “big for students.”

“It’s highly politicized,” Mr. Qatayef said. “It’s a lesson of nationalism and belonging.”

Title: Obama effectively lifted Iran sanctions enforcement months ago
Post by: ccp on November 08, 2013, 06:27:05 AM

Lead article on Drudge.

Treasury simply stopped enforcing companies that do business with Iran.  I assume the House and Senate Committees that deal with this were in the dark.

The government departments are simply ordered to do his bidding behind the scenes.

This makes Iran Contra look like peanuts.

Of course the shysters will be out en masse denying this is the case. 

And Hillary will be doing polls and devising her distancing strategy behind the scenes.

She will campaign for stronger ties with Israel and the Hollywood hypocrites will be flooding her with money.   Now the liar in chief is safely in for the second term they will shift their support to the next one.

All the while we are going to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. 

Title: Re: Israel and neighbors, Netanyahu slams proposed deal with Iran
Post by: DougMacG on November 08, 2013, 06:47:52 AM

Quote from: ccp on November 08, 2013, 06:27:05 AM

Treasury simply stopped enforcing companies that do business with Iran.  I assume the House and Senate Committees that deal with this were in the dark.

The government departments are simply ordered to do his bidding behind the scenes.

This makes Iran Contra look like peanuts.

Of course the shysters will be out en masse denying this is the case. 

And Hillary will be doing polls and devising her distancing strategy behind the scenes.

She will campaign for stronger ties with Israel and the Hollywood hypocrites will be flooding her with money.   Now the liar in chief is safely in for the second term they will shift their support to the next one.

All the while we are going to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. 

This time he meant it, if you like your nuclear plan, you can keep your nuclear plan.
------------------

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/First-step-deal-on-Irans-nuclear-program-expected-as-early-as-Friday-330978

Netanyahu slams proposed deal with Iran in harshest words to date

The deal being worked out between the world powers and Iran is a very bad deal that Israel is not obliged by, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlNeQlOTiR8[/youtube]

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 08, 2013, 02:51:04 PM

Who could have foreseen that Buraq would fcuk Israel?

Title: Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century?
Post by: objectivist1 on November 11, 2013, 06:17:13 AM

Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century?

Posted By P. David Hornik On November 11, 2013 @ frontpagemag.com

Israeli officials were described as “furious at the Obama administration” over what seemed to be an emerging nuclear deal between the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, plus Germany) and Iran.

One official was quoted saying that “the Americans capitulated to Iranian maneuvering…. Kerry wants a deal at all costs and the Iranians are leading the Americans by the nose.”

As for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he was described as being “in shock.” That was evident enough in a statement Netanyahu released Friday morning after seeing off Secretary of State Kerry at the airport, in which Netanyahu dispensed with diplomatic bromides and said:

I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal—a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.

Kerry’s visit to Israel had already been a rough one, in which he first stigmatized Israeli communities as “illegitimate” and then, on Israeli TV Thursday night, as The Times of Israel’s Raphael Ahren aptly put it, “appeared to come perilously close to empathizing with potential Palestinian aggression against Israel.” (Reactions by other Israeli commentators were titled “Kerry, give it a rest” and “Kerry: Stay home”.)

But the real stunner came on Friday when Jerusalem apparently got word of the deal that seemed to be taking shape in Geneva. It led to the canceling of a joint media appearance between Netanyahu and Kerry, and prompted, instead, a bitter exchange between them before Kerry headed off to the Swiss city.

The possible deal gravely worries Israel—and others with a realistic view of the situation—because it allows Iran to continue uranium enrichment (albeit at a lower level—now meaningless given Iran’s advanced centrifuges), continue the construction of its heavy-water reactor in Arak (aimed at producing plutonium bombs), while not requiring the dismantling of a single centrifuge.

At the same time, in “reward” essentially for nothing, the deal gives Iran sanctions relief far beyond what Israeli officials had been led to expect, reportedly including “the unfreezing of $3 billion of fuel funds, an easing of sanctions on the petrochemical and gold sectors, an easing of sanctions on replacement parts for planes and a loosening of restrictions on the Iranian car industry.”

With Chinese, Italian, German, and other companies champing at the bit to resume doing lucrative business with Iran, it’s believed such an opening will lead to the sanctions regime’s total collapse.

So Israel was relieved when it turned out the deal—for the time being—had fallen through on Saturday. But with the talks set to resume in nine days, trepidation remains high.

Israel’s ally in objecting to the putative deal has turned out to be France. That appeared to validate earlier reports that, among the Western powers, France was the most clear-eyed about the ayatollahs’ regime and the closest to Israel in its perceptions. France has long had tight ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and appears to have absorbed some of their realism—and fear—about a nuclear Iran.

Meanwhile, on Sunday morning, Netanyahu’s office issued a press release in which he stated:

Over the weekend I spoke with President Obama, with President Putin, with President Hollande, with Chancellor Merkel and with British Prime Minister Cameron. I told them that according to all the information reaching Israel, the impending deal is bad and dangerous.

It is not only dangerous to us; it is dangerous for them, too. It is dangerous for the peace of the world because in one fell swoop it lowers the pressure of the sanctions which took years to build, and conversely, Iran essentially preserves its nuclear uranium enrichment capabilities as well as the ability to advance on the plutonium enrichment path.

…I asked all the leaders what the rush is. And I suggested that they wait…. It is good that this was ultimately the choice that was made but I am not fooling myself—there is a strong desire to strike a deal….

Iran’s allegedly “moderate” president Hassan Rouhani, for his part, did not sound conciliatory on Sunday when he said Iran’s “red lines” included uranium enrichment and that “We will not answer to any threat, sanction, humiliation or discrimination.” But with Iran’s interlocutors—possibly with the exception of France—already apparently ready to fold on the enrichment issue, Rouhani’s words seemed aimed mainly at Israel.

For Israel, after so many avowals of President Obama’s determination to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the latest turn of events is alarming and disillusioning. Many believe that, as long as diplomatic activity between the P5+1 and Iran is going on, Israel is effectively screened out of taking military action. Netanyahu had that in mind when he also said on Friday: “Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people.”

If the situation looks desperate and Israel takes that course, it will not be without (tacit) allies in the region.

Title: Sec. Kerry: "Does Israel want a third intifada?"
Post by: DougMacG on November 11, 2013, 10:31:10 AM

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/11/217314.htm
In Jerusalem, Nov 7, 2013:

Sec. Kerry described Israel's settlements in the West Bank as "illegitimate" and warned ominously: "The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos. I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?"

Title: From an arm of the Israel govt.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2013, 06:37:42 PM

Click here to watch: Hamas Prepares for War

During an Al-Qassam Brigade military parade Hamas officials called on Fatah to prepare for war with Israel, and threatened to declare war if Jews are allowed to pray at the Temple Mount. At the parade by Hamas' "military wing", which marks a year since the IDF Pillar of Defense counter-terror operation in Gaza, Raeed Sa'ad, a high-ranking commander of Al-Qassam, called on Fatah and its military branch in Judea and Samaria to prepare for the next clash with Israel. Sa'ad added that "jihad and struggle" were the only way to confront Israel, saying "don't be mistaken by the peace talks that won't bring anything but additional concessions." The call comes right after Palestinian Authority (PA) negotiators quit recent peace talks. Hamas called on the PA to end the talks altogether just Thursday. Hamas spokesperson Mahmoud Al-Zahar spoke at the same event, opining that the balance of forces is swinging in favor of the Palestinians, and saying that in the next conflict "we will invade them and they won't invade us." Additionally Sa'ad threatened Israel, warning that Al-Qassam Brigades will declare war if plans to allow Jews to pray at the holiest site in Judaism in a rotating time table between Jews and Muslims is carried out.

Mushir al-Masri, a top Hamas terrorist and member of the PA parliament, declared that a 'calm' or cease-fire period with Israel was the best time to prepare new tactics against Israel's alleged "aggression" - both above and below ground. Speaking on behalf of Hamas at the College for Science and Technology in Khan Yunis on Monday, al-Masri emphasized that the next conflict with Israel would be underground, and that "we will enter your homes, your schools, your positions and your strongholds."

WATCH HERE

Meanwhile Yehudah Glick, Chairman of the Temple Mount Heritage Fund, ended a 12 day hunger strike Thursday after Jerusalem District Police Chief Yossi Pariente gave him permission to return to the Temple Mount. Glick began the hunger strike after police barred him from the Temple Mount with no reason cited.

Title: Exercise Blue Flag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2013, 10:22:17 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/iaf-launches-largest-international-military-exercise-in-israels-history?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+IAF%2C+US+Air+Force+hold+largest+joint-military+exercise+in+Israel%27s+history&utm_campaign=20131125_m118065256_11%2F25%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+IAF%2C+US+Air+Force+hold+largest+joint-military+exercise+in+Israel%27s+history&utm_term=IAF+Launches+Largest+International+Military+Exercise+in+Israel_27s+History

Title: Israel and its neighbors, The Goal of Obama's Foreign Policy
Post by: DougMacG on November 26, 2013, 08:38:16 AM

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post is particularly harsh on President Obama today.

The Goal of Obama's Foreign Policy

By Caroline Glick - November 26, 2013

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/26/the_goal_of_obamas_foreign_policy_120781.html#ixzz2llp35Oz5

Last paragraph: 

His goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It isn’t even to facilitate a rapprochement between America and Iran. The goal of Obama’s foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/26/the_goal_of_obamas_foreign_policy_120781.html#ixzz2llpFs2xL
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on November 26, 2013, 09:32:42 AM

I've met and chatted with Caroline.  She's an incredibly sharp, incisive, no-nonsense person who tells it like it is with no sugar-coating.  I think she's actually just being honest and factual in this piece.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 26, 2013, 12:50:52 PM

I first became aware of her via Rachel's postings of her articles here-- the quality of them spoke for itself.  Very cool that you met her.  How did it come about?

Title: STratfor: Israel's New Strategic Position
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2013, 09:45:45 AM

 Israel's New Strategic Position
Geopolitical Weekly
Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - 04:00 Print Text Size
Stratfor

By George Friedman

Israel has expressed serious concerns over the preliminary U.S.-Iranian agreement, which in theory will lift sanctions levied against Tehran and end its nuclear program. That was to be expected. Less obvious is why the Israeli government is concerned and how it will change Israel's strategic position.

Israel's current strategic position is excellent. After two years of stress, its peace treaty with Egypt remains in place. Syria is in a state of civil war that remains insoluble. Some sort of terrorist threat might originate there, but no strategic threat is possible. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does not seem inclined to wage another war with Israel, and while the group's missile capacity has grown, Israel appears able to contain the threat they pose without creating a strategic threat to Israeli national interests. The Jordanian regime, which is aligned with Israel, probably will withstand the pressure put on it by its political opponents.

In other words, the situation that has existed since the Camp David Accords were signed remains in place. Israel's frontiers are secure from conventional military attack. In addition, the Palestinians are divided among themselves, and while ineffective, intermittent rocket attacks from Gaza are likely, there is no Intifada underway in the West Bank.

Therefore, Israel faces no existential threats, save one: the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and a delivery system and use it to destroy Israel before it or the United States can prevent it from doing so. Clearly, a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would be catastrophic for Israel. Its ability to tolerate that threat, regardless of how improbable it may be, is a pressing concern for Israel.

In this context, Iran's nuclear program supersedes all of Israel's other security priorities. Israeli officials believe their allies, particularly those in the United States, should share this view. As a strategic principle, this is understandable. But it is unclear how Israel intends to apply it. It is also unclear how its application will affect relations with the United States, without which it cannot cope with the Iranian threat.

Israel understands that however satisfactory its current circumstances are, those circumstances are mercurial and to some extent unpredictable. Israel may not rely heavily on the United States under these circumstances, but these circumstances may not be permanent. There are plenty of scenarios in which Israel would not be able to manage security threats without American assistance. Thus, Israel has an overriding interest in maintaining its relationship with the United States and in ensuring Iran never becomes a nuclear state. So any sense that the United States is moving away from its commitment to Israel, or that it is moving in a direction where it might permit an Iranian nuclear weapon, is a crisis. Israel's response to the Iran talks -- profound unhappiness without outright condemnation -- has to be understood in this context, and the assumptions behind it have to be examined.

More than Uranium

Iran does not appear to have a deliverable nuclear weapon at this point. Refining uranium is a necessary but completely insufficient step in developing a weapon. A nuclear weapon is much more than uranium. It is a set of complex technologies, not the least of which are advanced electrical systems and sensors that, given the amount of time the Iranians have needed just to develop not-quite-enough enriched uranium, seems beyond them. Iran simply does not have sufficient fuel to produce a device.

Nor it does not have a demonstrated ability to turn that device into a functioning weapon. A weapon needs to be engineered to extreme tolerances, become rugged enough to function on delivery and be compact enough to be delivered. To be delivered, its must be mounted on a very reliable missile or aircraft. Iran has neither reliable missiles nor aircraft with the necessary range to attack Israel. The idea that the Iranians will use the next six months for a secret rush to complete the weapon simply isn't the way it works.

Before there is a weapon there must be a test. Nations do not even think of deploying nuclear weapons without extensive underground tests -- not to see if they have uranium but to test that the more complex systems work. That is why they can't secretly develop a weapon: They themselves won't know they have a workable weapon without a test. In all likelihood, the first test would fail, as such things do. Attempting their first test in an operational attack would result not only in failure but also in retaliation.

Of course, there are other strategies for delivering a weapon if it were built. One is the use of a ship to deliver it to the Israeli coast. Though this is possible, the Israelis operate an extremely efficient maritime interdiction system, and the United States monitors Iranian ports. The probability is low that a ship would go unnoticed. Having a nuclear weapon captured or detonated elsewhere would infuriate everyone in the eastern Mediterranean, invite an Israeli counterstrike and waste a weapon

Otherwise, Iran theoretically could drive a nuclear weapon into Israel by road. But these weapons are not small. There is such a thing as a suitcase bomb, but that is a misleading name; it is substantially larger than a suitcase, and it is also the most difficult sort of device to build. Because of its size, it is not particularly rugged. You don't just toss it into the trunk, drive 1,500 miles across customs checkpoints and set it off. There are many ways you can be captured -- particularly crossing into Israel -- and many ways to break the bomb, which require heavy maintenance. Lastly, even assuming Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, its use against Israel would kill as many Muslims -- among them Shia -- as Israelis, an action tantamount to geopolitical suicide for Tehran.
A Tempered Response

One of the reasons Israel has not attempted an airstrike, and one of the reasons the United States has refused to consider it, is that Iran's prospects for developing a nuclear weapon are still remote. Another reason is difficulty. Israel's air force is too far removed and too small to carry out simultaneous strikes on multiple facilities. If the Israelis forward-deployed to other countries, the Iranians would spot them. The Israelis can't be certain which sites are real and which are decoys. The Iranians have had years to harden their facilities, so normal ordnance likely would be inadequate. Even more serious is the fact that battle damage assessment -- judging whether the site has been destroyed -- would be prohibitively difficult.

For these reasons, the attack could not simply be carried out from the air. It would require special operations forces on the ground to try to determine the effects. That could result in casualties and prisoners, if it could be done at all. And at that the Israelis can only be certain that they have destroyed all the sites they knew about, not the ones that their intelligence didn't know about. Some will dismiss this as overestimating Iranian capabilities. This frequently comes from those most afraid that Tehran can build a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. If it could do the latter, it could harden sites and throw off intelligence gathering. The United States would be able to mount a much more robust attack than the Israelis, but it is unclear whether it would be robust enough. And in any case, all the other problems -- the reliability of intelligence, determining whether the site were destroyed -- would still apply.

But ultimately, the real reason Israel has not attacked Iran's nuclear sites is that the Iranians are so far from having a weapon. If they were closer, the Israelis would have attacked regardless of the difficulty. The Americans, on the other hand, saw an opportunity in the fact that there are no weapons yet and that the sanctions were hurting the Iranians. Knowing that they were not in a hurry to complete and knowing that they were hurting economically, the Iranians likewise saw an opportunity to better their position.

From the American point of view, the nuclear program was not the most pressing issue, even though Washington knew it had to be stopped. What the Americans wanted was an understanding with the Iranians, whereby their role in the region would be balanced against those of other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, the Arabian emirates and to some extent Israel. As I've argued, the United States is still interested in what happens in the region, but it does not want to continue to use force there. Washington wants to have multiple relations with regional actors, not just Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Israel's response to the U.S.-Iran talks should be understood in this way. The Israelis tempered their response initially because they knew the status of Iran's nuclear program. Even though a weapon is still a grave concern, it is a much longer-term problem than the Israelis admit publicly. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried hard to convince the United States otherwise, the United States isn't biting.) Since an attack has every chance of failing, the Israelis recognize that these negotiations are the most likely way to eliminate the weapons, and that if the negotiations fail, no one will be in a more dangerous position for trying. Six months won't make a difference.

The Israelis could not simply applaud the process because there is, in fact, a strategic threat to Israel embedded in the talks. Israel has a strategic dependency on the United States. Israel has never been comfortable with Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia, but there was nothing the Israelis could do about it, so they accommodated it. But they understand that the outcome of these talks, if successful, means more than the exchange of a nuclear program for eased sanctions; it means the beginning of a strategic alignment with Iran.

In fact, the United States was aligned with Iran until 1979. As Richard Nixon's China initiative shows, ideology can relent to geopolitical reality. On the simplest level, Iran needs investment, and American companies want to invest. On the more complex level, Iran needs to be certain that Iraq is friendly to its interests and that neither Russia nor Turkey can threaten it in the long run. Only the United States can ensure that. For their part, the Americans want a stronger Iran to contain Saudi support for Sunni insurgents, compel Turkey to shape its policy more narrowly, and remind Russia that the Caucasus, and particularly Azerbaijan, have no threat from the south and can concentrate on the north. The United States is trying to create a multipolar region to facilitate a balance-of-power strategy in place of American power.
Israel in 10 Years

I began by pointing out how secure Israel is currently. Looking down the road 10 years, Israel cannot assume that this strategic configuration will remain in place. Egypt's future is uncertain. The emergence of a hostile Egyptian government is not inconceivable. Syria, like Lebanon, appears to be fragmented. What will come of this is unclear. And whether in 10 years the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will remain Hashemite or become a Palestinian state is worthy of contemplation. None have military power now, but then Egypt went from disaster in 1967 to a very capable force in 1973. They had a Soviet patron. They might have another patron in 10 years.

Right now, Israel does not need the United States, nor American aid, which means much less to them now than it did in 1973. They need it as a symbol of American commitment and will continue to need it. But the real Israeli fear is that the United States is moving away from direct intervention to a more subtle form of manipulation. That represents a threat to Israel if Israel ever needs direct intervention rather than manipulation. But more immediately, it threatens Israel because the more relationships the United States has in the region, the less significant Israel is to Washington's strategy. If the United States maintains this relationship with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others, Israel becomes not the anchor of U.S. policy but one of many considerations. This is Israel's real fear in these negotiations.

In the end, Israel is a small and weak power. Its power has been magnified by the weakness of its neighbors. That weakness is not permanent, and the American relationship has changed in many ways since 1948. Another shift seems to be underway. The Israelis used to be able to depend on massive wellsprings of support in the U.S. public and Congress. In recent years, this support has become less passionate, though it has not dried up completely. What Israel has lost is twofold. First, it has lost control of America's regional strategy. Second, it has lost control of America's political process. Netanyahu hates the U.S.-Iran talks not because of nuclear weapons but because of the strategic shift of the United States. But his response must remain measured because Israel has less influence in the United States than it once did.

Read more: Israel's New Strategic Position | Stratfor

Title: Spencer and Geller Banned from Britain for Supporting Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 04, 2013, 06:58:31 AM

Spencer and Geller Banned from Britain for Supporting Israel

Posted By Robert Spencer On December 4, 2013 @ frontpagemag.com

New revelations about why I was banned from entering Great Britain reveal how deeply compromised the British government is to hard-Leftists and Islamic supremacists – including the most virulent haters of Israel.

As faithful FrontPage readers may recall, last June I was banned from Britain because, as a letter from the U.K. Home Office told me, “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” Why not? Because I said (quite factually) that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.” And also because, the letter said, “you are the founder of the blog Jihad Watch (a site widely criticized for being Islamophobic),” and “you co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both of which have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups.”

Note the passive voice: the Freedom Defense Initiative (actually the American Freedom Defense Initiative, AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America “have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups” by whom? The letter didn’t say. And Jihad Watch has been “widely criticized for being Islamophobic” by whom? The letter gives no hint, instead attempting to establish these charges as the judicious assessment of neutral observers.

Now, however, newly released documents relating to our case, as Pamela Geller discussed in a recent Daily Caller article, reveal that the Home Office’s decision was guided by far-Left agitation groups with a deep animus against Israel.

Of course, this was already obvious from the Home Office’s repetition of the charge that Jihad Watch is “Islamophobic” in its letter to me. “Islamophobia” is a manipulative and propagandistic neologism designed to intimidate non-Muslims into thinking that there is something “bigoted” and “racist” about resisting jihad terror and opposing Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays and others. The only people who use it at all are Islamic supremacists who want to clear away all obstacles to the advance of jihad, their Leftist allies, and those whom they have bamboozled into thinking it is a legitimate term of discourse – such as the British Home Office.

So it was obvious already who was whispering into the Home Office’s ear, but now it is confirmed. As Pamela Geller noted, in the newly revealed documents “all reference to the identities of those who asked that we be banned have been blacked out.” However, “their black marker missed one reference, revealing that one of the groups complaining about us was Faith Matters. Faith Matters was founded by a Muslim named Fiyaz Mughal, who also heads up Tell Mama, a group dedicated to tracking ‘Islamophobia.’ Tell Mama lost government funding in June after making false claims of waves of attacks ‘Islamophobic incidents.’”

So around the same time that Tell Mama was being stripped of its government funding for lying about the prevalence of “anti-Muslim hate crimes,” that same government was accepting its advice and counsel in favor of banning Pamela Geller and me from the country. Was the Home Office unaware that Tell Mama was wildly exaggerating “Islamophobia” in Britain, and was thus an untrustworthy source for any information related to it, or did it simply not care?

As the Home Office makes its case against us, it also cites as authorities two pro-jihad smear sites, Loonwatch and Islamophobia Today – both of which have published numerous false charges, distortions, and outright lies about me, my public stands on various issues, my activities, and my associations. Both are devoted to completely discrediting anyone who dares to criticize jihad and Islamic supremacism, and to portraying those who oppose jihad terror as just terrible, terrible people. Generally they do this in the context of lurid ridicule of and furious hatred and contempt for their targets, larded with risible pseudo-scholarly “refutations” of their works recalling nothing so much as Der Stürmer. And true to their Nazi prototype, both are relentlessly anti-Israel, retailing Palestinian jihad propaganda with the same clownish fury and disregard for the facts that marks their analyses as a whole.

That anyone regards such sites seriously, with their gleeful flouting of accuracy and genuine analysis, and willingness to retail any smear to discredit their targets, is strange enough. That the British Home Office would be among those who do is a telling indication of just how thoroughly David Cameron’s Conservative government has been compromised, and how abjectly it has capitulated to a far-Left agenda.

The prime confirmation of this comes from one email from the Home Office’s massive team investigating Geller and me. The author (name redacted, of course) notes that the subject profiles that were prepared on us cite our “pro-Israeli views,” and argues that this material be removed, lest the wicked Zionists Geller and Spencer “argue publically that their exclusion is on the basis of their support for Israel.”

Well, that let the cat out of the bag. So here goes: I am hereby arguing publically that my exclusion was on the basis of my support for Israel, along with my “Islamophobia.” In banning me from the country, the British government capitulated to far-Left and Islamic supremacist pressure groups that are both virulently anti-Israel and enraged about the trumped-up phenomenon of “Islamophobia,” while making excuses for or ignoring altogether the reality of Islamic jihad and the numerous human rights abuses perpetrated daily in its name.

Were this a Labour government, this capitulation might be understandable – after all the Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance has been noted in numerous quarters for years, and people nowadays more or less expect liberals and Leftists to be anti-Israel and anti-counterjihad, if not outright pro-jihad. But the Tories?

The Conservative government of David Cameron has failed the British people as thoroughly and resoundingly as the Republican Party has failed the American people. Both could have and should have constituted themselves as a loyal opposition, departing from the Leftist line. Instead, they have parroted it in innumerable ways, and disenfranchised millions of their constituents by offering no alternative to the dominant paradigm.

Whether or not I ever get into Britain again, the Conservative collapse revealed in the Home Office documents relating to my ban reveal a ruling party, and a society, that is profoundly confused, deeply compromised, and facing far greater crises to come.

Title: Hamas brags
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 06, 2013, 08:06:46 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/hamas-tallies-attacks-against-israel-in-tv-clip?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Hamas+tallies+attacks+against+Israel+in+TV+clip&utm_campaign=20131203_m118163564_12%2F6%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Hamas+tallies+attacks+against+Israel+in+TV+clip&utm_term=Hamas+tallies+attacks+against+Israel+in+TV+clip

Title: Twelve Tribes: Abbas, partner in peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 14, 2013, 08:56:28 PM

Abbas Decorates Arch-Terrorist, Killer of 125 Israelis

 


Click here to watch: Abbas Decorates Arch-Terrorist, Killer of 125 Israelis

The snow that fell in Jerusalem Thursday morning presented dangers to motorists in Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has granted a posthumous honor to arch-terrorist Abu Jihad, who was responsible for the murder of at least 125 Israelis in numerous terror attacks that he planned, including a bus hijacking in 1978, in which 37 civilians were murdered. Official PA TV News reported that Abbas, in order "to honor the founding leaders and the first generation of the Palestinian revolution and the PLO, and out of loyalty to their history of struggle," chose to decorate Abu Jihad with "the highest order of the Star of Honor." At the ceremony, Abbas handed the award to Abu Jihad's widow. Secretary-General of the Presidential Office, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, read aloud the "decree" signed by Abbas, calling terrorist Abu Jihad "the model of a true fighter and devoted leader," and praising him for "his honorable national role":

WATCH HERE

The glorification of arch-terrorist Abu Jihad is a long-standing PA and Fatah policy. Every year in April, the anniversary of Abu Jihad's death is marked with numerous events and ceremonies held in his honor. This year, PMW reported that the official PA news agency WAFA lauded Abu Jihad as a killer of 125, listing all the terror attacks he planned and directed, specifying the number of murdered: "Abu Jihad was killed by the Israeli Mossad in Tunisia on April 16, 1988... and was crowned the Prince of the Martyrs of Palestine... Among the military operations planned by Abu Jihad: the explosion at the Zohar reservoir in 1955; the operation to blow up the Israeli National Water Carrier in 1965; the operation at the Savoy Hotel in Tel Aviv, which killed 10 Israelis, in 1975; the blowing up of a truck bomb in Jerusalem in 1975; the killing of Albert Levi, the senior sapper, and his assistant, in Nablus in 1976; the Dalal Mughrabi operation (i.e., bus hijacking), in which more than 37 Israelis were killed, in 1978; the shelling of the Eilat Port in 1979; the Katyusha fire on the northern settlements [in Israel] in 1981..."

[WAFA and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 16, 2013] At a Fatah event in January this year, Abbas praised Abu Jihad and other terrorists who killed hundreds as "the blessed Martyrs" and "the leaders of all the fighting forces": "We renew the promise to our blessed Martyrs, that we will follow the path of the Martyr Brother Yasser Arafat and his comrades among the leaders of all the fighting forces, all the Martyrs. Among them, I mention Martyr Abu Jihad..."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 25, 2013, 05:08:26 PM

Iron Dome Deployed to Sderot, Tensions high on Border With Gaza

 


Click here to watch: Iron Dome Deployed to Sderot, Tensions high With Gaza

Israeli Defense Forces have struck a Hamas observation site near the border fence and also destroyed a weapons storage site and a Hamas base. According to the IDF, Hamas used the post to monitor IDF movement in the sector. The moves came after a sniper in Gaza shot and killed an Israel citizen a day earlier. 22-year-old Salah Shukri Abu Latyef had been doing maintenance work on the Israel-Gaza security in the northern Gaza strip. He was evacuated to a nearby hospital, but died of his injuries. According to the IDF's website, this and similar incidents are becoming more frequent, with Hamas leaders praising recent attacks by lone individuals or organizations on the Jewish state.

Fearing rocket fire from Gaza, the IDF deployed the Iron Dome anti-missile system Wednesday to protect the Western Negev city of Sderot. On Tuesday, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) struck multiple terror enclaves in Hamas-controlled Gaza, in response to the murder of 22 year-old Salah Shukri Abu Latyef earlier that day. Laytef had been fixing damage to the security fence for the IDF, after reports revealed that the fence had sustained multiple breaches since last week's storm. The IDF stated that the decision to move the Dome to Sderot is to avoid taking unnecessary risks. Sderot suffered a barrage of missile attacks during Operation Pillar of Defense, and it could be a prime target in the event that Hamas retaliates. Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon warned Hamas Tuesday that Israel's patience with rocket attacks - and over its role in the wave of terror rolling across Israel - has begun to wane. The attack was the fifth in 5 days; statistics released Monday revealed that the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have led to an increase in terror. "I advise Hamas to not test our patience," Yaalon warned. "If there won't be quiet in Israel, there won't be quiet in Gaza either." Hamas, as usual, responded with defiance, insisting that "the occupier and its raids will not deter or stop the resistance."
WATCH HERE

Title: US Troops to Palestine?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 03, 2014, 06:16:43 AM

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/12/30/reports-kerry-would-put-us-troops-in-palestine/

Title: Hizbollah upgrading its missiles; Turkey funding Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 03, 2014, 09:27:46 AM

second post

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4253/despite-israeli-strikes-hizballah-gathers


http://www.investigativeproject.org/4252/israelis-nato-ally-turkey-now-hamas-top-funder

Title: 12 Tribes: Hezbollah significantly upgrades missile threat
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 04, 2014, 06:24:08 PM

Unfortunately, and perhaps soon to be tragically, it looks like I was quite prescient when I commented here that it would prove to be a historical error when Israel pulled back before the job was done the last time it went into Lebanon.

=========================

Click here to watch: Hezbollah Significantly Upgrades Missile Threat to Israel

U.S. officials believe members of Hezbollah, the militant group backed by Iran, are smuggling advanced guided-missile systems into Lebanon from Syria piece by piece to evade a secretive Israeli air campaign designed to stop them. Some components of a powerful antiship missile system have already been moved to Lebanon, according to previously undisclosed intelligence, while other systems that could target Israeli aircraft, ships and bases are being stored in expanded weapons depots under Hezbollah control in Syria, say current and former U.S. officials. Such guided weapons would be a major step up from the "dumb" rockets and missiles Hezbollah now has stockpiled, and could sharply increase the group's ability to hit Israel hard in any potential new battle, officials say.

Israel struck inside Syria at least five times in 2013, seeking to take out systems bound for Hezbollah without provoking a direct confrontation. U.S. and Israeli officials say the airstrikes have stopped shipments of ground-to-air SA-17 antiaircraft weapons and ground-to-ground Fateh-110 rockets to Hezbollah locations in Lebanon. Some originated from Iran, others from Syria itself. Nonetheless, as many as 12 antiship guided-missile systems may now be in Hezbollah's possession inside Syria, according to U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence. Israel targeted those Russian-made systems in July and again in October with mixed results, according to U.S. damage assessments. The U.S. believes Hezbollah has smuggled at least some components from those systems into Lebanon within the past year, including supersonic Yakhont rockets, but that it doesn't yet have all the parts needed there. "To make it lethal, a system needs to be complete," said a senior defense official. Hezbollah already has around 100,000 rockets, according to Israeli intelligence estimates, but those are primarily unguided weapons that are less accurate. Its longer-range rockets are spread across Lebanon, meaning Israel's next air campaign—should one come—would have to be broad, Israeli officials have told their U.S. counterparts, according to American officials in the meetings. Hezbollah's possession of guided-missile systems would make such an air campaign far riskier.
WATCH HERE

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 05, 2014, 09:51:22 AM

"Unfortunately, and perhaps soon to be tragically, it looks like I was quite prescient when I commented here that it would prove to be a historical error when Israel pulled back before the job was done the last time it went into Lebanon."

I think you were right too. 
I feel the same way about Iran going after nucs as I think you agree with that too.

The problem is nearly the whole world is against Israel from a PR point of view.

And with Brock and the military planners who have already made it quite clear from their actions (not their public comments) that they have no intention of using military force and Cold war style containment or assured destruction.

Brock has risked the safety and security of Israel.

As a Jew it is very emotionally hard for me to wonder if it is not in the better interests of the US not to get dragged into a major Mid East war for a tiny country.

OTOH if we don't stick with our friends in need than we have no friends. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2014, 10:44:10 AM

A most difficult question, fairly planted.

Here is how I answer it:

Israel has proven itself time and time again, be it de-nuking Iraq or Syria, or leading the way with action against Islamic fascism.

Now that Baraq has left us without any position or dependable Arab allies in the mid-east, which remains a vital area for the world and the for the US, our only remaining ally there is Israel.  As Iran goes nuke (and this includes its missile capabilities) we may find ourselves to be very, very glad to have Israel as an ally/base of operations.

OTOH if we abandon Israel, do you think the fascist fundamentalists will stop there, or will they be emboldened?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 05, 2014, 10:58:10 AM

"OTOH if we abandon Israel, do you think the fascist fundamentalists will stop there, or will they be emboldened?"

Unfortunately this question is already answered.   Hopefully the next Presidential candidate will make a your case if not too late at that point.  Then again it probably already is too late unless massive military or even nucs are used from my armchair public online intelligence gathering seems to indicate.

With regards to "our" interests;  as we keep attaining near energy independence what exactly are our interests in the Middle East.

Hasn't it always been about oil?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2014, 11:29:51 AM

Again a fair question fairly presented.

Yes it HAS been about oil and yes we are nearly self-sufficient already and stand to become an important exporter, but what has changed is there is now a nuclear variable.  A nuclear arms race in the mid-east is dangerous for the whole planet, not only for the risks of armageddon in a part of the world where people take such things quite seriously but also for the risks of a nuke or three getting into AQ type hands or someone shooting a missile from an ocean tanker off the coast of the US and setting off an EMP over the continental US etc.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 05, 2014, 11:41:15 AM

Good point.   I don't hear many making the point we should use military force to prevent proliferation of nucs.

Has any country other than Israel actually done so?

Title: Deal would be just the first step
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 08:53:08 AM

Click here to watch: US-Brokered Deal 'Just the First Stage' in Israel's Demise

As US-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) continue, amid pressure for further territorial concessions by Israel, a senior Palestinian Authority official has told Syrian TV that any agreement will simply be the "first stage" in eradicating Israel altogether. Abbas Zaki posted a clip of the interview - which was promptly translated and circulated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) - onto his Facebook page. In response to concern expressed by the interviewer that any US-imposed deal would be "deficient", insofar as it would "only" require Israel to cede Judea and Samaria, a smiling Zaki urges calm. "You can relax. We find ourselves united for the first time. Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the '67 borders [sic]. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages," he responded.

Zaki is a senior member of the central committee of Fatah - the Arab nationalist party which dominates the PA, and is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The strategy to eradicate the Jewish state "in stages" via a combination of terrorism and diplomacy, as opposed to in a single military conquest, has been voiced by many PA officials in the past, who note that Israel cannot be destroyed in one fell swoop.
WATCH HERE

Title: Which is why this is being bandied about
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 09:42:16 AM

second post

http://conservativetribune.com/kerry-offers-troops-to-protect-palestine/

What do we make of this idea?

Title: Re: Which is why this is being bandied about
Post by: G M on January 09, 2014, 09:56:44 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 09:42:16 AM

second post

http://conservativetribune.com/kerry-offers-troops-to-protect-palestine/

What do we make of this idea?

It's a perfect  "but he wore a kippa at AIPAC" update .

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 10:56:16 AM

As long as we can shoot to kill those who would mess with our troops, is there not a logic to this?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 09, 2014, 11:12:36 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 10:56:16 AM

As long as we can shoot to kill those who would mess with our troops, is there not a logic to this?

It's the Samantha Power plan.What could go wrong?

Title: Kerry backstabbing Israel?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 04:18:00 PM

A witty ad hominem no doubt, but if we sit this out, does not WW3 across the middle east become more likely?  And is that not a bad thing for the US?

===============================================

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/no-way-kerry-say-it-aint-so?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ACTION+ALERT%3A+No+Way+Kerry%2C+Say+it+Ain%27t+So%3F&utm_campaign=20140108_m118632630_8%2F1%2F14+ACTION+ALERT%3A+No+Way+Kerry%2C+Say+it+Ain%27t+So%3F&utm_term=Click+here+to+watch+the+brilliant+video+analysis+of+past+US+Ambassador+to+the+UN_2C+John+Bolton+on+Kerry_27s+recent+peace+efforts

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-accuses-kerry-of-urging-eu-settlement-pressure/

Title: Illegal Drilling on Temple Mount
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 07:12:52 PM

second post of the evening:

Click here to watch: Caught on Tape: Muslim Waqf Illegally Drilling on Temple Mount

Muslim worshippers don't just have more freedom to pray on the Temple Mount, a recent investigation reveals: they apparently also have permission to drill. An investigation Monday by Yehuda Glick, Director of the Haliba organization for Jewish freedom on the Temple Mount, caught Waqf officials red-handed in the act of drilling through the ancient stones. Vandalizing the Mount - Judaism's holiest site and a national landmark for people of all religions - violates the law; when caught in the act on film, the perpetrators quickly tried to conceal their actions. The Waqf is the Jordanian-run Islamic trust which administers the Temple Mount. It has been accused on numerous occasions of mounting a concerted campaign to "Islamize" the site by destroying ancient Jewish artifacts. Glick spoke to Arutz Sheva about the revelation and about the special session of the Knesset Committee for the Interior Wednesday regarding the ineffectiveness of Israeli law enforcement system in light of recent events at the Temple Mount compound. Glick said that on Monday, during his daily visit, he noticed a group of Waqf officials drilling with heavy machinery at the site. Needless to say, such an act is supposed be performed only after obtaining permission from the authorities and in the presence of a government inspector.
"They saw me coming and immediately tried to hide. It set off warning bells for me and I started filming straight away," Glick recalled. "They tried to hide, and then shouted to the policeman who was there that I could not take pictures without their permission. The policeman ignored them." Glick stated that the Waqf officials were using a drill bit measuring over a meter long to drill through the stones, potentially causing serious damage to artifacts buried underneath. "This is in contempt of the law," he lamented.

Glick sees this incident - as well as many others - as prime evidence that the only response to the destruction of antiquities at the Mount, and the Waqf's flagrant violations of the law, is to open the Mount to Jewish visitors for all hours of the day. He compares the situation to that of a mashgiach (kashrut supervisor) at a kosher restaurant overseeing the handiwork of a kitchen worker, whose sole aim is to purposely make the food unfit (not kosher) for its Jewish customers. Similarly, Glick stated, the Israeli police cannot be everywhere at once - as current events indicate - and the Waqf uses the opportunity to purposely vandalize Judaism's holiest site. The purpose of such activities is not only to cause damage in the short-term, but also to damage Judaism's inherent claims to the site by destroying evidence of the ancient Jews there, Glick says. The Mount is frequently closed to Jewish visitors and is often the site of anti-Jewish discrimination. Jews are prevented from praying or performing any other religious rituals, while Muslim visitors pray freely. Muslim anger over the site has escalated since MKs have announced efforts to equalize prayer rights at the site, through legislation which would allow full religious freedom.
Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: 12 Tribes: Intra-mural firefight
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2014, 08:41:46 AM

Rival Fatah Terrorists Exchange Fire Just Outside Jerusalem

 


Click here to watch: Rival Fatah Terrorists Exchange Fire Just Outside Jerusalem
Members of Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, have reportedly raided Arab villages in "Area C", just north-west of Jerusalem, opening fire with automatic rifles. The clashes are reportedly part of internal power struggles within the party. "Area C" refers to areas within Judea and Samaria which are under full Israeli security control, in contrast to Areas A and B which are under full and partial PA control respectively. The Arab news source Ajnad News reports that residents of the villages Katane, Bidu, and Beit Anan, which lie just outside of Jerusalem, feel "insecure" after automatic gunfire rent the still night air. Residents relate that the fire from automatic weapons was different from recent celebratory gunfire commemorating the founding of the Arab-nationalist Fatah at the beginning of the secular year. This time, they said, the gunfire stemmed from conflict between two rival Fatah factions in the villages.
WATCH HERE
Fatah is coming under increasing scrutiny, after a recent incident in which members of the group armed with automatic weapons were filmed in Kalandiya, in northern Jerusalem, and after a PA police officer was arrested for involvement in the bombing of a bus in Bat Yam two weeks ago. Under the Oslo Accords, armed Palestinian Arab groups are forbidden from operating in Area C, and the growing presence of armed terrorists may be an ominous sign of things to come. Israelis are already skeptical about the intentions of the Fatah-led PA, given ongoing incitement and conflicting messages during the current talks. In a clip exposed last week, a senior member of Fatah told Syrian TV that any peace agreements are merely the "first stage" in realizing the group's ultimate goal of destroying Israel.
Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: Hamas "Israel has eight years left to exist"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 15, 2014, 12:01:10 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/hamas-israel-has-eight-years-left-to-exist?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+%27Israel+Has+Eight+Years+Left+to+Exist%27&utm_campaign=20140114_m118738225_1%2F15%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+%27Israel+Has+Eight+Years+Left+to+Exist%27&utm_term=Hamas_3A+_E2_80_98Israel+Has+Eight+Years+Left+to+Exist_E2_80_99

Title: Re: Hamas "Israel has eight years left to exist"
Post by: G M on January 15, 2014, 06:37:15 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 15, 2014, 12:01:10 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/hamas-israel-has-eight-years-left-to-exist?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+%27Israel+Has+Eight+Years+Left+to+Exist%27&utm_campaign=20140114_m118738225_1%2F15%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+%27Israel+Has+Eight+Years+Left+to+Exist%27&utm_term=Hamas_3A+_E2_80_98Israel+Has+Eight+Years+Left+to+Exist_E2_80_99

They think Israel will survive Obama.

Title: Stratfor reprint from 2005
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2014, 08:50:42 AM

 The Gaza Withdrawal and Israel's Permanent Dilemma
Geopolitical Weekly
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 04:02 Print Text Size
Stratfor

By George Friedman

Editor's Note: The following analysis originally ran in August 2005. We repost it today in light of the recent death of Ariel Sharon.

Israel has begun its withdrawal from Gaza. As with all other territorial withdrawals by Israel, such as that from Sinai or from Lebanon, the decision is controversial within Israel. It represents the second withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, and the second from land that houses significant numbers of anti-Israeli fighters. Since these fighters will not be placated by the Israeli withdrawal -- given that there is no obvious agreement of land for an enforceable peace -- the decision by the Israelis to withdraw from Gaza would appear odd.

In order to understand what is driving Israeli policy, it is necessary to consider Israeli geopolitical reality in some detail.

Israel's founders, taken together, had four motives for founding the state.

    To protect the Jews from a hostile world by creating a Jewish homeland.

    To create a socialist (not communist) Jewish state.

    To resurrect the Jewish nation in order to re-assert Jewish identity in history.

    To create a nation based on Jewish religiosity and law rather than Jewish nationality alone.

The idea of safety, socialism, identity and religiosity overlapped to some extent and were mutually exclusive in other ways. But each of these tendencies became a fault line in Israeli life. Did Israel exist simply so that Jews would be safe -- was Israel simply another nation among many? Was Israel to be a socialist nation, as the Labor Party once envisioned? Was it to be a vehicle for resurrecting Jewish identity, as the Revisionists wanted? Was it to be a land governed by the Rabbinate? It could not be all of these things. Thus, these were ultimately contradictory visions tied together by a single certainty: None of these visions were possible without a Jewish state. All arguments in Israel devolve to these principles, but all share a common reality -- the need for the physical protection of Israel.

In order for there to be a Jewish state, it must be governed by Jews. If it is also to be a democratic state, as was envisioned by all but a few of the fourth strand of logic (religiosity), then it must be a state that is demographically Jewish.

This poses the first geopolitical dilemma for Israel: Whatever the historical, moral or religious arguments, the fact was that at the beginning of the 20th century, the land identified as the Jewish homeland -- Palestine -- was inhabited overwhelmingly by Arabs. A Jewish and democratic state could be achieved only by a demographic transformation. Either more Jews would have to come to Palestine, or Arabs would have to leave, or a combination of the two would have to occur. The Holocaust caused Jews who otherwise would have stayed in Europe to come to Palestine. The subsequent creation of the state of Israel caused Arabs to leave, and Jews living in Arab countries to come to Israel.

However, this demographic shift was incomplete, leaving Israel with two strategic problems. First, a large number of Arabs, albeit a minority, continued to live in Israel. Second, the Arab states surrounding Israel -- which perceived the state as an alien entity thrust into their midst -- viewed themselves as being in a state of war with Israel. Ultimately, Israel's problem was that dealing with the external threat inevitably compounded the internal threat.
Israel's Strategic Disadvantage

Israel was at a tremendous strategic disadvantage. First, it was vastly outnumbered in the simplest sense: There were many more Arabs who regarded themselves as being in a state of war with Israel than there were Jews in Israel. Second, Israel had extremely long borders that were difficult to protect. Third, the Israelis lacked strategic depth. If all of their neighbors -- Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon -- were joined by the forces of more distant Arab and Islamic states, Israel would find it difficult to resist. And if all of these forces attacked simultaneously in a coordinated strike, Israel would find it impossible to resist.

Even if the Arabs did not carry out a brilliant stroke, cutting Israel in half on a Jerusalem-Tel Aviv line (a distance of perhaps 20 miles), Israel would still lose an extended war with the Arabs. If the Arabs could force a war of attrition on Israel, in which they could impose an attrition rate of perhaps 1 percent per day of forces on the forward edge of the battle area, Israel would not be able to hold for more than a few months at best. In the 20th century, an attrition rate of that level, in a battle space the size of Israel, would be modest. Israel's effective forces rarely numbered more than 250,000 men -- the other 250,000 were older reserves with inferior equipment. Extended attritional warfare was not an option for Israel.

Thus, in order for Israel to survive, three conditions were necessary:

    The Arabs must never unite into a single, effective force.

    Israel must choose the time, place and sequence of any war.

    Israel must never face both a war and an internal uprising of Arabs simultaneously.

Israel's strategy was to use diplomacy to prevent the three main adversaries -- Egypt, Jordan and Syria -- from simultaneously choosing to launch a war. From its founding, Israel always maintained a policy of splitting the front-line states. This was not particularly difficult, given the deep animosities among the Arabs. For example, Israel always maintained a special relationship with Jordan, which had unsatisfactory relations with its own neighbors. Early on, Israel worked to serve as the guarantor of the Jordanian regime's survival. Later, after the Camp David Accords split Egypt off from the Arab coalition, Israel had neutralized two out of three of its potential adversaries. The dynamics of Arab geopolitics and the skill of Israeli diplomacy achieved an outcome that is rarely appreciated. From its founding, Israel managed to prevent simultaneous warfare with its neighbors except at a time and place of its own choosing. It had to maintain a military force capable of taking the initiative in order to have a diplomatic strategy.

But throughout most of its history, Israel had a fundamental challenge in achieving this pre-eminence.
Israel's Geopolitical Problem


The state's military pre-eminence had to be measured against the possibility of diplomatic failure. Israel had to assume that all front-line states would become hostile to it, and that it would have to launch a pre-emptive strike against them all. If this were the case, Israel had this dilemma: Its national industrial base was insufficient to provide it with the technological wherewithal to maintain its military superiority. It was not simply a question of money -- all the money in the world could not change the demographics -- but also that Israel lacked the manpower to produce all of the weapons it needed to have and also to field an army. Therefore, Israel could survive only if it had a patron that possessed such an industrial base. Israel had to make itself useful to another country.

Israel's first patron was the Soviet Union, through its European satellites. Its second patron was France, which saw Israel as an ally during a time when Paris was trying to hold onto its interests in an increasingly hostile Arab world. Its third patron -- but not until 1967 -- was the United States, which saw Israel as a counterweight to pro-Soviet Egypt and Syria, as well as a useful base of operations in the eastern Mediterranean.

In 1967, Israel -- fearing a coordinated strike by the Arabs and also seeking to rationalize its defensive lines and create strategic depth -- launched an air and land attack against its neighbors. Rather than risk a coordinated attack, Israel launched a sequential attack -- first against Egypt, then Jordan, then Syria.

The success of the 1967 war gave rise to Israel's current geopolitical crisis. Following the war, Israel had to balance three interests:

    It now occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which contained large, hostile populations of Arabs. A full, peripheral war combined with an uprising in these regions would cut Israeli lines of supply and communication and risk Israel's defeat.
    Israel was now dependent on the United States for its industrial base. But American interests and Israeli interests were not identical. The United States had interests in the Arab world, and had no interest in Israel crushing Palestinian opposition or expelling Palestinians from Israel. Retaining the industrial base and ruthlessly dealing with the Palestinians became incompatible needs.

    Israel had to continue manipulating the balance of power among Arab states in order to prevent a full peripheral war. That, in turn, meant that it was further constrained in dealing with the Palestinian question by force.

Israeli geopolitics created the worst condition of all: Given the second and third considerations, Israel could not crush the Palestinians, but given its need for strategic depth and coherent borders, it could not abandon the occupied territories. It therefore had to continually constrain the Palestinians without any possibility of final victory. It had to be ruthless, which would enflame the Palestinians, but it could never be ruthless enough to effectively suppress them.
The Impermanence of Diplomacy


Israel has managed to maintain the diplomatic game it began in 1948 -- the Arabs remain deeply split. It has managed to retain its relationship with the United States, even with the end of the Cold War. Given the decline of the conventional threat, Israel's dependency on the United States has actually dwindled. For the moment, the situation is contained.

However -- and this is the key problem for Israel -- the diplomatic solution is inherently impermanent. It requires constant manipulation, and the possibility of failure is built in. For example, an Islamist rising in Egypt could rapidly generate shifts that Israel could not contain. Moreover, political changes in the United States could end American patronage, without the certainty of another patron emerging. These things are not likely to occur, but they are not inconceivable. Given enough time, anything is possible.

Israel's advantage is diplomatic and cultural. Its ability to split the Arabs, a diplomatic force, is coupled with its technological superiority, a cultural force. But both of these can change. The Arabs might unite, and they might accelerate their technological and military sophistication. Israel's superiority can change, but its inferiority is fixed: Geography and demographics put it in an unchangeably vulnerable position relative to the Arabs.

The potential threats to Israel are:

    A united and effective anti-Israeli coalition among the Arabs.
    The loss of its technological superiority and, therefore, the loss of military initiative.

    The need to fight a full peripheral war while dealing with an intifada within its borders.

    The loss of the United States as patron and the failure to find an alternative.
    A sudden, unexpected nuclear strike on its populated heartland.

Therefore, it follows that Israel has three options.

The first is to hope for the best. This has been Israel's position since 1967. The second is to move from conventional deterrence to nuclear deterrence. Israel already possesses this capability, but the value of nuclear weapons is in their deterrent capability, not in their employment. You can't deal with an intifada or with close-in conventional war with nuclear weapons -- not given the short distances involved in Israel. The third option is to reduce the possibility of disaster as far as possible by increasing the tensions in the Arab world, reducing the incentive for cultural change among the Arabs, eliminating the threat of intifada in time of war, and reducing the probability that the United States will find it in its interests to break with Israel.

Hence, the withdrawal from Gaza. As a base for terrorism, Gaza poses a security threat to Israel. But the true threat from Gaza, and even more the West Bank, lies in the fact that they create a dynamic that decreases Israel's diplomatic effectiveness, risks creating Arab unity, increases the impetus for military modernization and places stress on Israel's relationship with the United States. The terrorist threat is painful. The alternative risks long-term catastrophe.

Some of the original reasons for Israel's founding, such as the desire for a socialist state, are now irrelevant to Israeli politics. And revisionism, like socialism, is a movement of the past. Modern Israel is divided into three camps:

    Those who believe that the survival of Israel depends on disengaging from a process that enrages without crushing the Palestinians, even if it opens the door to terrorism.

    Those who regard the threat of terrorism as real and immediate, and regard the longer-term strategic threats as theoretical and abstract.

    Those who have a religious commitment to holding all territories.

The second and third factions are in alliance but, at the moment, it is the first faction that appears to be the majority. It is not surprising that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is leading this faction. As a military man, Sharon has a clear understanding of Israel's vulnerabilities. It is clearly his judgment that the long-term threat to Israel comes from the collapse of its strategic position, rather than from terrorism. He has clearly decided to accept the reality of terrorist attacks, within limits, in order to pursue a broader strategic initiative.

Israel has managed to balance the occupation of a hostile population with splitting Arab nation states since 1967. Sharon's judgment is that, given the current dynamics of the Muslim world, pursuing the same strategy for another generation would be both too costly and too risky. The position of his critics is that the immediate risks of disengagement increase the immediate danger to Israel without solving the long-term problem. If Sharon is right, then there is room for maneuver. But if his critics, including Benjamin Netanyahu, are right, Israel is locked down to an insoluble problem.

That is the real debate.

Read more: The Gaza Withdrawal and Israel's Permanent Dilemma | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Title: Yet another "Let's negotiate with these guys"; Israel & Jordan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2014, 06:45:44 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/palestinian-authority-calls-for-jihad-in-jerusalem?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Palestinian+Authority+Calls+For+%E2%80%98Jihad+in+Jerusalem%E2%80%99&utm_campaign=20140115_m118757792_1%2F16%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Palestinian+Authority+Calls+For+%E2%80%98Jihad+in+Jerusalem%E2%80%99&utm_term=Palestinian+Authority+Calls+For+_E2_80_98Jihad+in+Jerusalem_E2_80_99

================================================
12 Tribes:  Click here to watch: PM Netanyahu's Meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan
A Likud parliamentarian considered a close ally and confidante of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Saturday that Israel’s insistence on maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley as part of any final status agreement with the Palestinians is supported by Jordan. MK Ofir Akunis told a town hall gathering in Tel Aviv on Saturday that Israeli officials have received feedback from their Jordanian counterparts who are alarmed at the prospect of an Israeli withdrawal from the boundary that separates Judea and Samaria from the Hashemite kingdom. “The Jordanians are opposed to an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley out of fear that if a Palestinian state arises and is taken over by extremist elements like Hamas and Al-Qaida, this would endanger the king’s rule, not just Tel Aviv,” Akunis said.
WATCH HERE
Netanyahu met last week with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Amman for what was described as a “surprise” visit. The meeting focused on the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
In a statement released upon Netanyahu's return to Israel, he stressed the important role played by Jordan, under King Abdullah's leadership, in the efforts to bring about an agreement. He also emphasized that Israel places a premium on security arrangements, including Jordan's interests, in any future agreement that will take into consideration the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, signed 20 years ago. Akunis went on to attack the Palestinians, whom he deemed “an obstacle to peace.” “Their insistence not to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people proves that the conflict isn’t just territorial, but it is one that is being waged for our existence,” he said. “I believe that we should have negotiations with the Palestinians, but we need to understand that a Palestinian state could endanger most Israeli cities.” “My vision, and that of Likud, says that we have no interest in controlling the Palestinians,” Akunis said. “I am in favor of maximum Palestinian self-rule and deep economic cooperation between our peoples, but I am not ready to have a Palestinian state be born on the ruins of my country.”
Source: Jerusalem Post





======================
 Stratfor
Israel and Jordan Work to Preserve Their Strategic Relationship
Analysis
January 17, 2014 | 1411 Print Text Size
Israel and Jordan Work to Preserve Their Strategic Relationship
Men stare across the Jordan Valley on Jan. 8. (AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images)
Summary

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a brief and unannounced visit to Jordan to meet with King Abdullah on Jan. 16. The visit is not altogether unusual, despite some media reports to the contrary; Netanyahu also visited Abdullah in December 2012 and March 2013, each time without giving advance notice. After the prime minister arrived, Amman issued a statement saying the visit reflected the king's desire to make "tangible progress" on peace talks with the Palestinians and "protects the interests of the Jordanian kingdom." Netanyahu's spokesman gave a more vague description, saying the visit was to discuss "economic cooperation between the two countries and other regional matters."

There is little reason to expect much headway in negotiations over the peace process. However, there are less high-profile negotiations underway between Israel and Jordan over economic matters that carry much more strategic significance.
Analysis

It is natural to assume that the primary driver behind Netanyahu's visit is U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's tireless efforts to promote a new framework for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. A major part of Kerry's proposal focuses on addressing Israel's security concerns by using advanced technology and weaponry to obviate the need for a heavy Israeli troop presence in the Jordan River Valley, which borders the West Bank. Any proposal concerning Israeli troops in the Jordan River Valley would necessarily involve Amman, and there are several issues related to the peace process that Netanyahu would have discussed with Abdullah during this visit. At the same time, Israel has shown every indication that it is not exactly taking Kerry's proposal seriously. According to Israel's defense minister, the proposal is not worth the paper it was written on.
Israel and Jordan
Click to Enlarge

Either way, Israel currently has little incentive to concede much to a weak and fractured Palestinian negotiating partner at the behest of the United States -- especially when Washington is already proceeding with a nuclear settlement with Iran in spite of Israel's protests. While Israel can use the visit to ease some of the tension with Washington by demonstrating it is not completely neglecting the peace process, there is little reason to expect significant headway in the negotiations.
Critical Economic Deals

But Israeli-Jordanian relations are not relegated solely to the Palestinian issue. Israel is actively (and quietly) pursuing several deals with Jordan that are designed to tether the Hashemite Kingdom to Israel economically and thus improve their strategic relationship. Israel's Delek Group and Texas-based Noble Energy, both of which have led Israel's efforts to develop offshore natural gas reserves, are reportedly close to signing a 15-year contract with the Amman-based Arab Potash Company, one of the world's largest potash companies (and one in which the Jordanian government has a 26 percent stake). According to the deal, Arab Potash would supply Israeli natural gas to a potash facility in Jordan. A nine-mile natural gas pipeline would be built across the Dead Sea, linking an Israeli chemical plant to Arab Potash's facility on the Dead Sea shores. The project is slated for completion in 2016, though the timeline is subject to revision.
Preserving the Dead Sea

Jordan's potash industry has suffered from water shortages, but there is a plan to resolve that issue, too. Since 2002, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian National Authority have been working on a water deal that was finally agreed upon in December 2013, once the environmental and technical studies were completed. Under the deal, Israel will provide Amman with 50 million cubic meters of fresh water per year from the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel, and the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank will be able to buy 30 million cubic meters of fresh water per year from the Sea of Galilee and up to 20 million cubic meters per year from a desalination plant in Aqaba. Israel will soon be putting out tenders for the construction of the desalination plant in Aqaba, which will sell potable water to Jordan and Israel, a project that is estimated to take about five years to complete. A pipeline to carry the water from the desalination plant to the Dead Sea is also part of the proposal.

These economic deals are critical to Israel's strategy of preserving its relationship with Jordan, currently the only neighbor willing to absorb the political risk of maintaining a cooperative relationship with Israel. But the unrest that swept the region in 2011 has added some urgency to the initiatives. One of the biggest political casualties of the Egyptian unrest was a natural gas pipeline that begins in El Arish on the northern rim of the Sinai Peninsula and connects to Ashkelon in Israel via an underwater pipeline and to Aqaba in Jordan. This pipeline has become a popular target for insurgent attacks. And ever since details of the Israeli-Egyptian contract were leaked -- they revealed that Cairo was selling Israel natural gas at a preferential rate while Egyptians were struggling with natural gas shortages at home -- the pipeline has also been a major point of controversy for Islamists who oppose the military-backed regime.

The Egyptian contract with Israel has been suspended indefinitely, and while Israel is relieved to see the military back in control in Cairo, it knows the regime will still be on rocky footing as it tries to quell ongoing unrest. Public displays of cooperation with Israel, such as a deal to export Israeli natural gas to Egypt, will not work in the regime's favor at this sensitive political juncture. In fact, the Egyptian regime will be more prone to playing up tensions with Israel for domestic consumption.
Prioritizing Jordan

Meanwhile, the Egyptian natural gas supply to Jordan has been sporadic, now delivering around one-fifth of the contractual rate of 240 million cubic feet per day. Given Egypt's persistent natural gas shortages at home, Jordan cannot expect a reliable energy supply from Egypt anytime soon. Jordan imports 97 percent of its energy, and most of its electricity generation has been powered by natural gas. After losing its main natural gas supply from Egypt, Jordan has had to import more fuel oils from Gulf Cooperation Council states. Consequently, Jordan's energy bill has skyrocketed, forcing the already economically challenged desert state to spend an additional $2 billion a year on energy imports.

So far, the Jordanian government has effectively contained domestic political demonstrations, kept its opposition divided and fended off a spreading jihadist threat from the Levant. However, Amman is also well aware of its vulnerabilities and is not about to get complacent. Persistently high electricity prices could threaten Amman's ability to tame a restive populace.

Jordan's stressful energy situation is also of great concern to Israel, which has a deep interest in the preservation of the Hashemite regime. Israel is thus prioritizing Jordan as it plans to export its excess natural gas. This is where politics trumps commercial interests in Israeli policymaking. With the Tamar field, which contains approximately 283 billion cubic meters of recoverable reserves, now online, and the larger Leviathan field, which contains 509 billion cubic meters of recoverable reserves, slated to come online in 2017, Israel is moving ahead with plans to become a natural gas exporter. In November, a High Court ruling confirmed a decision from the Israeli Cabinet, which proposed to keep 60 percent of its natural gas for domestic consumption and 40 percent for export. Negotiations are currently underway for Israel to export some 2.5 billion to 3 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, in addition to 400 million to 500 million cubic meters of natural gas supplied to factories on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea. The 15-year $2 billion natural gas contract proposal stipulates that Jordan would receive the natural gas only if Israel has excess supply, particularly during off-peak hours.

The Jordanian market pales in comparison to the burgeoning Asian markets, where high premiums are an extremely tempting option for any rational energy producer. But while the debate continues over whether it is worthwhile for Israel to build an expensive floating liquefied natural gas terminal off its Mediterranean coast to reach markets further afield, Israeli politicians will be looking first at its neighbors as potential customers worthy of preferential rates. Deals with Turkey, Egypt and the Palestinian National Authority still carry their fair share of political complications, but Jordan for now remains the ideal business and political partner for Israel in the neighborhood.

Read more: Israel and Jordan Work to Preserve Their Strategic Relationship | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Title: Yet another "Let's negotiate with these guys" 3.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2014, 08:36:29 AM

Twelve Tribes:

Arab Palestinian leadership threatens to turn Tel Aviv into “ball of fire”


Click here to watch: Arab Palestinian leadership threatens to turn Tel Aviv into “ball of fire”

The Fatah party of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has posted threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page. The threats came in the form of a video by Fatah's armed wing - the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - which threatened to turn Tel Aviv "into a ball of fire", as well as escalated rocket fire on Israeli civilians. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been declared a terrorist group by the US, EU, Israel and Canada, among others. The threats come despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority is engaged in "peace negotiations" with Israel, and bolster claims by Israeli leaders that the PA is not really serious about finding a peaceful political solution to the conflict. The Israeli government only recently released its annual "Palestinian Incitement Index", which showed that incitement against Israel and the Jewish people is continuing on official media channels including - inter alia - by bodies that are very close to the PA Chairman and in educational and religious networks. The findings also show that during the period of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not only did incitement not lessen, in certain areas it even increased, and that recently, the use of prominent Nazi elements - such as the image of Hitler - has also increased.

WATCH HERE

Israeli officials - including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - regularly complain that the issue of officially-sanctioned incitement by the PA goes largely ignored by the very same diplomats who regularly berate the Israeli government for construction in Judea and Samaria. The Israeli Foreign Ministry recently summoned European diplomats to explain their countries' one-sided criticism of Israel, after several European countries summoned Israeli ambassadors over construction plans in Judea and Samaria. Prime Minister Netanyahu himself called out the EU for its "hypocrisy". "The EU calls our ambassadors in because of the construction of a few houses? When did the EU call in the Palestinian ambassadors about incitement that calls for Israel's destruction?" Netanyahu asked foreign correspondents at his annual new year reception. Such incitement ranges from the glorification of Nazism and the lionization of Adolf Hitler, to programs on official PA television featuring heavily-stereotyped Jews as villains (and encouraging violence against them), and various TV and radio shows which literally wipe the Jewish state off the map. In at least one case, a terrorist who went on to murder an off-duty Israeli soldier used official PA TV to send a coded message of his plan to his jailed brother. But the involvement by the PA in diplomatic talks and the simultaneous calls for continued violence by its official organs may not be as contradictory as it seems.

Another video exposed earlier this month by PMW revealed - not for the first time - how PA officials view negotiations, and subsequent Israeli concessions, merely as a "first stage" in the ultimate destruction of Israel, after which terrorism can be resumed "more effectively".

Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: 12 Tribes: IAF jets over Beirut
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 26, 2014, 09:45:20 AM

Click here to watch: Lebanese report: IAF jets flying over Beirut

Hezbollah's Al-Manar network reported Sunday morning that Israeli Air Force aircrafts are flying intensively in Lebanese airspace in the western Lebanon Valley, Beirut, Baalbek and Hermel. Earlier Sunday it was reported by Voice of Lebanon radio station that IAF jets are scouring Lebanese airspace and hovering over the capital Beirut. Meanwhile, Lebanese El-Nashra news website reported that the IAF is operating in low altitude in the area of Baalbek in the Lebanon Valley.The Lebanese army released a statement Sunday that two Israeli warplanes have entered Lebanese airspace and flew in the country for over an hour. In the past two months, Lebanese media reported on numerous IAF operations within Lebanese airspace. However, none of the cases included a strike on Lebanese soil.

WATCH HERE

During the past weekend, there was much debate in the Lebanese media about an interview with senior Israeli officials in the Ramat David IAF base. Among others, the interview featured an Air Force unit commander who said: "We are closely following attempts to smuggle arms from Syria to Lebanon and attempting to prevent it from reaching Hezbollah." LBC, the network that released the highly-debated interview, issued a statement on Saturday in which they claim they have fallen into an IDF trap, which used the network for its own purposes. "The error was made due to a misunderstanding, and not, God forbid, due to conspiring with the army that carried out the heinous acts in Lebanon, unrelated to its actions against the Palestinian people. They are still occupying Lebanese land and their Air Force is still violating Lebanese sovereignty," the statement read.

Title: Kerry threatens boycott?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2014, 04:29:42 AM

Things have gotten so bad that even this has hardly gotten mention  :cry: :cry: :x

Click here to watch: Netanyahu: Kerry’s Boycott Threats ‘Immoral and Unjust’

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sharply criticized US Secretary of State John Kerry Sunday for threatening Israel with boycotts if peace talks fail. "Attempts to impose a boycott on the State of Israel are immoral and unjust," Netanyahu stated, at the opening of his weekly cabinet meeting. "Moreover, they will not achieve their goal. First, they cause the Palestinians to adhere to their intransigent positions and thus push peace further away. Second, no pressure will cause me to concede the vital interests of the State of Israel, especially the security of Israel's citizens. "For both of these reasons, threats to boycott the State of Israel will not achieve their goal," Netanyahu concluded.

The public's outcry over the plan has been long and loud, with ongoing protests against the plan's preconditions - the release of 106 Palestinian Arab terrorists back into public life - and vigils, protests, and even mass prayer calls being held against Israel accepting the Kerry framework. Outrage has intensified since the new boycott threat, the second time Kerry has been known to orchestrate boycotts against Israel - despite being an ally. Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon responded to Kerry's threats of boycotts, saying "we respect Secretary of State Kerry but will not hold talks with a gun to our head. Friends don't put ultimatums on the security of the state of Israel." "We will make decisions that guard the interests of the state of Israel," Danon continued. "If we made choices based on the various forecasts of boycotts, we wouldn't be here today. In the past we saw that wherever the IDF wasn't present terror takes root."

WATCH HERE

Sometimes, even the US eats its words. State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki took to Twitter Sunday to defend the remarks of US Secretary of State John Kerry, who threatened Israel with boycotts if peace talks fail. "Today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary," Kerry stated on Saturday night at the Munich Security Conference. "You see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up [. . .] there are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that?" Kerry's comments were widely perceived as threats by not only the media, but the Israeli government. Both Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sharply criticized Kerry's comments.

Title: Israel is as alone today as it was in 1968...
Post by: objectivist1 on February 11, 2014, 06:24:06 AM

Israel in 1968 & 2014: The Jews Are Alone

Posted By Ronn Torossian On February 11, 2014

In 1968, a longshoreman named Eric Hoffer wrote an amazing op-ed in the LA Times, which is as relevant today as it was then. He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher who wrote newspaper columns, as well as books. He died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, is widely recognized as a classic.  Eric Hoffer was one of the most influential American philosophers and free thinkers of the 20th Century.

Acclaimed for his thoughts on fanaticism, Hoffer’s LA Times column from May 26, 1968 is worth rereading. Entitled “Israel’s peculiar position,” he said:

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.  Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.

Indeed, today in the year 2014 we hear about the Palestinian Arab claim for the right of return – yet no one discusses the one million Jews from Arab and Muslim states, who were forced to flee persecution, imprisonment and pogroms. While there is so much talk today about the need for refugees to be protected, Jewish refugees naturally are ignored.

Hoffer further states:

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.

The facts are simply that in 1967, Israel tried desperately to avoid war, endlessly tried to avert it, and this young nation faced threats from the entire world. Israel won the defensive war, and indeed, to the victors go the spoils — even when they are Jewish.

In 1967, Hoffer said,

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.  The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway. The Jews are alone in the world.

Indeed, in February 2014, in Central Africa, 800,000 Muslims have fled their homes, and an entire nation’s Muslims are endangered.  It’s not news – yet every time the Jews lift a finger to protect themselves, the world goes nuts.  As it was in 1968 when Hoffer wrote this article it is in the year 2014, when the world endlessly condemns and criticizes Israel – the Jews are alone in the world.

As Hoffer concluded, “I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.” Indeed, the enemies of Israel remain the enemies of America – there’s big Satan and little Satan for the Muslim fundamentalists.

And I, Ronn Torossian, realize that history often repeats itself – and this article from 1968 is just as relevant in 2014 as it was then.

Hoffer said in a later interview that

A world that did not lift a finger when Hitler was wiping out six million Jewish men, women, and children is now saying that the Jewish state of Israel will not survive if it does not come to terms with the Arabs. My feeling is that no one in this universe has the right and the competence to tell Israel what it has to do in order to survive. On the contrary, it is Israel that can tell us what to do. It can tell us that we shall not survive if we do not cultivate and celebrate courage, if we coddle traitors and deserters, bargain with terrorists, court enemies, and scorn friends.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should heed these words – and stop kowtowing to terrorists.  They’d also do well to leave Israel alone – Israel remains the only country in the world that suffers universal criticism and condemnation.

Just last year Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the international community of “deafening silence” in response to Hamas threatening to destroy Israel.  As Netanyahu said: “This weekend the leader of Hamas, sitting next to the Hamas leader of Gaza, a man who praised Osama Bin Laden, this weekend openly called for the destruction of Israel. Where was the outrage? Where were the U.N. resolutions? Where was President Abbas? Why weren’t Palestinian diplomats summoned to European and other capitals to explain why the PA president not only refused to condemn this but actually declared his intention to unite with Hamas? There was nothing. There was silence and it was deafening silence.”

Indeed, today as in 1968, Israel is very much alone.

Title: 12 Tribes: Clashes erupt on Syrian border
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2014, 05:39:38 AM

Click here to watch: Heavy Clashes Erupt on Israeli Border During Rebel Offensive

IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz shared a bleak outlook on the internal conflict in Syria and its repercussions for Israel, characterizing the ongoing civil war as a lose-lose situation for Israel. “Heads or tails,” Gantz said, describing the almost three-year war in terms of a coin toss, “the result is negative either way.” “If [Syrian President Bashar] Assad survives he is beholden to the radical axis, to Iran and Hezbollah which bolster him,” he elaborated. “If Assad falls, he will be replaced by global jihadists or other organizations.” Even if Assad does emerge from the conflict on top, Gantz asserted, he will not regain full control of Syria, leaving the door open for other extremist elements. Speaking at an event at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Gantz said that Israel’s strategic reality was changing, and the country would have to adapt. “Every one of our borders is tested more than in the past,” he said. “The [neighboring] nations as we know them and the borders as we know them exist de jure but it is doubtful that they exist de facto.”

A senior Israeli intelligence official told the Associated Press that more than 30,000 al-Qaeda linked fighters were active in Syria, a huge increase over previous Western estimates. He claimed that the Islamic rebel groups in Syria currently focused on toppling Assad intend to turn their sights on Israel after dispatching the Syrian government. “The longer the war in Syria continues, the more jihadists and radicals are coming to this territory,” the official said.

WATCH HERE

The jihadis currently control most of the Syrian territory that directly borders Israel, although they have not fired rockets or missiles at Israeli territory.

Title: Stratfor: Possible rapprochement with Hamas and Al Fatah?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2014, 07:12:29 AM

Summary

A high-powered Fatah delegation visited Gaza on Feb. 11 to meet with the leaders of Hamas. The two sides will discuss ways of implementing the understanding they reached on ending the intra-Palestinian conflict and reach a power-sharing settlement. Two days earlier at a news conference, Hamas Politburo member Khalil al-Hayyah and Fatah Central Committee Member Nabil Shaath said talks were in the implementation stage after having reached an agreement ending a nearly seven-year civil war.

Given that the two groups have failed to reconcile for years, it is unclear that this latest move will succeed. However, it is significant that a senior Fatah official traveled to Gaza to meet with Hamas leaders, and both sides are using unprecedented conciliatory language. The progress made thus far is due to the confluence of numerous regional dynamics and could lead to a breakthrough. If it were reached, an intra-Palestinian rapprochement would complicate matters for Israel, which is already dealing with a very difficult geopolitical environment, considering the shifts underway in Syria, Iran and Egypt. It could also complicate the U.S.-led effort to restart Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

Analysis

The divide between the secular Fatah movement and the Islamist Hamas has been a key factor in preventing any progress in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In fact, the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 took place at a time when the Fatah-controlled Palestine Liberation Organization no longer monopolized the Palestinian landscape. It was being challenged by Hamas, which, along with other smaller Islamist and secular factions, was engaged in militancy against the Israeli occupation. There has not been much progress since the Oslo Accords.

From Israel's perspective, the attacks within its borders constituted a major threat to its national security. However, the violence perpetrated by Hamas and other smaller groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and others enabled Israel to resist international pressures to negotiate with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority toward a final settlement that would produce a sovereign Palestinian state. Whenever pressed by the United States and other major global powers to negotiate with the Palestinians, the Israelis would simply say there was no coherent Palestinian side to negotiate with.

In 2005, the government of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew from the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip, a decision that arose from the desire to further the intra-Palestinian divide. The Israeli position was strengthened even further when Hamas, after a decadelong boycott of the Palestinian National Authority, participated in legislative elections in 2006, won a landslide victory and formed a government. From Israel's perspective, the Palestinian government was now in the hands of a terrorist group that did not recognize Israel's right to exist. However, the Israelis did not want to see the Palestinian landscape dominated by any single group.

Israel had long encouraged the growth of Hamas' predecessor organization, al-Mujamma al-Islamiyah, an apolitical religious organization that did not oppose the occupation, as a counterweight to Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which for decades had pursued armed struggle against Israel. However, when the roles reversed and Israel was faced with an armed Islamist movement that had gained power via the ballot box, it was all the more important for Israel that Hamas not totally push Fatah aside.
Israel and Palestinian Territories
Click to Enlarge

Fortunately for the Israelis, Hamas' rejection of the state of Israel created a dilemma for the Islamist movement, forcing it to form a coalition government with Fatah in order to avoid complete international isolation. Power sharing proved to be a problem at the outset and only aggravated the rivalry. The arrangement fell apart in June 2007 as the two factions descended into open warfare, which led to Hamas' seizing control of the Gaza Strip. Since then, the two areas that comprise the Palestinian territories have been separate geopolitical entities, with Fatah ruling the West Bank and Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli strategy for managing the Palestinians has been based on this de facto partition of the Palestinian territories. Israel has viewed Gaza as a militant enclave that periodically needs to be dealt with militarily, as evidenced by the two major wars in 2008 and 2012 as well as by frequent airstrikes. Meanwhile, it maintains a direct occupation in the West Bank, where it has steadily increased Jewish settlements while allowing the Fatah-led Palestinian National Authority to run the territory's day-to-day affairs.

This is why the Obama administration's 2013 initiative to restart stalled talks between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority is about the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, leaving Gaza as a rogue entity. In other words, the United States was not about to wait for Hamas and Israel to reach a common negotiating platform. Instead, the plan was to use the Palestinian division as an opportunity to push forward a negotiation with Fatah and Israel, with the hopes that an isolated Hamas would become more moderate and try to catch up if a deal were struck to avoid being completely sidelined.
After the Arab Spring

The meltdown of secular autocratic regimes in the Arab world that began in 2011, particularly the one in Egypt, directly affected the balance of power in the Palestinian territories. The ouster of the Mubarak government and the rise of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood threatened to weaken Fatah and enhance Hamas' position. Until the July 3, 2013, coup in Egypt that ousted the Muslim Brotherhood government, it appeared as though Hamas would be able to expand beyond Gaza and revive itself in the West Bank, especially with support from Iran, Qatar and Turkey and improved relations with Jordan.

However, the coup not only reversed these changes but created unprecedented hostilities toward Hamas. Under the leadership of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Egyptian military regime has tried to contain the political unrest led by the Brotherhood and an insurgency led by Sinai-based jihadist group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis. The government has accused Hamas of participating in the political unrest and the militancy. As a result, Hamas has been squeezed from both sides -- Egypt and Israel -- and has struggled against a rising Salafist-jihadist movement in Sinai that has a presence in Gaza.

While Hamas faces a major reversal of fortunes, Fatah has been on the upswing -- and not just because of the Egyptian coup. The renewed push for a breakthrough in the long stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process has given Fatah considerable agency. However, the Israeli-Palestinian talks have not made much progress, in large part because of the issue of the Jewish settlements and Israel's demand that it maintain security control of the border between the West Bank and Jordan.

In addition to having a weak hand in the negotiations, Fatah does not want a Palestinian state that is limited to the West Bank or is further undercut by settlements. It needs a way to enhance its bargaining position. Fatah would also like to take advantage of Hamas' weakened position after the turn of events in Egypt.

Reconciling with Hamas could help Fatah on all these fronts. Indeed, it appears that the constraints upon both Palestinian factions have aligned such that both sides see benefits to cooperating in efforts to develop a single Palestinian entity, in which they would share power. The negotiations between the two sides have reached a stage where the discussions are centered on the creation of a roadmap to national unity, which involves fresh legislative and presidential elections.

The most significant statement to come out of Shaath and al-Hayyah's joint news conference came from the Hamas official, who said that although his group was not involved in the peace talks with Israel, it supported Fatah chief and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in resisting pressures "to give up the constants of the Palestinian people." This statement shows that not only is Hamas prepared to accept Fatah's retaining the Palestinian presidency, it also may be willing to support the secular movement in the talks with Israel. 
Hamas' Delicate Position

Hamas has stagnated over the past several years in political isolation, but it has avoided fresh elections because it was afraid it would not perform as well as it did previously. However, its leaders may now be calculating that it is time to share the blame for its territory's problems to save its own political credibility, especially since it is facing competition from an array of Salafist and jihadist entities.

The extent to which Hamas is willing to change track remains unclear. What is clear is that Hamas has realized that it has peaked in terms of its power, which is confined to the Gaza Strip. It is caught between Israel and Egypt's military regime, which has proved to be more hostile than the Mubarak government. Within the confines of the Gaza Strip, it runs an entity that amounts to a little more than a municipality -- one that lacks international recognition and thus remains isolated.

Making matters worse is that its rule in Gaza has been challenged by Salafist-jihadist forces cooperating with their allies in neighboring Sinai, which used to be Hamas' gateway to the outside world. Recently, Hamas has been entangled in the struggle between Cairo and its jihadist rebels. This would explain why, during the news conference, al-Hayyah went out of his way to emphasize that Hamas would never interfere in Egypt's affairs or engage in actions that would harm the Egyptian people.

Similarly, Hamas is struggling to sustain the truce with Israel that was established in November 2012. Salafist-jihadists have been launching rockets at Israel, and Israel Defense Forces have been responding with airstrikes on Gaza and engaging in pre-emptive action. Hamas' concerns about the rising fortunes of Salafist-jihadists are not limited to Gaza and Sinai. Like many other actors in the region, Hamas is watching the growth of Salafist-jihadism across the entire region, especially in light of the escalating conflict in the Levant.

Hamas and Fatah see the shared need to secure Palestinian national interests before the strategic situation in the region gets worse. They also agree that in addition to being a threat, the current circumstances give the Palestinians an opportunity because Israel and the United States would like to move toward some sort of settlement on the Palestinian issue as a way to manage the growing uncertainty in the region. The U.S.-Iranian negotiations have also created a dynamic in which Tehran has hinted that it would not oppose a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was acceptable to the Palestinians.

For Israel, a reunification of the Palestinians would be a setback for its strategy, which has relied on the Hamas-Fatah conflict to manage the Palestinian issue. However, with the region's overall strategic environment becoming hostile -- struggles on Israel's two key borders with the Arab world (Egypt and Syria/Lebanon) and Iran on its way to international rehabilitation -- the Israelis are also re-evaluating their situation. Ultimately, the current situation is a strange alignment of all the factors in the Palestinian issue. It is too early to say whether this complex configuration will enable Hamas and Fatah to finally put the past behind them -- the sheer number of moving parts could easily frustrate the latest efforts. But the situation has not been this conducive to cooperation since the start of their civil war.

Read more: Is the Palestinian Civil War Coming to an End? | Stratfor

Title: Ben Shapiro Skewers Israel Boycott Resolution at UCLA...
Post by: objectivist1 on February 27, 2014, 06:56:23 AM

Shapiro Crashes UCLA Divestment from Israel Hearing, Resolution Defeated 7-5

Posted By Paul Bois On February 27, 2014



[Visit TruthRevolt.org.]

On Tuesday night, the UCLA undergraduate student government heard public testimonies for nearly 9 hours — from 7 p.m. until 4 a.m. — on whether or not the university should go forward with a resolution to boycott and divest from businesses that allegedly “profit from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.”

The meeting, attended by over 500 people, began at 7 p.m. Tuesday night and ended 6:30 a.m. Wednesday morning. Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt.org Editor-in-Chief and UCLA alum, crashed the divestment hearing to blast both the student sponsors and those considering the anti-Semitic measure. Here’s the transcript:

My name is Ben Shapiro. I’m an alumnus of this university. I’m also a local talk show host on 870 [AM] in the morning, and I got out of bed and left my one month old baby there when I saw what was going on here tonight. I’ve never been more ashamed to be a Bruin. I’ve never been more ashamed to be an alumnus of this university than to see this divestment petition being considered at this level.

To pretend this is about occupation, to pretend this is about peace, to pretend that this anything other than vile, spiteful Jew hatred is a lie!

There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Saudi Arabia. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Iran. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Palestine. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing the vast bevy of human rights violations that happen every day in the Middle East, exponentially worse that what happens in Israel.

Any gay or lesbian that is targeting Israel in this room seems to have forgotten how high they hang gays from cranes in Iran. Every person of liberal bent who suggests that Israel is the problem in the Middle East seems to have forgotten that there is only one country in the Middle East that actually has any sort of religious diversity in it. The countries that are apartheid countries are those that are Judenrein – like, for example, Palestine.

So, for us to sit here and pretend that Israel is somehow on a lower moral plane is a direct manifestation of anti-Semitism. And to hold Jews to a different moral standard than any other country or group on the face of the earth represents nothing but an age-old and historic hatred for the Jewish people. All the folks here who are pretending that the B.D.S is about anything other than that, I would like to see a poll of those folks, and see how many of them actually believe in the existence of a Jewish state, qua-Jewish state, not as a state like any other, but as a Jewish state. They don’t. They don’t acknowledge that existence. They don’t believe in that existence. They don’t believe in peace. All this is about, pure and simple, is a desire to target the Jewish people.

“Judenrein” was a Nazi term to mean “clean of Jews.”

According to the Daily Bruin, the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) shot down the resolution by an anonymous vote of 7-5. Despite protestation, the USAC decided the ballots would be secret when some members voiced concern for their safety.

Students in favor of the resolution offered no comment, saying they were “too disappointed.” Video of one particular protester has circulated:

Title: 12 Tribes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 28, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

[](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/arabs-set-police-station-on-fire-in-jerusalem-burn-israeli-flag-near-temple-mount)

Click here to watch: [Arabs Set Police Station on Fire in Jerusalem, Burn Israeli
flag near Temple
Mount](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/arabs-set-police-station-on-fire-in-jerusalem-burn-israeli-flag-near-temple-mount)

Jerusalem Arabs set ablaze a police station next to the Lions' Gate in the capital's
Old City on Wednesday. Aryeh King, nationalist Jerusalem city councilman and member
of the municipality's Emergency and Security Committee, was present at the attack
and managed to document it. According to King, police officers fled the scene.
"Unfortunately the prime minister is instructing the authorities to avoid eastern
Jerusalem, and these are the results," charged King. "Last night the funeral of a
terrorist was held there, they marched from the Mount of Olives towards the Lions'
Gate attacking everything in their path and didn't let Jews pass," reported King. He
adds that once the group arrived at Lions' Gate they burned the police station.

King, who lives in Maaleh Zeitim on the Mount of Olives, noted that the incident
merely highlights an endemic failure of the capital's security. "The security in
eastern Jerusalem is abandoned, women don't dare go to the mikveh (ritual bath) in
Armon Hanatziv, in Park Hamesilah next to Beit Tzafafa people are robbed in broad
daylight," commented King. The Jerusalem councilman added that Arab residents "build
wherever they want," without enforcement of the building laws.

[WATCH
HERE](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/arabs-set-police-station-on-fire-in-jerusalem-burn-israeli-flag-near-temple-mount)

As for reports that US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to create an Arab capital
for the Palestinian Authority (PA) by dividing Jerusalem, King called the proposal
"a delusional step that testifies as to how disconnected he is." "After all, the
light rail passes through Beit Hanina, so suddenly the train will pass in a
different country?" questioned King. "There are tens of thousands of Jews there, in
the adjacent Nave Ya'akov, in Pisgat Ze'ev and also in Beit Hanina." "The Americans
are disconnected from reality," charged King. "Don't they understand the Arabs don't
want eastern Jerusalem? They want all of Jerusalem."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2014, 07:53:17 PM

[](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/muslims-riot-again-on-temple-mount-jews-detained)

Click here to watch: [Muslims Riot Again on Temple Mount, Jews
Detained](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/muslims-riot-again-on-temple-mount-jews-detained)

Dozens of Jews waited for hours on Sunday morning to get in to the Temple Mount,
Judaism&rsquo;s most holy site. One of those waiting was arrested moments after
entering, Temple Mount activists report. The Jews were reportedly detained due to
Muslim riots on the mount. Several Muslim leaders have called to prevent Jews from
accessing the holy site, and Muslim worshipers often hold violent protests in
response to Jewish prayers in the area. Eventually the Jewish visitors were allowed
in, but many were permitted to remain for only a few minutes. Police allowed the
Jews to enter in groups of no more than 25 people at a time, with each group allowed
to enter only when the previous group had left. The second group to enter was met
with insults and violent protests by Muslim worshipers. Police decided to avoid
violence by removing the Jewish group. A Jewish youth who confronted Muslim men who
yelled insults was arrested.

[WATCH
HERE](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/muslims-riot-again-on-temple-mount-jews-detained)

A video filmed by one of the visitors showed police urging the Jewish visitors
&ldquo;not to enflame things&rdquo; vis-&agrave;-vis the angry Muslim worshipers.A
third group which had been waiting to visit for over two hours was allowed to enter
the Mount only toward the end of visiting hours. The group was given several minutes
at the site and then ordered to leave.

Title: Obama's Scary Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg re: Israel, etc...
Post by: objectivist1 on March 03, 2014, 09:13:02 AM

The man is dangerous:

www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/if-he-believes-it-it-must-be-so_783721.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2014, 01:01:53 PM

Click here to watch: Gazans bombard southern Israel in massive rocket attack

IDF tanks fired into Gaza over the past several minutes, and have already eliminated two terror targets, in response to the barrage of rocket fire on Israel. At least 60 rockets slammed into southern Israel on Wednesday, hitting several Jewish communities. Several were stopped by the Iron Dome; no injuries have been reported. Thousands of Negev residents remain in shelters Wednesday evening, however, until the attacks have subsided. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reacted to the attack by pledging a "forceful" response against those responsible. "This seems to be in response to our counterterrorism efforts yesterday," Netanyahu declared, according to Channel 2. "We will continue to strike those who want to harm us, we'll act against them very forcefully."

WATCH HERE
A video released online shows how Islamic Jihad terrorists fired this evening's barrage of rocket attacks from within heavily-populated areas in Gaza. The footage, which was posted on a Hamas-linked Facebook page, shows the challenges often faced by the Israeli military in responding to such attacks whilst avoiding civilian casualties. It illustrates what Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, have often referred to as a "double war-crime": the firing of rockets against Israeli civilians, whilst using the Palestinian Arab civilian population in Gaza as cover, and in the hope that any Israeli response will draw condemnation for striking a civilian area. Israeli reactions appear to indicate that a military reaction will not be long in coming. Netanyahu has already threatened a "forceful response" to the attacks, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman went a step further, calling for the IDF to retake the Gaza Strip. In the last few minutes Israeli army tanks reportedly destroyed two unspecified "terror targets" in the Islamist-controlled territory.

Title: Major Iranian Arms shipment to Gaza ignored by pravdas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2014, 01:29:53 PM

Click here to watch: Netanyahu Slams International ‘Hypocrisy’ Over Iran Arms Ship

Speaking to the press at Eilat port, in view of the ship's deadly cargo, Prime Minister Netanyahu noted - in both Hebrew and English - that the assorted rockets, mortars and other munitions were meant "for fatal purposes against Israel to hurt Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and even Haifa". "The goal was to have rained down on the heads of Israel's citizens," he said. "We are revealing the truth behind the deceiving smiles of Iran, to expose the delusion that Iran is changing direction," he continued. Netanyahu noted that the international community's decision to downplay the IDF's find is "evidence of the era of hypocrisy in which we are living." "The international community wants to ignore Iran's ongoing aggression and its part in the execution of the massacre in Syria," the Prime Minister fired. "They want to delude themselves that Iran has abandoned its intention to obtain nuclear weapons." "Just as Iran hid its deadly missiles in the belly of this ship, Iran is hiding its actions and its intentions in many of its key installations for developing nuclear weapons," he said. "My message today is simple: those engaged in self-deception must waken from their slumber, we cannot allow Iran to continue building nuclear weapons. Today, Israel exposed Iran's attempts against its people," he continued, "Tomorrow, the whole world could be involved."

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/netanyahu-slams-international-hypocrisy-over-iran-arms-ship?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Netanyahu+Slams+International+%E2%80%98Hypocrisy%E2%80%99+Over+Iran+Arms+Ship&utm_campaign=20140310_m119503051_3%2F10%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Netanyahu+Slams+International+%E2%80%98Hypocrisy%E2%80%99+Over+Iran+Arms+Ship&utm_term=WATCH+HERE


Israel is displaying the weapons cache from the Iranian shipment to Gaza on Monday, in a bid to show the international community the 'true face' behind the Islamic Republic. The IDF spokesperson's office announced Sunday that the Klos C ship, which docked in Eilat over the weekend, has been unloaded and all the contents examined. The list includes: 40 M-302 rockets, with a range of 90 to 160 km; 181 mortar shells, 122 mm caliber; about 400,000 bullets, 7.62 caliber - which are usually used in Kalashnikov-type assault rifles. The IDF conducted the raid in the Red Sea Wednesday, between the waters of Sudan and Eritrea. The ship, which flew a Panamanian flag, carried weapons which were made in Syria under Iran’s directives and were being taken to Sudan. From there, they would be then taken to the Sinai Peninsula and smuggled to Gaza through the underground tunnels.
Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: The Pravdas re: Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on March 12, 2014, 02:05:20 PM

Let us not forget that The New York Times actively covered for the Nazis during the Second World War, and reported that the stories of death camps were "fables."  I don't know my history specifically with regard to the LA Times, but in modern times, it has not been exactly what I would call a friend or supporter of Israel, either.  Both papers have abysmal records when it comes to accurate reporting about Israel, and before the establishment of the modern state, the Jews of Europe.

They are not to be trusted.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2014, 02:47:48 PM

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/03/14/israel-upgrades-apache-helicopters-after-u-s-blocked-their-modernization/

Title: Glick: Surviving Obama
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2014, 02:56:02 PM

second post

Surviving Obama
By Caroline B. Glick
March 7, 2014

Obama's newfound courage to begin abandoning his pretense of supporting Israel presents Israel with a new challenge

JewishWorldReview.com | Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg minced few words in discussing the interview that President Barack Obama gave him on the eve of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's latest visit to Washington.

Speaking with Charlie Rose, Goldberg equated Obama's threat to stop supporting Israel in international forums to the talk of a mafia don. Obama told Goldberg, that if Israel doesn't cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, "our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited." He added, "And that has consequences."
That statement, Goldberg noted, was a "veiled threat" and "almost up there with, 'Nice little Jewish state you've got there. Hate to see something happen to it.'"
Goldberg saw the interview as Obama's way of showing that he is beginning to abandon the pretense of supporting Israel, now that he no longer faces reelection. In Goldberg's words, "It's not that the gloves are coming off. It's more that the mask of diplomatic language is coming off a little bit."
Goldberg added that due to the fact that Obama, "doesn't have to run again for anything," he doesn't need to pretend feelings for Israel that he doesn't have, by among other things, going to AIPAC annual policy conference.

And indeed, Obama has achieved a comfort level with implementing anti-Israel policies. His threat to step aside and let Israel-haters have their way in places like the United Nations or in certain quarters of Europe is of a piece with several steps the he is already reportedly undertaking to harm Israel in various ways.
Before he was reelected in 2012, Obama felt it necessary to align his policies on Iran to the preferences of the public. And as a consequence, although he voiced harsh criticism of Congressional sanctions bills against Iran, he grudgingly signed them into law. (He then proceeded to use the sanctions he opposed but signed as proof that he supported Israel in speeches before Jewish audiences.)

Now that he no longer has to concern himself with the wishes of the American public and its representatives in Congress, Obama has dropped the mask of opposition to Iran and forged ahead with a diplomatic process that all but ensures Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.

The same is apparently the case with joint US-Israeli missile defense programs. Wednesday it was reported that the administration has slashed funding of those programs by two-thirds for the 2015 fiscal year. Obama touted his previous willingness to fully fund those programs — manifested in his decision not to veto Congressional appropriations, despite his stated desire to slash funding — as proof of his administration's "unprecedented" security cooperation with Israel.

Then there are the low-level bureaucratic sanctions that Obama began enacting against Israel last year. These involve State Department activities that are not subject to easy Congressional oversight.

For instance, last week it was reported that last year the State Department drastically decreased the number of Israeli tourist visa applications it approved. The rise in rejection rates has prevented Israel from participating in the visa waiver program. Foreign Ministry officials told reporters they believe this is a deliberate, premeditated policy.

And this week we learned that last year the State Department rejected hundreds of visa requests from members of Israel's security services.

Although White House spokesman Jay Carney was quick to claim that Israel's interception of the Iranian missile ship en route to Gaza Wednesday morning was the result of US-Israeli intelligence cooperation, the fact is that the US continues to undermine Israel's covert operations in Iran. Earlier this week, CBS reported that the Obama administration has demanded that Israel stop its reported covert campaign to kill Iranian nuclear scientists in order to delay or block Iran's nuclear progress.

Obama's new willingness to threaten Israel and to take the actions he feels it is safe to take to downgrade Israel's relations with the US, will likely only grow after November's midterm elections. After the Congressional elections, Obama will feel entirely free to attack the US's closest ally in the Middle East.

So what can Israel do? How can Israel safeguard its interests at a time when the US President publicly trashes and threatens those interests and privately undermines them?

Israel already did the most important thing in this regard when voters reelected Netanyahu to lead the government last year. During his trip to the US this week, Netanyahu made clear that he understands the challenge and is competent to handle it.

Since Netanyahu returned to the premiership in January 2009, he has implemented a policy of waiting Obama out. Over the past five years, Netanyahu has only directly challenged Obama when he had no choice. And that has been the right course. Little good comes to Israel from open fights with the White House. Such fights should only be engaged when the consequences of having a fight are less bad than the consequences of not fighting.

Title: Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish State
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2014, 12:59:49 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/middleeast/obama-abbas-palestinians-israel.html?emc=edit_th_20140318&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193

Title: Re: Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish State
Post by: G M on March 18, 2014, 01:39:26 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2014, 12:59:49 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/middleeast/obama-abbas-palestinians-israel.html?emc=edit_th_20140318&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193

The toughest part is getting Obama to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on March 18, 2014, 01:53:51 PM

I honestly don't think Obama would care - in fact he might consider it a benefit - if Iran nuked Israel and wiped it out.  Obama considers Israel - as does Jimmy Carter and the rest of Europe - as THE problem in the Middle East.  These fools, in addition to being clearly anti-Semitic,  think that if we could only get rid of Israel, the Middle East would be one big happy family.  What morons.

Title: Obama: Abbas has "consistently renounced violence"...
Post by: objectivist1 on March 18, 2014, 02:45:43 PM

Obama: Abbas has “consistently renounced violence”

Robert Spencer    Mar 17, 2014

This is not the first time that Obama has said something to suggest that he is smoking controlled substances.

“Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority, I believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas…” — Barack Obama, March 21, 2013

“As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.” — Mahmoud Abbas, March 15, 2013

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” — Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, as quoted in the Hamas Charter

“Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” — Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV

“Obama: Abbas Has ‘Consistently Renounced Violence,’” by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, March 17:

President Barack Obama welcomed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the White House on Monday in a bid to rekindle a fledgling peace process that has all but collapsed under Palestinian rejection and a massive influx of terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Obama hosted Abbas in the Oval Office for a “working lunch” and praised the Palestinian leader as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence.”

Obama omitted all references to Palestinian terrorism and last week’s rocket attacks, many of which were claimed to have been launched by a militant branch of Abbas’ own Fatah political party.

Obama also did not mention Abbas’ efforts to honor Palestinian terrorists and more recent remarks by his senior adviser calling on Allah to kill the Israelis.

The meeting comes at a critical time in the Middle East peace process, a priority for Secretary of State John Kerry.

Efforts to push both sides into signing an interim agreement that would lay the groundwork for a permanent deal have crumbled in recent weeks after Palestinian factions rejected the deal and resorted to launching nearly 200 rockets at Israeli civilians.

Obama lavished praise on Abbas during a joint press conference held before the two retreated from reporters for a one-on-one discussion.

“I have to commend President Abbas,” Obama said. “He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors.”

However, talks have in part broken down on the Palestinians ongoing refusal to publicly recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.”

Obama also did not touch on Abbas’s ongoing support for Palestinian terrorists who were released from Israeli jails last year in good faith as a precursor to the talks.

Abbas awarded in July the “highest order of the Star of Honor” to Nayef Hawatmeh, leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which has killed Israeli schoolchildren and others.

In October of last year, Abbas welcomed back home a group of 26 released Palestinian terrorists as “our heroic brothers,” according to the media monitoring site Palestinian Media Watch.

“We welcome our heroic brothers who come from behind bars to the world of freedom. We congratulate ourselves and we congratulate all of you in this great celebration that unifies and returns our sons to us,” Abbas was quoted as saying of the terrorists.

He made similar remarks in December.

Abbas said during a press conference with the president on Monday that he is looking forward to the return of another group of Palestinian terrorists, which he views as a chief priority going forward.

“We have an agreement with Israel, that was brokered by Mr. Kerry, concerning the release of the fourth batch of prisoners and we are hopeful that the fourth batch will be released by the 29th of March because this will give a very solid impression about the seriousness of these efforts to achieve peace,” Abbas said.

Obama, in his own remarks Monday, said that the United States remains the Palestinian Authority’s biggest global champion.

“The United States obviously has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian Authority,” Obama said. “We’re the largest humanitarian donor and continue to help to try to foster economic development and opportunity and prosperity for people, particularly young people like those that I met.”

As Obama struggles to put the peace process back on track, Abbas has indicated that he does not plan to negotiate past April 29, when he will revert to using the United Nations as a way to unilaterally gain recognition for a Palestinian state….

Title: Lurch's feeling hurt
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2014, 11:50:49 AM

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/201215-kerry-blasts-israel-over-defense-ministers#.UysW6dXsz-c.facebook

Title: 12 Tribes: Israel prepping to strike Iranian nukes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2014, 03:51:22 PM

Israel Preparing for Strike on Iranian Nuke Facilities

Click here to watch: Israel Preparing for Strike on Iranian Nuke Facilities

Israel is still preparing for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including a specific military budget running to NIS 10 billion ($2.89 billion), despite the developments in talks between world powers and Tehran. Details of the budgeting came to light during Knesset joint committee sessions on IDF plans that were held in January, Haaretz reported on Thursday. Three MKs, who were present during the hearings but asked to remain anonymous, said that the funding was to cover preparations throughout 2014 and was similar in size to the Iran strike budget for 2013, the report said. According to the report, some of the legislators present at the sessions grilled Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, and Brig. Gen. Agai Yehezkel of the IDF’s Planning Directorate, about the necessity of a strike plan despite talks between world powers and Iran. Those talks led to an initial agreement in November 2013 for Tehran to scale back its nuclear program, and are still ongoing. The IDF officials responded that they had received instructions from the highest levels of government, apparently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, to continue with preparations for a strike, the report said. Netanyahu publicly slammed the November interim deal as a “historic mistake,” and he has demanded the full dismantling of Iran’s “military nuclear” capabilities under a permanent deal, whereas US President Barack Obama has spoken of allowing Iran to maintain a closely supervised low-level enrichment capability. Haaretz noted that both the Prime Minister’s Office and the IDF’s Spokesperson declined to comment on the report.

WATCH HERE

Last week Ya’alon hinted at a change in his stance from opposing to supporting solo action by Israel on Iran’s nuclear program. “The one who should lead the campaign against Iran is the US,” he said, but instead, “the US at a certain stage began negotiating with them, and unfortunately in the Persian bazaar the Iranians were better,” he said. Therefore, “we (Israelis) have to look out for ourselves.” Two days of talks between world powers and Iran came to an end on Wednesday with what EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton described as “substantive and useful discussions covering a set of issues including (uranium) enrichment, the Arak reactor, civil nuclear cooperation and sanctions.” The parties agreed to reconvene April 7-9. However, Russia has warned that tensions with the US over the Crimea crisis could lead to it altering its position regarding Iran to erode the unified front that Western countries have presented against Tehran. The US and Europe have been strongly critical of Russian actions to annex Crimea following a revolution in Ukraine last month.
Source: Times of Israel

Title: Yet another "Let's negotiate with these guys" 4.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2014, 02:55:58 PM

Click here to watch: Hamas Renews Call to Massacre Jews, Destroy Israel

Yesterday the Prime Minister of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, gave a feverish speech in front of thousands of supporters at Saraya Square in the Gaza Strip. The message: Palestinians should not and will not stop fighting through terrorist acts against the State of Israel. Haniyeh encourages Palestinians to attack innocent Israelis and he explicitly outlines a new plan to use tunnels on an offensive against Israel. His speech also refers to striking Tel Aviv as thousands of supporters cheer him on.

WATCH HERE

A lawmaker from Hamas recently called for a “massacre” of Jews, explaining that the Koran indicates that this must be done. In a televised address the lawmaker, Yunis Al-Astal, also said that Jews must be forced to pay the “jizya” tax, which under the strict Islamic Sharia doctrine, non-Muslims living under Muslim sovereignty must pay in return for the ruler's protection. Jihadist rebels who have taken control of areas in Syria have imposed such a tax on Christian minorities. MEMRI’s release of Al-Astal’s comments comes on the same day that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh threatened Israel it would pay dearly if it heeded the growing calls to retake Gaza. "We tell the enemy and (Foreign Minister Avigdor) Liberman who is threatening to reoccupy Gaza that the time for your threats is over," Haniyeh declared, at a rally in Gaza City. "Any aggression or crime or stupidity you commit will cost you a very high price." Arab incitement against Israel has continued throughout the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA). It is not only Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by most Western countries, that has incited against Israel, but also the PA under Mahmoud Abbas, who is often described as a “moderate peace partner.” The Israeli government only recently released its annual "Palestinian Incitement Index", which showed that incitement against Israel and the Jewish people is continuing on official media channels including - inter alia - by bodies that are very close to the PA Chairman and in educational and religious networks. Such incitement ranges from the glorification of Nazism and the lionization of Adolf Hitler, to programs on official PA television featuring heavily-stereotyped Jews as villains (and encouraging violence against them), and various TV and radio shows which literally wipe the Jewish state off the map. In addition, top officials in Abbas’s Fatah party have openly supported Hamas’s efforts to kidnap Israeli soldiers. One of these officials, Abbas Zaki, recently declared that "Allah will gather [Israelis] so that we can kill them."

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 25, 2014, 03:31:21 PM

Partners in peace!

Title: Hamas imposes Sharia
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2014, 08:26:40 PM

Hamas Imposes Radical New Law: Lashings, Amputations, and Massive Executions
by IPT News  •  Mar 28, 2014 at 2:39 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4333/hamas-imposes-radical-new-law-lashings

 
Hamas is now trying to outdo the Taliban in imposing new Shar'ia inspired draconian punishments, including amputations of limbs and massive increases in lashings and executions. A senior Hamas official told Gulf News that a new punitive law, "inspired by" Shar'ia Law, is required to replace the former and "impractical" one. The article states that there will be a minimum of 20 lashes for minor offenses and a minimum of 80 lashes for criminal cases: the death penalty will also be expanded in accordance with the Shar'ia. In addition, the new law includes cutting off the hands of a thief.

By replacing an almost 80-year old punitive law with a new radical one, Hamas has earned widespread condemnation by other Palestinian factions. Even other terrorist groups condemn Hamas' new law.

"The new law will harm the interests of the Palestinians and perpetuate the Palestinian internal split. Hamas must retreat and show priority and preference to the higher Palestinian interests," according to The Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) statement.

According to the article, Hamas asserts that the law aims at deterring criminals in Gaza.

Instead of planning to alleviate Gaza's deteriorating economic situation or reining in terrorist groups operating in the Strip, the Hamas regime is reinforcing its radical rule. Clearly, Hamas prioritizes imposing its radical Islamist agenda on Palestinian society over enhancing Gaza's standard of living.

It remains to be seen whether Hamas' front groups and supporters in the United States, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Muslims for Palestine and the Muslim American Society, who claim to be civil rights organizations, will condemn Hamas for implementing this new law

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 28, 2014, 08:47:51 PM

*crickets*

Anyone expect Buraq to condemn this?

Title: Syrian opposition member advocates peace with Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Click here to watch: Syrian Opposition Member Advocates Peace with Israel
http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/syrian-opposition-member-advocates-peace-with-israel?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Opposition+Advocates+Peace+with+Israel&utm_campaign=20140401_m119805414_4%2F1%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Opposition+Advocates+Peace+with+Israel&utm_term=Syrian+Opposition+Member+Advocates+Peace+with+Israel

A member of the Syrian opposition recently said that “it is in our interest today to engage in a peace process” with Israel. The comments were made by opposition activist Dr. Kamal Al-Labwani, who spoke in a March 19, 2014 interview with the Syrian Orient News TV channel. The interview was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). He also noted, in his push for peace, that “Israel has genuine fears about its security. If we realize that and allow Israel to feel secure in its Sunni surroundings – after all, it is Arab Sunni land that Israel has taken – and if we make Israel feel more welcome, it may yet give up its hostile mentality which is the cause for the destruction.” When the interviewer told Al-Labwani that “Israel has expansionist goals” he replied, “Not true. The people of Israel fled persecution in the Nazi Holocaust, and they want to live in peace.”

WATCH HERE

The statements are not the first time that Syrian opposition members have reached out to Israel. In February, the Syrian opposition thanked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for visiting an IDF field hospital where wounded Syrians are being treated. Leaders of the opposition who spoke to Kol Yisrael radio said that Netanyahu's public support for wounded Syrians sends an important message to the Syrian people, particularly after the failure of recent talks in Geneva between the opposition and the regime in Damascus. One of the leaders of the Syrian opposition said as far back as 2012 that if the Assad regime falls, the Syrian people will seek regional peace, including with Israel. In September, one of the rebel leaders in northern Syria expressed his appreciation for Housing Minister Uri Ariel’s comments regarding the chemical attack near Damascus last August. Ariel had said that, as Jews who suffered during the Holocaust, Israelis could not be silent over what was going on in Syria. “Allow me to send a message of thanks and appreciation to Housing Minister Uri Ariel for his humane and valuable statements and for his beautiful expression of emotion toward the children killed in Syria and toward the women being killed in Syria,” the Syrian rebel leader told Channel One News at the time. Israel has clarified that it is not a part of the civil war in Syria and does not take sides in the fighting, but Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has claimed that Israel is assisting the rebels fighting to topple his regime. A commander in the Syrian opposition at one point claimed the exact opposite, that Israel was collaborating with Iran and Hezbollah to keep Assad in power.

Title: Spengler on Glick's "The Israeli Solution"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2014, 09:10:08 PM

The Phantom Menace in the Middle East: Review of Caroline Glick’s “The Israeli Solution”
Crossposted from Asia Times Online.

By any standard, the Palestinian problem involves the strangest criteria in modern history.

To begin with, refugees are defined as individuals who have been forced to leave their land of origin. A new definition of refugee status, though, was invented exclusively for Palestinian Arabs, who count as refugees their descendants to the nth generation.

All the world’s refugees are the responsibility of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, except for the Palestinians, who have their own refugee agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine.Among all the population exchanges of the 20th century – Greeks for Turks after World War I, Hindus for Moslems after the separation of India and Pakistan after World War II, Serbs for Croats after the breakup of Yugoslavia during the 1980s – the Palestinians alone remain frozen in time, a living fossil of long-decided conflicts.

Some 700,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim countries where they had lived in many cases more than a thousand years before the advent of Islam, and most of them were absorbed into the new State of Israel with a territory the size of New Jersey; 700,000 or so Arabs left Israel’s Jewish sector during the 1948 War of Independence, most at the behest of their leaders, but few were absorbed by the vast Muslim lands surrounding Israel.

Instead, the so-called refugees were gathered in camps (now for the most part towns with a living standard much higher than that of the adjacent Arab countries thanks to foreign aid) and kept as a human battering ram against Israel, whose existence the Muslim countries cannot easily accept.

Some 10 million Germans who had lived for generations in what is now Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic were driven out at the end of World War II (more than half a million died in the great displacement).

Imagine that Germany had kept these 10 million people in camps for 70 years and that their descendants now numbered 40 million – and that Germany demanded on pain of war restitution of everything from the Sudetenland to Kaliningrad (the former Konigsberg). That is a fair analogy to the Palestinian position.

It is a scam, a hoax, a put-on, a Grand Guignol theatrical with 5 million extras. Because polite opinion bows to the sensibilities of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims, it is treated in all seriousness.

As a matter of full disclosure, I want to put my personal view on record: The mainstream view amounts to a repulsive and depraved exercise in hypocrisy that merits the harshest punishment that a just God might devise.

In this looking-glass world of hypocrisy and hoax, though, the most noteworthy deception is the physical existence of the Palestinians themselves: in Judea and Samaria (sometimes called the occupied West Bank), there are perhaps half the number of Arabs as the Palestinian Authority’s census has counted, or the international community acknowledges. As Jerusalem Post reporter Caroline Glick reports in her new book, Israeli researchers have demonstrated that… the 1997 Palestinian census was a fraud. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [PCBS] had exaggerated the Palestinian population figures by nearly 50 percent, or 1.34 million people… First, it had inflated the existing Palestinian population base. In the 1997 census, the PCBS had included 325,000 Palestinians who lived abroad. It had also included 210,000 Arab residents in Jerusalem, who had already been accounted for in Israel’s population count.

The Palestinian census had included an additional 113,000 persons whose existence was not noted in the 1996 Israeli civil administration. When the data was compared to the voter base published by the Palestinian Central Elections Commission (PCEC) in 1996 and 2005, the PCEC data substantiated the Israeli data. That is, the 113,000 people did not exist.

Taken together, these three moves increased the Palestinian base population by 648,000 people or approximately 27 percent. Imagine if the US Census Bureau had predicted that, in 2012, the United States would have a population base of 400 million, instead of its actual 2012 base size of 314 million. The second stage of the population inflation involved exaggerating future growth. First, it predicated the projections for future growth on a population base that – as we have seen – was massively inflated. Every annual growth assessment based on an inflated population model is necessarily false and inflated.

This fundamental problem was compounded by other factors. The PCBS inflated birthrates and massively inflated immigration rates . Moreover, it ignored the high numbers of Palestinians who immigrated to Israel by marrying Israeli citizens. All told, the PCBS census claimed that the compound annual growth rate of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza was 4.75 percent – the highest population growth rate in the world. Significantly, just as the Palestinians were claiming to be the fastest-growing population in the world, the Arab world, and the larger Muslim world, were entering a period of unprecedented demographic contraction, even collapse.

The data are well known and long-debated; I took the same position as Ms Glick in a 2011 essay for the Jewish webzine Tablet. But Ms Glick, an American immigrant to Israel and a former captain in the Israel Defense Forces, draws a bold conclusion: Israel should annex Judea and Samaria just as it did the city of Jerusalem. Jews will comprise a demographic majority well in excess of 60% between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. As Palestinians continue to emigrate and Jewish immigration picks up, she adds, “some anticipate that due almost entirely to Jewish immigration, Jews could comprise an 80 percent majority within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria by 2035″.

Under Ms Glick’s plan, Israel would offer to West Bank Arabs the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship; all would have full civil rights, and those who chose Israeli citizenship would have voting rights as well. Israeli no doubt would earn the anathema of the international community were it to annex Judea and Samaria, but from Ms. Glick’s way of looking at the matter there is little to lose.

As an American friend of the State of Israel, I do not instruct Israelis as to which of the unpleasant choices they should choose among the many that confront them. Caroline Glick’s one-state plan, though, stands on its merits. As she reports, it has been obvious since the Six-Day War of 1967 that Israel required most of the West Bank in order to defend itself:

Just weeks after the end of the war, President Lyndon B Johnson instructed the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a map of the territories that they believed Israel would require in perpetuity to ensure its ability to defend itself. A few weeks later, General Earl Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, presented a map to Johnson that included most of Judea and Samaria, parts of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the eastern Sinai, as well as Sharm el-Sheikh, along the Suez Canal at the southern tip of Sinai.
If you read only one book about the Middle East this year, it should be Caroline Glick’s. Whether or not you agree with her conclusions, she illuminates the contorted landscape by pointing to an audacious solution. It is only by considering alternative actions that we understand our present circumstances, and Ms Glick concentrates the mind wonderfully.

What are the chances that the Palestinian regime might implode and force Israel’s hand? The Palestine Authority, established two decades ago by the Oslo Agreements, is in extreme disarray. Its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is in the seventh year of a four-year term and loathe to call new elections, for he might lose to the Iran-backed rejectionists of Hamas, who have ruled Gaza since 2007. Abbas last year dismissed the one senior Palestinian official who might be viewed as a moderate, Salam Fayyad. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, an embittered left-wing critic of Israel, lamented at the time that Fayyad’s resignation was… a reflection of Palestinian paralysis and disarray. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president with whom Fayyad feuded, knows that he needs his outgoing prime minister’s rigorous competence. He needs Fayyad’s standing with the United States and Europe, major sources of funding for the beleaguered Palestinian Authority. He needs Fayyad’s grip on security. Yet the Fatah old guard with their sweet deals wants Fayyad gone; Hamas hates him as a supposed American stooge, and Abbas has tired of this US-educated “turbulent priest.”
In theory, Israel might beneficially maintain the messy status quo indefinitely after the American-mediated peace talks collapse, as they inevitably must. With Syria in full-scale civil war and Egypt and Iraq in low-intensity civil war, and Turkey in a major internal crisis, the entire surrounding region is in disarray, excepting the small Kingdom of Jordan.

To presume that the bitterly divided Palestinian kleptocracy might create an island of stability amid the surrounding chaos seems whimsical. No Palestinian government can agree to a formal end of conflict with Israel on any terms without meeting violent opposition from its rejectionist constituency, much less acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish State, so there will not even be the charade of a peace agreement.

It is hard to imagine Israel executing Ms Glick’s approach unless the Palestinian Authority broke down into chaos. A powerful constituency inside Israel, with the support of the majority of the American Jewish leadership, continues to take at face value the Palestinians’ own population count. The Hebrew University professor usually characterized as Israel’s foremost demographer, Sergio della Pergola, continues to warn of demographic disaster for Israel (on the strength of numbers that Ms Glick and the critics have shown to be at least questionable and at worst fabricated out of whole cloth).

Professor della Pergola has said in an interview:

Demography is changing rapidly. The Arabs are multiplying twice as fast as the Israelis. The Israeli majority over the whole territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is shrinking so that they may have at the moment an advantage of 52%, but they cannot govern effectively with such a slim majority. It was as if the democrats in America were trying to govern the US with a 52% majority in the congress. If we limit our geography to Israel plus the West Bank – Gaza, having been effectively evacuated in 2005 – the Jewish majority in Israel overall would still be slightly above 60%. There is no way that Israel might call itself a Jewish state with a Palestinian minority of 40%. But if we consider Israel within the 1967 boundaries, plus east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the Israeli majority would be less than 79%, a significant difference. The demographic question continues to loom high, and only some territorial sacrifice (beginning with the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem) on the Israeli side will guarantee that Israel remains Jewish and democratic. By denying the right of Palestinians who are under Israeli control to vote might eventually generate unbearable international pressure on Israel, causing damage to both its image and economy.

The claim that “Arabs are multiplying twice as fast as the Israelis” rests on the premise that there are twice as many Arab women of child-bearing age as Israeli women, and that in turn relies on the phony Palestinian Census. Nonetheless, della Pergola’s view still has considerable purchase.

The chairman of one of America’s largest Jewish organizations assured me recently that he continues to believe della Pergola’s version of Palestinian demographics. I cannot think of another occasion in history when the question of the self-determination of a people revolved around the factual question of whether the people were there or not. The matter will be settled on the strength of the facts eventually, but clarification of the facts will not make liberal American Jews any happier.

The so-called world community, to be sure, would express outrage at the annexation that Ms Glick advocates. No doubt the European Community might try to punish Israel with economic measures, but the risk of Israeli isolation is far smaller than timid minds conceive. The efficacy of international law has been thinned by the corrosive effect of having been bathed in hypocrisy for decades. Historical rights of the kind that Israel might assert to Judea and Samaria have a certain resonance: think of China in Taiwan and Tibet, or Russia in Crimea.

The Israeli Solution, by Caroline Glick. Crowne Forum, New York 2014. ISBN-10:0385348061. Price: US$19.08; 352 pages.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman. He is Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Associate Fellow at the Middle East ForumHis book How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is Dying, Too) was published by Regnery Press in September 2011. A volume of his essays on culture, religion and economics, It’s Not the End of the World – It’s Just the End of You, also appeared that fall, from Van Praag Press.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 02, 2014, 09:18:16 PM

Speaking of China, the Chinese have/are killing more muslims than Israel ever imagined in Xinjiang. Nary a peep of outrage from the so-called international community.

It's almost like the concern for the "Palestinians" is just a fig leaf for hating Jews.

Title: Myths & Lies About Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on April 08, 2014, 06:26:37 AM

Israel’s Worst Enemy: Lies and Myths

Posted By Bruce Thornton On April 8, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

The Washington Post reports that some members of Secretary of State John Kerry’s senior staff think it’s time to say “enough” of Kerry’s futile and delusional attempts to broker peace between the Israelis and Arabs and implement the “two-state solution.” That’s a revelation one would think the chief diplomat of the greatest power in history would have experienced decades ago. Since the failed 1993 Oslo Accords, it has been obvious to all except the duplicitous, the ignorant, and the Jew-hater that the Arabs do not want a “Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Israel,” something they could have had many times in the past. On the contrary, as they serially prove in word and deed, they want Israel destroyed.

As Caroline Glick documents in her new book The Israeli Solution, the “two-state solution” is a diplomatic chimera for the West, and a tactic for revanchist Arabs who cannot achieve their eliminationist aims by military means. But the “Palestinian state” is merely one of many myths, half-truths, and outright lies that befuddle Western diplomats and leaders, and put the security and possibly the existence of Israel at risk.

First there is the canard that Israel is somehow an illegitimate state, a neo-imperialist outpost that Westerners created to protect their economic and geopolitical interests. In this popular myth, invading Jewish colonists “stole” the land and ethnically cleansed the region of its true possessors, the indigenous “Palestinian people.” This crime was repeated after 1967 Six Day War, when Israel seized the “West Bank,” occupying it as a colonial power and subjecting its inhabitants to a brutally discriminatory regime. The continuing power of this lie can be seen in the frequent comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa. And this false historical analogy in turn drives the “Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions” movement, which is attempting to make Israel even more of a pariah state in order to duplicate the success of those tactics in dismantling white rule in South Africa.

Every dimension of this narrative is false. The state of Israel came into being by the same legitimate process that created the other new states in the region, the consequence of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Consistent with the traditional practice of victorious states, the Allied powers France and England created Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, and of course Israel, to consolidate and protect their national interests. This legitimate right to rewrite the map may have been badly done and shortsighted––regions containing many different sects and ethnic groups were bad candidates for becoming a nation-state, as the history of Iraq and Lebanon proves, while prime candidates for nationhood like the Kurds were left out. But the right to do so was bestowed by the Allied victory and the Central Powers’ loss, the time-honored wages of starting a war and losing it. Likewise in Europe, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled, and the new states of Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia were created. And arch-aggressor Germany was punished with a substantial loss of territory, leaving some 10 million Germans stranded outside the fatherland. Israel’s title to its country is as legitimate as Jordan’s, Syria’s and Lebanon’s.

Then there is the melodrama of the “displacement” of the “Palestinians,” who have been condemned to live as stateless “refugees” because of Israel’s aggression. This narrative of course ignores the fact that most of the Arabs fleeing Palestine left voluntarily, the first wave, mainly the Arab elite, beginning in November 1947 with the U.N. vote for partition. At the time it was clear to observers that most of the Arabs chose to flee their supposed ancestral homeland. In September 1948 Time magazine, no friend of Israel, wrote, “There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors [explaining the Arab flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Committee urging the Arabs to quit.” These were followed in 1948 by 300,000 others, who either were avoiding the conflict, or were induced by the Arab Higher Committee with the promise that after victory they could return and find, as Arab League Secretary-General Azza Pasham said in May 1948, “that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean.” Indeed, the withdrawal of Israelis from Gaza in 2005 confirmed the prediction that failed in 1948. The Gaza greenhouse industry, which American Jewish donors purchased for $14 million and gave to the Palestinian Authority in order to help Gaza’s economy, was instead destroyed by looters.

But from a historical perspective, it is irrelevant how the Arabs became refugees. When in 1922 the Greeks lost their war they fought against the Turks in order to regain their sovereignty over lands their ancestors had lived in for nearly 3000 years, 1.5 million Greeks were transferred out of Turkey in exchange for half a million Turks from Europe. After World War II, 12 million Germans either fled or were driven from Eastern Europe, with at least half a million dying. In both cases, whether justly or not, the wages of starting a war and losing included the displacement of the losers. Yet only in the case of the Palestinian Arabs has this perennial cost of aggression been reversed, and those who prevailed in a war they didn’t start been demonized for the suffering of refugees created by the aggression of their ethnic and religious fellows.

In still another historical anomaly, in no other conflict have refugees failed to be integrated into countries with which they share an ethnic, religious, and cultural identity. Most of the some 800,000 Jews, for example, driven from lands like Egypt and Iraq in which their ancestors had lived for centuries, were welcomed into Israel, which footed the bill for their maintenance and integration into society. The Arab states, on the other hand, kept their brother Arabs and Muslims in squalid camps that have evolved into squalid cities, their keep paid for by the United Nations Relief Works Agency, the only U.N. agency dedicated to only one group of refugees. Thus the international community has enabled the revanchist policy of the Arab states, as Alexander Galloway, head of the UNRWA, said in 1952: “It is perfectly clear that the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

This brings us to the chief myth: that there exists a distinct Palestinian “people,” the original possessors of the land who have been unjustly denied a national homeland. In the quotes above notice that no Arab ever refers to these people as “Palestinians,” but as “Arabs,” which is what most of them are, sharing the same religion, language, and culture of their Arab neighbors in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. In fact, as Sha’i ben-Tekoa documents in his book Phantom Nation, the first U.N. resolution referencing “Palestinians” instead of  “Arabs” occurred 3 years after the Six Day War, marking international recognition of a “Palestinian people” and nation as yet another Arab tactic in gaining support in the West by exploiting an idea alien to traditional Islam. Before then “Palestinian” was a geographical designation, more typically applied to Jews. Numerous quotations from Arab leaders reveal not a single reference to a Palestinian people, but numerous one identifying the inhabitants of the geographical entity Palestine as “Arabs.”

For example, in 1937, Arab Higher Committee Secretary Auni Abdel Hadi said, “There is no such country as Palestine. ‘Palestine’ is a country the Zionists invented. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us.” The Christian Arab George Antonius, author of the influential The Arab Awakening, told David Ben-Gurion, “There was no natural barrier between Palestine and Syria and there was no difference between their inhabitants.” Later in his book he defined Syria as including Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. In testimony to the U.N. in 1947, the Arab Higher Committee said, “Politically the Arabs of Palestine are not independent in the sense of forming a separate political identity.” Thirty years later Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, told Newsweek, “Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.” After the Six-Day War a member of the Executive Council of the PLO, Zouhair Muhsin, was even more explicit: “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity… Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.”

Such examples can be multiplied, which makes all the talk of a separate Palestinian “people” deserving of their own nation nothing but propaganda supported by a bogus history that claims the Arabs who came to Palestine in the 7th century A.D as conquerors and occupiers, or later as migrant workers and immigrants, are the “indigenous” inhabitants descended from Biblical peoples like the Canaanites or the shadowy Jebusites––a claim unsupported by any written or archaeological evidence. Meanwhile, of course, abundant evidence exists showing that the Jews have continuously inhabited the region since 1300 B.C. Once more the logic of history is turned on its head, with the descendants of the original inhabitants deemed alien invaders, while the descendants of conquerors and occupiers are sanctified as victims.

Such an inversion is worthy of Orwell’s 1984. Yet these lies and myths––and there are many more–– have shaped and defined the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, and set the parameters of diplomatic solutions. But we should heed the Biblical injunction about the liberating power of truth. And the truth is, for a century fanatics filled with genocidal hatred have violently and viciously attacked a liberal-democratic nation legitimately established in the ancient homeland of its people. Until our diplomacy and foreign relations in the region are predicated on this truth, the “two-state solution” will continue to be a dangerous farce.

Title: 12 Tribes: New Satellite
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2014, 10:24:10 AM

Israel's Ministry of Defense and Israel Aerospace Industries launched the advanced, radar based, observation satellite "Ofek 10" into space Wednesday evening from the Palmahim air force base. The satellite's cameras are capable of maintaining all their capabilities during any type of weather and also during the night, and thus serve Israel's security systems. It is confirmed that after the first few minutes of flight "Ofek 10" was in good working condition. If and when the satellite begins its orbit around the planet, it will undergo a series of detailed tests to check its functionality and performance level. The newest of Israel's satellites will complete a full orbit around the globe every 90 minutes and when "Ofek 10" reaches the airspace above Israel it will send back all the imagery it captured. The addition of "Ofek 10" to Israel's satellite arsenal, will compliment the "Ofek 9", which is already in orbit. In this way, one of the advanced satellites will pass over Israel every 45 minutes, thus limiting the time gaps during which security officials can't access visual information from its targets, in particular Iran. If, for example, Iran attempts to hide military movements like mounting missiles on their launchers, Israeli satellites will now be able to see and confirm the move twice as fast.

Title: Podhoretz: Pity the Palestinians? Count Me Out
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2014, 03:23:53 PM

Pity the Palestinians? Count Me Out
Thousands of Arabs are dying in Syria and South Sudan. Where's the outrage on behalf of those truly suffering?
By Norman Podhoretz
April 9, 2014 7:26 p.m. ET

Provoked by the predictable collapse of the farcical negotiations forced by Secretary of State John Kerry on the Palestinians and the Israelis, I wish to make a confession: I have no sympathy—none—for the Palestinians. Furthermore, I do not believe they deserve any.

This, of course, puts me at daggers drawn with the enlightened opinion that goes forth from the familiar triumvirate of the universities, the mainstream media and the entertainment industry. For everyone in that world is so busy weeping over the allegedly incomparable sufferings of the Palestinians that hardly a tear is left for the tribulations of other peoples. And so all-consuming is the universal rage over the supposedly monumental injustice that has been done to the Palestinians that virtually no indignation is available for any other claimant to unwarranted mistreatment.

In my unenlightened opinion, this picture of the Palestinian plight is nothing short of grotesquely disproportionate. Let me leave aside the Palestinians who live in Israel as Israeli citizens and who enjoy the same political rights as Israeli Jews (which is far more than can be said of Palestinians who live in any Arab country), and let me concentrate on those living under Israeli occupation on the West Bank.


Well, to judge by the most significant measure and applying it only to two instances of what is going on at this very moment: In Syria, untold thousands of fellow Arabs are starving, while according to the United Nations official on the scene in South Sudan, 3.7 million people, amounting to one-third of the population, are now facing imminent death by starvation.

And the Palestinians? True, when they wish to go from the West Bank into Israel proper, they are forced to stop at checkpoints and subjected to searches for suicide vests or other weapons in the terrorist arsenal. Once, when she was secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice bemoaned the great inconvenience and humiliation inflicted by such things on the poor Palestinians. Yet she had nothing to say about Palestinians dying of starvation on the West Bank, for the simple reason that there were none to be found.

Nor did anyone starve to death in Gaza when it too was under Israeli occupation. And despite propaganda to the contrary, neither is anyone facing the same fate in Gaza today because of the blockade the Israelis have set up to prevent clandestine shipments of arms intended for use against them.

Speaking of Gaza, it can serve as a case study of the extent to which the plight of the Palestinians has been self-inflicted. Thus when every last Israeli was pulled out of Gaza in 2005, some well-wishers expected that the Palestinians, now in complete control, would dedicate themselves to turning it into a free and prosperous country. Instead, they turned it into a haven for terrorism and a base for firing rockets into Israel.

Meanwhile little or nothing of the billions in aid being poured into Gaza—some of it from wealthy American Jewish donors—went to improving the living conditions of the general populace. Which did not prevent a majority of those ordinary Palestinians from supporting Hamas, under whose leadership this order of priorities was more faithfully followed than it was under Fatah, its slightly less militant rival.

As for the monumental injustice supposedly done to the Palestinians, it consists largely of losing territory in the war they themselves provoked in 1967, and the refusal of their demand that every inch of it be returned to them by the Israeli victors in that war. Such demands have always been known and universally denounced as revanchism or irredentism, most recently over the Russian seizure of Crimea. But where Israel is concerned, everything goes topsy-turvy, so that Palestinian irredentism is universally supported.

The accompanying and equally great injustice allegedly suffered by the Palestinians is that they have been denied a state of their own. But this hardly qualifies as unique, given that dozens of other ethnic groups—the Kurds being the most prominent—are in the same boat.

In any event, this "injustice" is also self-inflicted, since three times in the past 15 years the Palestinians have refused offers of a state on most of the territory taken by Israel in 1967 and with Jerusalem as its capital. They have justified these refusals by one pretext or another, but as anyone willing to look can see, what they truly want is not a state of their own living side by side with Israel but a state that replaces Israel altogether.

With this we come to the main reason I believe that the Palestinians do not deserve any sympathy, let alone the astonishing degree of it they do receive (and not least from many of my fellow Jews). It is that ever since the day of Israel's birth in 1948, they have never ceased declaring that their goal is to wipe it off the map. In all other contexts, this would be called by its rightful name of genocide and condemned by all decent people. Yet—here we go topsy-turvy again—for any and every step Israel takes to defend itself against so shamelessly evil an intent, it is the Israelis who are obsessively condemned at the U.N. and by the increasingly strident propagators of what calls itself "anti-Zionism" but is also increasingly indistinguishable from anti-Semitism.

Nor, alas, is it only the leaders of the Palestinians who harbor this evil intent. As revealed by poll after poll, as well as by the elections that led the way for Hamas to take power in Gaza, a decisive majority of the Palestinian people does so as well. No doubt this is the fruit of relentless indoctrination from above, but the damage has been done, and the end result is what it is.

Indeed, the best that can be said of both Palestinian leaders and led is that many of them no longer imagine—as did Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former president of Egypt—that they have the power to drive the Jews of Israel into the sea. Therefore they are now willing to give up pursuing the goal of genocide and to settle for the more modest objective of politicide—that is, to get rid of the Jewish state by transforming it, through various "peaceful" means like the "right of return," into a state with a Palestinian majority.

I for one pray that a day will come when the Palestinians finally let go of the evil intent toward Israel that keeps me from having any sympathy for them, and that they will make their own inner peace with the existence of a Jewish state in their immediate neighborhood. But until that day arrives, the "peace process" will go on being as futile as it has been so many times before and as it has just proved once again to be. Another thing that never changes: When John Kerry testified on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, it was the Israelis he blamed for this latest diplomatic fiasco.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. His most recent book is "Why Are Jews Liberals?" (Doubleday, 2009).

Title: 12 Tribes: Now here's a shocking revelation , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2014, 09:49:23 AM

As Palestinian Authority president, Yasser Arafat’s public condemnations of terror attacks against Israeli civilians were lies born of Egyptian pressure, his ex-bodyguard said. In an interview with BBC Arabic last week, newly translated by media watchdog group MEMRI, Muhammad Al-Daya said that Arafat “would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: ‘I am against the killing of civilians.’ But that wasn’t true.” The denouncements were not issued of Arafat’s own volition, Al-Daya explained, but were rather the result of badgering by the then-Egyptian president. “This would happen due to pressure, especially by President Hosni Mubarak,” he said. “Mubarak would call Arafat and say to him: ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’ Arafat would say to Mubarak: ‘Mr. President, we have martyrs. The [Israelis] have destroyed us. They have massacred us.’ But Mubarak would say to him: ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’”

These lies were in no way opposed to Islamic law, Al-Daya continued. “Islam allows you to lie in three cases: In order to reconcile two people,” he said. “If your wife is ugly, you are allowed to tell her she is the most beautiful woman alive. The third case is politics. You are allowed to lie in politics.” Arafat was the chairman of the PLO from 1969-2004, and PA president from 1994 until his death in 2004. While he was in office in the PA, the Second Intifada erupted, sparking a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks throughout Israel, which consistently accused him of sanctioning the attacks.

Title: Takkiya...
Post by: objectivist1 on April 11, 2014, 10:22:40 AM

This is actually a well-accepted doctrine in Islam - that it is OK to lie to unbelievers to advance the cause of Islam.  Robert Spencer and others have written about this extensively.  It's actually encouraged.

Title: Israel's new satellite
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 22, 2014, 05:28:30 PM

New Israeli Satellite Eyes Iran Nuke Program, Terrorist Arms Smuggling
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
April 22, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4357/new-israeli-satellite-eyes-iran-nuke-program

 
An advanced satellite with radar sensors Israel launched into space earlier this month which is expected to enhance surveillance of the two greatest threats to Israeli and international security: Iran's nuclear program, and the extensive Iranian terrorist arms smuggling network.

The SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) satellite, called Ofek (Horizon) 10, creates high definition, radar-generated images, that look as if they've been taken by an optical camera. As it circles the Earth every 90 minutes, it can hover over several targets, peering through all weather conditions to beam back data to Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate.

Once it becomes fully operational, it will assist Israeli efforts to catch any Iranian nuclear transgressions. This development comes as defense officials in Jerusalem continue to warily follow diplomatic negotiations between an Islamic Republic that has reached nuclear breakout status, and an international community that may, according to Israeli fears, lack the resolve to force Iran back from its nuclear advances.

The Ofek 10 spy satellite soared into orbit on board a Shavit (comet) rocket, produced by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). The latest launch, which was overseen by the Israeli Defense Ministry's Space Administration, means that Israeli intelligence can now fall back on several spy satellites to create one rolling evaluation of targets of interest, Amnon Harari, who heads the Space Administration, said this month.

Israel designed the satellite to be able to maneuver easily over multiple targets, meaning that Military Intelligence operators can direct the radars not only at nuclear sites in Iran, but also at ongoing Iranian efforts to smuggle powerful weapons, including missiles and long-range rockets, to terrorist proxies such as Hizballah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

Israel's intelligence agencies divide their time between watching the Iranian nuclear program and working to disrupt the arms smuggling network, in a covert campaign that sees frequent, yet classified, successes.

The nuclear program and the arms-to-terrorists program are interlinked threats. The former, if completed, would enable Iran to threaten Israel and Sunni states with mass destruction, and the latter already enables pro-Iranian terror groups to do Tehran's regional bidding and sow radicalism and instability. If Iran went nuclear, its terrorist arms program could serve as a potential delivery mechanism for a dirty bomb that could be deployed anywhere in the world.

As a result, Israel is heavily investing in upgrading intelligence capabilities.

Ofer Doron, who heads the IAI's Mabat Division, which develops space systems, said the new satellite has "an incredible ability to take photographs, and it is very small."

The Ofek 10 can provide very precise, high quality images under all conditions, he added.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon alluded to the satellite's future role against Iran's conventional and unconventional proliferation activities when he stated that it would enhance Israeli capabilities to deal with threats "near and far, at any time of the day, and in all types of weather."

"This is how we continue to consolidate our enormous qualitative and technological edge over our neighbors," Ya'alon said.

Although Israeli officials have decreased the number of public statements expressing concern over the Iranian nuclear program, the issue remains at the top of the national security ladder in the eyes of the military and government, and considerable resources are being invested quietly to cope with the program.

Those efforts include ongoing refinements to a military strike option in the event that Iran is caught making a secret effort to break out to the weaponization stage.

The Iranian arms network represents the largest known program of state sponsorship of terrorism. It reaches far beyond Gaza and Lebanon, and includes Shi'ite militias and pro-Iranian terror groups in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, the Far East, Afghanistan, and even Latin America, according to Israeli intelligence assessments.

Iran is also facilitating the arrival of thousands of Shi'ite foreign fighters into Syria, to fight on behalf of the Assad regime. Many of these militiamen may go on to form Quds Force cells when they return to their countries of origin, according to a report released in March by the Tel Aviv-based Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Title: US will withdraw financial support to the PA if
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2014, 09:39:32 PM

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas threatened to dismantle the PA on Sunday, in a move which would dissolve the Oslo Accords and allegedly make Israel "vulnerable" to international legislation, according to some analysts. But the move could have serious consequences for Palestinian Arabs, not Israel, in the event the PA chooses to disband. "Of course [the PA disbanding] will have serious consequences," US State Department Jen Psaki stated Monday to Yediot Aharonot. "Obviously this is not in the interest of the Palestinian people , and all that has been achieved will be lost."

Psaki stated that the US would withdraw financial support for the PA, and for the Palestinian Arab people as a political body, in the event Abbas follows through on his threats. "The US has made tremendous efforts to build Palestinian institutions in the PA, and so has the international community," she explained. "The move will seriously harm the US-PA relationship, including in terms of financial aid." The move may be another serious blow to US-PA relations, after Washington threatened to cut financial aid to the PA for torpedoing peace talks. The PA receives about $400 million annually in US aid.

Source: Israel National News

Title: Caroline Glick: John Kerry's Jewish Best Friends...
Post by: objectivist1 on April 30, 2014, 05:25:40 AM

John Kerry’s Jewish Best Friends

Posted By Caroline Glick On April 30, 2014

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.

John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.

In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”

Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data. As I demonstrate in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israel will maintain a strong and growing Jewish majority in a “unitary state” that includes the territory within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria. But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.

In other words, the future leaders of that state – from the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — are so imbued with genocidal Jew hatred that they insist that all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly ejected from their homes. These Jewish towns, cities and neighborhoods must all be emptied before the Palestinians whose cause Kerry so wildly champions will even agree to set up their Apartheid state.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not of outcome. It is the malign intent of the Palestinians –across their political and ideological spectrum — to found a state predicated on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing. In stark contrast, no potential Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

By ignoring the fact that every Palestinian leader views Jews as a contaminant that must be blotted out from the territory the Palestinians seek to control, (before they will even agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it), while attributing to Jews malicious intent towards the Palestinians that no Israeli Jewish politician with a chance of leading the country harbors, Kerry is adopting a full-throated and comprehensive anti-Semitic position.

It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.

Speaking to the Daily Beast about Kerry’s remarks on Sunday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was quick to use the “some of his best friends are Jewish,” defense.

In her words, “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers [Ehud] Olmert and [Ehud] Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants.”

So in order to justify his own anti-Semitism – and sell it to the American Jewish community – Kerry is engaging in vulgar partisan interference in the internal politics of another country. Indeed, Kerry went so far as to hint that if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is forced from power, and Kerry’s Jewish best friends replace him, then things will be wonderful.  In his words, if “there is a change of government or a change of heart, something will happen.” By inserting himself directly into the Israeli political arena, Kerry is working from his mediator Martin Indyk’s playbook.

Since his tenure as US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, Indyk has played fast and dirty in Israeli politics, actively recruiting Israelis to influence Israeli public opinion to favor the Left while castigating non-leftist politicians and regular Israeli citizens as evil, stupid and destructive.

Livni, Olmert, Barak and others probably don’t share Kerry’s anti-Semitic sensitivities. Although their behavior enables foreigners like Kerry to embrace anti-Semitic positions, their actions are most likely informed by their egotistical obsessions with power. Livni, Olmert and Barak demonize their political opponents because the facts do not support their policies. The only card they have to play is the politics of personal destruction. And so they use it over and over again.

This worked in the past. That is why Olmert and Barak were able to form coalition governments. But the cumulative effects of the Palestinian terror war that began after Israel offered the PLO statehood at Camp David in 2000, the failure of the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, and the 2006 war with Lebanon have brought about a situation where the Israeli public is no longer willing to buy what the Left is selling.

Realizing this, Barak, Livni and others have based their claim to political power on their favored status in the US. In Netanyahu’s previous government, Barak parlayed the support he received from the Obama administration into his senior position as Defense Minister. Today, Livni’s position as Justice Minister and chief negotiator with the PLO owes entirely to the support she receives from the Obama administration.

Neither Barak nor Livni ever lost sight of the cause for their political elevation, despite their electoral defeats.

Like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government, today Livni provides Kerry and Indyk with “Israeli” cover for their anti-Israeli policies. And working with Kerry and Indyk, she is able to force herself and her popularly rejected policies on the elected government.

Livni – again, like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government – has been able to hold her senior government position and exert influence over government policy by claiming that only her presence in the government is keeping the US at bay. According to this line of thinking, without her partnership, the Obama administration will turn on Israel.

Now that Kerry has given a full throated endorsement of anti-Semitic demagoguery, Livni’s leverage is vastly diminished. Since Kerry’s anti-Semitic statements show that Livni has failed to shield Israel from the Obama administration’s hostility, the rationale for her continued inclusion in the government has disappeared.

The same goes for the Obama administration’s favorite American Jewish group J Street. Since its formation in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential elections, J Street has served as the Obama administration’s chief supporter in the US Jewish community. J Street uses rhetorical devices that were relevant to the political realities of the 1990s to claim that it is both “pro-peace and pro-Israel.” Twenty years into the failed peace process, for Israeli ears at least, these slogans ring hollow.

But the real problem with J Street’s claim isn’t that its rhetoric is irrelevant. The real problem is that its rhetoric is deceptive.

J Street’s record has nothing to do with either supporting Israel or peace. Rather it has a record of continuous anti-Israel agitation. J Street has continuously provided American Jewish cover for the administration’s anti-Israel actions by calling for it to take even more extreme actions. These have included calling for the administration to support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council, and opposing sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program. J Street has embraced the PLO’s newest unity pact with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And now it is defending Kerry for engaging in rank anti-Semitism with his “Apartheid” remarks.

J Street’s political action committee campaigns to defeat pro-Israel members of Congress. And its campus operation brings speakers to US university campuses that slander Israel and the IDF and call for the divestment of university campuses from businesses owned by Israelis.

On Wednesday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is set to vote on J Street’s application to join the umbrella group as a “pro-peace, pro-Israel” organization.

Kerry’s “Apartheid” remarks are a watershed event. They represent the first time a sitting US Secretary of State has publically endorsed an anti-Semitic caricature of Jews and the Jewish state.

The best response that both the Israeli government and the Jewish community can give to Kerry’s act of unprecedented hostility and bigotry is to reject his Jewish enablers. Livni should be shown the door. And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations should reject J Street’s bid for membership.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on April 30, 2014, 06:08:32 AM

Who could have forseen this?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 30, 2014, 06:20:48 AM

Glick is awesome.  A very sharp and penetrating intellect.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on April 30, 2014, 06:24:09 AM

Just a bit of sarcasm there, eh, GM?   :-D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on April 30, 2014, 07:03:54 AM

Quote from: G M on April 30, 2014, 06:08:32 AM

Who could have forseen this?

Right.  Did they "cut off ears" and "raze villages" too?  http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html

The apartheid description is common among Israel's haters, see Roger Waters posts just last week.  They can say reckless things like that among leftists and get nothing but agreement, and forget that their inciteful hatred might be taken seriously in a country under current threat of annihilation.

The party of anti-science is the party of anti-history.  Does the analogy of Israel to apartheid South Africa hold up to scrutiny?  No and even he knows that.  He has his facts exactly backwards.  

Glick: "even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it."

Under Obama-Kerry, the US is supporting this ethnic cleansing.

What does it tell us about both parties in the US Senate that confirmed this oaf 94-3.  Ted Cruz and two others, Cornyn and Inhofe, (and our G M) saw this coming: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00005

Nothing in his past indicated he would make a good or even acceptable Secretary of State.  You have to distort the facts to support the policy or accept the rhetoric.

Title: The call to war, to wipe out Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 01, 2014, 10:41:45 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/fatah-two-state-solution-is-dead-time-for-armed-conflict?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+%E2%80%98Two-State+Solution+Is+Dead%2C+Time+for+Armed+Conflict%E2%80%99&utm_campaign=20140501_m120236874_5%2F1%3A+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+%E2%80%98Two-State+Solution+Is+Dead%2C+Time+for+Armed+Conflict%E2%80%99&utm_term=_E2_80_98Two-State+Solution+Is+Dead_2C+Time+for+Armed+Conflict_E2_80_99

Title: a new, but not unexpected low
Post by: G M on May 03, 2014, 02:24:54 PM

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/05/another-new-low-for-john-kerry-we-need.html

Title: Caroline Glick: Rand Paul's Support for Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 07, 2014, 05:44:31 AM

EXCELLENT analysis - as usual - by Glick.  Rand Paul is a complicated character, indeed. See her article below:

Rand Paul’s Support for Israel

Posted By Caroline Glick On May 7, 2014

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Republican Senator Rand Paul is an isolationist. This ought to make him a natural ally for appeasers like Steve Walt and John Mearshimer and the whole blame Israel first crowd.

And indeed, he has taken positions, like opposing additional sanctions on Iran that placed him in their camp.

But Paul is a mixed bag.

Last week, following the PLO’s unity deal with terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Paul introduced the Stand With Israel Act. If it had passed into law, Paul’s act would have required the US to cut off all funding to the Palestinian Authority, including its security forces. The only way the administration could have wiggled out of the aid cutoff would have been by certifying that the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had effectively stopped being the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Paul’s conditions for maintaining aid would have required the President to certify to Congress that the PA – run jointly by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PLO –formally and publicly recognized Israel as a Jewish state; renounced terrorism; purged all individuals with terrorist ties from its security services; terminated all anti-American and anti-Israel incitement, publicly pledged not to engage in war with Israel; and honored previous agreements signed between the PLO and Israel.

Paul’s bill was good for America. Maintaining financial support for the Palestinian Authority in the aftermath of the PLO’s unity-with-terrorists deal constitutes a breach of US anti-terror law.

Financing the PA also harms US national security. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are financed by Iran. So by funding the PLO’s PA, which just united its forces with theirs, the US is subsidizing Iran’s terror network.

Ending US financing of the PA would certainly be good for Israel. Indeed, just by sponsoring the bill Paul has helped Israel in two critical ways. He offered Israel friendship, and he began a process of changing the mendacious narrative about the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel to one based on the truth.

By extending his hand to Israel, Paul gave Israel an opening to build relationships with political forces with which it has not traditionally had close ties. Because most of Israel’s supporters in Washington support an interventionist US foreign policy, isolationists like Paul have generally either stood on the sidelines of the debate, or in light of their desire to beat a quick retreat from the region, they have been willing, even happy to support the Arabs against Israel and blame Israel’s supporters for getting the US involved in the Middle East.

The hard truth is that while American isolationism is bad for the US, it isn’t necessarily bad for Israel. To date, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, there has been a direct correlation between the level of US involvement in Israel’s affairs and US hostility towards Israel.

Paul’s pro-Israel detractors note that he also supports cutting off US military aid to Israel. But that doesn’t necessarily make him anti-Israel.

Despite the protestations of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, it is far from clear that Israel would be worse off if it stopped receiving US aid. Indeed, it is likely that Israel’s economy and military strength would both be enhanced by the strategic independence that an aid cut-off would bring about.

Yes, Paul is a complicated character. But that doesn’t make him Israel’s enemy. His bill was an act of friendship. And Israel can use more friends in Washington who actually do things that help it rather than suffice with declaring their support for Israel while standing by as its reputation is trashed.

And that’s the thing of it. The Obama administration can’t stop trash talking Israel. And more than ever before, Israel needs allies who are willing to take real action to defend it.

Israel received yet another reminder of this basic fact last Friday when Yedioth Aharonoth’s senior writer Nahum Barnea published an interview with unnamed “senior American officials” involved in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Those “officials,” it quickly became apparent, turned out to be the one and only Martin Indyk, Secretary of State John Kerry’s senior mediator.

In that interview, Indyk showed that among members of the Obama administration, Israel is friendless. Indyk’s interview, like serial anti-Israel statements made by Kerry, (most recently his anti-Semitic “Israel apartheid” remarks to the Trilateral Commission), and by President Barack Obama himself, was notable for its utter hostility to Israel and its Jewish leaders.

Not only did Indyk blame Israel for the failure of Kerry’s “peace process.” Like Obama and Kerry, Indyk insisted that Israel’s failure to bow to every PLO demand has opened it to the prospect of a renewed Palestinian terror war against it, to international isolation and to European trade embargoes.

Like Kerry, Indyk casually employed anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish cleverness and greed.

From the perspective of continued US aid to the PA, by far the most important part of Indyk’s remarks, like those that Kerry made to the Trilateral Commission, was his claim that the Palestinians will likely respond to the failure of Kerry’s peacemaking by initiating another terror war against Israel.

Indyk’s assertion – or was it a threat? – was notable because the US government is training and financing the Palestinian forces that would be directing the terror war.

Since 2007, the US has spent billions of dollars financing and training Palestinian security services and transforming them into a professional military. Trained using US doctrine, they are the strongest military force the Palestinians have ever fielded against Israel.

These forces – commanded by Abbas – share his supportive view of the terrorist mass murder of Jews. They share his position that Israel has no right to exist, that Jews have no history and are not a nation.

Since 1996, every Palestinian terror campaign has been directed by these security services. And as US Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who served as the first commander of the US training mission has stated publicly, these US trained forces can be expected to turn their guns at Israel.

While the PLO was competing with Hamas for leadership, Abbas deployed these US trained forces against Hamas. Now that the PLO and Hamas are unified, these operations will necessarily end.

Moreover, these US trained forces are already involved in terrorism. Over the past six months, IDF commanders have repeatedly pointed fingers at PA security forces claiming that the steep rise in terrorist attacks against Israelis in Judea and Samaria is being organized and directed by them.

This is brings us to the second reason why Paul’s initiative is so important. While it is important for Israel to find new friends in Washington, it is even more important for it to change the narrative about the Palestinians and their conflict with Israel.

The false narrative, which claims that the PLO is moderate and that Mahmoud Abbas is a statesman and a man of peace, has made Israel’s old friends in Washington unable to understand reality. So unlike Paul, these friends are incapable of taking actions that actually advance Israel’s interests and strengthen its alliance with the US.

The false narrative of PLO moderation has monopolized the discourse on the Palestinians to the point where adherence to the two-state policy has more in common with a religious faith than a policy preference.

Indyk’s hysterical assault on Israel is textbook behavior of a believer lashing out at a person who exposes the utter falsity of his faith.

The believer cannot disown his phony messiah. So his only option is to present the party that unmasked the lie as the devil.

Hence, Indyk’s vulgar assault on Israelis.

But while Indyk’s faith is fanatical, many others share it in more moderate, but still devastating forms. And they too lash out at anyone who exposes their irrationality.

Case in point is the pro-Israel community’s opposition to Paul’s bill.

The day after Paul introduced his bill, AIPAC came out against it. AIPAC opposed the bill, according to the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, (who herself violently opposed it), because its leadership believes that the PA security forces play a key role in fighting Hamas.

So a week after the Israeli government formally ended negotiations because the PA supports terror, AIPAC opposed ending US aid to the PA because, AIPAC claimed, it fights terror.

For her part, Rubin railed against Paul’s initiative claiming that it was “a phony pro-Israel bill.”

Paul submitted his bill for unanimous consent in order to fast track it to a vote and into law. AIPAC convinced some senators to vote against Paul’s bill, and so killed it.

In an interview with Newsmax’s Steve Maltzberg after the vote, Paul attacked AIPAC saying, “I think the American people, if they knew that [AIPAC opposed his bill], would be very, very upset and think, you know what, those people are no longer lobbying in favor of America and Israel if they’re not willing to put restrictions on aid to Palestine.”

In other words, Paul was saying, it is time to move on, and those who insist on acting as though nothing has changed since 1994 are not behaving as one would expect Israel’s friends to behave.

And he is right.

Paul may be a cynical opportunist. But that’s better than a messianic that prefers to believe that Israel is the devil than accept that the Peace Fairy doesn’t exist.

And yes, his refreshing embrace of the truth as the basis for US policymaking makes him a better friend to Israel today than AIPAC that refuses to accept the truth, (and like him, failed to support additional sanctions against Iran).

Rand Paul told Fox News after his bill failed to pass that he will not abandon the fight against US aid to the PA. We must hope that he is true to his word.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 07, 2014, 05:57:10 AM

We shouldn't be giving the so-called "palestinians" one red cent./

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on May 07, 2014, 06:03:47 AM

Glick's point exactly.  Taken as a whole, Rand Paul is a friend to Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on May 07, 2014, 07:23:10 AM

Glick:  "Republican Senator Rand Paul is an isolationist."

5+ years of Obama has lowered the bar for so may things.  Glick spells that out on this brilliantly.  Israel used to hope they had a leader in Washington who would stand with them militarily without hesitation in the event of attack, crisis or war.  Now they are happy to see a potential leader who would just stop funding and supporting Israel's enemies.

Rand Paul has needed to step forward on this because he is otherwise perceived as the opposite.  Paul's father carried anti-Israel baggage.  Rand retains his father's supporters, doesn't disavow his father's politics, but separates himself only by building his own record.

A few weeks ago he was quoting Roger Waters by name - on a different topic.  This move separates Rand from the allies of the enemies.

All the hopefuls cherry pick from Reagan what makes them the next Reagan.  Who really knows which one would really step up in a crisis.  What we can measure is who is committed to build and maintain sufficient military assets to deter, and to respond in a crisis, not only for Israel but in multiple corners of the globe - at the same time.

Rand Paul might prefer being called "complicated" rather than "isolationist" in these times of major threats and turmoil. 

Title: "Saving Barack Obama" parody posters in L.A...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 07, 2014, 10:18:58 AM

http://pamelageller.com/2014/05/saving-barack-obama-steven-spielberg-ploy-parody-obama-movie-posters-la.html/

Title: Partners in Peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2014, 10:09:11 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ORAM-usqhQ

Title: If Abbas had a Palestinian state.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2014, 09:28:20 PM

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4378/guest-column-if-mahmoud-abbas-had-a-palestinian

Title: An American and Israeli Jew converse
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2014, 02:14:34 PM

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/14/a_jewish_state_vs_the_jewish_state_israel_zionism

Title: One side wants the other side dead
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 20, 2014, 12:44:19 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8  

For example , , ,

http://www.timesofisrael.com/persian-clip-shows-nuclear-war-with-israel/

======

Guest Column: Palestinian TV Teaches Kids The Way to 'Jihad Street'
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
May 20, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4394/guest-column-palestinian-tv-teaches-kids-the-way
 
Every day, hundreds of millions of children in more than 120 countries settle in to watch their local versions of "Sesame Street" or similar shows inspired by the Muppet model. They learn to read, to write, to count. They learn about things like "sharing," and "friendship," and how to be kind to others. They learn what it is to love.
Except in Palestine, where the lessons from Hamas children's television are aimed at something else: to kill.

Take, for instance, "Pioneers of Tomorrow," with its fluffy talking bee who encourages viewers to "throw stones" at Jews, and a pretty young host who, in one episode, praises a little girl for her desire to be a police officer and "shoot Jews." Or consider the show's transformation, some years ago, of Mickey Mouse, into an Islamic supremacist character named Farfour. When international protests erupted, producers gave Farfour an honorary farewell: in his final episode, he is "martyred" by Israelis.
For years, reports have emerged of children's programming in the Palestinian Territories, mostly on Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV, whose shows often teach Palestinian children not just to hate Americans and Jews, but to kill them –preferably through acts of martyrdom, or suicide bombings. As the New York Times reported in 2009, when "Sesame Street" announced plans to broadcast in the region, "The official Hamas channel, Al-Aqsa television, has several children's shows, and Al-Aqsa's director of children's programming, Abu Amr, told me the network is considering starting a station devoted entirely to children. Al-Aqsa TV's most famous (and infamous) children's program is 'Tomorrow's Pioneers,' in which Saraa, a Palestinian girl, and several animal characters teach ideological lessons: why it is bad to speak English and good to memorize the whole Koran; how the Danes are infidels who should be killed. Occasionally an animal character will die as a martyr for Palestine."

Other programs, both for children and for adults, have also included children who speak glowingly of their suicide-bomber fathers and promote violent jihad, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In one such show, the ADL says, "One of the girls said 'I want to fire missiles at the Jews and be martyred like my father.' One of the boys also said that he wants to follow in his father's path, 'I want to follow the path of Jihad like daddy and I want to be martyred like daddy.'"

And then there are the programs that don't just teach hate, as the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported in 2007:

Palestinian children in Hamas-controlled Gaza are being taught to take an active role in terrorist operations against Israel and are thus placed in mortal danger by those who should be responsible for their safety and well-being. The children, too young to fully understand even the meaning of death, are taught to aspire to such "martyrdom" in children's television shows produced by the Hamas.

Every Monday afternoon Al-Aqsa TV, the Hamas' main television station, broadcasts a children's program called "The Gifted". In a special episode marking the beginning of the school year, a two-year old toddler named "Ahmad" was featured. Ahmad was praised for his expertise in the area of "holy war" (jihad).

Interestingly, many of the recent Al-Aqsa programs, including the 'Pioneers of Tomorrow" episode praising the little girl who hopes to grow up and shoot Jews, are in fact reruns of shows first broadcast as long as nine years ago – an effort, it would seem, to reach a new generation of impressionable minds.

Unsurprisingly, such programming is not unique to Palestine: Iranian children's shows have also been known to glorify suicide bombings, while Al Aqsa programming continues to be broadcast in other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia.

But more significantly, Al-Aqsa programming now reaches into Europe, thanks not only to satellite access, but to European mosques which serve as broadcasting centers.
The result? "It is hard to overlook how hatred imported from Beirut and Gaza resurfaces in the form of daily acts of anti-Semitism in schools and athletic clubs, on streets and in the subway," German magazine Der Spiegel reported as far back as 2008. "Young children raised to be anti-Semitic are already using the phrase 'You Jew!' as a derogatory expression in kindergartens and on playgrounds. Schoolchildren berate their teachers, calling them Jew dogs, for not offering Sharia-compatible instruction, and Jewish schoolchildren are attacked and feel compelled to switch to Berlin's Jewish high school and to hide the insignia of their Jewish faith -- the yarmulke and the Star of David -- when in public."

That a government anywhere would actively advocate murder, genocide, and terrorist activity, training children as young as four years old to hate and kill, is almost inconceivable. But it seems equally unfathomable that the international community now seeks to legitimize such a government. And it's not just about the astonishing lack of outrage in much of the mainstream media (this, while one can scarcely imagine the same shoulder-shrugging if such programs were instead aimed at killing Muslims– or anyone else, for that matter; can you imagine the outrage, the lawsuits, the threats we would hear from the Hamas-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR]?).

Nor is it just about upgrading the status of the Palestinian territories in the United Nations, an organization that defines itself as "committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights." It is about continuing to support the notion that the Palestinian government is simply seeking the "freedom" of its people.

Because the fact is that Hamas's Al Aqsa, and the spread of its hate-filled programming, puts the lie to the (naïve) notion that this is all simply about Israel and Palestine, that it's all about human rights and justice and a pursuit of some kind of peace. And yet despite this, the West's ongoing faith in a Palestinian state, in "unity," continues to ignore the basic foundations of its politics and values – values which aim to contaminate, like a plague, the entire next generation – and not just of Palestinians, but of Muslims everywhere.

But it isn't just Hamas's fault: it's ours, too. We in the West – including (if not especially) the United Nations – must begin to understand the "war on terror" as a war most of all on propaganda – and arm ourselves accordingly. If there is to be a "Sesame Street, Palestinian Edition," then such a program must begin to employ the same methods of teaching justice, tolerance, and truth that make it so valued by parents in America and Europe. And other private enterprises, along with government projects, are going to have to do the same – not just in the interest of securing our own world today, but as a promise to the children of tomorrow.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Title: Jewish Home Paraty Proposal for peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2014, 11:29:20 AM

A New Plan for Peace in Palestine
Dismantle the security barrier in the West Bank. Let most Palestinians who live there govern themselves.
By Naftali Bennett
WSJ
May 20, 2014 6:38 p.m. ET

On May 14 U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in London to discuss the "unity government" that Mr. Abbas announced unexpectedly last month. Mr. Abbas's decision to establish a national government in coalition with Hamas is the latest example in a long line of Palestinian intransigence.

Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction. The group has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings and missile attacks. That is the organization's very mission: The Hamas charter calls for perpetual jihad against the Jewish State while forever rejecting peace negotiations or compromise. Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

So how should Israel respond to Mr. Abbas's announced plan for such a government? I propose what I call the Stability Plan, which I will promote throughout Israel's new Knesset legislative session.

Palestinians living in certain portions of the West Bank (known as Area A and Area B) should govern themselves. They should hold their own elections, run their own schools, issue their own building permits and manage their own health-care system. In short, they should run their own lives. Israel should not interfere in day-to-day governance.


To achieve this, Israel must allow Palestinians complete freedom of movement, which requires removing all roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank. In particular, Israel should dismantle the security barrier erected throughout the last decade to defend against Palestinian terror attacks during the Second Intifada.

Many Israelis credit the barrier with the dramatic increase in security over the past decade. Not a single Israeli was killed by terror in the West Bank in 2012, making it the first year without bloodshed since 1973. Yet this was not solely due to the barrier. The remarkable drop in terror happened thanks to high-quality intelligence coupled with Israel's ability to conduct targeted military operations in the West Bank. The number of Israeli operations in the West Bank has dropped significantly because the military now only carries out pinpointed operations based on reliable intelligence.

Israel can now stay reasonably secure without the barrier. This will prove especially true if the Israeli government works with the international community to promote Palestinian economic development in Areas A and B. There's no perfect solution to the conflict, and the wait for one has allowed the Palestinian economy to languish. The hope of independence and statehood has delayed crucial economic investments.

So, during the past few months, Israel's Ministry of Economy, which I lead, has reviewed different options for helping the Palestinian economy grow. We have looked at the export and import systems, work permits, the climate for international investment and more.

One promising idea is to encourage multinational corporations to invest in Palestinian areas by offering economic incentives such as insurance guarantees and tax breaks. There are also ways to streamline the export process for Palestinian manufacturers so products can reach their destination quickly and in perfect condition. Israel has become known as the "Startup Nation," but now it is time to build a "Startup Region."

The other part of the Stability Plan deals with the remaining portion of the West Bank, known as Area C, where 400,000 Israelis and 70,000 Palestinians live. Under my plan, Israel would annex this territory, much as it exercised sovereignty over East Jerusalem in 1967 and the Golan Heights in 1981. The Palestinians who live in Area C would be offered full Israeli citizenship.

East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights still aren't recognized by the international community as part of Israel. But it is impossible to imagine a state of Israel without the Western Wall. Israel could not withdraw from the Golan Heights while the Syrian civil war rages nearby. East Jerusalem and the Golan are Israeli territory, and the same should be true of Area C.

Annexing Area C would limit conflict by reducing the size of the territory in dispute, which would make it easier to one day reach a long-term peace agreement. Annexation would also allow Israel to secure vital interests: providing security for Jerusalem and the Gush Dan region along Israel's central coast, protecting Israeli communities within Area C, and applying Israeli sovereignty over national heritage sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This arrangement might not be the utopian peace Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat imagined when they shook hands in the White House Rose Garden in 1993. But it offers Palestinians independent government and prosperity, while ensuring Israeli security and stability. That would improve lives and foster a much healthier coexistence, major progress for a region that has known conflict for decades.

Mr. Bennett is Israel's minister of economy and leader of the Jewish Home Party

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 21, 2014, 11:34:37 AM

 :roll:

Yeah, I'm sure the "palestinians" will refrain from terror attacks once the barriers come down.

Title: Pope Francis: "Che Guevara of the Palestinians"...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 22, 2014, 11:31:56 AM

Pope Francis: ‘The Che Guevara of the Palestinians’?

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 22, 2014

“The Che Guevara of the Palestinians” is set to visit Palestinian Authority-controlled Judea and Samaria next week, beginning in Bethlehem, and the city of Jesus’s birth is already in high excitement. The bearer of that illustrious title is none other than Pope Francis. According to Israel National News, “Rabbi Sergio Bergman, a member of the Argentinian parliament and close friend of Pope Francis…said that the pope intends to define himself as the ‘Che Guevera of the Palestinians’ and support their ‘struggle and rights’ during his visit.”

If the Pope or anyone around him has expressed a similar intention to speak out about the Muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians, it has not been recorded – in sharp contrast to the abundance of signals that the Pope has sent to Palestinian Authority officials. Fr. Jamal Khader of the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem explained: “He is taking a helicopter directly from Jordan to Palestine — to Bethlehem. It’s a kind of sign of recognizing Palestine.” In anticipation of his doing just that officially, Palestinian officials have put up posters proclaiming “State of Palestine” and depicting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Pope Francis, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.

Not only that, but while in Bethlehem, Pope Francis will meet with Abbas; he also plans to celebrate Mass there rather than in Jerusalem, a move that Israel National News says “has been called a show of support for the PA.” He then plans to visit a Palestinian “refugee camp.”

Khader predicted: “Knowing who he is, and his sensitivity for all those who suffer, I am sure that he will say something defending all those who are suffering, including the Palestinians who live under occupation.” Ziyyad Bandak, Abbas’s adviser for Christian affairs, was enthusiastic: “This visit will help us in supporting our struggle to end the longest occupation in history….We welcome this visit and consider it as support for the Palestinian people, and confirmation from the Vatican of the need to end the occupation.”

All this comes after a Church official in Jerusalem criticized Israeli authorities for asking that a sign announcing the Pope’s visit be taken down from a historic site on which such signs are prohibited for preservation reasons. The unnamed official referenced recent Hebrew-language hate graffiti spray-painted on mosques and churches, saying that he and other Church officials “question the fact that the police, instead of taking action against the extremists who paint hate slogans on mosques and churches, choose to remove a sign with a positive message that welcomes the pope in three languages. We hope the police will act with the same determination to prevent the growing incitement and violence against Christians.”

While referring to the graffiti as “incitement and violence against Christians,” however, Church officials have been much more reticent regarding Muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians, even when it has included actual violence. According to Israel National News, “Christian Arab residents of the village of El-Khader in the Bethlehem area were savagely attacked by local Muslims as they celebrated a Christian holiday two weeks ago. A report by CAMERA, an organization which monitors anti-Israel bias in the media, reported that Christians attempting to enter Saint George’s Monastery in the village were intimidated and attacked with rocks and stones.”

Yet about this and other incidents of Muslim persecution of Christians, Pope Francis, as well as Vatican and Church officials, have said little. Last November, Pope Francis decried the plight of “Christians who suffer in a particularly severe way the consequences of tensions and conflicts in many parts of the Middle East.” He added that “Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other areas of the Holy Land sometimes overflow with tears” and declared: “We won’t resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who for two thousand years confess the name of Jesus, as full citizens in social, cultural and religious life of the nations to which they belong.”

Neither on that occasion or any other, however, has Pope Francis ever ascribed the suffering of Middle Eastern Christians to anything beyond “the consequences of tensions and conflicts in many parts of the Middle East.” Apparently he believes that if those tensions and conflicts could somehow be resolved, Christians would be able to live freely in the Middle East. After all, he has famously asserted that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” thereby dismissing the possibility that Christians may be facing persecution from Muslims who are obeying the Qur’anic imperative to fight them “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

What’s more, when Pope Benedict XVI spoke out in January 2011 against the jihad bombing of the Coptic cathedral in Alexandria, Egypt, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the world’s most prestigious Sunni Muslim institution, reacted angrily, breaking off dialogue with the Vatican and accusing the Pope of interference in internal Egyptian affairs. In a statement, Al-Azhar denounced the pontiff’s “repeated negative references to Islam and his claims that Muslims persecute those living among them in the Middle East.” When Pope Francis succeeded Benedict, Al-Azhar and other Muslim authorities expressed hopes that he would repair relations between Muslims and Christians by not repeating the mistakes of his predecessor — including speaking out about the Muslim persecution of Christians.

Francis complied, affirming his “respect” for Islam and apparently accepting al-Azhar’s stipulation that “casting Islam in a negative light is ‘a red line’ that must not be crossed.” He has not, in any case, crossed it, even to decry the actions of Muslims to harass, victimize and persecute Christians because of Qur’anic declarations that they are accursed of Allah for saying Jesus is the Son of God (9:30); are unbelievers for affirming the divinity of Christ (5:17; 5:72); and must be warred against and subjugated (9:29).

And so during his trip that the Palestinians are awaiting with such excitement, it is likely that he will have little, if anything, to say about how core beliefs held by the Palestinians he is celebrating are used to justify the oppression of their Christian brethren. It is even less likely that he will note that Christians in Israel enjoy greater rights and freedoms than their brethren in any Muslim country. We may only hope that whatever the “Che Guevara of the Palestinians” says in Bethlehem or elsewhere in the Palestinian Authority, that it will not be capable of being exploited, by those persecutors of Christians he seems determined to ignore, to justify their actions and perpetuate that persecution.

Title: Pope Francis Makes a Grave Error...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 27, 2014, 05:10:30 AM

For the record, I was raised by Roman Catholic parents in the R.C. church, and though I consider myself a devout Christian, and have great respect for many of the traditions of the R.C. church, I do not consider myself a "practicing Catholic."  I do not know if this Pope is making a calculated and foolish political decision in stating these falsehoods, or is simply ignorant.  Either is unacceptable, especially when Christians are being slaughtered in record numbers in Islamic countries all over the Middle East right now.  See story below:


Pope Francis: Mahmoud Abbas is a “Man of Peace”

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 27, 2014 @ jihadwatch.org

AP reported Sunday that “Pope Francis delivered a powerful boost of support to the Palestinians during a Holy Land pilgrimage Sunday, repeatedly backing their statehood aspirations, praying solemnly at Israel’s controversial separation barrier and calling the stalemate in peace efforts ‘unacceptable.’”

Not only that, but “Palestinian officials hailed Francis’ decision to refer to the ‘state of Palestine.’ In its official program, the Vatican referred to President Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the ‘state of Palestine,’ and his Bethlehem office as the ‘presidential palace.’ He pointedly called Abbas a ‘man of peace.’”

This is not really all that surprising. After all, this is the Pope who wrote last November that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” If “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” then Abbas is certainly a “man of peace.”

Abbas is the “man of peace” who said on March 15, 2013: “As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.” He said that while undoubtedly knowing that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna is quoted in the Hamas Charter as saying: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV has featured a music video that proclaimed: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.”

The “man of peace” heads up Fatah, which is hardly more “moderate.” Palestinian Media Watch reported on May 14 that “on one of its official Facebook pages the Fatah movement, which is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, yesterday posted a warning to Israelis. A sign showed an assault rifle and a map of ‘Palestine’ that included both PA areas and all of Israel. In Arabic, Hebrew, and English it said: ‘Warning. This is a land of a Palestinian state and the occupation to leave immediately’ (English original).”

Likewise, in mid-March, Palestinian official Abbas Zaki, a close friend of the “man of peace,” declared: “These Israelis have no belief, no principles. They are an advanced instrument of evil. They say, the Holocaust, and so on – fine, why are they doing this to us? Therefore, I believe that Allah, will gather them so we can kill them. I am informing the murderer of his death.” Fatah has also vowed to “adhere to the option of armed resistance until the liberation of all of Palestine,” and threatened to “turn the beloved [Gaza] Strip into a graveyard for your soldiers, and we will turn Tel Aviv into a ball of fire.”

On top of all this, the spot where the Pope paused to pray at what AP called “Israel’s controversial separation barrier” – actually its security barrier – featured graffiti referring to the barrier as an “apartheid wall” and comparing Bethlehem to the Warsaw Ghetto. Middle East analyst Tom Gross noted that in reality, “the security barrier, which has saved countless lives, was built to protect Israelis after some 1000 civilians were killed by suicide bombers.” Israel did not build the barrier because of “racism” or a desire to emulate apartheid South Africa — to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa is a monstrous piece of disinformation, as a black South African has explained.

Moreover, Gross points out: “Bethlehem is a relatively prosperous town where restaurants and juice bars are packed, and BMWs, Mercedes and Humvees compete for parking spaces in the center or town. By contrast, 400,000 Jews were herded into the Warsaw Ghetto and those who weren’t beaten or starved to death there, were taken to be exterminated at nearby camps.”

In allowing himself to become an instrument of Palestinian jihad propaganda, and spreading that propaganda himself, the Pope has done a grave disservice to free people and aided and abetted the genocidal jihad against Israel. The damage resulting from his trip is impossible to calculate at this point, but it could be immense. Pope Francis’s jaunt in the “State of Palestine,” was a tremendous show of support for the jihad against Israel, and a dark day for the papacy, the Roman Catholic Church, and free people everywhere.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 27, 2014, 05:45:03 AM

The current pope is a creature of the left.

Title: Re: Current Pope...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 27, 2014, 05:47:28 AM

Does that mean he is ignorant, that he really believes this garbage he is spouting, or that he knows it is false and doesn't care?

Title: Re: Current Pope...
Post by: G M on May 27, 2014, 05:57:59 AM

Quote from: objectivist1 on May 27, 2014, 05:47:28 AM

Does that mean he is ignorant, that he really believes this garbage he is spouting, or that he knows it is false and doesn't care?

I think he earnestly believes it.

Title: Re: Current Pope...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 27, 2014, 06:11:37 AM

GM,

I think you are right - which to repeat - indicates massive and unacceptable ignorance of the facts - particularly for the leader of the largest group of Christians on the planet.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2014, 08:13:17 AM

Maybe his time would be better spent cleaning up the Church of its many and vast conspiracies of pedophiles , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 27, 2014, 08:53:52 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2014, 08:13:17 AM

Maybe his time would be better spent cleaning up the Church of its many and vast conspiracies of pedophiles , , ,

Yes.

Title: Pope Francis' Disturbing Actions In Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 28, 2014, 05:21:25 AM

Pope Francis’ Unfriendly Visit

Posted By Caroline Glick On May 28, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman were right when they blamed the noxious anti-Israel incitement rampant in Europe for Saturday’s murderous shooting attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels and the assault and battery of two Jewish brothers outside their synagogue in a Paris suburb later that day.

Anti-Israel incitement is ubiquitous in Europe and is appearing in ever-widening circles of the Western world as a whole.

Until this week, the Catholic Church stayed out of the campaign to dehumanize Jews and malign the Jewish state.

Pope Benedict XVI was perceived as a friend of Israel, despite his childhood membership in the Hitler Youth. His opposition to Islam’s rejection of reason, eloquently expressed at his speech at the University of Regensburg in 2006, positioned him as a religious champion of reason, individual responsibility and law – Judaism’s primary contributions to humanity.

His predecessor Pope John Paul II was less willing to confront Islamic violence. But his opposition to Communism made him respect Israel as freedom’s outpost in the Middle East. John Paul’s visit to Israel in 2000 was in some ways an historic gesture of friendship to the Jewish people of Israel.

Both Benedict and John Paul II were outspoken champions of the Second Vatican Council and maintained doctrinal allegiance to the Church’s rejection of anti-Judaism, including the charge of deicide, and its denunciation of replacement theology.

Alas, the Golden Age of Catholic-Jewish relations seems to have come to an end during Francis’s visit to the Promised Land this week.

In one of his blander pronouncements during the papal visit, Netanyahu mentioned on Monday that Jesus spoke Hebrew. There was nothing incorrect about Netanyahu’s statement. Jesus was after all, an Israeli Jew.

But Francis couldn’t take the truth. So he indelicately interrupted his host, interjecting, “Aramaic.”

Netanyahu was probably flustered. True, at the time, educated Jews spoke and wrote in Aramaic. And Jesus was educated. But the language of the people was Hebrew. And Jesus preached to the people, in Hebrew.

Netanyahu responded, “He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew.”

Reuters’ write-up of the incident tried to explain away the pope’s rudeness and historical revisionism, asserting, “Modern-day discourse about Jesus is complicated and often political.” The report went on to delicately mention, “Palestinians sometimes describe Jesus as a Palestinian. Israelis object to that.”

Israelis “object to that” because it is a lie.

The Palestinians – and their Islamic and Western supporters – de-Judaize Jesus and proclaim him Palestinian in order to libel the Jews and criminalize the Jewish state. It seems like it would be the job of the Bishop of Rome to set the record straight. But instead, Francis’s discourtesy indicated that at a minimum, he doesn’t think the fact of Jesus’s Judaism should be mentioned in polite company.

Francis’s behavior during his public meeting with Netanyahu could have been brushed off as much ado about nothing if it hadn’t occurred the day after his symbolic embrace of some of the worst anti-Jewish calumnies of our times, and his seeming adoption of replacement theology during his homily in Bethlehem.

Consider first Francis’s behavior at the security barrier.

Reasonable people disagree about the contribution the security fence makes to the security of Israelis. But no one can reasonably doubt that it was built to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorist murderers. And Francis ought to know this. Francis’s decision to hold a photo-op at the security barrier was an act of extreme hostility against Israel and the Jewish people.

As the former Cardinal of Buenos Aires, Francis may have heard of the November 2002 massacre at Kibbutz Metzer. Metzer was founded by Argentine communists in the 1950s. Metzer is located 500 meters from the 1949 armistice lines which made it an obvious beneficiary of the security fence. But true to its radical roots, in 2002 members of the kibbutz waged a public campaign against the planned route of the security fence. They feared that it would, in the words of Metzer member Danny Dovrat, “ignite hostility and create problems” with the kibbutz’s Palestinian neighbors.

Thanks to that concern, on the night of November 10, 2002, a gunman from the “moderate” US- and EU-supported Fatah terror organization faced no physical obstacle when he entered the kibbutz. Once there he killed two people on the street and then entered the home of Revital Ohayon and executed Revital and her two sons, Matan, 5, and Noam, 4 years old.

Fatah praised the attack on its website and pledged to conduct more assaults on “Zionist colonizers,” and promised to continue “targeting their children as well.”

Had he actually cared about the cause of peace and non-violence he claims to champion, Francis might have averred from stopping at the barrier, recognizing that doing so would defile the memory of the Ohayons and of hundreds of other Israeli Jewish families who were destroyed by Palestinian bloodlust and anti-Semitic depravity.

Instead, Francis “spontaneously” got out of his popemobile, walked over to a section of the barrier, and reverentially touched it and kissed it as if it were the Wailing Wall.

The graffiti on the section of the barrier Francis stopped at reinforced his anti-Semitic position. One of the slogans called for the embrace of the BDS campaign.

Although the economic consequences of the campaign of economic warfare against Israel in the West have been negligible, BDS’s goal is not economic. The goal of the movement is to dehumanize Israelis and set apart for social ostracism anyone who refuses to embrace the anti-Jewish slanders that Jews have no right to self-determination and are morally inferior to every other religious, ethnic and national group in the world.

And that is nothing compared to the other slogan on the barrier. That one equated the Palestinians in Bethlehem to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. In other words, it denied the Holocaust.

By standing there, kissing the barrier with its Holocaust denying slogan, Francis gave Vatican license to Holocaust denial.

And that was just the beginning.

Pope Francis met with Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas at his presidential palace in Bethlehem. When Israel transferred control over Jesus’s birthplace to Abbas’s predecessor Yasser Arafat in 1996, Arafat seized the Greek Orthodox monastery next to the Church of the Nativity and turned it into his – and later Abbas’s – official residence.

Standing next to Abbas on seized church property, the pope called Abbas “a man of peace.”

Abbas returned the favor by calling for Israel to release all Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons. And the pope – who interrupted Netanyahu when he told an historic truth – said nothing.

At mass at the Church of the Nativity on Sunday, Pope Francis prayed with Latin Patriarch Fuoad Twal. In his sermon Twal accused Israelis of being the present-day version of Christ killers by referring to the Palestinians as walking “in the footsteps of the Divine Child,” and likening the Israelis to King Herod.

In his words, “We are not yet done with the present-day Herods, who fear peace more than war… and who are prepared to continue killing.”

Rather than condemn these remarks, Francis echoed them.

“Who are we, as we stand before the Child Jesus? Who are we, standing as we before today’s children?” the pope asked.

“Are we like Mary and Joseph, who welcomed Jesus and cared for him with the love of a father and mother? Or are we like Herod, who wanted to eliminate him?” During his visit Monday to Jerusalem, Francis embraced the Palestinian mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhammed Hussein. Departing from his scripted remarks which called for the pope to refer to the mufti and his associates as “dear friends,” Francis called them his “dear brothers.”

Hussein has been condemned by the US and the EU for his calls for the annihilation of Jews in the name of Islam.

In 2012, Hussein said it was the destiny of Muslims to kill Jews, who he claims are subhuman beasts and “the enemies of Allah.” He has also praised suicide bombers and said their souls “tell us to follow in their path.”

Francis didn’t condemn him.

Francis stridently condemned the anti-Jewish attacks in Brussels and Paris. And during his ceremonial visits to Yad Vashem, the Wailing Wall and the terror victims memorial he said similarly appropriate things. But all of his statements ring hollow and false in light of his actions.

Israelis and Jews around the world need to be aware of what is happening. Francis is leading the Catholic Church in a distressingly anti-Jewish direction.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 28, 2014, 05:32:48 AM

Well this Pope has already lost me with his Communism remarks.   

If everyone was forced (that's right - forced) to have what they earn confiscated and doled out we would still be in the stone age.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to Catholics.  But this guy is a quack.

His sense of morality is in outer space.

There is something megalomanic about him.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 28, 2014, 05:49:51 AM

I'll post more on the Pope later.  Let me read more about him and what he says.  But he insulted my country, my way of life, my belief system and as a result me.

I won't just sit and allow him to do this.

Morality works in many ways.  Not his or the highway.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on May 28, 2014, 06:09:12 AM

Well, I am a Christian, and the Pope certainly does NOT speak for me.  Having been raised in the Catholic Church I know its history, both recent and ancient.  I stand with unwavering solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people.  Any Christian who does not is either ignorant or anti-semitic.

Title: Jesus Recrucified
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2014, 02:51:31 PM

Guest Column: Jesus Recrucified
by Reuven Berko
Special to IPT News
June 16, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4426/jesus-recrucified

The Palestinians likely were furious when the Pope Francis visited Jerusalem two weeks ago. They believe that when the Pope or any foreign official visits Jerusalem it is de facto recognition that it is the capital of the State of Israel.

To keep emotions boiling during his visit, the Palestinian media systematically issued false reports of how Israel "prevents" Christian worship and sends its thugs to attack and vandalize Christian holy sites in and around Jerusalem. When the Pope visited, it was no different. Palestinian propaganda has carefully avoided mentioning that only since the liberation of Jerusalem by Israel have the various religions enjoyed complete freedom of worship in a united Jerusalem. Moreover, Palestinian leaders have been shocked by the fact that in the past year, Israeli Arab Christians have increasingly enlisted in the Israeli army. Despite their efforts, even Palestinians specializing in anti-Israeli propaganda have found it hard to make their accusations stick if only because of the endless incidents of rape, murder and vandalism perpetrated against Christians by the forces of radical Islam in various locations around the globe, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Iraq and throughout Africa.

The Palestinians have not let facts interfere with their agenda. During the Pope's visit to Israel and to the West Bank, the Palestinian media was flooded with photomontages of Old and New Testament scenes. In the Palestinian version of Raphael's "The Deposition," Jesus' legs have been replaced by a photo of the wounded legs of a Palestinian, being carried away by a man as an Israeli soldier looks on. Particularly stunning is the Palestinian version of Rembrandt's "The Sacrifice of Isaac," with an Israeli soldier holding Isaac down, exposing his throat for slaughter, replacing the angel staying Abraham's hand.

Art in the service of the PLO's lie industry is a constant factor of Palestinian media and helps the PLO leadership mold the organization's policies. Interviewed in 2000, Palestinian artist Yasser Abu Sido said "the Palestinian struggle against Israel is eternal. It began 2000 years ago (sic) and continues to this day. I illustrate it by depicting Jesus, who came into the world with a message of justice, and the Jews did what they did to him. The Palestinians demand the same rights and to be treated the same way. I illustrate that by showing Israeli soldiers as the Palestinians see them, in uniform. I show Jesus with nothing but the truth. When he was searched at the entrance to Jerusalem all they found on him was a stone, a piece of bread and a fish, and for that he was put in chains. That is the Palestinian who began the struggle and will continue it until it ends, if it ends..."

The Palestinians have adopted Jesus as their own: According to Palestinian TV in 2008, "Jesus was the first in a long line of sufferers. The Palestinians, naturally, are accustomed to such a death, the suffering of the first Palestinian, the Messiah, began at the Last Supper." In 2012, on a Palestinian TV program about the Via Dolorosa, there was a subtitle reading "Mother, what did I do wrong? Am I forbidden to bring a message of peace from my Lord? That was the crime of Jesus, the Palestinian Messiah." In 2010, the PLO's website claimed the Virgin Mary was a Palestinian, saying that her pride was a model for the female shaheeds (those who commit martyrdom operations), prisoners and fighters who had become icons of dedication and sacrifice.

Such absurd notions are part of the disinformation campaign waged by the Palestinian terrorist conglomerate called the PLO in its ongoing effort to steal the Jewish identity and historical rights to the land of Israel. But using tactics of counterfeit and fabrication the Palestinians, in an effort to vilify the Jews , know full well that their propaganda falls into the fertile ground of age-old European anti-Semitism, where the Jews were officially absolved of the death of Christ by the Catholic Church only in 1965, and more recently by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011.

According to the PLO's newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda in 2000, the Palestinians also have asserted that Nazareth, was "the city whose first son was killed by the Jews." In 2004 it called Capernaum, where they said that the "Palestinian Messiah" changed water into wine, by its Arabic name, Kafar Kana. In 2005 the PLO newspaper called Jesus the first "Palestinian shaheed" (martyr) and in 2006 claimed that the Arab countries were the cradle of Christianity and that the Christian Jesus was a Syrian Palestinian who was born in Nazareth [sic]... In 2012 it wrote, "We are proud, oh son of Mary, that you are the first Palestinian who redeemed mankind so that love would continue to light the way." This is all part of the revisionist Palestinian narrative to claim that Jesus was a Palestinian and thus deny that Jews ever lived in the land of Israel.
Appearing on Palestinian TV in 2009, the Palestinian Mufti, Muhammad Hussein (who met with the Pope during his visit in the Al-Aqsa mosque) called Jesus a "Palestinian prophet." Dr. Taysir al-Tamimi, the Palestinian Sharia judge, said that "Jesus was the only Palestinian prophet." In 2005, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda printed the absurdity that Christian religious books call the Holy Land "Palestine" and state that Jesus was a Palestinian. Nowhere in the New Testament does the word "Palestine" appear and it is a historical fact that Palestinians did not exist at the time of Jesus., The Palestinian tactic of appropriating history to erase Jewish history is not original; it is an extension of the propaganda technique called the "Big Lie."

Rewriting the history of the Land of Israel to deny Jewish historical rights and the right to exist as an independent state has long been a fundamental principle of Palestinian policy. Long before the 2000 terrorist campaign (the so-called "Al-Aqsa intifada") began, the Palestinians initiated a campaign to eradicate Jewish history and replace it with a fictitious Palestinian narrative. The idea was to erase 3,000 years of Jewish history and presence in Israel and substitute it with an "ancient" Palestinian, Arab and Muslim "history." The strategy was adopted at a 1998 conference of Palestinian historians, who made the direct link between rewriting history and the political objective of denying the right of Israel to exist.

Dr. Yussuf al-Zamli, the chairman of the history department at the teacher training school in Khan Yunis (in Gaza), called on the universities and other educational institutions to propagate the PLO's false narrative of the history of Palestine and not to allow foreigners and enemies to "distort" it and give the Jewish presence any legitimacy.

Deleting Jewish history from the Land of Israel is accompanied by the invention of historical stories, ancient and modern, the fruit of the Palestinian Authority's Middle Eastern imagination, to support the PLO's political ideology and claim of ownership. Save for some courageously honest Palestinians, the Holocaust and other aspects of Jewish history have largely been denied, while simultaneously concealing the fact that Jesus was a Jew who lived in Israel. According to Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda in 2005, "We must not forget that Jesus the Messiah was a Palestinian, the son of Mary the Palestinian." (It was only in the last two months that PA President Mahmud Abbas—who wrote his doctoral dissertation denying the existence of the Holocaust—finally conceded in an interview, although begrudgingly that the Holocaust did occur.)

The Romans changed the name of Judea to Palestine 136 years after Jesus was born to punish the Jews for the revolt of Bar Kochba. In addition, since there is no P in Arabic, the Palestinians incorrectly pronounce the original Roman name Palestine as Filastine. In 2013 Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda published an article entitled "The Resurrection of Jesus, the Resurrection of the State." It stated that "Easter...is not only a holiday for Palestinian Christians, but for Palestinian nationalism, because Jesus, may he rest in peace, was a Canaanite Palestinian. His resurrection three days after he was crucified by the Jews, as reported by the New Testament, reflects the Palestinian narrative, of the struggles with the descendants of the modern colonialist Zionist Judaism, which plots with Western millionaires who claim to belong to Christianity. Jesus, may peace be upon him, was the honest national Palestinian ancestor who renewed the Old Testament, left Judaism, and established and spread a new covenant. For that reason he was pursued by the Jews until they caught him, crucified him and then killed him [sic]. He was then resurrected like the Phoenix and went to spread his gospel, which is still alive and will continue to exist as long as mankind exists. The story of Jesus is the story of the Palestinians."

Similar declarations were made at a ceremony to mark the 48th anniversary of the PLO's founding held in Bethlehem and covered by Palestinian TV. Saeb Erekat, a prominent PA official who has participated in the peace talks with Israel, gave a speech in which he praised Yasser Arafat and his comrades, saying that "It is not logical that now, at the end of 2012 we celebrate [the 48th anniversary of the founding of Fatah] near the birthplace of Jesus … the first Palestinian shaheed, and [have to] tell him that the children of Palestine are still being killed by the occupation in the Gaza Strip, [and are still] being killed in the Yarmouk refugee camp... (Palestinian TV, December 31, 2012).

The appropriation of Jesus as a Palestinian was repeated by Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian parliament in 2009, who said that "Jesus was the first Palestinian to be tortured in this country." The theme was picked up by the governor of the Ramallah district when he said in a speech given to enthusiastic Palestinians that "[w]e all have the right to be proud that Jesus was a Palestinian and that Palestine was the cradle of religions and the land of civilization" (Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, 2012).
Palestinian propaganda becomes even more absurd when Islamic clerics, especially Palestinian religious leaders, deny the very existence of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, dismissing it a Jewish fabrication. At the same time, these same honorable sheikhs claim patronage of the "Palestinian Messiah." Palestinian religious and political propagandists deliberately market their myths even though they contradict their own beliefs. Even the Qur'an specifically that Jesus died, stating that Jesus was not killed, and it only seemed to people that he died (Surah An-Nisa' verse 157).

What would Jesus, who preached peace and turning the other cheek, do if he knew he had been adopted as a radical Palestinian icon of violence, a shaheed and a mass murderer of innocents committed by Islamic militants – egged on by Islamic sheikhs – and responsible for the persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world? What would he do if he knew he had been adopted by a Palestinian terrorist conglomerate as a shaheed? What would he do If he had foreseen that the PLO, which has killed thousands of innocent people, would make him a Palestinian icon for terrorism and bloodshed? The fact is that Jesus was a Jew from the Land of Israel and preached in its capital, Jerusalem. All the Palestinian delusions, illusions, lies and inventions cannot change that.

It would be interesting to know if the Mufti of Jerusalem propagated the same poisonous ideas with the Pope when they met. Whatever happened, the Pope embraced Jerusalem as the cradle of Christianity when he visited here. And that fact should finally dispel Palestinians attempts to rewrite history and rob the Jews of their rights to their own country and capital by twisting the religion and history of Christianity to erase Israel.

Dr. Reuven Berko has a Ph.D. in Middle East studies, is a commentator on Israeli Arabic TV programs, writes for the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom and is considered one of Israel's top experts on Arab affairs.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2014, 08:10:10 PM

Analysis

Editor's Note: The following is an internal Stratfor document produced to provide high-level guidance regarding increasing tensions in Israel and Gaza to our analysts. This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus.

The ongoing Israeli operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers is taking on a much wider dimension than the usual retaliatory action between Israel and Palestinian militant factions. Ever since three Israeli teenagers went missing near a West Bank settlement during the night of June 12, Israel has responded with airstrikes in Gaza and raids in the West Bank in and around Hebron (and Bethlehem, to a lesser extent). Israel has pointedly held Hamas directly responsible for the kidnapping. Hamas has distanced itself from the kidnapping, but Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh announced the beginning of the third intifada June 23. There are also several indications that this conflict involves more than the usual suspects, with Iran and Russia possibly stoking the flames for their own interests. The following points must be investigated:

    The kidnappings have been claimed by a number of groups, some of whom have not had a history of operating in the Palestinian territories. The first claim for the kidnappings allegedly came June 13 from a branch of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant based in Hebron calling itself Dawlat al-Islam. Shortly thereafter, an unknown Palestinian organization called Liberators' Battalion of Hebron published a separate claim for the kidnappings via Israeli media. A group calling itself Brigades of Global Jihad posted a claim on a jihadist forum and then withdrew it. Fatah-linked Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade denied that they had ever claimed the kidnapping, despite reports that they had taken responsibility in the immediate aftermath. On June 26, a claim was made by the Hezbollah Brigades, a branch distinct from the Lebanese Hezbollah militant organization, via Gaza-based Amad Press. We need to understand the origin of each of these groups, any connections they may have to Iran and their relations with mainstream militant factions Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well as with regional jihadist entities such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. A key question we need to answer is whether the Hamas core command was behind the initial kidnapping or if they are catching up to events in defending their position against competing militant factions.
    There have been reports of a limited call-up of reserves. Significant reserve call-ups can be extraordinarily expensive for a state as small as Israel, and the decision would not be taken lightly. We need details on the number of reserves called up and where forces are being concentrated to assess whether we are likely to see another full-scale invasion of Gaza and/or the West Bank.
    Hamas and Fatah were making bumpy progress toward creating a functional national unity government before the kidnappings, but there are two key players who have an interest in keeping Hamas and Fatah split between the territories: Israel and Iran. Israel benefits from a divided Palestinian territory in which it can negotiate with Fatah while keeping Hamas isolated, thereby allowing Israel to retain the upper hand in any peace negotiations that the United States attempts to push forward. Iran also benefits from keeping the Palestinians split, but for different reasons. Iran was able to develop a close relationship with Hamas when the group was isolated following the 2007 Hamas coup in Gaza. Iran wants to be able to maintain influence in the Palestinian territories via groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other factions. We noted last August that Iran was facilitating weapons shipments to the West Bank via Jordan for operations down the line. That is why it is imperative to drill into the groups claiming the kidnappings to discern which are likely shadow groups and what ties can be traced back to the mainstream Palestinian factions.
    There may be a Russian element to this conflict. Prior to the June 12 kidnapping, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received an invitation to visit Moscow and meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, allegedly to talk about restarting the peace talks (though Russia has little interest in lending the United States a hand on that front). Abbas made the trip to meet with the Russian leadership June 26 in Moscow.
    On June 21, the Israel Defense Forces raided the local branch of Russian media agency RT in the West Bank city of Ramallah. RT Jerusalem shares a building with Palmedia, a media group that the Israel Defense Forces claims is linked to Hamas. Though Palmedia appears to have been the main target of the raid, it is curious that RT's office was also targeted, with their computers and hard drives taken into custody. It is unclear whether or how these developments are related, but we note that Russia has been more engaged in the Middle East than usual at a time when Moscow is keen on creating distractions for the United States. Russian movements surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation thus bear close watching in the coming days.


Read more: Analytic Guidance: Not the Usual Israeli-Palestinian Flare-Up | Stratfor

Title: Israel's partners in peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2014, 10:36:40 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/fatah-video-threatens-israelis-death-is-near?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Fatah+Video+Threatens+Israelis+%E2%80%98Death+is+Near%E2%80%99&utm_campaign=20140629_m121129701_6%2F29+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Fatah+Video+Threatens+Israelis+%E2%80%98Death+is+Near%E2%80%99&utm_term=Fatah+Video+Threatens+Israelis+_E2_80_98Death+is+Near_E2_80_99

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2014, 06:10:46 AM

The IDF was considering its next move in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, following the finding of the bodies of the three Israeli kidnapped teens. "We're preparing a plan to advance an operation in the Strip. The objective is to avoid escalation and act responsibly," an IDF source said. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out 34 attacks on terrorist targets in several different sections of the Gaza Strip overnight, targeting structures and even some open areas, the IDF spokesperson confirmed late Tuesday. The attack's objective was "to prevent the continuation of rocket fire at Israel. If we see Hamas heading towards a confrontation, we'll go there," the source said. According to the reports, one of the areas was a site in the area of Khan Yunis controlled by Hamas' military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, where 4 were said to be wounded and another missing. Attacks were also reported near Rafah in the southern area of the Strip on structures belonging to other terrorist organizations active in the area. The IDF Spokesperson said that the Monday night attack was in response to a rocket fired earlier by Arab Palestinian terrorists that struck an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

The cabinet was torn overnight Monday over Israel's response to the murder of three Israeli teenagers - Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Frenkel and Gil-Ad Shaer - who were kidnapped over two weeks ago, and whose bodies were found Monday evening. The emergency meeting ended after three hours without reaching a decision being made. Economy Minister Naftali Bennett was furious at the army's suggested to bomb several empty structures in the Gaza Strip, saying a much stronger response was required. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni lashed out at Bennett for that, advocating for a more measured response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concluded the discussion by saying a strong response was needed, but did not offer one.

Title: Feel good video of the day
Post by: G M on July 09, 2014, 06:04:13 AM

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/footage-of-hamas-cell-taken-out-by-idf-helicopter-strike/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2014, 10:45:21 AM

BTW gents, I just noticed that this thread has hit 200,000 reads.

Well done!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: MikeT on July 10, 2014, 05:04:35 PM

BBC reporting last night that it is costing the Israeli's about $100,000 for every $1,000 rocket they shoot down.  In my view, for their own security, a ground operation into Gaza is therefore not only 'inevitable', but probably 'imminent', (Not a very 'stellar' prediction, I know. FYI, I also guess weights at carnivals).  ;-) ) 

And I have to say, if it happens within the current context, 'I support'...  Whatever 'rights' the Palestinians might have to an independent homeland, barring conquest, it will only ever be achieved via peacable means.  The Israeli's have (in my opinion) a larger right to defend themselves, in the face of the Palestinians shooting first, and the Palestinian politicians have to control the Palestinain guns.  We would not expect our own government to put up with the Canadians shelling Detroit, I think it's pretty obvious that the Israeli's should not have to put up with the shelling of their cities, either.   If Hamas wants to stop the airstrikes, stop the shelling.  In addition to demonstrating a willingness to respond, the other thing the Israeli's have been consistent about is showing restraint when the Palestinians stop.

Like for individuals, the inherent 'rights' of nations to defend themselves when attacked are, in my opinion, self evident.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2014, 05:23:39 PM

Interesting datum about the relative cost of the rockets.

Palestinians can have an independent homeland whenever they stop shooting, bombing, trying to kill Israel and recognize its' right to exist.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: MikeT on July 10, 2014, 05:24:53 PM

No disagremeent there!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 10, 2014, 11:15:07 PM

Well, I'm not sure shelling Detoilet would be a bad thing...

Title: Hamas calls for civilians to die in Israeli airstrikes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2014, 10:06:24 AM

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/hamas-orders-civilians-to-die-in-israeli-airstrikes/

Title: ISIS in Gaza!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2014, 10:24:32 AM

Click here to watch: Video Shows ISIS Is Firing Rockets on Israel From Gaza

Despite the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant's (ISIS) statements that it will not join the attack on Israel for now, a new video by the Sunni Jihadist group claims to show its terrorists are in fact firing rockets on Israel. In the video, which was uploaded to YouTube, alleged members of ISIS's "Bayt el-Maqdis" (Jerusalem) unit in Gaza can be seen firing rockets towards Israeli civilian centers. A total of eight rockets are seen being fired by the group in the video, a drop in the ocean to the hundreds fired by Gaza terrorist groups in recent days. ISIS terrorists are seen preparing the rockets in rocket launchers embedded underground in a Gaza orchard; the rockets are connected by electrical wires so as to allow them to be fired simultaneously. The rockets are seen launching both in night and day conditions.

Watch Here

At the very end of the clip, the rocket launchers are seen being attacked by the IAF shortly after launching. Apparently an Israeli fighter drone patrolling the area located the launchers and opened fire on them. After capturing vast swathes of Iraq and Syria, ISIS declared the regions under its control as a "Caliphate", or Islamic state. A spokesman for ISIS on Monday declared that his organization intends first to deal with "Muslims who have become infidels," and then attack Israel, although the recent attack shows they are not staying true to that statement. In a recent statement, another spokesman said ISIS needs to complete six specific stages before attacking Israel. Some of those "stages," such as building a base in Iraq from which to attack Syria and Lebanon, have been completed. But the group still intends to weaken the US and expand its rule over "Greater Syria" (which includes Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and possibly Gaza) first, before taking on Israel. Video last week revealed ISIS has transferred weaponry captured in Iraq to Syria, including a long-range Scud missile that a member of the group threatened is "heading towards Israel." ISIS last Friday captured a Syrian oil field in the Deir el-Zour province in the east of the country near Iraq, after seizing Syria's largest oil field last Thursday in the same region. It has already amassed great assets in Iraq, seizing Iraq's largest oil refinery, a chemical weapons facility, and becoming the "world's richest terrorist organization" by looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars ($425 million) from banks in Mosul.

Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: Putin declares support of Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2014, 08:45:02 AM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182754#.U8FXhIUZ_P_

Title: Israel and Hamas's use of human shileds
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2014, 12:27:48 PM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/idf-exposes-hamass-use-of-human-shields?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+IDF+Exposes+Hamas%27s+Use+of+Human+Shields&utm_campaign=20140711_m121298359_7%2F12+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+IDF+Exposes+Hamas%27s+Use+of+Human+Shields&utm_term=IDF+Exposes+Hamas_27s+Use+of+Human+Shields

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: MikeT on July 12, 2014, 12:37:52 PM

http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2014/07/05/isis-already-in-gaza-strip.html

By KHALED ABU TOAMEH, GATESTONE—
 
Despite denials by Hamas, there is growing evidence that the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] — also known as “The Islamic State” — has begun operating in the Gaza Strip.
 
Palestinian Authority [PA] and Israeli security sources are convinced that followers of ISIS in the Gaza Strip are responsible for some of the recent rocket attacks on Israel.
 
Hamas, they say, seems to be losing control over the dozens of terror cells belonging to ISIS and other jihadi groups.
 
Eyad al-Bazam, spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior, earlier this week denied reports ISIS terrorists had infiltrated into Egypt through tunnels along the border with the Gaza Strip. He described the reports as “lies and fabrications,” adding that they are part of a campaign to “distort the image of the Gaza Strip,” and that “There is no presence of ISIS in the Gaza Strip.”
 
The denial came in response to a report in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm according to which Egyptian security forces arrested 15 ISIS terrorists who tried to enter Sinai from the Gaza Strip. According to the report, Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip facilitated the infiltration of the ISIS terrorists into Egypt so that they could carry out a terrorist attack against Egyptians.
 
The report said that the terrorists had been entrusted with establishing terror cells and branches of ISIS in Egypt.
 
Hamas is obviously nervous about the presence of ISIS terrorists in the Gaza Strip and sees them as a direct challenge to its rule. ISIS believes that Hamas is “too moderate” and is not doing enough to achieve the destruction of Israel.
 
Last month, Hamas sent its policemen and militias to disperse a rally organized by ISIS followers in the Gaza Strip to celebrate the recent “military victories” of the terrorist group in Iraq. Hamas prevented local journalists from covering the event as part of its attempt to deny the existence of ISIS in the Gaza Strip.
 
At the rally, attended by dozens of Islamists, the crowd chanted, “Khaybar, Khyabar, Ya Yahud, Jaish Mohamed Saya’ud!” (“O Jews, Mohamed’s army will return.”)
 
This is a battle cry that many Islamists like to chant to remind the Jews of the story of the battle fought in 629 CE by the Prophet Mohamed against the Jews of Khaybar, an oasis in northwestern Arabia. The battle resulted in the killing of many Jews, and their women and children were taken as slaves.
 
Earlier this year, masked militiamen in the Gaza Strip posted a video on YouTube in which they declared their allegiance to ISIS. The militiamen are believed to be members of a radical Islamist salafist group that has been operating in the Gaza Strip for the past few years.
 
Then, Hamas also denied that ISIS had any followers in the Gaza Strip. But Hamas seems to be trying to cover the sun with one finger.
 
At the funeral of two Islamists killed by the Israel Defense Forces last week in Gaza, funeral-goers carried flags and banners of ISIS.
 
Over the past decade, it has become clear that Hamas is not the only terrorist organization operating in the Gaza Strip, which has become a base for dozens of jihadi groups, some linked to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
 
The smuggling tunnels that used to link the Gaza Strip with Egypt (most have been destroyed by the Egyptian army over the past year) have facilitated the movement of thousands of Islamist terrorists in both directions.
 
The Gaza Strip is no longer a threat to Israel, but also to the national security of Egypt.
 
The only way to confront this threat is through security cooperation between Israel and Egypt, which have a common interest in preventing the Islamists from exporting their terrorism beyond the borders of the Gaza Strip.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: MikeT on July 12, 2014, 12:39:01 PM

Which puzzles me, I must say, because my understadiong is that Hamas is backed by Iran?  Or is that Hezbollah, I am forever mixing them up.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: MikeT on July 12, 2014, 12:42:32 PM

One word:  "Hiroshima."

Your argument is invalid. :roll:
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/12/Column-Israel-s-Iron-Dome-Provides-Unfair-Advantage-Against-Hamas

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2014, 08:51:54 AM

Click here to watch: IDF Naval Commandos Raid Gaza Long Range Missile Compound

Four IDF soldiers are lightly wounded in the first ground battle with Hamas since the start of fighting on Tuesday. Three Hamas fighters are killed in the exchange, according to Palestinian sources. According to Army Radio, an IDF ground force entered the Gaza Strip tonight to strike at a rocket launching site near Gaza City, in the northern part of the Strip. The force encountered Hamas fighters, and a firefight ensued, the station reports. The wounded IDF soldiers are now evacuated to a hospital inside Israel. According to the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, the target of the operation has been destroyed.

Watch Here

Presumably, the IDF sent in Special Forces, instead of bombing the rocket launch site from the air, is that it likely Hamas embedded the rocket launchers into a facility held a lot of civilians, and Israel is trying to do everything it can to minimize Gazan civilian casualties, while Hamas is trying to maximize Gazan civilian casualties, using them as Human Shields. We wish our injured soldiers a Refuah Shleimah, a complete recovery. Five rockets fell in an uninhabited area between Yavneh and Rehovot, in west-central Israel. Two rockets were intercepted over Rehovot, another over Rishon LeZion, and a rocket aimed at the central coastal plain was intercepted over Ashdod. Shell fragments scattered in Ashdod and the residents have been warned not to touch them. Southern Israel was targeted as well, and at least three rockets exploded in an open space in the Eshkol region, causing no damage or injury. Meanwhile, the IDF has begun dropping leaflets on certain parts of Gaza, telling residents to leave their homes. The move is being interpreted as a preparation for a possible ground offensive by the IDF.
Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: Israelis react to jihadists hack of Dominos pizza site
Post by: G M on July 13, 2014, 12:04:34 PM

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/07/hamas-hackers-take-over-israeli-dominos.html#

Title: Palestinian UN rep admits crimes against humanity
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2014, 07:09:45 PM

Click here to watch: ‘Palestinian’ UN rep Admits Gaza Rockets ‘a Crime Against Humanity’

The Arab Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Council says every rocket and mortar fired from Gaza toward Israel is a “crime against humanity.” Speaking to Palestinian TV on the possible risks involved if Palestinians leaders ask to join the International Criminal Court, Ambassador Ibrahim Kraishi says the “Palestinian weakness” in terms of international law is the indiscriminate firing of rockets at Israel. “The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at civilian targets,” says Kraishi during the interview.

Watch Here

The ambassador says that by contrast, Israel’s actions follows legal procedures, because the IDF warns Gazan civilians to leave sites and areas before they are bombed. “Many of our people in Gaza appeared on TV and said that the Israelis warned them to evacuate their homes before the bombardment. In such a case, if someone is killed, the law considers it a mistake rather than an intentional killing because [the Israelis] followed the legal procedures.” “As for the missiles launched from our side, we never warn anyone about where these missiles are about to fall or about the operations we carry out,” he says. Kraishi also says the “settlements [in the West Bank], the Judaization [of Jerusalem], the checkpoints, the arrests, and so on” are also considered “war crimes” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Source: Times of Israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2014, 06:18:18 AM

second post of day

Click here to watch: Hamas Say it’s Leading Gazans to Their Death

Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas’s chief spokesman in Gaza, has a rather unfortunate Freudian slip, accidentally declaring that Hamas is leading the Palestinians to their death. “We aren’t leading our people today to destruction. We are leading our people to death…I mean to confrontation with this occupier,” he says on Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV. As Hamas faces a growing chorus of criticism, including from PA President Mahmoud Abbas, that it has dragged Gaza into violent confrontation for no discernible reason, Abu Zuhri’s efforts to deflect the criticism seem to be going rather poorly. Now Hamas says the video was fabricated (link in Arabic), and the Hamas spokesman’s voice was a voiceover. Sami Abu Zuhri is the same spokesman who urged Gazans to serve as human shields against Israeli airstrikes.

Watch Here

Israel Radio’s Gal Berger reports on Twitter that some Arab voices are expressing anger at Hamas leaders, especially those living overseas who are urging and ordering continued rocket fire on Israel without suffering the consequences of Israeli strikes being felt by ordinary Gazans. This tweet reads: “A website affiliated with Hamas was hacked and pictures were uploaded showing Khaled Mashaal sprinkling olive oil” — with the unspoken implication: “while Gaza burns.” Berger quotes a caption accompanying the photo: “This is the true face of Hamas’s leadership.” In this tweet, Berger quotes an Egyptian journalist, Ahmed Moussa, bitterly complaining about the relative comfort in which Mashaal and Hamas’s former prime minister Ismail Haniyeh are weathering the conflict. “Here — this is their jihad,” Moussa writes, according to Berger.

Source: Times of Israel

Title: Gilder: Do you pass the Israel test?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2014, 06:33:42 AM

Third post of the day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfN2IvnIA4M

Title: Surprise! Hamas leaders getting rich
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2014, 04:33:31 PM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4543634,00.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2014, 02:56:47 AM

Egyptian media certainly is not free, but this is interesting nonetheless:

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/07/15/egyptian-tv-hosts-slam-hamas-leaders-we-are-sick-and-tired-of-you/

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/07/14/arab-leaders-thank-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-for-destroying-hamas/

Title: Prager: Jewish State in a morally sick world
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2014, 08:28:17 AM

second post

http://www.dennisprager.com/jewish-state-morally-sick-world/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 17, 2014, 11:42:48 AM

Note the part about Hezbollah's rockets being more powerful than Hamas's

Israel Watching Hizballah While Fighting a Cautious Battle With Hamas
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
July 17, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4463/israel-watching-hizballah-while-fighting

The 10th day of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) "Operation Protective Edge" featured a five-hour ceasefire to allow humanitarian supplies to reach people in Gaza. The ceasefire was violated by rocket launchers in Gaza, who fired three projectiles into Israeli regions in the south.

Before the ceasefire took effect, Hamas sent 13 heavily terrorists, carrying RPGs and AK-47 assault rifles through a tunnel from Gaza into Israel, where it is believed they wanted to attack a nearby kibbutz.

The IDF says it "neutralized the threat" and video it released shows the tunnel opening being blown up seconds after the terrorists were seen retreating back underground. It believes several members of the cell were harmed in the blast. No Israelis were hurt thanks to the IDF's readiness, but army sources said a massacre of civilians had been narrowly averted.

Unlike past conflicts with Hamas, this Israeli operation – which is aimed at extinguishing rocket fire on Israeli cities – is slow-paced and deliberate. This approach enables the security cabinet and military planners to carefully examine the developing situation, set targets, and decide on their next move without a great deal of pressure.

This atmosphere, considered conducive to decision-making during war, is possible thanks to the dazzling success of the Iron Dome air defense system (10 batteries are currently in operation – double the number that were deployed during Israel's 2012 clash with Hamas).

The conflict began when Hamas ignored Israeli demands to cease firing heavy rocket barrages last week, and continued when Hamas rejected an Egyptian-mediated ceasefire in recent days.

Israeli military sources say that Hamas initiated the conflict due its growing regional isolation, which began when Hamas's ideological twin and founding movement, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was ejected from power in Egypt last year. Hamas' crisis has grown ever since. Through a conflict with Israel, Hamas hopes to ends its isolation, reenter the Palestinian mainstream as a "hero," and secure a cash flow for its 43,000 members on the payroll, or risk seeing its Gaza regime sink into a sea of anarchy and debt.

But Hamas' decision to launch a war against Israel has backfired. The Arab world has largely given it a cold shoulder, and Hamas' military wing in Gaza, the Ezz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, is growing weaker by the day due to Israel's military blows.

Israel's Air Force and Navy have launched nearly 2,000 strikes on Hamas and Islamic targets in this operation, delivering a series of painful strikes, and knocking out many underground rocket launchers. An estimated 3,000 rockets (a third of Gaza's arsenal) have been destroyed, as well as command and control centers, while around 100 Hamas and Islamic Jihad field operatives have been killed.

Several tunnels dug by Hamas, earmarked for future attacks on the Israeli border, or for sending gunmen and suicide bombers under the border into southern Israel to carry out a killing spree among civilians, also have been destroyed.

Israel has thus far focused its efforts on deterring Hamas from continuing the fight. But faced with Hamas's insistence on continuing the conflict, Jerusalem may now be contemplating going beyond deterrence, and targeting all of Hamas's military assets for destruction.

While Israel's firepower has been highly effective, Hamas' has been the opposite, due in large part to the Iron Dome air defense system. Hamas and other organizations fired 1,400 rockets into Israel since the start of the operation. Of those, Iron Dome knocked out 272 that were heading toward high-population centers. More than 1,000 rockets fell in open, sparsely populated areas, and a few caused heavy damage to Israeli homes and injuries. One man was killed Tuesday.

Nevertheless, the constant barrages of rockets disrupt daily life in Israel, terrorizing its civilians and sends them fleeing for shelter every time an air raid siren goes off.
Hamas has fired on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem repeatedly, and even fired long-range rockets, with ranges of 150 kilometers, at northern Israel.

As the fighting continues, Israel is amassing 56,000 ground troops on the border with Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu edges closer to ordering a ground offensive.

The IDF is preparing to encounter urban warfare, combat in underground tunnels, and terrorist cells armed with anti-tank missiles and automatic weapons that lie in wait.
Air power alone is not enough to achieve a fallout victory. Many of Hamas' nerve centers and rocket launching infrastructure are hidden deep underneath civilian buildings – targets that Israel refuses to strike for fear of harming Palestinian noncombatants.

As Hamas insists on continuing the conflict, the IDF is prepared to move to a new stage in its operation, aimed at systematically destroying what remains of its offensive capabilities.

Even in the midst of the fighting, the IDF is keeping a close watch on Hizballah in Lebanon, acutely aware that Hizballah is returning the same watchful gaze.  On the one hand, Hizballah is likely highly aware of the fact that the IDF dropped heavy bombs on the homes of Hamas's battalion and brigade commanders – structures that doubled up as command centers. The message to Hizballah seems clear – it, too, will face devastating firepower in the event of a conflict and its attempt to plant assets in the middle of civilian neighborhoods will not prevent that outcome.

Hamas and Hizballah are both experts at guerrilla-terrorist asymmetrical warfare, and both convert densely-populated civilian regions into rocket bases. They convert mosques and residential buildings into command and control centers, and bunkers dug under homes into rocket storage facilities.

But the similarities end there.

In terms of firepower, Hizballah's rocket arsenal is more than 10 times greater than Gaza's.

With 100,000 rockets in Hizballah's possession, including missiles with warheads of hundreds of tons, which have ranges of several hundred kilometers, the current pattern of conflict between Hamas and Israel cannot be replicated by Jerusalem in the event of a full-scale clash with Hizballah.

Some of Hizballah's projectiles can bring down whole buildings.

Israel does not have enough air defenses to cope with Hizballah's rocket onslaught, and the David's Sling system, designed to shoot down heavy Hizballah rockets, is not operational. Even if that changed, Israel's defense budget would not allow for the creation of sufficient numbers of interceptor missiles to deal with the level of firepower that Hizballah has amassed. According to Israeli estimates, the Lebanese terror organization is number five in the world in terms of its firepower (Israel is number two).
This means that Israel would have to rely on a far stronger offense against Hizballah than the one it has employed so far against Hamas.

Attacks would be characterized by a massive wave of air strikes, in which thousands of targets are destroyed every day. Israeli ground forces would likely be ordered to launch an immediate offensive aimed at seizing southern Lebanon, and put out the rocket fire.

As Israel prepares its next move against Hamas, it knows that a far larger and more dangerous enemy to the north is observing its every move, and searching for weaknesses.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books),

Title: Israeli history in 11 minutes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 17, 2014, 11:47:59 AM

Hat tip to our MT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

Title: Contrast Krauthammer and Obama
Post by: ccp on July 19, 2014, 07:31:49 AM

It is hard not to conclude the guy with the middle name Hussain is not an anti-Semite when one compares his stance and speeches to this simple and logical and true article by Krauthammer (disclosure:  a Jew - like me).

Unlike Obama the Terrible who on one side of his mouth spouts the phrase, "*I* agree Israel's right to defend itself" while at the same time undermining Israel and PM Netenyahu every step of the way in typical anti-Semitic fashion, Krauthammer makes (IMO) an excellent summary case of Israel's moral standing:

********
Charles Krauthammer
 
By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer July 17   

Israel accepts an Egyptian-proposed Gaza cease-fire; Hamas keeps firing. Hamas deliberately aims rockets at civilians; Israel painstakingly tries to avoid them, actually telephoning civilians in the area and dropping warning charges, so-called roof knocking.

“Here’s the difference between us,” explains the Israeli prime minister. “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

Rarely does international politics present a moment of such moral clarity. Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent “cycle of violence.” This is absurd. What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting? Everyone knows Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows the proudly self-declared raison d’etre of Hamas: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.

Apologists for Hamas attribute the blood lust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? Does no one remember anything? It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza.

And there was no blockade. On the contrary. Israel wanted this new Palestinian state to succeed. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its 3,000 greenhouses that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce.

The Israel Defense Forces released a video on Thursday that they claim shows a tunnel that Hamas militants planned to use to attack Israel. (YouTube/The Israel Defense Forces)

The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully and productively side by side. No one seems to remember that, simultaneous with the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel’s desire to leave the West Bank as well and thus achieve an amicable two-state solution.

This is not ancient history. This was nine years ago.

And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel.

Where are the roads and rail, the industry and infrastructure of the new Palestinian state? Nowhere. Instead, they built mile upon mile of underground tunnels to hide their weapons and, when the going gets tough, their military commanders. They spent millions importing and producing rockets, launchers, mortars, small arms, even drones. They deliberately placed them in schools, hospitals, mosques and private homes to better expose their own civilians. (Just Thursday, the U.N. announced that it found 20 rockets in a Gaza school.) And from which they fire rockets at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Why? The rockets can’t even inflict serious damage, being almost uniformly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system. Even West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas has asked: “What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?”

It makes no sense. Unless you understand, as Tuesday’s Post editorial explained, that the whole point is to draw Israeli counterfire.

This produces dead Palestinians for international television. Which is why Hamas perversely urges its own people not to seek safety when Israel drops leaflets warning of an imminent attack.

To deliberately wage war so that your own people can be telegenically killed is indeed moral and tactical insanity. But it rests on a very rational premise: Given the Orwellian state of the world’s treatment of Israel (see: the U.N.’s grotesque Human Rights Council), fueled by a mix of classic anti-Semitism, near-total historical ignorance and reflexive sympathy for the ostensible Third World underdog, these eruptions featuring Palestinian casualties ultimately undermine support for Israel’s legitimacy and right to self-defense.

In a world of such Kafkaesque ethical inversions, the depravity of Hamas begins to make sense. This is a world in which the Munich massacre is a movie and the murder of Klinghoffer is an opera — both deeply sympathetic to the killers. This is a world in which the U.N. ignores humanity’s worst war criminals while incessantly condemning Israel, a state warred upon for 66 years that nonetheless goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming the very innocents its enemies use as shields.

It’s to the Israelis’ credit that amid all this madness they haven’t lost their moral scruples. Or their nerve. Those outside the region have the minimum obligation, therefore, to expose the madness and speak the truth. Rarely has it been so blindingly clear.******

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 20, 2014, 07:01:33 AM

As usual Krauthammer is superb.

And here is today's expression of what he writes:

Click here to watch: Hamas Announces it Will Give Grenades to All of Gaza's Youth
A Hamas spokesman announced that Hamas had manufactured 250,000 hand grenades that would be given to Gazan youth to use to fight Israel instead of rocks. The IDF has released another video which shows how Hamas deliberately puts civilian lives in danger.
The video shows that Hamas hides weapons and missile launchers in densely populated areas and sends men, women and children directly into the line of fire to be used as human shields for terrorists. Hamas has openly boasted about the "success" of its strategy of using civilians as human shields during Operation Protective Edge, and the IDF has published extensive evidence of the practice. By contrast, the IDF has dropped leaflets, sent phone messages, and issued general warnings to all civilians within range of upcoming airstrikes to prevent further harm. The IDF has also called off attacks upon realizing that there are innocent civilians in the area or, as shown in the video below, when seeing the terrorist target enter an ambulance.
Watch Here
The UN agency for Palestinian Arab “refugees,” UNRWA, has caused outrage by apparently giving rockets to Hamas. On Thursday, UNRWA confirmed that 20 rockets had been found in one of its vacant schools in Gaza. UNRWA staff said last week that they had “informed the relevant parties and successfully took all necessary measures for the removal of the objects.” However, Channel 2 reports Sunday that - rather than destroying the rockets - UNRWA workers called Hamas to come remove them. Hamas has fired over 1,500 rockets at Israeli population centers over the past two weeks. Any new rockets would presumably be used in similar attacks. While UNRWA confirmed the existence of rockets in one of its schools last week, the organization refused an Israeli request to provide a picture of the weapons. A picture could have helped Israel show that Hamas uses civilian institutions to store weapons and launch attacks. Hamas has openly used human shields in its latest conflict with Israel. The terrorist group issued a statement Thursday urging Gaza residents to ignore IDF warnings to evacuate their homes. Earlier, Hamas gathered civilians to stand on the roof of a senior terrorist’s home in order to deter an IDF strike.
Read More Here: Arutz Sheva

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors - Lebanon repels attack by 2,000 "Syrian rebels"
Post by: MikeT on July 20, 2014, 11:34:57 AM

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Jul-19/264432-major-terrorist-attack-on-lebanon-thwarted.ashx#axzz37xIgcwlL

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors - Arab League statement
Post by: MikeT on July 20, 2014, 11:39:36 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-palestinians-israel-arableague-idUSKBN0FP0GY20140720

Title: Social media dis-intel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 20, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/13/israelis-unnerved-by-a-new-round-of-warfare-using-text-message/

Title: IDF targetting in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2014, 07:22:31 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j16xIxZdqgg

Title: Great 11 minute history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2014, 08:56:41 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U

Title: POTH: Hamas' Gamble
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 23, 2014, 06:21:59 AM

GAZA CITY — When war between Israel and Hamas broke out two weeks ago, the Palestinian militant group was so hamstrung, politically, economically and diplomatically, that its leaders appeared to feel they had nothing to lose.

Hamas took what some here call “option zero,” gambling that it could shift the balance with its trump cards: its arms and militants.

Now, this conflict has demonstrated that while Hamas governed over 1.7 million people mired in poverty, its leaders were pouring resources into its military and expanding its ability to fight Israel. If it can turn that improved military prowess into concessions, like opening the border with Egypt, that may boost its standing among the people of Gaza — although at an extraordinarily high cost in deaths and destruction.

“There were low expectations in terms of its performance against the recent round of Israeli incursions. It’s been exceeding all expectations,” said Abdullah Al-Arian, a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar who is currently in Washington. “And it’s likely to come out in a far better position than in the last three years, and maybe the last decade.”

Hamas had been struggling. The turmoil in the region meant it lost one of its main sponsors, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, whom it broke with over his brutal fight against a Sunni Muslim-led insurgency, and weakened its alliance with Iran. It lost support in Egypt when the Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, was ousted and replaced with a military-backed government hostile to Hamas.

Unemployment in Gaza is around 50 percent, having risen steeply since Israel pulled out its troops and settlers in 2005 and severely tightened border restrictions.

Hamas appeared powerless to end the near-blockade of its border by Israel and more recently Egypt. It could not even pay its 40,000 government workers their salaries.

The group was so handicapped that it agreed to enter into a pact with its rival party, Fatah, to form a new government. But that seemed only to make matters worse, sowing division within its own ranks, with some in the military wing angry at the concession, while providing none of the economic relief Hamas had hoped for.
Photo
A woman, center, was comforted after the missile attack in Yahud. Credit Dan Balilty/Associated Press

When Hamas sent a barrage of rockets into Israel, simmering hostilities, and back and forth strikes, erupted into war.

At first, when Hamas rockets were being intercepted mainly by Israel’s Iron Dome system as Israel hit Gaza with devastating force, the group strove to persuade its supporters that it was having enough impact on Israel to wrest concessions: Its radio stations blared fictional reports about Israeli casualties.

But as it wore on, the conflict revealed that Hamas’s secret tunnel network leading into Israel was far more extensive, and sophisticated, than previously known. It also was able to inflict some pain on Israel, allowing Hamas to declare success even as it drew a devastating and crushing response. Its fighters were able to infiltrate Israel multiple times during an intensive Israeli ground invasion. Its militants have killed at least 27 Israeli soldiers and claim to have captured an Israeli soldier who was reported missing in battle, a potentially key bargaining chip.
Continue reading the main story

And on Tuesday its rockets struck a blow to Israel — psychological and economic — by forcing a halt in international flights. Hamas once again looks strong in the eyes of its supporters, and has shown an increasingly hostile region that it remains a force to be reckoned with.
Continue reading the main story Video
Play Video|1:59
Behind the Escalations in Gaza
Behind the Escalations in Gaza

A look at why Israel and Hamas have repeatedly chosen to intensify the violence at every stage of the continuing conflict.
Video Credit By Mona El-Naggar on Publish Date July 17, 2014. Image CreditRonen Zvulun/Reuters

Hamas, Mr. Arian said, has demonstrated that “as a movement, it is simply not going anywhere.”

But Hamas’s gains could be short-lived if it does not deliver Gazans a better life. Israel says its severe restrictions on what can be brought into Gaza, such as construction materials, are needed because Hamas poses a serious security threat, and the discovery of the tunnels has served only to validate that concern.

So far, at least 620 Palestinians have died, around 75 percent of them civilians, according to the United Nations, including more than 100 children. Gazans did not get a vote when Hamas chose to escalate conflict, nor did they when Hamas selected areas near their homes, schools and mosques to fire rockets from the densely populated strip. At the family house of four boys killed last week by an Israeli strike while playing on a beach, some wailing women cursed Hamas along with Israel.
Continue reading the main story
Related in Opinion

    Op-Ed Contributor: Gaza Under Israel’s OnslaughtJULY 22, 2014
    Room for Debate: Self-Defense or Atrocities in Gaza?JULY 22, 2014

“It comes at an exceptionally high price,” said Khaled Elgindy, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former adviser to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. “When the bombs stop and the dust settles, people might have different calculations about cost-benefit.”
Photo
A home that was destroyed by a Hamas missile near Ben Gurion International Airport in Yahud, near Tel Aviv. Credit Gideon Markowicz/European Pressphoto Agency

It is also unclear whether, when the fighting ends, Hamas will have the same kind of foreign support it has had in the past to rebuild its arsenal or its infrastructure; Egypt, under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has destroyed hundreds of the tunnels that were used to bring in arms, money and supplies, and has kept the proper border crossing mostly closed. There are also some diplomatic efforts underway seeking to force Hamas to surrender its weapons in exchange for a cease-fire, a demand it is not likely to accept.

Omar Shaban, an economist and political independent, sat in his walled garden in the southern Gaza town of Deir al-Balah as shells crackled nearby and said he fervently hoped, but also doubted, that both Hamas and Israel’s government would reach for a substantive deal.

“This war will end tomorrow or after tomorrow, we will have another cease-fire, we will have another siege and Hamas will continue to run the scene,” he said.

“Gaza is a big problem for everybody, for Hamas, for Fatah, for Israel,” he added, ticking off the list: shortages of water, housing and medicine, a population explosion, growing extremism.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 23, 2014, 06:29:02 AM

Israel needs to hammer them until every tunnel is destroyed and Hamas is crushed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 23, 2014, 02:40:40 PM

Hmas using children as human shield in war
فقط 25 ثانیه ست اما دنیا حرف تو این کلیپ هست!! بازم بگین ماله سوریه ست..!! تو روخدا از ثانیه 19 تا 23 رو دقت کنین.. داره میگه: "تو حالا دختر حماس فاتح شدی..!!" این همون چهره واقعیه تروریست های «حماس» ست ک اینگونه با قساوت از کودکان معصوم فلسطینی در جنگ استفاده مستقیم میکند.. ناجوانمردانه آنها را سپر انسانی خود میسازد.. و شرم آورش آنجاست ک اینهمه ادعای شجاعت دارند اما بجای آنکه پناهگاه کودکان باشند حود با بزدلی در پشت یک دختر بچه پناه می گیرند.. و با وقاحت تمام حتی فیلم هم می گیرند..!!ا
حالا متوجه هستین اسرائیل با چ کسانی در حال جنگه..؟؟ا

Youtube لینک یوتیوب
http://youtu.be/Y3_KiHRg0bM

وفاة الأطفال في غزة مدمرة! نسأل حماس السبب في ذلك هو استخدام الاطفال كدروع بشرية
The death of Children in Gaza is devastating! Ask Hamas why it is using kids as human shield
مرگ کودکان درد آور است.. از حماس بپرسید چر از کودکان مانند سپر انسانی مانند سپر انسانی استفاده میکند
חמאס משתמשים בילדים כמגן אנושי

‪#‎israelunderfire‬ ‪#‎istandwithisrael‬ ‪#‎israelunderattack‬ ‪#‎supportisrael‬#standwithisrael ‫#‏צוקאיתן‬ ‫#‏צבעאדום‬ ‫#‏פיקודהעורף‬ ‪#‎israel‬ ‪#‎gazaunderattack‬

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 23, 2014, 08:42:07 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383494/tens-thousands-israelis-attend-funeral-lone-idf-soldiers-molly-wharton

Americans fighting for the right thing.

I wonder if Carmeli was Jewish. I hope he wasn't.

Title: Who could have foreseen this?
Post by: G M on July 23, 2014, 11:11:11 PM

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2014/07/23/where-are-the-jewish-organizations/

The silence is deafening.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 24, 2014, 07:01:34 AM

Hats off to former Mayor Bloomberg - a first tip to him from me.

Perhaps the Jewish organizations are working behind the scenes?

If not then "where are the Jewish organizations" is a good question.

Rush said on the air yesterday that for the 80 % of Jews liberalism trumps everything else.

I have put it another way for years.  The Democrat Party is the new religion for 75-80% of American Jews.

Hand in hand also goes the statement that 'Republicans' are worse than Hamas, or Nazis.  For them Republicans are the lowest scum on the Earth.  Hatred for conservatives is palpable. 

Jews will not condemn their new chosen one - no matter what.  They will not.  Why?  Because then Republicans win.

This cannot happen.   Even though I am with the 20% who are conservative I still understand their thinking.

For example, we always hear libs verbally criticizing Bush for getting us into war in Iraq.  
In contrast when was the last time anyone heard any liberal let alone Jewish liberals criticizing LBJ for Vietnam.   I don't think I ever have.   

What they do do is link Nixon to Vietnam.   Notice the bait and switch all because of the Presidents party affiliation?

They will never criticize Obama.   *Maybe a tad*, and only *indirectly* once his reign is over, and their new chosen one (so far Hillary) is safely elected.

It is all psychiatric.  In my view a bit of a disease.  

If I was writing the psychiatric DSM manuels I would certainly have a disease category for liberalism.

Title: 2nd post today on this thread
Post by: ccp on July 24, 2014, 07:38:40 AM

Howard said,

"If you’re anti-Israel, then you’re anti-America. It’s the only democracy over there"

I say, when one thinks of the Israel haters and liberals in general this statement fits quite well.

Excerpt from todays news release:


Howard Stern Gives Impassioned Defense of Israel


"If you’re anti-Israel, then you’re anti-America. It’s the only democracy over there, it’s the only friend we have who’s willing to fight and stand up for what’s right."

7.24.2014 |
 
When a caller attempted to blame Israel for the war with Hamas last week, SiriusXM radio host Howard Stern told him to “F*** off!” and then launched into an impassioned defense of Israel, saying “If you’re anti-Israel, then you’re anti-America” and arguing that Israel is “the only friend we have who’s willing to fight and stand up for what’s right.”   

The tense exchange began when the caller predicted that Stern would turn his back on Israel when Comedy Central host John Oliver was in the studio.
“
Stern: I’m not gonna change my tune. Israel’s at no fault.

Caller: Israel’s is at fault, actually.

Stern: F*** off!

The caller then claimed that “Zionists run Israel,” at which point Stern cut him off:
“
Stern:  Oh, f*** off... I don’t want to listen to any anti-Semitism today. Jews get enough s**t all over the world. They get s**t on all the time. Jews are the indigenous people of that area. I’m sick of the bulls**t. And the Arabs don’t even want those Palestinians, otherwise they’d let them matriculate into their country.

Stern eventually ended the call, saying, “you sicken me,” but added that being anti-Israel worked against the interests of America:
“

Stern: If you’re anti-Israel, then you’re anti-America. It’s the only democracy over there, it’s the only friend we have who’s willing to fight and stand up for what’s right.

After admitting that he lost his cool and let the caller “get under my skin,” he said he’s tired of reading “this bulls**t,” citing Pink Floyd’s anti-Israel Roger Waters, who he said “ought to shut his mouth too.” Stern then said that the problem was people were forgetting the history of Israel:

Stern: People forget history. Jews were being executed and killed, and they went over to Israel, this little sh*thole, which was a desert—it had nothing going on. 

Stern compared the drastic difference of the median income of Israelis, $30 thousand, and Palestinians, $2 thousand, as an example of the success of Israel despite living in the same region. He then pointed to the Palestinians' real problem: "They elected terrorists to run their country."

Stern: But the Palestinians are mad at the Israelis, instead of being mad at the f***ing terrorists running their so-called country—who are raping the country, taking all the aide the United States actually gives to them. That they’re not angry with; they’re angry with Israel. [...] They elected terrorists to run their country. That’s the difference. Who do you support? Get off your f***ing high horse

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors, Ban lifted
Post by: DougMacG on July 24, 2014, 08:39:32 AM

"The Democrat Party is the new religion for 75-80% of American Jews."

Very funny, if it was not so true.  From my Jewish friends closer to home I have heard passion for general liberalism more than for the defense of Israel.  More American Jews should consider moving toward conservatism - for many reasons!

Israel is the canary in the coal mine.  As already demonstrated, when terrorist are not purging Jews, they are attacking gays, Christians, atheists, agnostics, infidels, and the 'wrong' sect of Islam, whether to them that is Sunni, Shia or moderate.  We don't stand with Israel because they are Jewish.  We stand with them because we are moral human beings, and we stand with them as a practical matter for our own self defense because the same people would like to kill us next.  

I don't like Mayor Bloomberg but he has got a couple of things right recently and deserves specific credit for that.  (The other was calling out Harvard and Ivy league schools for their one-sided political suppression.)
-----------------------------------------------
Ban lifted
http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/FAA-lifts-flight-ban-on-US-flights-to-Israel-368705

Interesting that the "FAA" lifted its ban after 36 hours.  Wonder if that was because it was the right thing to do or because they were getting hammered politically with criticism such as was posted here from Newt.  BTW, do we have a President in charge of our foreign policy or just administrative agencies acting on their own?  No mention of that in the story.  Maybe the President only learned of our policy flip flop in the news.

Title: Jewish births trending up?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2014, 12:45:33 PM

http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/14457

Title: Israel vs. Hamas, THE GAZA WAR, When Strategies Collide, Walter Russell Mead
Post by: DougMacG on July 25, 2014, 05:31:58 PM

WRM writes a bit like Stratfor and explains his analysis of motives and calculations on both sides in a very understandable way.  The way that Egypt and Saudi come into it is quite interesting.  I wonder if people here see it similarly.

In understanding both sides thinking it is pretty easy to predict this conflict goes on beyond our lifetimes unless you are quite a bit younger then me! Since Israel will never completely annihilate them this ends when Hamas and the people of Gaza give up their quest to destroy Israel which is also never.  Both sides have a strong motive to see the current conflict continue.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/07/25/the-gaza-war-when-strategies-collide/

Walter Russell Mead
Published on July 25, 2014
THE GAZA WAR
When Strategies Collide
Many wars are fought over accidents and misunderstandings. This is not one of those times. With key interests at stake, the conflict in Gaza is likely to continue.

As the politicians, pundits, and foreign policy panjandrums of the world Western world wring their hands over the chaos and carnage in Gaza, it’s worth noting that there are solid reasons why peace is proving so elusive. Both sides have reason to think they can pull off a significant victory in the current round of fighting, and neither side thinks it can live with the consequences of a defeat. Until something happens to change the thinking on one or both sides, a cease fire will be hard to achieve.

HOPES FOR A WIN

Israel continues to fight because it believes that with more time, it can destroy enough tunnels and inflict enough damage on Hamas to significantly degrade the organization’s military strength and weaken it politically. Furthermore, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are, perhaps for the first time, quietly rooting for Israel to crush the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Hamas. Given this, Israeli officials presumably think they have a golden opportunity for the extended and crushing war that they really need to inflict serious damage. Any war with the Palestinians involves political costs and setbacks for Israel, but at this particular moment, war in Gaza is less politically expensive than at other times. Given that Hamas is a significant and growing danger, Israeli leaders are likely to think, why not use the opportunity for all it is worth?

Hamas on the other hand is elated by its success in temporarily but significantly hampering operations at Ben Gurion Airport (arguably the most significant single Palestininan tactical accomplishment since the 1948 War). In addition its fighters have had unexpected success killing Israeli soldiers on the ground, and the Arab street is electrified by the conflict. The resulting publicity offers Hamas an opportunity to emerge from the isolation it faced after the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt. Since more Israeli progress on the ground will inevitably and tragically mean more civilian deaths, Hamas can also hope for big propaganda victories to offset any military setbacks that prolonged hostilities will bring. Hamas and its Turkish and Qatari allies can also hope that the longer the war lasts, the worse Egypt and Saudi Arabia will look. The Gaza war isn’t just a war between Israel and Hamas; it is a stage in the struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and its Arab opponents. The longer Hamas can bear up under Israel’s military pressure, the more success it has in the intra-Arab struggle.

The hope of victory is one reason the two sides keep fighting; both Israel and Hamas also believe that defeat would impose unacceptable costs.


ISRAELI FEARS

For Israel, there are three big reasons why losing is unacceptable. First, as a small country surrounded by enemies and facing hostile public opinion in the world at large, Israel’s security depends in large part on its reputation for military supremacy. That reputation, Israelis feel, deters many more attacks and keeps opposition passive and political rather than encouraging it to be active and military. This is an advantage that Israel will not lightly give up; hostilities are unlikely to end until and unless the Israelis feel they have made their point.

That motive is always present, but it became much more important after a rocket from Gaza caused a significant interruption in service from Ben Gurion Airport. People don’t travel much across Israel’s land frontiers; the airport is Israel’s vital link with the rest of the world. Hamas and anti-Israel forces everywhere were wildly elated by this success, and Israel’s enemies now think they can imagine a new strategy to drive the Jewish state to its knees by cutting it off from the outside world. Israeli defense officials likely feel that they must now do two things: eliminate the capacity of Hamas to repeat this attack, and make the consequences so wounding and expensive to Hamas as to reduce the attractiveness of repeat efforts. This new factor is a military game-changer, and it greatly raised the stakes of the conflict. (The biggest political mistake of the war so far? The American officials who banned U.S. flights from using the airport made a cease fire much harder to obtain.)

Second, there are specific political reasons why Israel is intent on hitting Hamas as hard as it can. Some of this is about Palestinian politics. Fatah may be corrupt, incompetent and in the eyes of many Palestinians fatally compromised by its willingness to compromise with Israel, but the more the ‘resistance’ path championed by Hamas looks like a historical dead end, the less Fatah’s flaws matter in the competition for Palestinian leadership.

But Israel is after much bigger game than Hamas in this war. Weakening Hamas isn’t just an Israeli project: Riyadh and Cairo are rooting for the Gazan terrorists to lose as well.  This strange new band of brothers is Israel’s Plan B alliance in case the U.S. folds on Iran. The Saudis and their Egyptian allies also hate and fear Hezbollah; from an Israeli point of view a successful war against Hamas could be the first step in cooperative action against Hezbollah and, beyond it, Iran. Israel wants this war to go well because it could pave the way to more effective cooperation with the most populous and wealthiest of the Arab states.

It’s also worth noting, from the standpoint of very-long-term Israeli interests, that the willingness of the Saudis and Egyptians and their friends, even silently and tactically, to align with Israel is a promising sign that Israel may someday be accepted in the region. Israel has been given a chance to audition for the role of a tacit ally of the Sunni Arab world against both Sunni and Shia radicals; it doesn’t want to blow this chance and its desire to build its relations with neighboring Arab states may outweigh its concerns about annoying Europe or even the U.S.

The third big reason why Israel needs a win is the one that most of the press commentary focuses on: security. Hamas has developed a network of tunnels and a capacity to launch missiles against much of Israel. Israeli officials will want to see that capacity significantly degraded. From the Israeli point of view, the price of a war in Gaza is high, but the incremental political cost of a few more days of combat, could now be less than the benefits from substantial progress in dismantling tunnels, breaking up Hamas’ leadership and destroying its weapon and missile stockpiles.

Thus from an Israeli point of view, the costs of this particular war are lower than usual, thanks to the tacit Arab support from Hamas’ many Arab enemies, and the need for decisive military results is greater than usual. That would suggest that Israel is likely to want to continue fighting until either its goals are reached or it is clear that they cannot be within a manageable time frame or at an acceptable cost. That point doesn’t appear to have been reached yet.

THE STRATEGY OF HAMAS

Like Israel, Hamas’ war strategy seems to be guided by solid calculations about the organization’s vital interests, and the leadership appears to believe that this is a war that the movement can’t afford to lose.

The chief problem and the real enemy for Hamas is not, however, Israel. Israeli hostility is something Hamas understands and can deal with. The real problem for Hamas is the Saudi-backed Sisi government in Egypt. The current Egyptian government sees Hamas as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, and crushing the Muslim Brotherhood as thoroughly as possible is Egypt’s top priority these days. Egypt’s Saudi patrons feel the same way; the Muslim Brotherhood looks to the Saudis like a challenge to their claim to lead the forces of orthodox Sunnism—and Hamas in the past has been willing to ally itself with Saudi’s arch enemies in Syria and Iran.

The change in the status quo that led to war with Israel had nothing to do with Israel itself; what has happened is that Egypt has systematically intensified the blockade of Gaza, hoping to throttle Hamas, disrupt its support, and put enough economic pressure on Gaza to force Hamas from power.

For Hamas, the pre-war status quo was a death sentence, allowing Egypt to quietly strangle Gaza. The business networks dependent on smuggling were hurting, civil servants weren’t getting paid, and residents were increasingly unhappy with a lousy economy and no progress in sight. Hamas is a cornered animal striking out in desperation. A return to the status quo ante is not acceptable to Hamas, which feels it absolutely must gain some relief or it will go under.

There are reports of splits between the political and military leaders of Hamas in the run up to war, but it seems clear that whoever is now calling the shots in Gaza, so to speak, believes that Hamas is in a war for survival, and short of crushing defeat, Hamas is unlikely to accept a cease fire that restores the status quo ante.

Hamas wants a cease fire that will allow it to import enough goods into Gaza to keep the economy going and to allow it to rebuild its military stockpiles. If Israel and Hamas were the only two entities involved, this might not be so hard to arrange. They have had cease fires before, and while each hates the other and wants it destroyed, on a pragmatic, day by day basis, Israel and Hamas have managed to work things out for long periods of time.

The trouble is that it is hard for Hamas to force Egypt and Saudi Arabia to accept this deal. The Saudis and their allies are happy for Israel to pay the political price for a war against Hamas that they want the Jewish state to win. Meanwhile, it is Egypt that ultimately can decide on peace or war: when Egypt feels that Hamas has been weakened and punished enough that it’s OK to show it some mercy, then the balance of forces will shift and some kind of truce will become much easier to achieve.

Under the circumstances, Hamas’ strategy is a convoluted one: Hamas is trying to create such a hot crisis by staging a war with Israel that the U.S., Europe and an enraged Arab street will force Egypt and Saudi Arabia to give up their drive to starve Hamas out. That may yet work, but it is unlikely to work all that quickly. Neither Egypt nor the Saudis are particularly unhappy if Israel is getting bad press around the world; as far as they are concerned, if rampaging mobs burn every Israeli embassy in Europe, it is no skin off President Sisi’s nose.

This suggests that for Hamas as well as for Israel, the high price of a long (by Israeli-Palestinian standards) war may make sense. It will take time for the kind of political pressure to build that would lead Egypt to soften its blockade of Gaza; it’s hard to see a good reason (except for the obvious humanitarian one) why Hamas would give up before giving its strategy time to work.

WILL PEACE GET A CHANCE?

Many wars come about by accident or by misunderstanding. This particular war, however it was originally triggered, seems to be driven by the real interests of the chief parties involved. In such cases, peace is hard to make until the parties have seen how things go on the battlefield.

This doesn’t necessarily mean a long, drawn-out war. Gaza is a very small place and Hamas’ reserves are not very deep. It is not in Israel’s interests for the war to drag on and some more-horrendous-than-usual event could so shock public opinion around the world and in Israel itself that the calculus could change.

Nevertheless, the peacemaking wannabes have a tricky task ahead of them and the U.S. administration in particular will not enjoy some of the choices it must make. Barring a Hamas collapse, a political solution to the war involves getting not only Israel but also Egypt (and its Saudi backers) to accept some kind of arrangement that loosens the blockade enough to let Hamas survive.

The trouble is that neither the Egyptians nor the Saudis seem interested in making Barack Obama’s life any easier these days. Both countries bitterly resented his support for the Morsi government, and the ineffectiveness of his support deepened their contempt without dulling their anger. They do not trust him over Iran, Syria or Iraq, and they increasingly feel that they must organize the defense of the region without deferring to him. They may take a certain grim satisfaction in his discomfort if a Washington failure to broker a Gaza cease fire makes the Obama administration look weak.

Unhappily for the Obama administration, the best way for the U.S. to hasten the arrival of a durable cease fire in Gaza is to promise a more robust and hawkish policy in the rest of the region. The Israelis will be more willing to make concessions on a Gaza cease fire if they believe that the U.S. will back them more effectively against Iran, and the Saudis and Egyptians are more likely to give ground in Gaza if the U.S. offers real support in the rest of the region.

This is the opposite of the way much of the left and the press understands how the Middle East works, but the new Middle East is a more complicated place than it used to be. The battle between Sunni Arabs and Israelis is no longer the most important issue on the table for key Arab governments as well as for Israel. While that old conflict has not disappeared, it has been eclipsed by the new conflict between a resurgent Iran and the leading Sunni Arab states.

We must hope that American diplomats and other hopeful peacemakers grasp the new and sometimes counterintuitive dynamics of the region. Otherwise the Gaza war could drag on as the peacemakers chase red herrings and run up blind alleys. Fundamentally this war is one of the many dangerous consequences of the regional perception that the United States is in retreat; only by changing that perception can the Obama administration hope to stabilize the region and bring the killing, in Gaza and elsewhere, to an end.

Clausewitz wrote that in war, “the side that feels the lesser urge for peace will necessarily get the better bargain.” Both of the combatants are used to pain, loaded for bear, and feel their essential interests are in play. The most likely outcome is probably an uglier and longer war than usual, followed by another unhappy truce.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2014, 09:19:38 PM

http://m.jpost.com/HomePage/FrontPage/Article.aspx?id=76368919&cat=1&url=http://www.jpost.com/SpecialReports2/Article.aspx?ID=368919&R=R1

Title: Happy New Year from Hamas!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 27, 2014, 12:48:40 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/27/security-sources-say-hamas-planned-a-massive-terror-tunnels-attack-for-september-24/

Title: Hamas hammers it's shields into place.
Post by: G M on July 28, 2014, 08:35:33 AM

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/07/26/video-hamas-brutally-beating-civilians-of-gaza-who-leave-their-homes-following-israeli-warning/

Title: Hamas's charter
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2014, 09:49:28 AM

Hamas Covenant 1988
The Covenant
of the
Islamic Resistance Movement
18 August 1988

In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah

"Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. They are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found; unless they obtain security by entering into a treaty with Allah, and a treaty with men; and they draw on themselves indignation from Allah, and they are afflicted with poverty. This they suffer, because they disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew the prophets unjustly; this, because they were rebellious, and transgressed." (Al-Imran - verses 109-111).

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
"The Islamic world is on fire. Each of us should pour some water, no matter how little, to extinguish whatever one can without waiting for the others." (Sheikh Amjad al-Zahawi, of blessed memory).

In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah

Introduction

Praise be unto Allah, to whom we resort for help, and whose forgiveness, guidance and support we seek; Allah bless the Prophet and grant him salvation, his companions and supporters, and to those who carried out his message and adopted his laws - everlasting prayers and salvation as long as the earth and heaven will last. Hereafter:

O People:

Out of the midst of troubles and the sea of suffering, out of the palpitations of faithful hearts and cleansed arms; out of the sense of duty, and in response to Allah's command, the call has gone out rallying people together and making them follow the ways of Allah, leading them to have determined will in order to fulfill their role in life, to overcome all obstacles, and surmount the difficulties on the way. Constant preparation has continued and so has the readiness to sacrifice life and all that is precious for the sake of Allah.

Thus it was that the nucleus (of the movement) was formed and started to pave its way through the tempestuous sea of hopes and expectations, of wishes and yearnings, of troubles and obstacles, of pain and challenges, both inside and outside.

When the idea was ripe, the seed grew and the plant struck root in the soil of reality, away from passing emotions, and hateful haste. The Islamic Resistance Movement emerged to carry out its role through striving for the sake of its Creator, its arms intertwined with those of all the fighters for the liberation of Palestine. The spirits of its fighters meet with the spirits of all the fighters who have sacrificed their lives on the soil of Palestine, ever since it was conquered by the companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, and until this day.

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

Thus we see them coming on the horizon "and you shall learn about it hereafter" "Allah hath written, Verily I will prevail, and my apostles: for Allah is strong and mighty." (The Dispute - verse 21).

"Say to them, This is my way: I invite you to Allah, by an evident demonstration; both I and he who followeth me; and, praise be unto Allah! I am not an idolator." (Joseph - verse 107).

Hamas (means) strength and bravery -(according to) Al-Mua'jam al-Wasit: c1.

Definition of the Movement

Ideological Starting-Points

Article One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.

The Islamic Resistance Movement's Relation With the Moslem Brotherhood Group:

Article Two:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

Structure and Formation

Article Three:

The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Moslems who have given their allegiance to Allah whom they truly worship, - "I have created the jinn and humans only for the purpose of worshipping" - who know their duty towards themselves, their families and country. In all that, they fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils.
"But we will oppose truth to vanity, and it shall confound the same; and behold, it shall vanish away." (Prophets - verse 18).

Article Four:

The Islamic Resistance Movement welcomes every Moslem who embraces its faith, ideology, follows its programme, keeps its secrets, and wants to belong to its ranks and carry out the duty. Allah will certainly reward such one.

Time and Place Extent of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Five:

Time extent of the Islamic Resistance Movement: By adopting Islam as its way of life, the Movement goes back to the time of the birth of the Islamic message, of the righteous ancestor, for Allah is its target, the Prophet is its example and the Koran is its constitution. Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Moslems who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe. This being so, it extends to the depth of the earth and reaches out to the heaven.

"Dost thou not see how Allah putteth forth a parable; representing a good word, as a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed in the earth, and whose branches reach unto heaven; which bringeth forth its fruit in all seasons, by the will of its Lord? Allah propoundeth parables unto men, that they may be instructed." (Abraham - verses 24-25).
Characteristics and Independence:

Article Six:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.

How excellent was the Moslem poet, Mohamed Ikbal, when he wrote:

"If faith is lost, there is no security and there is no life for him who does not adhere to religion. He who accepts life without religion, has taken annihilation as his companion for life."

The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Seven:

As a result of the fact that those Moslems who adhere to the ways of the Islamic Resistance Movement spread all over the world, rally support for it and its stands, strive towards enhancing its struggle, the Movement is a universal one. It is well-equipped for that because of the clarity of its ideology, the nobility of its aim and the loftiness of its objectives.

On this basis, the Movement should be viewed and evaluated, and its role be recognised. He who denies its right, evades supporting it and turns a blind eye to facts,
whether intentionally or unintentionally, would awaken to see that events have overtaken him and with no logic to justify his attitude. One should certainly learn from past examples.

The injustice of next-of-kin is harder to bear than the smite of the Indian sword.

"We have also sent down unto thee the book of the Koran with truth, confirming that scripture which was revealed before it; and preserving the same safe from corruption. Judge therefore between them according to that which Allah hath revealed; and follow not their desires, by swerving from the truth which hath come unto thee. Unto every of you have we given a law, and an open path; and if Allah had pleased, he had surely made you one people; but he hath thought it fit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which he hath given you respectively. Therefore strive to excel each other in good works; unto Allah shall ye all return, and then will he declare unto you that concerning which ye have disagreed." (The Table, verse 48).

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Objectives

Incentives and Objectives:

Article Nine:

The Islamic Resistance Movement found itself at a time when Islam has disappeared from life. Thus rules shook, concepts were upset, values changed and evil people took control, oppression and darkness prevailed, cowards became like tigers: homelands were usurped, people were scattered and were caused to wander all over the world, the state of justice disappeared and the state of falsehood replaced it. Nothing remained in its right place. Thus, when Islam is absent from the arena, everything changes. From this state of affairs the incentives are drawn.

As for the objectives: They are the fighting against the false, defeating it and vanquishing it so that justice could prevail, homelands be retrieved and from its mosques would the voice of the mu'azen emerge declaring the establishment of the state of Islam, so that people and things would return each to their right places and Allah is our helper.

"...and if Allah had not prevented men, the one by the other, verily the earth had been corrupted: but Allah is beneficient towards his creatures." (The Cow - verse 251).
Article Ten:

As the Islamic Resistance Movement paves its way, it will back the oppressed and support the wronged with all its might. It will spare no effort to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed, in this place and everywhere it can reach and have influence therein.

Strategies and Methods

Strategies of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Palestine Is Islamic aqf:

Article Eleven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

"Verily, this is a certain truth. Wherefore praise the name of thy Lord, the great Allah." (The Inevitable - verse 95).

Homeland and Nationalism from the Point of View of the Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine:

Article Twelve:

Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission.

Nothing of the sort is to be found in any other regime. This is an undisputed fact. If other nationalist movements are connected with materialistic, human or regional causes, nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement has all these elements as well as the more important elements that give it soul and life. It is connected to the source of spirit and the granter of life, hoisting in the sky of the homeland the heavenly banner that joins earth and heaven with a strong bond.

If Moses comes and throws his staff, both witch and magic are annulled.

"Now is the right direction manifestly distinguished from deceit: whoever therefore shall deny Tagut, and believe in Allah, he shall surely take hold with a strong handle, which shall not be broken; Allah is he who heareth and seeth." (The Cow - Verse 256).

Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:

Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

The Three Circles:

Article Fourteen:

The question of the liberation of Palestine is bound to three circles: the Palestinian circle, the Arab circle and the Islamic circle. Each of these circles has its role in the struggle against Zionism. Each has its duties, and it is a horrible mistake and a sign of deep ignorance to overlook any of these circles. Palestine is an Islamic land which has the first of the two kiblahs (direction to which Moslems turn in praying), the third of the holy (Islamic) sanctuaries, and the point of departure for Mohamed's midnight journey to the seven heavens (i.e. Jerusalem).

"Praise be unto him who transported his servant by night, from the sacred temple of Mecca to the farther temple of Jerusalem, the circuit of which we have blessed, that we might show him some of our signs; for Allah is he who heareth, and seeth." (The Night-Journey - verse 1).

Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Moslem wherever he may be. On this basis, the problem should be viewed. This should be realised by every Moslem.

The day the problem is dealt with on this basis, when the three circles mobilize their capabilities, the present state of affairs will change and the day of liberation will come nearer.

"Verily ye are stronger than they, by reason of the terror cast into their breasts from Allah. This, because they are not people of prudence." (The Emigration - verse 13).
The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty:

Article Fifteen:

The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.

It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers. This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: "Only now have the Crusades ended." General Guru stood at Salah el-Din's grave and said: "We have returned, O Salah el-Din." Imperialism has helped towards the strengthening of ideological invasion, deepening, and still does, its roots. All this has paved the way towards the loss of Palestine.

It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. Palestine contains Islamic holy sites. In it there is al- Aqsa Mosque which is bound to the great Mosque in Mecca in an inseparable bond as long as heaven and earth speak of Isra` (Mohammed's midnight journey to the seven heavens) and Mi'raj (Mohammed's ascension to the seven heavens from Jerusalem).

"The bond of one day for the sake of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it. The place of one's whip in Paradise is far better than the world and whatever there is on it. A worshipper's going and coming in the service of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it." (As related by al-Bukhari, Moslem, al-Tarmdhi and Ibn Maja).

"I swear by the holder of Mohammed's soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed." (As related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Education of the Generations:

Article Sixteen:

It is necessary to follow Islamic orientation in educating the Islamic generations in our region by teaching the religious duties, comprehensive study of the Koran, the study of the Prophet's Sunna (his sayings and doings), and learning about Islamic history and heritage from their authentic sources. This should be done by specialised and learned people, using a curriculum that would healthily form the thoughts and faith of the Moslem student. Side by side with this, a comprehensive study of the enemy, his human and financial capabilities, learning about his points of weakness and strength, and getting to know the forces supporting and helping him, should also be included. Also, it is important to be acquainted with the current events, to follow what is new and to study the analysis and commentaries made of these events. Planning for the present and future, studying every trend appearing, is a must so that the fighting Moslem would live knowing his aim, objective and his way in the midst of what is going on around him.

"O my son, verily every matter, whether good or bad, though it be the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, and be hidden in a rock, or in the heavens, or in the earth, Allah will bring the same to light; for Allah is clear-sighted and knowing. O my son, be constant at prayer, and command that which is just, and forbid that which is evil: and be patient under the afflictions which shall befall thee; for this is a duty absolutely incumbent on all men. Distort not thy face out of contempt to men, neither walk in the earth with insolence; for Allah loveth no arrogant, vain-glorious person." (Lokman - verses 16-18).

The Role of the Moslem Woman:

Article Seventeen:

The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.

Article Eighteen:

Woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and embuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam. She has to teach them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them. That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to schools and the curriculum followed in educating Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good mothers, aware of their role in the battle of liberation.

She has to be of sufficient knowledge and understanding where the performance of housekeeping matters are concerned, because economy and avoidance of waste of the family budget, is one of the requirements for the ability to continue moving forward in the difficult conditions surrounding us. She should put before her eyes the fact that the money available to her is just like blood which should never flow except through the veins so that both children and grown-ups could continue to live.

"Verily, the Moslems of either sex, and the true believers of either sex, and the devout men, and the devout women, and the men of veracity, and the women of veracity, and the patient men, and the patient women, and the humble men, and the humble women, and the alms-givers of either sex who remember Allah frequently; for them hath Allah prepared forgiveness and a great reward." (The Confederates - verse 25).

The Role of Islamic Art in the Battle of Liberation:

Article Nineteen:

Art has regulations and measures by which it can be determined whether it is Islamic or pre-Islamic (Jahili) art. The issues of Islamic liberation are in need of Islamic art that would take the spirit high, without raising one side of human nature above the other, but rather raise all of them harmoniously an in equilibrium.

Man is a unique and wonderful creature, made out of a handful of clay and a breath from Allah. Islamic art addresses man on this basis, while pre-Islamic art addresses the body giving preference to the clay component in it.

The book, the article, the bulletin, the sermon, the thesis, the popular poem, the poetic ode, the song, the play and others, contain the characteristics of Islamic art, then these are among the requirements of ideological mobilization, renewed food for the journey and recreation for the soul. The road is long and suffering is plenty. The soul will be bored, but Islamic art renews the energies, resurrects the movement, arousing in them lofty meanings and proper conduct. "Nothing can improve the self if it is in retreat except shifting from one mood to another."

All this is utterly serious and no jest, for those who are fighters do not jest.

Social Mutual Responsibility:

Article Twenty:

Moslem society is a mutually responsible society. The Prophet, prayers and greetings be unto him, said: "Blessed are the generous, whether they were in town or on a journey, who have collected all that they had and shared it equally among themselves."

The Islamic spirit is what should prevail in every Moslem society. The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.

In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.

To counter these deeds, it is necessary that social mutual responsibility should prevail among the people. The enemy should be faced by the people as a single body which if one member of it should complain, the rest of the body would respond by feeling the same pains.

Article Twenty-One:

Mutual social responsibility means extending assistance, financial or moral, to all those who are in need and joining in the execution of some of the work. Members of the Islamic Resistance Movement should consider the interests of the masses as their own personal interests. They must spare no effort in achieving and preserving them. They must prevent any foul play with the future of the upcoming generations and anything that could cause loss to society. The masses are part of them and they are part of the masses. Their strength is theirs, and their future is theirs. Members of the Islamic Resistance Movement should share the people's joy and grief, adopt the demands of the public and whatever means by which they could be realised. The day that such a spirit prevails, brotherliness would deepen, cooperation, sympathy and unity will be enhanced and the ranks will be solidified to confront the enemies.

Supportive Forces Behind the Enemy:

Article Twenty-Two:

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

"So often as they shall kindle a fire for war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).

The imperialistic forces in the Capitalist West and Communist East, support the enemy with all their might, in money and in men. These forces take turns in doing that. The day Islam appears, the forces of infidelity would unite to challenge it, for the infidels are of one nation.

"O true believers, contract not an intimate friendship with any besides yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you. They wish for that which may cause you to perish: their hatred hath already appeared from out of their mouths; but what their breasts conceal is yet more inveterate. We have already shown you signs of their ill will towards you, if ye understand." (The Family of Imran - verse 118).

It is not in vain that the verse is ended with Allah's words "if ye understand."

Our Attitudes Towards:

A. Islamic Movements:

Article Twenty-Three:

The Islamic Resistance Movement views other Islamic movements with respect and appreciation. If it were at variance with them on one point or opinion, it is in agreement with them on other points and understandings. It considers these movements, if they reveal good intentions and dedication to Allah, that they fall into the category of those who are trying hard since they act within the Islamic circle. Each active person has his share.

The Islamic Resistance Movement considers all these movements as a fund for itself. It prays to Allah for guidance and directions for all and it spares no effort to keep the banner of unity raised, ever striving for its realisation in accordance with the Koran and the Prophet's directives.

"And cleave all of you unto the covenant of Allah, and depart not from it, and remember the favour of Allah towards you: since ye were enemies, and he reconciled your hearts, and ye became companions and brethren by his favour: and ye were on the brink of a pit of fire, and he delivered you thence. Allah declareth unto you his signs, that ye may be directed." (The Family of Imran - Verse 102).

Article Twenty-Four:

The Islamic Resistance Movement does not allow slandering or speaking ill of individuals or groups, for the believer does not indulge in such malpractices. It is necessary to differentiate between this behaviour and the stands taken by certain individuals and groups. Whenever those stands are erroneous, the Islamic Resistance Movement preserves the right to expound the error and to warn against it. It will strive to show the right path and to judge the case in question with objectivity. Wise conduct is indeed the target of the believer who follows it wherever he discerns it.

"Allah loveth not the speaking ill of anyone in public, unless he who is injured call for assistance; and Allah heareth and knoweth: whether ye publish a good action, or conceal it, or forgive evil, verily Allah is gracious and powerful." (Women - verses 147-148).

B. Nationalist Movements in the Palestinian Arena:

Article Twenty-Five:

The Islamic Resistance Movement respects these movements and appreciates their circumstances and the conditions surrounding and affecting them. It encourages them as long as they do not give their allegiance to the Communist East or the Crusading West. It confirms to all those who are integrated in it, or sympathetic towards it, that the Islamic Resistance Movement is a fighting movement that has a moral and enlightened look of life and the way it should cooperate with the other (movements). It detests opportunism and desires only the good of people, individuals and groups alike. It does not seek material gains, personal fame, nor does it look for a reward from others. It works with its own resources and whatever is at its disposal "and prepare for them whatever force you can", for the fulfilment of the duty, and the earning of Allah's favour. It has no other desire than that.

The Movement assures all the nationalist trends operating in the Palestinian arena for the liberation of Palestine, that it is there for their support and assistance. It will never be more than that, both in words and deeds, now and in the future. It is there to bring together and not to divide, to preserve and not to squander, to unify and not to throw asunder. It evaluates every good word, sincere effort and good offices. It closes the door in the face of side disagreements and does not lend an ear to rumours and slanders, while at the same time fully realising the right for self-defence.

Anything contrary or contradictory to these trends, is a lie disseminated by enemies or their lackeys for the purpose of sowing confusion, disrupting the ranks and occupy them with side issues.

"O true believers, if a wicked man come unto you with a tale, inquire strictly into the truth thereof; lest ye hurt people through ignorance, and afterwards repent of what ye have done." (The Inner Apartments - verse 6).

Article Twenty-Six:

In viewing the Palestinian nationalist movements that give allegiance neither to the East nor the West, in this positive way, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not refrain from discussing new situations on the regional or international levels where the Palestinian question is concerned. It does that in such an objective manner revealing the extent of how much it is in harmony or contradiction with the national interests in the light of the Islamic point of view.

C. The Palestinian Liberation Organization:

Article Twenty-Seven:

The Palestinian Liberation Organization is the closest to the heart of the Islamic Resistance Movement. It contains the father and the brother, the next of kin and the friend. The Moslem does not estrange himself from his father, brother, next of kin or friend. Our homeland is one, our situation is one, our fate is one and the enemy is a joint enemy to all of us.

Because of the situations surrounding the formation of the Organization, of the ideological confusion prevailing in the Arab world as a result of the ideological invasion under whose influence the Arab world has fallen since the defeat of the Crusaders and which was, and still is, intensified through orientalists, missionaries and imperialists, the Organization adopted the idea of the secular state. And that it how we view it.

Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies.

That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.

"Who will be adverse to the religion of Abraham, but he whose mind is infatuated? (The Cow - verse 130).

The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.

Until such a day, and we pray to Allah that it will be soon, the Islamic Resistance Movement's stand towards the PLO is that of the son towards his father, the brother towards his brother, and the relative to relative, suffers his pain and supports him in confronting the enemies, wishing him to be wise and well-guided.

"Stand by your brother, for he who is brotherless is like the fighter who goes to battle without arms. One's cousin is the wing one flies with - could the bird fly without wings?"

D. Arab and Islamic Countries:

Article Twenty-Eight:

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine.

As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do.

We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women."

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."

E. Nationalist and Religious Groupings, Institutions, Intellectuals, The Arab and Islamic World:

The Islamic Resistance Movement hopes that all these groupings will side with it in all spheres, would support it, adopt its stand and solidify its activities and moves, work towards rallying support for it so that the Islamic people will be a base and a stay for it, supplying it with strategic depth an all human material and informative spheres, in time and in place. This should be done through the convening of solidarity conferences, the issuing of explanatory bulletins, favourable articles and booklets, enlightening the masses regarding the Palestinian issue, clarifying what confronts it and the conspiracies woven around it. They should mobilize the Islamic nations, ideologically, educationally and culturally, so that these peoples would be equipped to perform their role in the decisive battle of liberation, just as they did when they vanquished the Crusaders and the Tatars and saved human civilization. Indeed, that is not difficult for Allah.

"Allah hath written, Verily I will prevail, and my apostles: for Allah is strong and mighty." (The Dispute - verse 21).

Article Thirty:

Writers, intellectuals, media people, orators, educaters and teachers, and all the various sectors in the Arab and Islamic world - all of them are called upon to perform their role, and to fulfill their duty, because of the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control, as well as the consequences that all this lead to in the greater part of the world.

Jihad is not confined to the carrying of arms and the confrontation of the enemy. The effective word, the good article, the useful book, support and solidarity - together with the presence of sincere purpose for the hoisting of Allah's banner higher and higher - all these are elements of the Jihad for Allah's sake.

"Whosoever mobilises a fighter for the sake of Allah is himself a fighter. Whosoever supports the relatives of a fighter, he himself is a fighter." (related by al-Bukhari, Moslem, Abu-Dawood and al-Tarmadhi).

F. Followers of Other Religions: The Islamic Resistance Movement Is A Humanistic Movement:

Article Thirty-One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

"They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand." (The Emigration - verse 14).

Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people's rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. "For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday."

"As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly." (The Tried - verse 8).

The Attempt to Isolate the Palestinian People:

Article Thirty-Two:

World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, try through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only. Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle, through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. They are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements and to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that. "for whoso shall turn his back unto them on that day, unless he turneth aside to fight, or retreateth to another party of the faithful, shall draw on himself the indignation of Allah, and his abode shall be hell; an ill journey shall it be thither." (The Spoils - verse 16). There is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion. The alternative is loss of one's country, the dispersion of citizens, the spread of vice on earth and the destruction of religious values. Let every person know that he is responsible before Allah, for "the doer of the slightest good deed is rewarded in like, and the does of the slightest evil deed is also rewarded in like."

The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road. The Movement adds its efforts to the efforts of all those who are active in the Palestinian arena. Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.

"..and we have put enmity and hatred between them, until the day of resurrection. So often as they shall kindle a fire of war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).

Article Thirty-Three:

The Islamic Resistance Movement, being based on the common coordinated and interdependent conceptions of the laws of the universe, and flowing in the stream of destiny in confronting and fighting the enemies in defence of the Moslems and Islamic civilization and sacred sites, the first among which is the Aqsa Mosque, urges the Arab and Islamic peoples, their governments, popular and official groupings, to fear Allah where their view of the Islamic Resistance Movement and their dealings with it are concerned. They should back and support it, as Allah wants them to, extending to it more and more funds till Allah's purpose is achieved when ranks will close up, fighters join other fighters and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty while loudly proclaiming: Hail to Jihad. Their cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.

"And Allah will certainly assist him who shall be on his side: for Allah is strong and mighty." (The Pilgrimage - verse 40).

The Testimony of History

Across History in Confronting the Invaders:

Article Thirty-Four:

Palestine is the navel of the globe and the crossroad of the continents. Since the dawn of history, it has been the target of expansionists. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, had himself pointed to this fact in the noble Hadith in which he called on his honourable companion, Ma'adh ben-Jabal, saying: O Ma'ath, Allah throw open before you, when I am gone, Syria, from Al-Arish to the Euphrates. Its men, women and slaves will stay firmly there till the Day of Judgement. Whoever of you should choose one of the Syrian shores, or the Holy Land, he will be in constant struggle till the Day of Judgement."

Expansionists have more than once put their eye on Palestine which they attacked with their armies to fulfill their designs on it. Thus it was that the Crusaders came with their armies, bringing with them their creed and carrying their Cross. They were able to defeat the Moslems for a while, but the Moslems were able to retrieve the land only when they stood under the wing of their religious banner, united their word, hallowed the name of Allah and surged out fighting under the leadership of Salah ed-Din al-Ayyubi. They fought for almost twenty years and at the end the Crusaders were defeated and Palestine was liberated.

"Say unto those who believe not, Ye shall be overcome, and thrown together into hell; an unhappy couch it shall be." (The Family of Imran - verse 12).

This is the only way to liberate Palestine. There is no doubt about the testimony of history. It is one of the laws of the universe and one of the rules of existence. Nothing can overcome iron except iron. Their false futile creed can only be defeated by the righteous Islamic creed. A creed could not be fought except by a creed, and in the last analysis, victory is for the just, for justice is certainly victorious.

"Our word hath formerly been given unto our servants the apostles; that they should certainly be assisted against the infidels, and that our armies should surely be the conquerors." (Those Who Rank Themselves - verses 171-172).

Article Thirty-Five:

The Islamic Resistance Movement views seriously the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah ed-Din al-Ayyubi and the rescuing of Palestine from their hands, as well as the defeat of the Tatars at Ein Galot, breaking their power at the hands of Qataz and Al-Dhaher Bivers and saving the Arab world from the Tatar onslaught which aimed at the destruction of every meaning of human civilization. The Movement draws lessons and examples from all this. The present Zionist onslaught has also been preceded by Crusading raids from the West and other Tatar raids from the East. Just as the Moslems faced those raids and planned fighting and defeating them, they should be able to confront the Zionist invasion and defeat it. This is indeed no problem for the Almighty Allah, provided that the intentions are pure, the determination is true and that Moslems have benefited from past experiences, rid themselves of the effects of ideological invasion and followed the customs of their ancestors.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is Composed of Soldiers:

Article Thirty-Six:

While paving its way, the Islamic Resistance Movement, emphasizes time and again to all the sons of our people, to the Arab and Islamic nations, that it does not seek personal fame, material gain, or social prominence. It does not aim to compete against any one from among our people, or take his place. Nothing of the sort at all. It will not act against any of the sons of Moslems or those who are peaceful towards it from among non-Moslems, be they here or anywhere else. It will only serve as a support for all groupings and organizations operating against the Zionist enemy and its lackeys.

The Islamic Resistance Movement adopts Islam as its way of life. Islam is its creed and religion. Whoever takes Islam as his way of life, be it an organization, a grouping, a country or any other body, the Islamic Resistance Movement considers itself as their soldiers and nothing more.

We ask Allah to show us the right course, to make us an example to others and to judge between us and our people with truth. "O Lord, do thou judge between us and our nation with truth; for thou art the best judge." (Al Araf - Verse 89).

The last of our prayers will be praise to Allah, the Master of the Universe.

Title: Lurch POs everyone
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2014, 07:44:00 PM

Emerson to Kerry-Obama: Its Terrorism, Stupid
by Steven Emerson
IPT News
July 28, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4482/kerry-takes-us-diplomacy-off-the-rails

 Secretary of State John Kerry's push for a ceasefire in Gaza last week was so flawed it managed to unite Israel's fractious political leadership in opposition while simultaneously being lambasted by the Palestinian Authority.

The proposal called for negotiations on Hamas demands, including opening border crossings into Gaza and relaxed boating restrictions off the Gaza coast. In addition, its language reportedly upgraded Hamas – a designated terrorist organization – to an equal plane with Israel. Then, President Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday to make "clear the strategic imperative of instituting an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement."

In other words, Obama demanded that Israel institute an immediate unilateral ceasefire even while Hamas continues its terrorist operations against Israel. True to form, Hamas escalated its attacks on Monday.

A mortar attack on the community of Eshkol near the Gaza border killed four Israeli civilians and wounded nine others, five of whom were in critical condition. At the same time, a squad of heavily-armed Hamas terrorists emerged from a tunnel near Kibbutz Nahal Oz in an attempt to carry out a mass murder attack. The Israeli military killed one terrorist and is searching for the others.

The U.S. response? In addition to more demands that Israel stop trying to root out the Hamas terror infrastructure in Gaza, administration officials Monday expressed anger that the Israelis would leak details of the proposed ceasefire and criticize Kerry.

This overlooks an important fact – Kerry's proposal also angered the Palestinian Authority – with a senior official telling London-based Saudi newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that "Kerry wanted to create a framework that would be an alternative to the Egyptian initiative and to our concept regarding it, in order to please Qatar and Turkey." The move would strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood's stature, the PA official said, "because the Americans think – and will be proven wrong – that that moderate political Islam represented by the Muslim Brotherhood can combat radical Islam..."

In their haste to bring about an end to the hostilities, U.S. officials have lost perspective about the conflict and how to prevent the next flare-up. Israel has acknowledged that the depth and sophistication of the Hamas tunnel network greatly surpassed previous assessments. Reports indicate that Hamas was planning to use the tunnels to wage a massive attack involving 200 terrorists against communities neighboring Gaza during the Jewish high holiday Rosh Hashanah.

Yet U.S. officials continue to pressure Israel has accepted five ceasefires. All of them were broken by Hamas.

Reports out of Israel say Kerry's proposal did nothing to help identify and dismantle Hamas tunnels or strip it of its remaining rocket arsenal. Israel's security cabinet quickly and unanimously rejected it.

Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, considered the most dovish in the cabinet, blasted the proposal as "completely unacceptable" and one that "would strengthen extremists in the region."

While its specifics have attracted scant attention in American media, it left Israeli commentators dumbstruck. The result "is clearly a major crisis in Israel-US ties at a time when Israel finds itself in the midst of a complex and costly war," Times of Israel editor David Horovitz wrote Sunday in a commentary headlined "John Kerry: The betrayal."
An unnamed senior U.S. official briefed Israeli reporters Sunday night, claiming the proposal is being misrepresented. "There was no Kerry plan," the official said. "There was a concept based on the Egyptian cease-fire plans that Israel had signed off on."

No one else in the arena seems to agree. The proposal was based on Kerry's consultations with Qatar and Turkey – Hamas' two leading patrons – a move which angered Palestinian Authority officials and other Arab states for empowering a terrorist group and excluding them.

"Those who want Qatar or Turkey to represent them should leave and go live there," PA President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah group said in a statement that Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh wrote was "directed against Hamas."

Kerry's disastrous idea, giving Hamas a clear diplomatic win at a time it had nothing to show but devastation for a fight it started, drew perverse praise.

"It takes a certain artistry to irritate and annoy not only the Israeli left and the Israeli right at the same time, but also both Jerusalem and Ramallah," the Jerusalem Post's Herb Keinon noted wryly.

"This provided Hamas with a badly needed tailwind," Keinon wrote. "Sure, they were getting clobbered, their human shields were dying, but they were getting what they wanted. The world was talking to them, recognizing their standing in Gaza, presenting their demands. Why stop, things were going their way. And, indeed, they didn't stop, and violated three different cease fires Saturday night and Sunday, including one that they themselves declared."

As I noted previously, it was under the terms of the 2012 ceasefire Obama and Kerry are pushing to restore that Hamas diverted money meant to improve life for people in Gaza to building its tunnel network and built an arsenal of 10,000 rockets – each one earmarked for firing on Israeli civilians.

If there are suggestions for a better way for Israel to unearth the tunnels and to stop the rocket fire emanating from crammed neighborhoods surrounded by civilians, by all means, offer them up.

It's safe to assume that, in the course of invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, American forces killed many more civilians than the last three Gaza conflicts combined. It's a product of war. The difference is there were not network cameras poised to show the carnage from a drone strike or other inadvertent killing.

But let's not pretend that this conflict can be resolved by giving Hamas what it wants. Its officials may talk about economic suffering among Palestinians in Gaza. But if the past month has proven anything, it is that the Hamas leadership cares more about creating Israeli suffering than alleviating the pain and devastation its actions have brought upon the Palestinians. The millions of dollars diverted to building tunnels, to importing or manufacturing rockets, could have done wonders to create infrastructure and jobs in Gaza. And none of that activity would have generated Israeli military strikes. But those facts seem to be lost on the mainstream media which Hamas has handily manipulated to show images of Palestinian casualties rather than show the civilian hiding places—like schools, hospitals, mosques, kindergartens, UN centers—where Hamas has brazenly stored weapons and from where it has also thousands of launched rockets and missiles at Israel.

Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal made clear what Hamas ultimately desires during an interview with CBS' Charlie Rose that was aired on "Face the Nation" Sunday. Rose tried to pin Meshaal down on Hamas' willingness to accept a two-state solution and coexist peacefully next to a Jewish state.

"Do you want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?" Rose asked.

"No," Meshaal said. After a long pause, he added, "I said I do not want to live with a state of occupiers." To Hamas, as its charter makes clear, all of Israel is occupied Palestinian land. There can be no peace until Hamas either gives up on its founding principle to destroy Israel or until it is removed from power and influence.
Pushing a ceasefire that accentuates Hamas demands could not be more counterproductive.

Kerry may be feeling some of the sting from all the criticism. In new remarks Monday, he emphasized the need to disarm Hamas.
But he has lost tremendous credibility with those elements who stand opposed to Hamas and its benefactors in Qatar and Turkey. "Jerusalem," writes Horovitz, "now regards him as duplicitous and dangerous."

If he really cares about generating a lasting peace, his next, best move might be resignation. As for President Obama, he might start to educate himself about Hamas' horrific murderous actions and agenda before approving a plan that allows this al-Qaida clone to resurrect itself after being seriously wounded by defensive Israeli actions.
Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) (www.investigativeproject.org), an international counter terrorist institute focusing on the worldwide threat of radical Islam. He is also the author of six books on terrorism and national security, and producer of two documentaries on terrorism, the latest being an expose of the covert Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in the US entitled, "Jihad in America: the Grand Deception" (www.granddeception.com) available at Amazon.com

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: RSB on July 28, 2014, 08:03:12 PM

Reading all of these posts left me wonder....."Where do Hamas get all this money to attack people with, if they claim their people are suffering...?"
Found this:
"Where Hamas Gets Its Money

Amid international condemnation of Israel, one would never guess that humanitarian aid and even cash is flowing into Hamas coffers, while its rockets continue to hit Israel.



It is important to alleviate the suffering of innocent Palestinians. However, since Gaza is under Hamas control, we have to ask: Will aid reach the suffering populace? If the past is any indication, most funds and supplies will end up with Hamas.



The world community that berates Israel for defending itself from constant attacks by the terrorist group also facilitated Hamas’ victory in the 2006 Palestinian Authority election, when it was allowed to run under the name “List of Change and Reform.“

Since then, despite repeated promises to cut off funds for Hamas, international aid organizations and many countries kept on sending money to Gaza, purportedly for humanitarian aid. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, raises money for Gaza through its Web site, with payments going through WorldPay (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group ), the Arab Bank PLC in Gaza and HSBC in Amman, Jordan. Those funds come in addition to UNRWA’s annual budget of $400 million.



The $7 billion to $10 billion that the Palestinian Authority has received since 1993 has come from the European Union, the U.N., the U.S., Saudi Arabia and other Arab League countries. France alone has sent more than $3 billion. This influx of cash has done little to advance the development of a viable Palestinian state or of peace in the region. Rather, it has helped to fuel the Palestinian leadership’s terrorist agenda, and kept the Palestinian people oppressed and disenfranchised.

In the mid-1990s–shortly after the Palestinian Authority came into existence–the Palestinian writer Fawaz Turki described the regime as “the dissolution of civilized society, of all civil norms and all hope.” Despite all of this, most international organizations and the world community at large continue to ignore the ongoing human and civil rights violations perpetrated against the Palestinians by their own leadership, including the destruction of Gaza and the death of hundreds of its citizens.



In a meeting hosted by Abu Dhabi on Jan. 12, representatives from the Palestinian Authority and several donor countries, including Egypt, Britain and the U.S., met to discuss efforts to raise and send undisclosed amounts of money to help Palestinians in Gaza. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also pledged to rebuild schools, mosques, hospitals and 1,300 damaged Gaza houses. In addition, the Emirates raised more than $87 million in a nationwide telethon on Jan. 9.



How would the money find its way to Gaza? “It is now the job of experts to funnel the cash,” said UAE Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash. The experts do not have to look hard: They can funnel the money through the vast tunnel network that runs from the Egyptian border into Gaza. The Israelis have destroyed many of these tunnels, but enough remain through which to continue to smuggle cash and other supplies, including weapons.

The buildup of this underground complex sped up after March 2007, when the U.S. gave Egypt $23 million in special aid to stop underground smuggling into Gaza. Despite that apparent failure, on Friday, Jan. 16, under American and international pressure, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni signed an agreement with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, under which the U.S. will commit resources to help Egypt patrol the boundary.

Supplies and cash for Hamas have been pledged from all over the world, not merely from Iran, On Jan. 3, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz donated $8 million of the more than $26.7 million raised in a national fundraising telethon for the “Relief of the Palestinian People in Gaza.” Qatar, which pledged $50 million when Hamas was elected in 2006, promised to send more.



While condemning Israel, the European Union pledged more than $4 million in “humanitarian aid” to Gaza. In 2008, it provided Gaza with $55.6 million. In addition, European Union member states pledged more than $41 million, including $10.5 million from the British government’s Department for International Development. Japan pledged $10 million, and terror-struck India said it would send $1 million. Norway has announced a pledge of about $4.5 million, while Australia is adding $3.5 million in addition to the $32 million it gave in 2008. Additionally, other countries sent tons of medical and humanitarian supplies. This more than meets the UNRWA emergency appeal for $34 million.



Incredibly, Israel also supplies Hamas with cash. It began transferring truckloads of cash to Gaza after Hamas’ violent takeover of the territory in June 2007. The first transfer of more than $51 million (delivered in Israeli shekels) was purportedly to strengthen the influence of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the Gaza Strip and pay the salaries of 35,000 Palestinian Authority employees then allegedly loyal to him. Among those employees, however, were Ismail Haniya, the Hamas-appointed prime minister in Gaza, and Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas’ foreign minister.

Zahar prides himself on many successful terrorist attacks against Israel, and his position regarding Israel is clear. “All of Palestine, every inch of Palestine belongs to the Muslims,” he has said. If the goal was to strengthen Abbas’ position, the cash should have been delivered to him in the West Bank city of Ramallah. From there, he could have transferred the money to Gaza, as he has done in the past, and claim credit for it.

Yet the Israelis relied on Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s promise that the money would not reach Hamas or be used for any terrorist activity–even though Fayyad has little control over Palestinian Authority funds in Fatah-controlled West Bank, let alone in Hamas-controlled Gaza. Not long ago, Fayyad himself stated (and not for the first time) that controlling Palestinian finances “is virtually impossible.” Besides, promises by Fatah leaders that they will stop funds from going to Hamas are dubious at best.

Despite Fatah-Hamas disagreements, the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah-led government announced on Jan. 15, 2008, its intentions to give Hamas 40% ($3.1 billion) of the $7.4 billion pledged in December 2007 by international donors. In October 2008, despite the crackdown on Fatah members in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority was paying the salaries of 77,000 “employees.”



In December 2008, under U.S. and international pressure, Israel delivered between $64 million and $77 million in cash to Gaza. When Hamas rocket attacks intensified, Israeli banks started refusing to transfer cash to Gaza. World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and Tony Blair, who is now Mideast envoy for the E.U., Russia, the U.N. and the U.S., sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert complaining that such refusals are “counterproductive and ultimately harm Palestinian moderates.” Clearly, the world community is set on seeing the terrorist group Hamas as legitimate. But demanding that Israel pay its own executioners goes way too far."



Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 28, 2014, 08:10:35 PM

Dr. Ehrenfield does great work, and is a modern hero in my opinion.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on July 29, 2014, 07:05:12 AM

Thomas Sowell:
" If ceasefires were the road to peace, the Middle East would easily be the most peaceful place on the planet."
Cease the Ceasefires     (read it all)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383996/cease-ceasefires-thomas-sowell

Victor Davis Hanson:
"Hamas sees the death of its civilians as an advantage; Israel sees the death of its civilians as a disaster. "
"When Israel wins militarily, it seems to lose politically. When Hamas loses, it seems to win."

"Timidity explains much of the Europeans’ easy damnation of Israel. Putin escapes the disdain accorded to Netanyahu, because Netanyahu governs a small nation and is predictably reasonable; Putin governs a large one and is predictably unreasonable. Trashing Putin might involve some risk; trashing Netanyahu brings psychological relief. If Israel were large and Netanyahu demonic, and if Russia were small and Putin Westernized and reasonable, then our cheap scorn would be leveled at Russia and not Israel."

" If Israel blows up Hamas’s tunnels, dismantles its arsenals, destroys its missiles, devastates its military, and leaves Hamas weak and discredited, the world will quietly turn its attention away in a sort of grudging admiration of Israel’s success, with an unspoken conclusion that Hamas may have gotten what it asked for. And those left amid the wreckage that Hamas brought upon them will among themselves blame Hamas as much as Israel for their miseries — in the tradition in which losers blame their own dictators as much as they blame the victors."

"Israel must ensure that Hamas nevertheless loses far more than Israel itself does, not because the world will publicly sympathize with the cause of the Jewish state, but because, for all its ideological chest-pounding, an amoral world still privately gravitates to the successful and distances itself from the failed. Only if Israel finishes its ongoing dismantling of Hamas will the current war end."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383942/winning-loselose-war-victor-davis-hanson/page/0/1

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 29, 2014, 08:07:59 AM

Or China. China breaks up Muslim riots with live ammo. China occupies what the uighurs call "eastern turkministan".

Where is the outrage?

Look at the brutality in Syria, any global outrage of that?

Title: Comment Rachel?
Post by: G M on July 29, 2014, 10:13:53 AM

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/350799.php

Title: Iran to arm West Bank with missiles
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2014, 09:44:59 AM

video at http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/in-case-anyone-still-thinks-the-two-state-solution-is-a-good-idea?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Iran+Vows+to+Arm+Arabs+in+Judea+and+Samaria&utm_campaign=20140730_m121531978_7%2F30+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Iran+Vows+to+Arm+Arabs+in+Judea+and+Samaria&utm_term=Iranian+official_3A+We_E2_80_99ll+arm+Arabs+in+_27West+Bank_27+with+missiles


In case anyone still thinks the two-state solution is a good idea... Former adviser to Iran’s defense minister said this week that Tehran would seek to arm Palestinians in the West Bank with “strategic weapons” including missiles to target Tel Aviv and Haifa. Iranian researcher Amir Mousavi told Lebanon’s Mayadeen TV channel that “a major reshuffle awaits the region” as “new and significant fronts will be opened all of a sudden, to support the Palestinian cause in the West Bank and Gaza.” “A new front must be opened from the West Bank, after it has been armed, especially with missiles,” Mousavi said in comments relayed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, “because we know very well that the distance between the West Bank and Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other areas is much shorter than the distance from Gaza. Therefore, simple means are required. There is no need for long-range missiles. Short-range missiles can change the entire picture in the occupied lands.”

Watch Here

Mousavi added that Gaza would also receive increased military support from Iran. As for the Palestinian Authority which controls the West Bank and has in recent years cooperated closely with Israel on security issues, Mousavi remarked: “We hope that the brothers in the Palestinian Authority will help rather than impede this.” On Tuesday Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Islamic world to arm Palestinians to allow them to counter what he called Israel’s “genocide” in the Gaza Strip. In a speech marking the Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr, Khamenei said Israel was acting like a “rabid dog” and “a wild wolf,” causing a human catastrophe that must be resisted. “The US president issued a fatwa that the resistance is disarmed so that they cannot respond to all those crimes (committed by Israel),” the supreme leader said, referring to Barack Obama’s call for the “disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarization of Gaza.” “We say the opposite. The world and especially the Islamic world should arm… the Palestinian people.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 30, 2014, 01:57:01 PM

Israel is isolated. It's enemies see this as an opportune moment to strike.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2014, 03:36:56 PM

Hamas has problems too.  Egypt and SA are rooting for Israel.

Title: I am one American Jew this guy does not speak for
Post by: ccp on July 30, 2014, 05:41:41 PM

Proving that he suffers from the mental disorder called *narcissistic liberalism* please read on.  Lets rally around this guy and self flagellate ourselves till we are all murdered and still blame ourselves for it.   

Every time I feel proud of being a Jew I hear or read about this crap and think of only disgust, embarrassment, and shame.
Do other conservative Jews feel this way? 

****a daily independent global news hour

with Amy Goodman & Juan González

Henry Siegman, Leading Voice of U.S. Jewry, on Gaza: "A Slaughter of Innocents"

Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He is the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994 and former executive vice president of the Synagogue Council of America.

Read: “Israel Provoked This War.” By Henry Siegman (Politico)

Given his background, what American Jewish leader Henry Siegman has to say about Israel’s founding in 1948 through the current assault on Gaza may surprise you. From 1978 to 1994, Siegman served as executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Born in Germany three years before the Nazis came to power in 1933, Siegman’s family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement that pushed for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Siegman studied the religion and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, later becoming head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project. In the first of our two-part interview, Siegman discusses the assault on Gaza, the myths surrounding Israel’s founding in 1948, and his own background as a German-Jewish refugee who fled Nazi occupation to later become a leading American Jewish voice and now vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories.

"When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis — and should be a profound crisis in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success," Siegman says. Responding to Israel’s U.S.-backed claim that its assault on Gaza is necessary because no country would tolerate the rocket fire from militants in Gaza, Siegman says: "What undermines this principle is that no country and no people would live the way that Gazans have been made to live. … The question of the morality of Israel’s action depends, in the first instance, on the question, couldn’t Israel be doing something [to prevent] this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human life? Couldn’t they have done something that did not require that cost? And the answer is, sure, they could have ended the occupation."



Transcript


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue our coverage of the Israeli offensive in Gaza, we spend the rest of the hour with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Henry Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power. After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Henry Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He later became head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project.

AMY GOODMAN: Over the years, Henry Siegman has become a vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories and has urged Isral to engage with Hamas. He has called the Palestinian struggle for a state, quote, "the mirror image of the Zionist movement" that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. He recently wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War." Nermeen Shaikh and I sat down with him on Tuesday. I started by asking Henry Siegman if he could characterize the situation in Gaza at the moment.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, it’s disastrous. It’s disastrous, both in political terms, which is to say the situation cannot conceivably, certainly in the short run, lead to any positive results, to an improvement in the lives of either Israelis or Palestinians, and of course it’s disastrous in humanitarian terms, the kind of slaughter that’s taking place there. When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the slaughter of—repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis—and should be a profound crisis—in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success. It leads one virtually to a whole rethinking of this historical phenomenon.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: What do you believe—Mr. Siegman, what do you believe the objectives of Israel are in this present assault on Gaza?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, they have several objectives, although I’m not sure that each of them is specifically responsible for the carnage we’re seeing now. It has what seems on the surface a justifiable objective of ending these attacks, the rockets that come from Gaza and are aimed—it’s hard to say they’re aimed at civilians, because they never seem to land anywhere that causes serious damage, but they could and would have, if not for luck. So, on the face of it, Israel has a right to do what it’s doing now, and, of course, it’s been affirmed by even president of the United States, repeatedly, that no country would agree to live with that kind of a threat repeatedly hanging over it.


But what he doesn’t add, and what perverts this principle, undermines the principle, is that no country and no people would live the way Gazans have been made to live. And consequently, this moral equation which puts Israel on top as the victim that has to act to prevent its situation from continuing that way, and the Palestinians in Gaza, or Hamas, the organization responsible for Gaza, who are the attackers, our media rarely ever points out that these are people who have a right to live a decent, normal life, too. And they, too, must think, "What can we do to put an end to this?"


And this is why in the Politico article that you mentioned, I pointed out the question of the morality of Israel’s action depends, in the first instance, on the question: Couldn’t Israel be doing something in preventing this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human lives? Couldn’t they have done something that didn’t require that cost? And the answer is: Sure, that they could have ended the occupation, with results—whatever the risks are, they certainly aren’t greater than the price being paid now for Israel’s effort to continue and sustain permanently their relationship to the Palestinians.


AMY GOODMAN: When you say that Israel could end the violence by ending the occupation, Israel says it does not occupy Gaza, that it left years ago. I wanted to play a clip for you from MSNBC. It was last week, and the host, Joy Reid, was interviewing the Israeli spokesperson, Mark Regev.




MARK REGEV: Listen, if you’ll allow me to, I want to take issue with one important word you said. You said Israel is the occupying authority. You’re forgetting Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip. We took down all the settlements, and the settlers who didn’t want to leave, we forced them to leave. We pulled back to the 1967 international frontier. There is no Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. We haven’t been there for some eight years.



AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, can you respond?


HENRY SIEGMAN: OK, yeah. That is of course utter nonsense, and for several reasons. First of all, Gaza is controlled completely, like the West Bank, because it is totally surrounded by Israel. Israel could not be imposing the kind of chokehold it has on Gaza if it were not surrounding, if its military were not surrounding Gaza, and not just on the territory, but also on the air, on the sea. No one there can make a move without coming into contact with the Israeli IDF, you know, outside this imprisoned area where Gazans live. So, there’s no one I have encountered, who is involved with international law, who’s ever suggested to me that in international law Gaza is not considered occupied. So that’s sheer nonsense.


But there’s another point triggered by your question to me, and this is the propaganda machine, and these official spokespeople will always tell you, "Take a look at what kind of people these are. Here we turned over Gaza to them. And you’d think they would invest their energies in building up the area, making it a model government and model economy. Instead, they’re working on rockets." The implication here is that they, in effect, offered Palestinians a mini state, and they didn’t take advantage of it, so the issue isn’t really Palestinian statehood. That is the purpose of this kind of critique.


And I have always asked myself, and this has a great deal to do with my own changing views about the policies of governments, not about the Jewish state qua Jewish state, but of the policies pursued by Israeli governments and supported—you know, they say Israel is a model democracy in the Middle East, so you must assume—the public has to assume some responsibility for what the government does, because they put governments in place. So, the question I ask myself: What if the situation were reversed? You know, there is a Talmudic saying in Pirkei Avot, The Ethics of the Fathers: "Al tadin et chavercha ad shetagiah lemekomo," "Don’t judge your neighbor until you can imagine yourself in his place." So, my first question when I deal with any issue related to the Israeli-Palestinian issue: What if we were in their place?


What if the situation were reversed, and the Jewish population were locked into, were told, "Here, you have less than 2 percent of Palestine, so now behave. No more resistance. And let us deal with the rest"? Is there any Jew who would have said this is a reasonable proposition, that we cease our resistance, we cease our effort to establish a Jewish state, at least on one-half of Palestine, which is authorized by the U.N.? Nobody would agree to that. They would say this is absurd. So the expectations that Palestinians—and I’m speaking now about the resistance as a concept; I’m not talking about rockets, whether they were justified or not. They’re not. I think that sending rockets that are going to kill civilians is a crime. But for Palestinians to try, in any way they can, to end this state of affair—and to expect of them to end their struggle and just focus on less than 2 percent to build a country is absurd. That is part of—that’s propaganda, but it’s not a discussion of either politics or morality.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: One of the things that’s repeated most often is, the problem with the Palestinian unity government is, of course, that Hamas is now part of it, and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and also by the United States. I’d just like to read you a short quote from an article that you wrote in 2009 in the London Review of Books. You said, "Hamas is no more a 'terror organisation' ... than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons." Could you elaborate on that and what you see as the parallels between the two?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I’m glad I said that. In fact, I repeated it in a letter to The New York Times the other day, a week or two ago. The fact is that Israel had, pre-state—in its pre-state stage, several terrorist groups that did exactly what Hamas does today. I don’t mean they sent rockets, but they killed innocent people. And they did that in an even more targeted way than these rockets do. Benny Morris published a book that is considered the Bible on that particular period, the war of—


AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Sorry?


AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian, Benny Morris.


HENRY SIEGMAN: The Israeli historian, right, then in the book Righteous Victims, in which he said—I recall, when I read it, I was shocked—in which he—particularly in his most recently updated book, which was based on some new information that the Israel’s Defense—the IDF finally had to open up and publish, that Israeli generals received direct instructions from Ben-Gurion during the War of Independence to kill civilians, or line them up against the wall and shoot them, in order to help to encourage the exodus, that in fact resulted, of 700,000 Palestinians, who were driven out of their—left their homes, and their towns and villages were destroyed. This was terror, even within not just the terrorist groups, the pre-state terrorists, but this is within the military, the Israeli military, that fought the War of Independence. And in this recent book, that has received so much public attention by Ari—you know, My Promised Land.


AMY GOODMAN: Shavit.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Ari Shavit. He describes several such incidents, too. And incidentally, one of the people who—according to Benny Morris, one of the people who received these orders—and they were oral orders, but he, in his book, describes why he believes that these orders were given, were given to none other than Rabin, who was not a general then, but he—and that he executed these orders.


AMY GOODMAN: Meaning?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Meaning?


AMY GOODMAN: What did it mean that he executed these orders, Rabin?


HENRY SIEGMAN: That he executed civilians. And the rationale given for this when Shavit, some years ago, had an interview with Benny Morris and said to him, "My God, you are saying that there was deliberate ethnic cleansing here?" And Morris said, "Yes, there was." And he says, "And you justify it?" And he said, "Yes, because otherwise there would not have been a state." And Shavit did not follow up. And that was one of my turning points myself, when I saw that. He would not follow up and say, "Well, if that is a justification, the struggle for statehood, why can’t Palestinians do that? What’s wrong with Hamas? Why are they demonized if they do what we did?"


AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the Israeli prime minister earlier this month, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowing to punish those responsible for the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the Palestinian teen who was burned alive following the murders of three Israeli teens. But in doing so, Netanyahu drew a distinction between Israel and its neighbors in how it deals with, quote, "murderers."




PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I know that in our society, the society of Israel, there is no place for such murderers. And that’s the difference between us and our neighbors. They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares after them. We don’t. We condemn them, and we put them on trial, and we’ll put them in prison.



AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the difference. Henry Siegman, can you respond?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, the only difference I can think of is that in Israel they made the heads of the two major pre-state terrorist groups prime ministers. So this distinction he’s drawing is simply false; it’s not true. The heads of the two terrorist groups, which incidentally, again, going back to Benny Morris, in his book, Righteous Victims, he writes, in this pre-state account, that the targeting of civilians was started by the Jewish terrorist groups, and the Arab—and the Arab groups followed.


AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about Irgun and the Stern Gang.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, yes. And as you know, both the head of the Irgun and both the head of the Stern Gang—I’m talking about Begin and Shamir—became prime ministers of the state of Israel. And contrary to Netanyahu, public highways and streets are named after them.

AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress. We’ll continue our conversation with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress. I interviewed him Tuesday with Nermeen Shaikh.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to turn, Henry Siegman, to Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, who was speaking to Charlie Rose of PBS. He said Hamas was willing to coexist with Jews but said it would not live, quote, "with a state of occupiers."




KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] I am ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians, and with the Arabs and non-Arabs, and with those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them; however, I do not coexist with the occupiers, with the settlers and those who put a siege on us.


CHARLIE ROSE: It’s one thing to say you want to coexist with the Jews. It’s another thing you want to coexist with the state of Israel. Do you want to coexist with the state of Israel? Do you want to represent—do you want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?


KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] No. I said I do not want to live with a state of occupiers.



NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, speaking to Charlie Rose. Henry Siegman, could you respond to that, and specifically the claim made by Israelis repeatedly that they can’t negotiate with a political organization that refuses the state of Israel’s right to exist in its present form?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. It so happens that in both international custom and international law, political parties, like Hamas, are not required or even ever asked to recognize states, whether they recognize a state or not. The question is whether the government of which they are a part and that makes policy and executes policy, whether that government is prepared to recognize other states. And this is true in the case of Israel, as well, the government of Israel, any government. I, incidentally, discussed this with Meshaal, not once, but several times, face to face, and asked him whether he would be part of a government that recognizes the state of Israel, and he says—and he said, "Yes, provided"—they had a proviso—he said, "provided that the Palestinian public approves that policy." And he repeated to me the fact that—he said, "You’re absolutely right." He says, "People ask us will we recognize the state of Israel, and will we affirm that it’s legitimately a Jewish state." He said, "No, we won’t do that. But we have never said that we will not serve in a government that has public support for that position, that we will not serve in such a government."


But a more important point to be made here—and this is why these distinctions are so dishonest—the state of Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state, which is to say there are parties in Netanyahu’s government—very important parties, not marginal parties—including his own, the Likud, that to this day has an official platform that does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state anywhere in Palestine. And, of course, you have Naftali Bennett’s party, the HaBayit HaYehudi, which says this openly, that there will never be a state, a Palestinian state, anywhere in Palestine. Why hasn’t our government or anyone said, "Like Hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner, and you are a terrorist group, if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as Hamas does"? So the hypocrisy in the discussion that is taking place publicly is just mind-boggling.


AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, you’re the head, the former head, of one of the leading Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Congress.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Two of them, also of the Synagogue Council of America.


AMY GOODMAN: So, these are major establishment Jewish organizations. You said you went to see Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas, not once, but several times to meet with him. The U.S. government calls Hamas a terrorist organization. They will not communicate with them. They communicate with them through other parties, through other countries, to talk to them. Talk about your decision to meet with Khaled Meshaal, where you met with him, and the significance of your conversations.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, first of all, it should be noted that the U.S. has no such policy of not meeting with terrorist organizations. It has a policy of not meeting with Hamas. That’s quite different. We’re very happy to meet with the Taliban and to negotiate with them. And they cut off hands and heads of people, and they kill girls who go to school. And that didn’t prevent the United States from having negotiations with the Taliban, so that’s nonsense that we don’t talk to terrorist organizations. We talk to enemies if we want to cease the slaughter, and we’re happy to do so and to try to reach an agreement that puts an end to it. And why Hamas should be the exception, again, I find dishonest. And the only reason that we do that is in response to the pressures from AIPAC and, of course, Israel’s position. The largest caucus, parliamentary caucus, in Israel’s Knesset is called the caucus of Eretz Yisrael HaShlema, which the Likud leads.


AMY GOODMAN: Explain that in English, "the land of Israel."


HENRY SIEGMAN: An "eretz," in English—in English, it means the whole land of Israel. This is a parliamentary caucus, the largest caucus in the Knesset, which is totally dedicated to not permit any government to establish a Palestinian state anywhere in the land of Israel, headed by Likud, senior Likud members of Knesset, and headed—a party that is headed by the prime minister of Israel. And what boggles the imagination is that no one talks about this, no one points this out, and no one says, "How can you take these positions via Hamas if this is exactly what is going on within your own government that you are heading?"


NERMEEN SHAIKH: Henry Siegman, as you are far more familiar than most, the argument made by Israel and supporters of Israel is that what might be construed as a disproportionate response by Israel to Hamas has to do with the historical experience of the persecution of the Jews and, of course, the Holocaust. So how do you respond to those kinds of claims?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I don’t accept that at all, because the lesson from the persecutions would seem to me—and certainly if you follow Jewish tradition, the lesson of those persecutions, we have always said, until the state of Israel came into being, is that you do not treat people in that kind of an inhumane and cruel way. And the hope always was that Israel would be a model democracy, but not just a democracy, but a state that would practice Jewish values, in terms of its humanitarian approach to these issues, its pursuit of justice and so on.


I have always felt that, for me, the Holocaust experience, which was important to me, since I lived two years under Nazi occupation, most of it running from place to place and in hiding—I always thought that the important lesson of the Holocaust is not that there is evil, that there are evil people in this world who could do the most unimaginable, unimaginably cruel things. That was not the great lesson of the Holocaust. The great lesson of the Holocaust is that decent, cultured people, people we would otherwise consider good people, can allow such evil to prevail, that the German public—these were not monsters, but it was OK with them that the Nazi machine did what it did. Now I draw no comparisons between the Nazi machine and Israeli policy. And what I resent most deeply is when people say, "How dare you invoke the Nazi experience?" The point isn’t, you know, what exactly they did, but the point is the evidence that they gave that decent people can watch evil and do nothing about it. That is the most important lesson of the Holocaust, not the Hitlers and not the SS, but the public that allowed this to happen. And my deep disappointment is that the Israeli public, precisely because Israel is a democracy and cannot say, "We’re not responsible what our leaders do," that the public puts these people back into office again and again.


AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned your experience as a Holocaust survivor. Could you just go into it a little more deeply? You were born in 1930 in Germany. And talk about the rise of the Nazis and how your family escaped.


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I don’t consider myself a Holocaust survivor, in the sense that I was not in a concentration camp. But I lived under Nazi occupation. I was born in 1930, but the Nazis came to power in—I think in 1933. And shortly thereafter, we lived in Germany at the time. My parents lived in Germany, in Frankfurt. And they left. My father decided to give up a very successful business and to move to Belgium then, and on the assumption that Belgium was safe, that we would be escaping the Nazis. But in 1940, the Germans invaded Belgium, and they invaded France. That was in early 1940, I believe. And so, it’s a long story, but for the next—from that point on until February 1942, when we arrived, finally arrived in the United States.


And how my father pulled that off is a miracle; to this day, I don’t fully understand, because there were six children that he had to bring with him, and my mother, of course. We ran from place to place. First we were at Dunkirk, where the classic evacuation, memorable evacuation took place, and the French and the British soldiers withdrew to across the channel. We happened to find ourselves there at the time. And then we were sent back by the—when the Nazi troops finally caught up with us in Dunkirk, they sent us back to Antwerp. And then my father had connections with the police chief, because of his business interests in Antwerp before the Nazis came. He was tipped off the morning that we were supposed to be—the Gestapo was supposed to come to our house to take all of us away. And so we just picked up, and we managed to get to Paris. And from Paris, we crossed—we were smuggled across the border into occupied Vichy France, and we were there for about a year, again without proper papers and in hiding. Then we tried to cross into Spain. And we did, but when we arrived at the Spanish border, they finally closed the border and sent us back into France.


So, then we managed to get a boat to take us from Marseille to North Africa, where we were interned briefly in a camp in North Africa. And then the—what I believe was the last ship, a Portuguese, a neutral ship, taking refugees to the United States stopped in North Africa. We boarded that ship. And we were on the high seas for two months, because the Nazi subs were already busy sinking the ships that they encountered. So we had to go all the way around to avoid various Nazi submarine-infested areas.


So after two months on the high seas, we arrived in New York, where we were sent to Ellis Island, which was full of Bundists, who had been German Bundists, who were arrested and were being sent back to Germany. But as we walked into Ellis Island into that hallway, something I will never forget, "We’re in America at last!" And those Bundists were greeting each other in the hallway, "Heil Hitler!" So the "Heil Hitlers" that we were trying to escape in Europe was the first thing we encountered as we landed on Ellis Island.


AMY GOODMAN: And how did you end up becoming head of one of the country’s—or, as you said, country’s two major Jewish organizations? And what was your position on Zionism after World War II?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, my father was one of the leaders of European Zionism. He was the head of the Mizrachi in the religious Zionist movement, not just in Belgium, but in Western Europe. And the leaders, the heads, the founders of the Mizrachi—mayor of Berlin himself, Gold, many others—were guests in our house in Antwerp. And they used to take me on their knees and teach me Hebrew songs from Israel. So, I had—I was raised on mother’s milk, and I was an ardent—as a kid even, an ardent Zionist. I recall on the ship coming over, we were coming to America, and I was writing poetry and songs—I was 10 years old, 11 years old—about the blue sky of Palestine. In those days we referred to it as Palestina, Palestine.


And so, into adulthood, not until well after the ’67 War, when I came across—and I got to know Rabin and others, and I came across a discussion in which I was told by Israelis, by the Israeli people who I was talking to, government, senior government people, that they had an initiative from Sadat about peace and withdrawal and so on. And Rabin said, "But clearly, the Israeli public is not prepared for that now." And that hit me like a hammer. I always had this notion drilled into me that if only the Arabs were to reach out and be willing to live in peace with Israel, that would be the time of the Messiah. And the Messiah came, and the Israeli leadership said, "No, public opinion is not ready for that." And I wrote a piece then in Moment magazine—if you recall, it was published by Leonard Fein—and he made it a cover story, and the title was, "For the Sake of Zion, I Will Not Remain Silent." And that triggered my re-examination of things I had been told and what was going on on the ground.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: Prior to that, your sense had always been that if the Arabs reached out, there would be two states: Palestine and Israel.


HENRY SIEGMAN: I had no doubt about that. I mean, that was, you know, just a given, that we are sharing. The resolution said, you know, two states. The resolution, which Israel—the partition resolution, which Israel invoked in its Declaration of Independence, planted, rooted its legitimacy in that—it cited the Palestinian—the partition plan. But when someone these days says, "But there’s a partition plan that said that the rest of it, that was not assigned to Israel, is the legitimate patrimony of the Palestinian people," the answer given is, "Ah, yeah, but they voted they would not accept it, and the partition plan was never officially adopted." Well, why are you quoting it then in your Declaration of Independence, if you consider it to be null and void and not—anyway.


AMY GOODMAN: And the response of—or the slogan, the idea that was put forward so much in the founding of the state of Israel: Palestine is a land without people for a people without land?


HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, that was the common understanding and referred to repeatedly in Ari Shavit’s book and others, that the Zionist movement, at its very birth, was founded on an untruth, on a myth, that Palestine was a country without a people. And as he says, obviously—and he recognizes in his book that it was a lie. And therefore, from the very beginning, Zionism didn’t confront this profound moral dilemma that lay at its very heart. How do you deal with that reality? And as a consequence of that, one of the ways in which they dealt with it was to see to the expulsion of 700,000 people from their cities, from their towns and villages, and the destruction of all of them, which, to his credit, Ari Shavit writes about very painfully and honestly.

AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He’s the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress as well as the Synagogue Council of America. He recently wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War." We’ll link to it at democracynow.org. Tune in tomorrow for part two of our conversation with Henry Siegman, where he talks about U.S. support for Israel and U.S. media coverage.

By the way, Democracy Now! has a job opening. We have an opening for an on-air graphic designer and CG operator. Visit democracynow.org for more information.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 30, 2014, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2014, 03:36:56 PM

Hamas has problems too.  Egypt and SA are rooting for Israel.

Because Israel is their last shot at preventing Iran from eventually nuking them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2014, 06:02:42 PM

That is one reason; dislike of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is another.  

Title: WSJ: Bret Stephens: Palestine makes you dumb
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 31, 2014, 06:40:58 AM

Palestine Makes You Dumb
To argue the Palestinian side, in the Gaza war, is to make the case for barbarism.
By Bret Stephens

July 28, 2014 7:29 p.m. ET

Of all the inane things that have been said about the war between Israel and Hamas, surely one dishonorable mention belongs to comments made over the weekend by Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

Interviewed by CNN's Candy Crowley, Mr. Rhodes offered the now-standard administration line that Israel has a right to defend itself but needs to do more to avoid civilian casualties. Ms. Crowley interjected that, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jewish state was already doing everything it could to avoid such casualties.

"I think you can always do more," Mr. Rhodes replied. "The U.S. military does that in Afghanistan."

How inapt is this comparison? The list of Afghan civilians accidentally killed by U.S. or NATO strikes is not short. Little of the fighting in Afghanistan took place in the dense urban environments that make the current warfare in Gaza so difficult. The last time the U.S. fought a Gaza-style battle—in Fallujah in 2004—some 800 civilians perished and at least 9,000 homes were destroyed. This is not an indictment of U.S. conduct in Fallujah but an acknowledgment of the grim reality of city combat.

Oh, and by the way, American towns and cities were not being rocketed from above or tunneled under from below as the Fallujah campaign was under way.
Enlarge Image

Ben Rhodes, a White House victim of the Palestine Effect. mandel ngan/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Maybe Mr. Rhodes knows all this and was merely caught out mouthing the sorts of platitudes that are considered diplomatically de rigueur when it comes to the Palestinians. Or maybe he was just another victim of what I call the Palestine Effect: The abrupt and often total collapse of logical reasoning, skeptical intelligence and ordinary moral judgment whenever the subject of Palestinian suffering arises.

Consider the media obsession with the body count. According to a daily tally in the New York Times, NYT +0.63% as of July 27 the war in Gaza had claimed 1,023 Palestinian lives as against 46 Israelis. How does the Times keep such an accurate count of Palestinian deaths? A footnote discloses "Palestinian death tallies are provided by the Palestinian Health Ministry and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs."

OK. So who runs the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza? Hamas does. As for the U.N., it gets its data mainly from two Palestinian agitprop NGOs, one of which, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, offers the remarkably precise statistic that, as of July 27, exactly 82% of deaths in Gaza have been civilians. Curiously, during the 2008-09 Gaza war, the center also reported an 82% civilian casualty rate.

When minutely exact statistics are provided in chaotic circumstances, it suggests the statistics are garbage. When a news organization relies—without clarification—on data provided by a bureaucratic organ of a terrorist organization, there's something wrong there, too.

But let's assume for argument's sake that the numbers are accurate. Does this mean the Palestinians are the chief victims, and Israelis the main victimizers, in the conflict? By this dull logic we might want to rethink the moral equities of World War II, in which over one million German civilians perished at Allied hands compared with just 67,000 British and 12,000 American civilians.

The real utility of the body count is that it offers reporters and commentators who cite it the chance to ascribe implicit blame to Israel while evading questions about ultimate responsibility for the killing. Questions such as: Why is Hamas hiding rockets in U.N.-run schools, as acknowledged by the U.N. itself? What does it mean that Hamas has turned Gaza's central hospital into "a de facto headquarters," as reported by the Washington Post? And why does Hamas keep rejecting, or violating, cease-fires agreed to by Israel?

A reasonable person might conclude from this that Hamas, which started the war, wants it to continue, and that it relies on Israel's moral scruples not to destroy civilian sites that it cynically uses for military purposes. But then there is the Palestine Effect. By this reasoning, Hamas only initiated the fighting because Israel refused to countenance the creation of a Palestinian coalition that included Hamas, and because Israel further objected to helping pay the salaries of Hamas's civil servants in Gaza.

Let's get this one straight. Israel is culpable because (a) it won't accept a Palestinian government that includes a terrorist organization sworn to the Jewish state's destruction; (b) it won't help that organization out of its financial jam; and (c) it won't ease a quasi-blockade—jointly imposed with Egypt—on a territory whose central economic activity appears to be building rocket factories and pouring imported concrete into terrorist tunnels.

This is either bald moral idiocy or thinly veiled bigotry. It mistakes effect for cause, treats self-respect as arrogance and self-defense as aggression, and makes demands of the Jewish state that would be dismissed out of hand anywhere else. To argue the Palestinian side, in this war, is to make the case for barbarism. It is to erase, in the name of humanitarianism, the moral distinctions from which the concept of humanity arises.

Typically, the Obama administration is hedging its bets. The Palestine Effect claims another victim

==========================

The Israeli military announced it has called up 16,000 reservists and Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to complete the destruction of Hamas's tunnel network in Gaza. Netanyahu said, "We are determined to continue to complete this mission with or without a cease-fire." The military reported it has uncovered 32 tunnels, and that it would take "a few more days" to destroy that tunnels it has located. Additionally, a U.S. defense official said the United States has allowed Israel access to a weapons stockpile for a resupply of grenades and mortar rounds. In 24-days of fighting, an estimated 1,372 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, as well as 56 Israeli soldiers and three civilians. An Israeli strike on a busy market near Gaza City killed an estimated 17 people on Wednesday. Palestinians believed there was a temporary cease-fire in place, however Israel said that the area was a combat zone. The United Nations has accused Israel of violating international law for shelling a U.N. school on Wednesday that was being used to shelter refugees. U.N. officials said 20 people were killed and dozens were wounded in the attack. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has also accused Hamas militants of committing war crimes.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 31, 2014, 06:49:33 AM

Where is the hand wringing over muslims killed by others than Israelis?

Title: Have babies to kill Jews
Post by: ccp on July 31, 2014, 07:53:55 AM

It's right here.  Palestinians having babies up there with the highest rates in the world.   Many even point out it is to sacrifice them against Israel.   Where is the world condemnation of this?:

Palastinina birth rate explodes


April 21, 2002|By Tom Hundley Foreign Correspondent


SHUFAT REFUGEE CAMP, Israel — Married at 15, she gave birth to her first child less than a year later. Six months ago, she gave birth to her eighth. Fatima Shaher, 31, a Palestinian woman with dark eyes and an easy smile, loves children. She said she expects to have more.

In recent weeks, Israel has been unnerved by a ferocious wave of suicide bombs that has turned the simple act of boarding a city bus or eating in a crowded restaurant into an existential calculation. But some Israelis say that ticking beneath the surface of the violent confrontation between Arab and Jew, is a silent bomb, a demographic bomb.

Shaher and other Palestinian women are producing babies at one of the highest rates in the world. While Israelis are alarmed by the trend, Palestinians have mixed views. Some see it as their ultimate weapon; Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat once referred to Palestinian mothers as his "biological bomb." Others see the explosive birth rate as a catastrophe that will keep the Palestinians mired in poverty and despair.

Among Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the annual birth rate is 40 for every 1,000 of population; among Palestinians living in Israel, it drops slightly to 36 per 1,000. The birth rate among Jews across the region is 18.3 per thousand -- high by European standards but less than half that of the Palestinians.

At the moment, the population is evenly balanced between Arabs and Jews. But as the competition heats up for scarce living space and water resources, the Palestinians are on the brink of a population explosion that will swamp the Jewish populace in less than a generation.

The dry, narrow strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is already crowded with 9.7 million people. Arnon Sofer, a demographer at Israel's Haifa University, predicted last year that by 2020 the number of people living on the land will swell to 15.2 million, 58 percent of them non-Jews.

Similarly, a U.N. study predicts that by 2050 the population in the West Bank and Gaza will almost quadruple to almost 12 million.

Pointing to these numbers, Israeli leftists argue that the creation of a separate Palestinian state is the only way to guarantee the "Jewishness" of the Jewish state. On the Israeli right, the numbers have generated discussion of cruder measures. Among them, large transfers of Palestinians to neighboring Arab states, sufficiently crippling the instruments of Palestinian self-rule so that it poses no threat to Jewish domination, or imposing a "Chinese rule" that strictly limits the number of children Palestinian couples may have.

Many Palestinian politicians, on the other hand, are heartened by the statistics, thinking that if they just hang tough, time is on their side. As the present crisis worsens in the occupied territories, the Palestinian population, especially its men, cling to this straw.

"When we used to have land, we had many children to help with the work. Now we are having many children to help us recover our land," said Muhammad Nofal, 45, an unemployed driver who has seven children. He and his family live in the Shufat refugee camp, on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

"I have six sons, three for the struggle and three for me," he said, echoing the words of Arafat, who famously

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2014, 08:52:59 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/02/obama-administration-is-not-to-ever-second-guess-me-again-israeli-prime-minister-lashes-out/

Title: POTH: Hamas' tunnel tactics giving Israel a hard time
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2014, 09:05:51 AM

In Tunnel War, Israeli Playbook Offers Few Ideas
NYT
By ISABEL KERSHNERAUG. 1, 2014

JERUSALEM — Israel entered its latest conflict with Hamas armed with a high-tech arsenal, real-time battlefield intelligence and strong domestic support for dealing a heavy blow to Hamas.

But again on Friday, Israeli forces were taken by surprise, this time with two soldiers killed and one taken prisoner when militants once again attacked from a tunnel in Gaza.

As frustration grows in Israel over the military’s limited success so far in trying to neutralize Hamas, the militant Islamic group that governs Gaza, some military experts say it is increasingly evident that the Israel Defense Forces have been operating from an old playbook and are not fully prepared for a more sophisticated, battle-ready adversary. The issue is not specifically the tunnels — which Israel knew about — but the way Hamas fighters trained to use them to create what experts in Israel are calling a “360-degree front.”

 

“Hamas has changed its doctrine and is using the tunnels as a main method of operation,” said Israel Ziv, a retired general who headed the military’s Gaza division and its operations directorate. “This is something we learned amid the fighting.”


An underground look at Hamas’s tunnels into Israel.
Video Credit By Carrie Halperin and Sofia Perpetua on Publish Date July 22, 2014. Image CreditJim Hollander/European Pressphoto Agency

Of the 32 fortified tunnels that the Israeli military has exposed so far, at least 11 run deep beneath the border into Israeli territory. Others are part of an underground labyrinth inside Gaza connecting buildings, weapons stores and concealed rocket launchers.

Israeli troops in Gaza described Hamas gunmen who vanished from one house, like magicians, and suddenly popped up to fire at them from another. And while Hamas fighters are able to use the tunnels to surprise the forces from behind and to attack those in the rear, Israeli soldiers find themselves having to improvise.

In the Gaza war that began in late 2008, 10 Israeli soldiers were killed, four of them from friendly fire. This time, 63 soldiers have been killed, mostly in combat, and one is now a prisoner.

“The military has been playing it by ear,” said Amos Harel, a military affairs analyst for the newspaper Haaretz, who added that despite the Israeli military’s knowledge of the tunnels, its planners did not draft a new doctrine for prosecuting a land invasion. “But it is pretty good at doing that, and has done it many times.”

In this latest asymmetrical war with Hamas, the third in five years, Israel thought it was prepared. It had built up an integrated communications systems able to transfer intelligence in real time to air and ground forces, an advancement that military officials called a “force multiplier.”

Precision-guided missiles have destroyed up to a third of Hamas’s rocket stocks, according to Israeli officials, as well as hundreds of houses or apartments that the military described as militant command-and-control centers and many other weapons production sites and stores. In 24 days of intense bombing, 4,300 targets have been hit.
Photo
Israeli soldiers prepare to enter Gaza. Credit Uriel Sinai for The New York Times

Hamas still has up to 4,000 rockets, beyond the more than 3,000 that it has fired into Israel. More than 1,600 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians, according to Gaza officials, stirring international outrage and raising demands for a cease-fire.
Continue reading the main story

And while Israel says it has killed hundreds of militants and arrested scores more, Hamas’s senior military command and political leadership remain intact.

“The leadership hides underground, like under Shifa Hospital,” said Eado Hecht, a military analyst who teaches at the Israeli military’s Command and General Staff College and at Bar-Ilan and Haifa Universities.

What Israel was apparently less ready for was Hamas fighters who are willing to engage and are trained to use tunnels, a tool of war whose roots go back to antiquity. During Israel’s last ground incursion in the winter of 2008-9, Hamas fighters largely avoided clashes, melting into the crowded urban landscape. This time, they were prepared for combat.

“What surprised me was the operational plans they built,” said Atai Shelach, a former commander of the military’s combat engineering unit.

The tunnels themselves, while well known, have also presented a challenge. After years of research there is still no technological solution for detecting and destroying them from afar, officials said. The shafts leading to Hamas’s labyrinth are “inside houses, so we won’t see them from the air,” said Mr. Hecht, the military analyst.
Continue reading the main story
Graphic
In Gaza, a Pattern of Conflict

Similarities and differences in the last three major conflicts between Israel and Hamas.
OPEN Graphic

“You have to go house to house and check,” he added.

On Thursday, the military distributed video footage of two tunnel shafts discovered under a prayer room in a mosque.

As Israel’s forces have slowly advanced, they have pummeled neighborhoods with heavy artillery, which analysts said was militarily necessary to safeguard soldiers. Those tactics have also drawn international condemnation for devastating civilian homes and infrastructure, and taking so many lives. “In a dense urban environment, you need to use aggressive force to save soldiers’ lives,” Mr. Harel, the military affairs analyst, said.

Special forces are equipped with portable Israeli-made Spike antitank guided missiles with ranges of 1.5 to 15 miles. Yiftah Shapir, a weapons expert at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said they could be used for almost anything, and were so accurate that they could pinpoint a window on a building.

Hamas has also upgraded its weaponry. Aside from its rockets, some of which can reach almost to the northern Israeli port city of Haifa, its arsenal includes antiaircraft and antitank missiles.

The number of Palestinian casualties in Gaza is comparable to that in the 2008-9 conflict, when about 1,400 were killed, according to Palestinian figures. Israel put the figure at closer to 1,120.
Photo
Tanks near the border. Frustration is growing in Israel over the military’s limited success so far in trying to neutralize Hamas. Credit Uriel Sinai for The New York Times

Still, a decisive Israeli victory over Hamas remains elusive.

“The question is not military; the question is what does Israel want,” said Yaakov Amidror, a retired general who served as Israel’s national security adviser until November. To bring complete quiet to Gaza would require a takeover and occupation of the territory for six months to a year, he said. Israel, which unilaterally withdrew its forces and settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2005, has little appetite to return.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

What is left, military officials say, is to create deterrence. In recent years, Israeli strategists have spoken of the “Dahiya doctrine,” referring to Israel’s flattening of the Dahiya district in Beirut, a Shiite neighborhood that housed the command-and-control headquarters of Hezbollah, during its 34-day war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. The idea was to inflict such damage that the other side would decide confrontation was not worthwhile.

While many Israelis deemed that war a failure, it has restored quiet to Israel’s northern border for the last eight years.

But experts say the Dahiya doctrine does not apply to Gaza. The Hamas command is not concentrated in one area, and the leader of the movement, Khaled Meshal, lives in exile, “in a five-star hotel in Qatar,” as Mr. Amidror put it, where the impact of the destruction is less immediate.

Gabi Siboni, who runs the military and strategic affairs program at the Institute for National Security Studies, said another reason was that Hamas “is not accountable, not to the world and not to its citizens.” By embedding its forces and fighting from within the population centers, he said, Hamas has raised its willingness “to sacrifice” its civilians “to an art form.”

Hamas has said it is fighting to lift the economic blockade from Gaza and wants an opening of the passages controlled by Israel and Egypt, among other things — demands that would be addressed if substantive cease-fire talks were to take place in Cairo. Israel wants blocks on Hamas’s ability to rearm and, eventually, to see Gaza demilitarized.

Title: Israeli Arab speaks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2014, 03:42:01 PM

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24734/Default.aspx

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2014, 09:13:20 AM

Forwarded to me by a sometimes reliable friend:


From: MAXIMUS <editorsof@aol.com>
Date: August 2, 2014 at 4:26:59  PM MDT
Subject: Fwd: Frontline War Update,  33 Attack Tunnels Found...43  IDF
Soldiers KIA, Massive C2 C4I

Lt. Col. Robert K. Brown, USAR (Ret.) 
Editor, Publisher, Soldier of Fortune Magazine
NRA BOD
*****
Interesting, Comes from a good  source.

Subject: Well informed update from Israel

>From the net…courtesy of a friend…appears to be authentic…

>From  an Israeli soldier on the front lines  who’s telling it as it is, to
a  member of his family.

Hi - Everything ok here – a couple of sirens, into  the security, stay the
mandatory 8-10 minutes and then pop out again and try to  pick up where we
left off.

Not so easy.

But we are glued to the  radio and all the TV are on in every room just in
case a new piece of news is  aired and to hear if we suffered any more
casualties

Last night one of  our war correspondents - Alon Ben David –a very
reputable journalist with  decades of experience in security affairs- if you ever
need a fluent English  journalist to explain what is going on for some
occasion in your area- have them  hire him  –from channel 10 news

In any case he just filed a 25  minute report from within  Gaza
accompanying the brigade commander as they  went from post to post and we could clearly
see that almost in every house there  was a tunnel opening, hidden
explosives, mines, rig's, rocket launchers outside  etc. – almost in every civilian
home

He pointed out a command center –  abandoned by Hamas with plasma screens
that were fed by cameras focused on the  border fence tracking every IDF
patrol.

Today, the IDF doesn't chances  -  find a booby-trapped house or getting
fired on from a house- (and we  lost 3 paratroopers who entered a
booby-trapped home and were killed- , they  call in the massive D-9 caterpillar
tractors- huge monsters, with heavily  armored plates and they just push the house
down, burying anyone inside and  setting off explosives

They have engaged terrorists and killed them all  –in fact Hamas has lost
hundreds of its fighters, many buried alive under houses  and in their own
tunnels, and many are giving themselves up

They have  found dead Hamas terrorists in the tunnels  – you could say in 3
versions  for want of a better word:
•  Fighters- heavily armed and in IDf  uniforms
•  Suicide bombers- with bomb vests on them
•  Large or  heavy set Hamas people- why? Because they were meant to be
ones to kidnap either  live or dead Israelis and carry them back in the tunnels
into Gaza-. They  trained especially just for this task.
Unbelievable!!

And the  destruction is awesome- sewgiya, khan unis, -are almost leveled to
the ground-  just like what the IDF did to Nasrallah in the Dacha. Warnings
were given to  residents to evacuate – and over 100,000 did just that.

But others either did not heed or could not –as Hamas leveled weapons  at
them forcing them to stay – and therefore they unfortunately pad the price. 
It's always the question of intent. They target our civilian cities just for
the  purpose to inflict death. We target hamas strongholds in civilian
areas who are  using residents and their homes as shields. Not to mention
ambulances filled  with ammunition and explosives.

But we also paid a high price - 43  soldiers and officers- many of them
high ranking as they lead their forces into  battle - in other armies this does
not occur – died and it is hard to accept.  But the calls from within the
home front is to carry on.

The news of the  tunnels are headliners and you are going to fall off your
seat when i tell  you
•  31-33 attack tunnels were known to exist –heading towards Israel.  The
intelligence knew about them and the answers as to why will have to be given 
after the war is over.

•  They uncovered 31 and have destroyed 16 of them and no matter  whether
there's a ceasefire or not –these  have to be destroyed. We said  before that
their purpose was the mega hit over Rosh Hashanah 2014 with them  emerging
from 31 tunnels with thousands of fighters and slaughtering Jews. A  miracle
that we entered the campaign today and not after September.

•  Smuggling tunnels were in the hundreds but are of no  significance to us
as Egypt dealt with them and destroyed – they say –over 90%  of them as
their openings were in Egypt.

•  But the city under the city is the big news. We knew they had  an
extensive tunnel system but we know hear that there are 5000- yes 5000 
administrative, or command or logistical, communication tunnels crisscrossing  Gaza
allowing Hamas free movement underground almost all across the Strip. I  think
it may be almost of the same proportion as what the Vietcong had during 
the Vietnam war. Where was the soil put. Mostly in green houses and in house 
basements where the drones could not penetrate 

So to sum it up  till now:

•  3700 hamas targets attacked sine the operation began

•  2600 during the ground offensive

•  350 command centers of Hamas destroyed

•  Over 300 Hamas terrorists killed- and more still under the  rubble.
Hamas tries to take the bodies away before we get to them

•  IDF has used over 100 tons of explosive to explode the tunnels  so far

•  The air force struck at 80 targets over the weekend

•  Hamas has fired over 938 rockets since the fighting began

•  180 intercepted by Iron dome – the rest in open spaces and few  scored
direct hits

•  We have lost 43 of our solders and 124 are in hospital, 1  mortally
wounded and 1 still missing

Ceasefire:

•  Kerry tried but has it all wrong . He just doesn’t seem to  understand
the middle east mentality
•  He tried to put forward a  proposal that was virtually a copy of the
Qatar and Turkish proposal giving  Hamas almost all that they wanted with no
mention of Israel's defense needs or  allowing us to destroy the tunnels
during the ceasefire

•  Israel rejected it and the only one real one with any chance of  success
is Egypt's proposal

•  There have been 3 attempts at ceasefire – we accepted but Hamas 
breached it each time

•  Hamas asked for the lasts ceasefire- a sign of weakness or  desperation?
–who knows- in any case it was for 24 hours to allow the residents  to
stock up for the Idle fit festival in 24 hour's time.

•  It didn’t take 45 minutes for Hamas to open up with a rocket  barrage
again

•  So in essence there is no ceasefire

•  As for the residents coming out of the camps to pick up  belongings from
their homes in segiya or khan unis (major Hamas strongholds) was  a waste
of time as there was nothing for them to return to

•  They are openly accusing Hamas for what is going on but cannot  do
anything for fear of death

•  Haniyeh is still underground and doesn’t quite know what awaits  him

•  Mashal is still on his tread mill sweating hard but only from  exertion,
 but will regain his composure after  a good gourmet meal at  the Qatar
Hilton – could not resist it

•  Muhammad Def. is still controlling Hamas and he doesn’t care as  he has
lost 2 legs, is in a wheelchair, and lost the use of 1 arm but is 
determined to fight tile the last Gaza resident

•  By the way the IDF says it knows where he is but it is too  complicated
to get at him and the price of losing our soldiers is not worth it .  But we
have al long memory and a long arm and his time will come. There is a 
saying in Arabic-  "kol kelb b'dyomo " – loosely translated –every dog has  his
day

So we carry on and see what happens overnight and  tomorrow

More later
Effi
*****
Molon Labe
*****
Jack

Title: Hamas's secret bunker under hospital
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2014, 09:50:25 PM

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180730/top-secret-hamas-command-bunker-in-gaza-revealed#undefined

Title: Iran supplying Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2014, 11:49:03 PM

second post

Click here to watch: Iran’s Proxy War Against Israel

While the mainstream media has focused solely on Hamas and Israel in the current ongoing war, there has been less attention given to the major role that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been playing in ratcheting up the conflict with its military assistance to Hamas fighters, including Iranian-built Fajr 5 and M-75 with ranges of approximately 75 kilometers. These are missiles and rockets that can target cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. It is worth noting that the export of arms as well as military and weaponry assistance by the Islamic Republic to Hamas is legally prohibited by the United Nations Security Council, written in UN Resolution 1747. Although Iranian leaders often deny that they are supporting Hamas militarily, some, including former Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, admitted that the Islamic Republic has been supplying military aid and technology to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. On the Iranian parliament’s website, Larijani stated, “We are honored to provide the Palestinian people with military aid, while all Arabic countries do is hold meetings. Palestinian people do not need lectures and meetings.” In addition, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Mohammad, Ali Jafari, admitted that Iran is supplying weapons to Hamas and other groups: “Iran provides technical assistance to all Muslims who fight against world arrogance.” What is Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s stance? Is he truly a moderate? Rouhani’s stance on arming Hamas and standing against Israel is no different from his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Watch Here

In fact, across Iran’s political spectrum, there is no difference with regard to their position towards arming Hamas and fighting Israel. They all share anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinians views. In addition, whenever the international community or the United States has attempted to broker a peace, Iranian leaders have attempted to scuttle it. Their view is the same as what Ahmadinejad previously conveyed: “Who gave them [Mahmoud Abbas’ negotiating team] the right to sell a piece of Palestinian land? The people of Palestine and the people of the region will not allow them to sell even an inch of Palestinian soil to the enemy. The negotiations are stillborn and doomed.” The Iranian leaders hypocritically and frequently point out that the reasons they support the Palestinians and Hamas are humanitarian. Nevertheless, the main reason is advancing Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions and its strategic, geopolitical and ideological goals. In addition, the Islamic Republic has been seeking to project its regional hegemonic supremacy by supporting not only Shiite groups such as Hezbollah (Lebanon), Bashar Al Assad (Syria), and Nori Al Maliki (Iraq), but also penetrating the Sunni communities and supporting groups such as Hamas. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran, the main foreign policy objectives of the Islamic Republic have been rivalry and antagonism towards the United Sates and its ally Israel. Under the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s foreign policy has not shifted and it is crucial to draw attention to Iran’s intervention and military assistance as the Islamic Republic is major player in ratcheting up the ongoing war.

Title: Partners in peace! (blood libel)
Post by: G M on August 04, 2014, 04:33:09 PM

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/350950.php

Title: Hard choices
Post by: G M on August 05, 2014, 05:40:24 AM

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-hannibal-directive/

Title: School attack appears to be staged
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2014, 06:16:28 PM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/gaza-school-attack-now-appears-to-be-staged?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Gaza+School+Attack+Now+Appears+To+Be+Staged&utm_campaign=20140805_m121610881_8%2F6+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Gaza+School+Attack+Now+Appears+To+Be+Staged&utm_term=Gaza+School+Attack+Now+Appears+To+Be+Staged

Title: Re: School attack appears to be staged
Post by: G M on August 05, 2014, 06:50:46 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2014, 06:16:28 PM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/gaza-school-attack-now-appears-to-be-staged?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Gaza+School+Attack+Now+Appears+To+Be+Staged&utm_campaign=20140805_m121610881_8%2F6+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Gaza+School+Attack+Now+Appears+To+Be+Staged&utm_term=Gaza+School+Attack+Now+Appears+To+Be+Staged

Hoo-ray for Pallywood!

Title: A primer on Pallywood
Post by: G M on August 05, 2014, 06:59:13 PM

http://legalinsurrection.com/tag/pallywood/

Title: And the dead shall rise , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 06, 2014, 08:15:51 AM

https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/1228086_539251679495684_229873947_n.mp4?oh=693044881600f62c0faba1eeabed3d59&oe=53E25CCC&__gda__=1407345056_9cc02407da2039f9129fd6d41bcb2f83

Title: WSJ: Israel-Egypt Alliance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2014, 04:47:40 PM

Gaza Tension Stoked by Unlikely Alliance Between Israel and Egypt
Strategy of Squeezing Hamas Was Effective, but Helped Lead to Open Warfare, Officials Believe
By Adam Entous in Jerusalem and Nicholas Casey in Gaza
WSJ
Aug. 6, 2014 10:38 p.m. ET

The plan was simple: Israel and the new military-led government in Egypt would work together to ratchet up pressure on their shared enemy in the Gaza Strip - Hamas. But their miscalculations triggered a crisis. WSJ's Adam Entous joins the News Hub to discuss. Photo: Getty

Israel and Egypt quietly agreed to work in concert to squeeze Hamas after Egypt's military coup in 2013, a strategy that proved effective but which some Israeli and U.S. officials now believe stoked tensions that helped spur open warfare in Gaza.

When former military chief Abdel Fattah Al Sisi rose to power in Egypt after leading the overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, Israel found the two countries had a common interest in suppressing the Islamist group that ruled Gaza. They worked to bring pressure on their shared enemy.

But a reconstruction of events leading up to the conflict over the past month found that in their determination to hem in Hamas, Israeli and Egyptian officials ignored warning signs of an impending explosion, U.S., Israeli and U.N. officials said.

The U.S. encouraged Israel and Egypt to forge a close security partnership. What Washington never anticipated was that the two countries would come to trust each other more than the Americans, who would watch events in Gaza unfold largely from the sidelines as the Israelis and the Egyptians planned out their next steps. (See an hour-by-hour breakdown on cease-fires in Gaza.)

The seeds of the latest Israel-Hamas conflict were sown in 2012, when Hamas broke ranks with longtime allies Syria, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah and threw its support behind the rebels fighting to unseat President Bashar al-Assad in Syria's civil war.

Hamas, which ruled Gaza for the past seven years, came to rely on cash supplied by Qatar transferred through Egypt, with the assent of Mr. Morsi, and on revenue from smuggling goods through tunnels reaching into Egypt. As long as Hamas controlled cross-border attacks, Israel tolerated the Islamist movement at its southern doorstep, Israeli officials said.

That pressure got dialed up when Mr. Morsi was deposed and Mr. Sisi rose to power. Israeli officials knew Egypt was as committed as they were to reining in Hamas when Mr. Sisi sent word earlier this year that his forces had completely destroyed 95% of the tunnels under Egypt's border with Gaza.

At first, Israeli intelligence officials said they didn't know what to make of Mr. Sisi, a devout Muslim who in previous posts treated his Israeli counterparts coldly, a senior Israeli official said. As Mr. Sisi moved to take control of the government, Israeli intelligence analysts pored over his public statements, writings and private musings, Israeli and U.S. officials said.
Related

    Negotiators Scramble to Extend Gaza Cease-Fire
    Israel, Hamas Agree to Policing Plan
    U.S. Says 3 Kuwaitis Funded Terrorists

The Israeli intelligence community's conclusion: Mr. Sisi genuinely believed that he was on a "mission from God" to save the Egyptian state, the senior Israeli official said.

Moreover, as an Egyptian nationalist, he saw Mr. Morsi's Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, as threats to the state that needed to be suppressed with a heavy hand, the Israeli official said.

Israeli intelligence analysts interpreted Mr. Sisi's comments about keeping the peace with Israel and ridding Egypt of Islamists as a "personal realization that we—Israel—were on his side," the Israeli official said.

The revelation that Hamas was equally abhorrent to Mr. Sisi as it was to the Israeli government spurred efforts to reward him. Israel used its clout in Washington to lobby the Obama administration and Congress on his behalf, in particular arguing against a U.S. decision to cut off military aid to Egypt, Israeli officials said.
Hamas Under Pressure

Hamas Under Pressure

    June 2007: Hamas takes over the Gaza Strip after a short military conflict with the rival Fatah faction.
    Feb. 2012: Leaders of Hamas turn publicly against longtime ally President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, endorsing the revolt and breaking ranks with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran.
    June 2012: Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, is declared the winner of Egypt's first democratic presidential election. He facilitates a cash transfer from Qatar to Hamas.
    July 2013: President Morsi, who was close to Hamas, is deposed in a coup by Egypt's military and led by Field Marshal Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, who closes tunnels into Gaza.
    April 2014: Hamas abruptly agrees to form a government of technocrats under Western-backed Palestinian Authority. Americans say that was their wake-up call to the extent of Hamas's economic woes.
    July 8, 2014: Third major military clash between Israel and Hamas in less than six years begins.
    Aug. 5, 2014: Gaza cease-fire begins. American officials find out about it from the news media or Twitter.

    —WSJ reporting

Mr. Sisi followed Israel's lobbying effort closely and was appreciative, the Israeli official said.

"It came at a very formative time for him" and helped cement a trusting relationship between friends who realized they were vital to each others' national security, he said.

Cooperation with Israel is highly sensitive in Egypt and Egyptian officials declined to discuss in detail the partnership between the neighbors against Hamas.

In Gaza, there was shock at the events unfolding in Cairo.

Under the protective umbrella of Mr. Morsi's Islamist-led government, Hamas had imported large quantities of arms from Libya and Sudan, as well as money to pay the salaries of government officials and members of their armed wing, Israeli and U.S. officials said. His successor abruptly changed that.

"One day we had been sitting having great conversations with Morsi and his government and then suddenly, the door was shut," Ghazi Hamad, Hamas's deputy foreign minister, said in an interview last month.

From having contact at "every level" of the Egyptian government under Mr. Morsi, now Hamas's only contact with Cairo was a military intelligence officer handling the Hamas brief who was more anti-Hamas than the Egyptian leader, U.S. officials said.

Washington was sympathetic to Mr. Sisi's concern that the tunnel trade along Gaza's southern border with Egypt was creating a warlord-style economy directly benefiting hard-line Islamist groups.

But U.S. officials didn't agree with what they saw as Mr. Sisi's "conspiracy theories" about Hamas threatening the Egyptian state. They feared his heavy hand against Islamists in Egypt would drive them underground and might set off a civil war. The criticism only deepened the bond between Mr. Sisi and Israel, U.S. and Israeli officials said.

Egypt secretly coordinated with senior Israeli officials led by Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amos Gilad, the director of the political-military affairs bureau at Israel's Defense Ministry, who is known in the Israeli security establishment as the "granddaddy" of the Israeli-Egyptian channel, Israeli officials said.

Mr. Gilad and other Israeli officials shuttled between Israel and Egypt and spoke to their Egyptian counterparts by phone. Officials said the two sides spoke every day, more often during crises. Although there were disagreements, Mr. Gilad forged a personal relationship with the Egyptian leader, officials said.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi in Cairo in July Egyptian Presidency handout/Reuters

A senior Israeli official said the two governments wanted to advance their shared interests and increase pressure on Hamas. But he insisted there was no master plan to squeeze it to the point that "something would explode."

Yet when Mr. Sisi closed nearly all of the tunnels along Egypt's border with Gaza but didn't compensate for the loss of those avenues by allowing the passage above ground of needed supplies, some Israeli officials said they privately began to raise alarm bells about the severity of Cairo's decisions.

"They actually were suffocating Gaza too much," one Israeli official said.

In Gaza, the situation grew desperate.

At the start of the year, Hamas realized that Egypt's campaign to destroy the tunnels was edging it toward bankruptcy.

In April, Hamas abruptly agreed to form a government of technocrats under Western-backed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, reconciling with the group that governed the West Bank after years of rivalry.

The growing dangers about Hamas's precarious position were flagged to Washington by the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, Michael Ratney. He saw the pressures building in the spring and concluded that Hamas was in desperate straits, unable to pay salaries to its 40,000 government workers in Gaza, and was now reaching out to the Palestinian Authority to try to relieve the pressure.

Mr. Abbas privately told diplomats afterward that he never expected Hamas to agree to the unity deal.

Mahmoud Zahar, a top Hamas leader in Gaza, said the group's inability to cover its monthly payroll forced it to reach out to the Palestinian Authority and Qatar, which pledged $60 million for three months. But U.S. and Israeli officials said Arab banks wouldn't make the transfer.

At the height of Hamas's distress, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped in the West Bank in June and subsequently found dead. Israel quickly concluded that Hamas was responsible and rounded up its activists in the West Bank, infuriating the group's armed wing in Gaza.

After the abduction, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Hamas members without the approval of their leaders in Gaza, Israeli intelligence officials warned policy makers that "overly pressuring Hamas will lead to a conflagration," according to another senior Israeli official.

Palestinian officials told diplomats they were making a last-ditch effort to get the money for salaries to Gaza, believing that doing so might help defuse tensions but nothing came of it, diplomats said.

Rocket fire from Gaza escalated, and Israel began to respond with airstrikes.

U.S. officials, who tried to intervene in the initial days after the conflict broke out on July 8 to try to find a negotiated solution, soon realized that Mr. Netanyahu's office wanted to run the show with Egypt and to keep the Americans at a distance, according to U.S., European and Israeli officials.

The Americans, in turn, felt betrayed by what they saw as a series of "mean spirited" leaks, which they interpreted as a message from Mr. Netanyahu that U.S. involvement was neither welcomed nor needed.

Reflecting Egypt's importance, Mr. Gilad and other officials took Mr. Sisi's "temperature" every day during the war to make sure he was comfortable with the military operation as it intensified. Israeli officials knew television pictures of dead Palestinians would at some point bring Cairo to urge Israel to stop.

"We knew we could not do something that went beyond what they could digest," a senior Israeli official said of the Egyptians. Egypt's view mattered more than America's, Israeli officials said.

When a tentative deal finally came together in Cairo to stop the fighting, Washington found itself outside looking in on the Israeli-Egyptian partnership once again.

The Obama administration knew from Palestinian contacts earlier this week that representatives of Israel, Egypt and the Palestinians were working on a new cease-fire proposal but didn't know details because they were left largely out of the discussions. (Compare cease-fires proposed and broken since the most recent conflict began in Gaza.)

Key American officials said they first heard about the breakthrough from Twitter and the media, rather than from their Israeli or Egyptian counterparts.

Title: Re: WSJ: Israel-Egypt Alliance
Post by: DougMacG on August 07, 2014, 10:40:49 PM

I can't figure out what they think went wrong.

"But their miscalculations [Egypt and Israel] triggered a crisis."

What did they miscalculate?  Had this not happened, the tunnels would still be operational with terrorists and explosives getting free passage in.  This is not a crisis.  It is an operation that is disarming and dismantling an active terror group.  A crisis is what they had before the war.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2014, 05:26:19 PM

Click here to watch: Archbishop 'Hamas Fired Out of Our Church in Gaza'

A Catholic Archbishop ministering to Gaza’s minute Christian minority says Hamas terrorists forced him to allow them to use his church to fire rockets at Israel during the four week-long Operation Protective Edge. “Islam is the rule of this place and whatever Hamas says we must obey or face consequences,” Archbishop Alexios told The Christian Broadcasting Network. Alexios showed the reporter where Hamas terrorists used the roof of the center to fire rockets at Israel. Numerous Israeli UAV videos have shown similar images of rocket crews using mosques, schools, hospitals and other civilian structures as ammunition and gun nests, as well as launch sites – all war crimes according to the Geneva Conventions.

Watch Here

Functioning as a tolerated Christian minority in an Islamic supremacist entity, some residents charge that Hamas has “imposed strict Taliban-style Islamic laws” on the populace, Muslim and Christian alike. However, Alexios allowed 2,000 Gazans to take refuge within the church compound during the fighting, according to the report. Hamas took over in Gaza, after a violent coup in 2007 against Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, led in the West Bank by Mahmoud Abbas.

Title: VDH: Propsects for Israel actually not bad , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2014, 07:45:30 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384512/stronger-israel-victor-davis-hanson

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 12, 2014, 11:53:40 AM

Quote from: G M on October 09, 2008, 08:32:35 PM

Obama will finish off pax americana. Just wait for the horrors to come.

http://www.hoover.org/research/pax-americana-dead

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2014, 01:19:03 PM

Please post that in the Foreign Policy thread

Title: 'Moderate' Fatah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2014, 02:04:04 PM

Click here to watch: Winner of Arab Idol Sings on PA TV: We Will Replace Israel With Palestine

Hopes that Fatah will be a calming influence on Hamas in the effort to end the fighting in Gaza have been tempered by mixed messages the supposedly more moderate wing of the Arab Palestinian leadership is sending to its international audience and its Arab constituents - including boasting on its Facebook page of the number of Israelis it has killed. In a post seemingly aimed at reminding 'Palestinians' it hates Israel as much as Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist organization that governs Gaza, the Fatah party seems to take issue with the idea that it isn't doing enough to fight the Jewish state.

Watch Here

The belligerent Facebook message - containing fabricated statistics - was posted on the official home page of Fatah’s Facebook even as representatives of the party founded by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat were in Cairo for the peace talks. “Listen well! To whoever does not know Fatah and argues with this giant movement: Fatah has killed 11,000 Israelis; Fatah has sacrificed 170,000 Martyrs (Shahids)...; Fatah was the first to carry out operations (i.e., terror attacks) during the first Intifada... Fatah was the first to fight in the second Intifada (i.e., PA terror campaign 2000-2005)... Fatah led the Palestinian attack on Israel in the UN... Fatah leads the peaceful popular resistance against Israel... Stop and think before you attack [Fatah]."
Source: Fox News

Title: Gazans not happy with Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2014, 05:28:53 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4558305,00.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 14, 2014, 06:18:35 AM

In public:   "Israel has the right to defend itself so says the Golfer in Chief.    In private:  " just don't expect to get any offensive arms from us".
White House in the dark over arms supplies to Israel: report

AFP
3 hours ago

An Israeli artillery fires a 155mm shell towards targets in the Gaza Strip from their position near Israel&#39;s border with the Palestinian enclave on August 2, 2014

An Israeli artillery fires a 155mm shell towards targets in the Gaza Strip from their position near Israel's border with the Palestinian enclave on August 2, 2014 (AFP Photo/David Buimovitch)

Washington (AFP) - Israel secured supplies of ammunition from the Pentagon last month without the approval of the White House or the State Department, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Since officials there were caught off guard as they tried to restrain Israel's campaign in Gaza, the administration of President Barack Obama has tightened controls on arms shipments to Israel, the newspaper said, quoting US and Israeli officials.

But the case illustrated that the White House and the State Department have little influence over the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the paper said, quoting officials from both countries.

The Journal said that US officials, rather than play their traditional role as mediators, have now been reduced to bystanders as Israeli forces and Hamas battle it out.

On Wednesday, the paper said, Obama and Netanyahu had a particularly tense phone call.

Netanyahu has "pushed the administration aside" but wants America to give Israel security assurances in exchange for agreeing to a long-term deal with Hamas, the Journal said, quoting US officials.

Israel and militants in Gaza were holding their fire Thursday after a new truce got off to a shaky start, with night-time Palestinian rocket fire followed by Israeli air strikes.

Title: ABbas`s Fatah declares war
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 17, 2014, 06:13:57 AM

[Abbas's Fatah Declares a Return to Terror Against
Israel](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/abbass-fatah-declares-a-return-to-terror-against-israel?omhide=true)
==========

Click here to watch: [Abbas's Fatah Declares a Return to Terror Against
Israel](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/abbass-fatah-declares-a-return-to-terror-against-israel?omhide=true)

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, often touted
internationally as a "moderate" alternative to Hamas, has declared its intentions to
further increase its terror attacks against Israeli citizens. A new video released
to YouTube by Fatah's "military wing," the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, declares the
unity of Fatah's various military branches, and announces a recent decision to
strengthen Fatah's military activities. Filming in what they term a "joint
operations room" in Gaza, the Fatah terrorists are seen in the video proudly
displaying three-barrel rocket launchers, anti-tank rocket launchers, assault rifles
and portable communications devices. One of the terrorists is filmed telling the
camera that "the rifle" was and remains the only option to "free the occupied
lands," and that Fatah has never abandoned the path of violent terrorism. As
demonstrated by the armed presence in Gaza, Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has
reportedly taken an active part in the terror war being fought against Israel from
Gaza, joining Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror organizations against Israel
during Operation Protective Edge.

[Watch
Here](http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/abbass-fatah-declares-a-return-to-terror-against-israel?omhide=true)

In Judea and Samaria, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades have likewise declared "open
war" on the Jewish state. The declaration has been followed by numerous Fatah terror
attacks, including a shooting attack south of Bethlehem last Sunday, after another
shooting attack the Sunday before in Neve Tzuf. On Monday, a wanted Fatah terrorist
was killed by IDF forces near Shechem after he refused to turn himself in and opened
fire on the soldiers. While there has been a common perception globally that Abbas's
Fatah is somehow more "moderate" and accessible as a peace partner than Hamas or
other alternative groups, Fatah has been open about its goals to destroy Israel. The
group just last Sunday falsely claimed to have murdered 11,000 Israelis, and has
likely called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. Fatah's position is in
line with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) charter of 1968, which calls
for "armed struggle" and "armed revolution," declaring "armed struggle is the only
way to liberate Palestine," and calling on local Arabs to "be prepared for the armed
struggle." Following the charter, the PLO and Fatah were defined internationally as
terror organizations, a status which was removed during the 1993 Oslo Accords
process.

Source: [Arutz
Sheva](http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184093#.U-_EuLySz7B)

Title: Obama`s true colors revealed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 18, 2014, 12:02:57 AM

Steven Emerson's Op-Ed: The President's True Colors Finally Revealed

Steven Emerson, Executive Director

August 17, 2014

Articles by IPT | IPT in the News | IPT Blog | Profiles | Multimedia | Donate |
Contact Us

Op-Ed: The President's True Colors Finally Revealed

by Steven Emerson
Jerusalem Online
August 17, 2014

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4522/op-ed-the-president-true-colors-finally-revealed


When I first glanced at the headline on today's Jerusalem Online and reports in the
Jerusalem Post and other Israeli newspapers, I thought they must have been a satire:
"Washington officials have told Egypt that the US will grantee Israel's commitment
to any agreement signed." But it was not a satire. The was deadly serious, confirmed
by other Israeli newspapers and sources in Cairo.

The US offering to Hamas to "guarantee" Israeli commitments to any agreement signed?
As if anyone needed proof of the Obama Administration's antipathy to Israel, here it
was in black and white. If anyone party needed a commitment to enforce its
agreements in any deal, it would have been Hamas, that has been known to break every
commitment it ever made. To pick just a few at random:

* Hamas recently violated 9 cease fire agreements, including two of its own
* Hamas illegally siphoned thousands of tons of cement and steel shipments it
received from international donors and Israel that it had committed to use the build
the civilian infrastructure in Gaza for hospitals, schools and apartment buildings;
instead it spent upwards of $500 million of these humanitarian shipments to covertly
build numerous tunnels buried deep underground into Israel in order to carry out
murderous raids on Israeli civilian communities intended to kill tens of thousands
of Israelis
* Hamas violated the 2012 Cease Fire negotiated by then State Department Secretary
Hillary Clinton together with then Egyptian Muslim President Mohammed Morsi in which
Hamas committed to stop smuggling weapons and missiles into Israel, of which nearly
4000 were recently launched into 80% of Israel's population centers
* Hamas violated the commitment to the Palestinian Authority that it would never
launch a coup d'état against the PA after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But in
2007, Hamas did exactly that in a bloody takeover of Gaza, kicking out and killing
PA officials.
* Hamas violated a publicly solemn commitment to its own civilians that it would
uphold the rule of law (yea, right) when it took over Gaza only to subsequently
execute hundreds of dissident Gazans, torture and imprison thousands of political
opponents, violently persecute the minority of Christians still living in Gaza and
imprison and prosecute suspected gay Gazans.
* Violating a commitment it made in the Clinton negotiated 2012 truce that it would
cease its missile attacks on Israel.

And at the same time, it should be noted that President Obama personally signed an
official letter at the time of the 2012 negotiated cease fire to Prime Minister
Netanyahu that the US would provide Israel with the technology to defeat and stop
Hamas smuggling of weapons. But subsequent to that empty promise, Hamas soon
received in massive quantities from Iran, Sudan, and North Korea. That promise was
never carried out.

Israel on the other hand meticulously fulfilled its part of the bargain by severely
relaxing the blockade on Gaza, allowing tons of previously restricted cement and
steel into Gaza, increasing the number of daily truckloads of food, medical stuff
and building equipment through the two Israeli checkpoints into Gaza by more than
250 truckloads a day ( a commitment is still upheld during the Hamas war against
Israel, a fact mostly ignored by the mainstream media blindly committed to the Hamas
narrative that Israel was the aggressor).

Remember when Obama spoke to the annual AIPAC conference a few years back and
ceremoniously declared, "I got your back." This is the same President who, as the
Wall Street Journal disclosed last week, personally held up the Israeli request for
additional Hellfire missiles that it had depleted in its war with Hamas.

As far back as 1967, the United States had made a firm promise to Israel that it
would never allow the Egyptians to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, considered the
lifeline of Israel. But when the Egyptians blockaded the Straights of Hormuz in May
1967, what did the US do? Nothing.

And in the current round of negotiations being held in Cairo now, according to
leaked details in Egyptian newspapers reported by today's Jerusalem Online

Israel agreed to make the following astonishing concessions:

* "Israel will stop its attacks in Gaza - in land, sea and air. No ground operations
will be conducted."
* Israel has agreed to the "opening of crossings between Israel and Gaza [in which]
Movement of people and merchandise will be allowed, to rebuild Gaza."
* "Eliminating the buffer zone in the North and East of Gaza and deployment of
Palestinian military forces starting from January 1, 2015"
* "Freedom of fishing and action in the territorial waters of the Palestinians in
Gaza to a range of 6 miles. The range will gradually be increased, to no less than
12 miles…"
* "Israeli authorities will assist the Palestinian Authority to restore the
foundations in Gaza, as well as help provide the necessary living needs for those
who were forced to leave their homes due to the battles. Also, Israel will provide
emergency medical attention to the wounded and will supply humanitarian assistance
and food to Gaza as soon as possible."

It should be noted that even during the recent murderous war waged by Gaza, Israel
had opened up its borders to treat wounded Gaza civilians in Israeli hospitals and
continued to supply daily more than 500 tons daily of humanitarian assistance and
food to Gaza even as the Hamas launched thousands of rockets and attempted mass
murder of Israeli civilians by attempts, fortunately thwarted by Israel, to
infiltrate dozens of fully armed Hamas terrorists into Israel via the tunnels dug by
Hamas.

And what did the Hamas commit to?

* "All Palestinian factions in Gaza will stop the attacks against Israel, in the
land, the sea and the air; also, building tunnels from Gaza to Israeli territory
will be stopped."

That was it. Virtually the same identical commitments it agreed to in December 2012.
Quite interestingly, Hamas insisted--which Israel did not agree to--to the immediate
opening of a Gaza seaport and airport. But the party that suggested to Hamas that
they insist on these demands was none other than the Qataris, the country--which is
the top financial patron in the world today to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and
many of its terrorist offshoots--curiously selected personally by Obama to be the
official diplomatic interlocutor in the Cairo talks. The role that Qatar was
supposed to play was to convince the group to make concessions. But curiously the
opposite happened. Qatar, the country to which that the US just sold $11 billion
worth of military weapons, actually sabotaged the negotiations. So far, the
President has been studiously silent on this betrayal.

In light of the fact that Hamas has manifestly never upheld any of the commitments
it has ever made, the salient question that has to be asked is why Obama did feel
compelled to assuage Hamas with an assurance that the US would "guarantee" that
Israeli upheld its commitments? The word "guarantee" has a rather expansive and
vague latitude for definition. The most recent demonstration of an American
guarantee that Israel would halt its defensive war against Hamas was the suspension
of critical military deliveries to Israel during the height of the conflagration
instigated by Hamas.

Indeed, for all the public affirmations made last week--after the WSJ expose-- by
the Obama Administration that the US was "totally committed to the security of
Israel," Obama suddenly decides to make a promise to Hamas--whose covenant differs
not one bit from the fascist radical Islamic doctrine adopted by ISIL--that it would
enforce the commitments made by Israel, which in fact have historically been
studiously upheld by Israel.

If Obama was truly sincere in his now obviously contrived promises to "watch
[Israel's] back", he would have offered to guarantee Hamas commitments, a terrorist
group that has repeatedly violated its commitments in previous agreements. But with
his statement that he would "guarantee" Israeli commitments and not those made by
Hamas, the President has revealed his true colors for everyone to see.

Steven Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
(www.investigativeproject.org), a non profit group that investigates the threat of
radical Islam, author of 6 book on terrorism and national security and executive
producer of the award winning 2013 documentary "Jihad in America: The Grand
Deception" (www.granddeception.com)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 18, 2014, 01:19:01 AM

Strange, I thought I was told that Obama wore a kippah at AIPAC.


Who could have seen this coming?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 20, 2014, 06:01:46 AM

Click here to watch: Rockets Launched From Gaza, PM orders IDF to hit Back at Hamas

The Israeli Air Force has struck terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket fire this afternoon, following Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's order to strike back hard against the perpetrators. Sources in Gaza reported at least one IAF strike on an open area, which did not cause any injuries. It is possible the target was the site from where the rockets were launched, although this has not been confirmed. According to Palestinian Arab media reports cited by Walla!, the Israeli airstrike response focused on the Gaza neighborhoods of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahia. The Arab report claims a strike was also carried out adjacent to an UNRWA school in eastern Rafah, in the Al-Marazi "refugee camp" in central Gaza, Deir al-Balah and Al-Karara in southern Gaza. An IDF spokesman said: "The IDF was prepared for this possibility and is determined to protect the security of the residents of the State of Israel. Earlier Tuesday, At least three rockets were fired towards the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva, hours before the end of a 24-hour extension to a five-day truce declared last week.

Watch Here

In an even more explosive development, an unnamed security source told Walla! news site the rocket attack was ordered directly by Hamas's Qatar-based head Khaled Meshaal. The source claimed Meshaal had bypassed Hamas's official "military wing", the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, and ordered a specially-assigned unit of Hamas operatives answerable directly to him to launch the attack. The source claimed Meshaal was aiming to sabotage negotiations for a long-term truce in Cairo, which were not going his way. His plan may have worked: apart from the air strike in the last few minutes Prime Minister Netanyahu has ordered Israel's delegation to the talks in Cairo to return to Israel, effectively putting an end to talks there. Weighing in on the rockets, Eshkol Regional Council head Chaim Yelin remarked: "who expected anything else? This is the language of Hamas. A language that for 14 years the state of Israel apparently hasn't understood."
Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 21, 2014, 10:48:31 AM

A senior Hamas official admitted for the first time on Wednesday that the organization's armed wing, the Kassam Brigades, was behind the kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens Nafatli Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah in the Judea in June. The Hamas official, Salah al-Aruri made the comments during a conference of Islamic clerics in Turkey. He praised the "heroic action of the Kassam Brigades who kidnapped three settlers in Hebron."
Watch Here
Israel has contended that Hamas was behind the kidnapping of the boys, a claim that Hamas had previously denied. In the aftermath of the kidnapping , the IDF launched a wide-scale operation in Judea and Samaria , arresting hundreds of Hamas operatives. The two suspects in the kidnapping, Marwan Kawasme and Amar Abu Aysha are Hebron-area Hamas operatives who remain at large. The alleged mastermind of the kidnapping, Hussam Kawasame was arrested on July 11. On Monday, Border Patrol officers demolished the homes of Hussam Kawasme and Abu Aysha and sealed off the home of Marwan Kawasme.
Source: Jpost

Title: Hamas=ISIL
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 25, 2014, 08:44:18 AM

Obama's Hypocrisy on Hamas, ISIS, and Iran
by Noah Beck
Algemeiner
August 24, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4539/obama-hypocrisy-on-hamas-isis-and-iran



 
The beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley has raised concerns in the West about Islamist threats. But Israel has been facing this specter for decades and – given Israel's proximity to the Islamist threat – the Jewish State is the canary in the coal mine for the West. But Gaza seems to be the Western blind spot, even though the Hamas-ISIS parallels are glaringly obvious.

Since beheadings are the current media focus, and ISIS has beheaded infants, it's worth noting that Hamas praised the 2011 Itamar murders, which involved the decapitation of a baby. Islamist beheadings should surprise no one, given that they've been happening for much of (and despite) modernity – perhaps because "Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited…to legitimize beheadings," according to this study.

While there have been no reported Hamas beheadings of journalists, the similarities between Hamas and ISIS are more important than their differences.
Both would like to establish a Caliphate. Hamas Interior Minister declared as much in this 2013 speech.

Both gain and keep power through savagery and fear. Hamas rose to power in Gaza thanks to its violent, 2007 coup, and recently planned a second putsch (in the West Bank). Hamas famously threw its political opponents off rooftops.

Like ISIS, Hamas uses clinics, schools, mosques, and charities to gain legitimacy, and inculcates children with the values of jihadi terror. A Vice documentary exposed how ISIS indoctrinates and uses children for war, but Hamas has been doing so for years, educating children to worship death and using child soldiers.

Hamas' use of human shields has been widely documented (and proven very effective in turning public opinion against Israel by exponentially increasing Gazan civilian casualties). ISIS used 500 Yazidi captives and 39 abducted Indians as human shields.

ISIS is known for its expulsion of Christians from Mosul and its genocidal murder of Yazidis and Christians who refuse to convert to Islam or pay the jizyah. Hamas would undoubtedly behave the same way towards the religious minorities within its reach, if Israeli Jews didn't have the protection of a superior military, and if Hamas didn't depend on international donations to Gaza that might dry up after a wholesale slaughter of the tiny Christian community there. But even with these checks on Hamas' brutality, Hamas regularly practices and preaches religious hatred. For years, Hamas has attacked Christians, including defiling Christian graves, abducting and murdering Christians, and more recently using a Gazan church to launch rockets at Israel. Hamas preaches hateful incitement against Jews, has desecrated Jewish holy sites, and has murdered hundreds of Jews in terrorist attacks.

ISIS uses Sharia to justify its barbaric treatment of women. Also enamored with Sharia, Hamas treats women as second-class citizens and endorses honor killings.
Like ISIS, Hamas advocates the death penalty for homosexuals, lets Islamic morality police govern economic activity, and punishes crime with lashings, amputations, and executions. There have been no broadcast beheadings of homosexuals by ISIS yet, but such horrors can't be far off, given that ISIS fighters include gay-hating Westerners.

Hamas condemned the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, and ISIS aspires to surpass him.

Yet, astonishingly, President Obama and liberals have continually called for restraint when Israel's military has confronted Hamas (after Hamas' countless attacks against Israeli civilians) and Obama has pressed Israel to negotiate with Hamas (as if the U.S. would ever negotiate with ISIS). Worse still, the Obama Administration tried to advance Hamas' negotiating position and recently pressured Israel into letting Hamas keep its military capabilities. Given the opportunity to obliterate ISIS' terrorist infrastructure, would the U.S. ever spare any part of it?

Even more troubling – in terms of the perils involved – is Obama's feckless strategy towards the Iranian regime, which is the world's chief sponsor of Islamist terrorist groups (including Hamas and Hezbollah). Like so many Islamist terrorist organizations, Iran executes homosexuals; mistreats women; persecutes religious minorities; employs barbaric, Sharia-law punishments (like amputation and stoning); and brutalizes political dissenters (among myriad other human rights violations). But unlike the terrorist organizations, Iran could theoretically acquire a nuclear weapons capability in under two months. Imagine an Islamist state, which openly supports Islamist terrorists, possessing nukes. Alarmingly, Obama's overall approach and eagerness to negotiate any deal he can get with Iran have signaled weakness in a region that respects only strength. As if to laugh at Obama's naiveté, the Iranian regime has continued supporting Hamas despite the sanctions relief that Obama delivered to the Islamic Republic. Obama's meek and misguided policy has only emboldened the Iranian regime, improved its economic condition, and given diplomatic cover to Iran's nuclear program.
Islamist groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah, all seek the destruction of Western values and civilization. The pursuit of nukes by the Islamist state of Iran – which could eventually enable nuclear terrorism by Iran's jihadi proxies – poses the greatest threat of all. The West ignores these facts at its peril, and should therefore support Israel's war against Hamas, and its efforts against Iranian nukes, just as the U.S. has rightly (albeit tardily and minimally) supported the Kurds in their fight against ISIS.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East

Title: Hamas cries "Uncle!" , , , for now
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2014, 03:20:52 PM

Decimated Hamas Accepts Ceasefire, Claims Victory
by IPT News  •  Aug 26, 2014 at 3:38 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4547/decimated-hamas-accepts-ceasefire-claims-victory
 
Israel's counterterrorism operations in Gaza have effectively deteriorated Hamas' military capabilities and facilitated in breaking down the terrorist group's chain of command, security officials told the Jerusalem Post Tuesday.

Later that day, amid the report's assessment that Hamas had lost much of its will to fight, the terrorist group agreed to the latest Egyptian-brokered ceasefire.

There is growing discontent among the Hamas ranks, as the group suffered significant terrorist casualties, destruction of vital military infrastructure, rocket construction capabilities, and major destruction of its sophisticated underground tunnel network, the Post report said. Israel's successful targeted assassination of senior Hamas leaders severely disrupted the terrorist organization's command and control structure, and even resulted in the desertion of rank and file terrorists from battle.

In light of the assassinations, growing suspicion of Israeli intelligence infiltration also forced Hamas to halt the use sophisticated technologies in the battlefield, significantly reducing its ability to fight. The growing mistrust and panic led Hamas to summarily execute over 20 Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel.

Mid-range commanders allegedly fled with their families from conflict zones to avoid having their houses destroyed, producing a sense of mistrust and abandonment among remaining fighters. In one case, 14 Hamas fighters were reportedly trapped in a tunnel for 20 days with no supplies while their commanders failed to even attempt a rescue effort. Some are believed to have starved to death.

According to the Israeli assessments, many within Gaza's society are disillusioned with Hamas, whose leaders were among the first to hide underground leaving the civilians to cope with Israeli retaliation to Hamas' indiscriminate terrorist campaign. Hamas is also accused of confiscating aid transferred into the Gaza Strip, intended for needy civilians, and giving it to its own members. 

None of this reality has stopped Hamas from claiming victory. Hours before the cease-fire went into effect, dozens of rockets and mortar shells targeted southern Israel, wounding dozens and killing one Israeli. The Hamas Al-Qassam Brigades boasts of its terrorist campaign and perceived diplomatic victory over Israel, touting that it is preparing for the next round of hostilities against the Jewish state.

Hamas leadership continues to make clear that they remain committed to Israel's destruction. The Gaza war showed that they are willing to sacrifice their own people, by constantly firing from civilian population centers and structures, including mosques and hospitals, in hopes of advancing that goal.

Title: Treatment of Muslims in Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2014, 04:26:30 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vXD84Pv0I

Title: West Bank Palestinians come to aid of Jewish settler family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2014, 07:22:36 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4563835,00.html

Title: Netanyahu's psychology
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2014, 07:30:42 AM

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/26/and_how_does_that_make_you_feel_bibi_political_psychology_netanyahu_gaza_israel?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=Siobh%C3%A1n%208%2F26

Title: Golan Heights heating up
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2014, 08:21:04 AM

Third post

Click here to watch: Al-Qaeda Rebels Take Over Part of Syrian Border with Israel, IDF Officer Wounded

The IDF responded with artillery fire at Syria after an IDF officer who was in an IDF outpost adjacent to the Quneitra crossing was hit by a Syrian bullet. The event came as Syrian rebels led by al-Qaeda affiliated groups retook control of the coveted border crossing from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. Earlier, two mortars fired from Syria hit the Israeli Golan Heights Wednesday, causing damage to two vehicles. The IDF said it targeted two Syrian army positions and "hits were confirmed." It gave no further details. The officer is in moderate condition after sustaining a stray bullet to the chest. "There was errant fire from the internal fighting in Syria and an officer was moderately wounded in the Golan Heights," an IDF spokeswoman told AFP, saying the fighting was "right next to the border." The incidents came amid massive fighting in the Quneitra crossing, prompting Israeli officials to warn local famers to leave the area. Ynet has learned that the crossing has passed to rebel control and that the Al-Nusra Front, Syrian Revolutionary Front, Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Khalifa Brigade are still clashing with Syrian forces, who have reportedly lost over 20 men as part of the fighting.

Watch Here

Reports and eyewitnesses said the Syrian flag has been taken down from the Syrian side of the border. ISIS is not involved in the offensive. Israel feared such an incident would take place as rebels and the Syrian regime battled for the crossing, which is one of the sole remaining areas controlled by Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces. Residents reported hearing explosion from the fire for many miles away even before the mortars hit. The news came as Israel entered its first day without fighting in the south, after parties reached a ceasefire agreement that brought an end to seven weeks of violent fighting between Israel and Hamas. In wake of the incident and other like it, the IDF began building "assault stations" in the Golan Heights - suppressive fire posts along the border with Syria that would offer quick response to any an attack against Israel. The suppressive fire posts, named by the IDF "Defensive Canopy," will be built in the 210th Territorial Division, that was recently established to secure the border with Syria. Similar posts have already been built along the Gaza border to coordinate between different military elements in case of an attack against IDF troops. The coordination between the division, the Air Force and others elements, allows for a relatively quick response to suppress the attackers. The death toll from three years of Syria's civil war has risen to more than 191,000 people, the United Nations reported last Friday.

Title: An interesting interview with an insider
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2014, 08:33:54 AM

fourth post

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/26/a_conversation_with_martin_indyk_netanyahu_gaza_israel_palestine_hamas?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=Siobh%C3%A1n%208%2F26

Title: AQ vs Assad in Golan Heights
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 29, 2014, 07:51:12 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLqkjksKM1o

Title: Yet another "Let's negotiate with these guys" 5.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2014, 12:08:35 PM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/undercover-canadian-playwright-exposes-arab-holocaust-denial-jew-hatred?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Undercover+Canadian+Filmaker+Exposes+Arab+Holocaust+Denial%2C+Jew-Hatred&utm_campaign=20140901_m121947874_9%2F01+Israel+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Undercover+Canadian+Filmaker+Exposes+Arab+Holocaust+Denial%2C+Jew-Hatred&utm_term=Undercover+Canadian+Filmaker+Exposes+Arab+Holocaust+Denial_2C+Jew-Hatred

Title: Sovereignty of Temple Mount
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2014, 12:53:48 PM

Click here to watch: MK Feiglin: PM Conceded Sovereignty of Temple Mount

“About half a year ago,” MK Moshe Feiglin wrote on his Facebook page on Thursday, "I submitted a Knesset query to PM Netanyahu on the topic of Israel’s loss of sovereignty on the Temple Mount and its transfer to Jordan. This query has not yet been addressed. But yesterday, it became clear that PM Binyamin Netanyahu is transferring the sovereignty on the Temple Mount to Jordan in practice. “ The only approach for non-Muslims to the Temple Mount is via the Mugrabim Gate, overlooking the Western Wall. Following an earthquake, the original approach to the gate collapsed in 2004. The government had planned to build a new stone bridge to the Mugrabim Gate, but capitulated to world pressure and sufficed with a rickety, temporary wooden bridge. Engineers from the Jerusalem Municipality declared the temporary bridge unsafe, and over the past few weeks a new, safer wooden bridge has been built under the older bridge. Jordan, however, demanded that the bridge be removed and yesterday, work to dismantle it began. “This capitulation to the Jordanian demand and the dismantling of a safety bridge that was erected over the Western Wall Plaza (it is not even on the Temple Mount) testifies to the fact that the PM has indeed conceded Israeli sovereignty on the Temple Mount,” Feiglin charged. “When ISIS and Hamas flags fly freely on the Temple Mount and when the Prime Minister transfers sovereignty on the Mount to radical Islam, Israel’s hold on the Negev, Galil and mixed Jewish-Arab cities is lost. ISIS flags can already be seen in Sachnin and Taibeh, Arab towns in northern Israel. The PM’s demonstration of weakness encourages Israel’s enemies in the south and north, infusing them with hope to continue to fight us.”

Watch Here

Israel’s Channel 10 on Wednesday night broadcast what it said was footage from a recent “Islamic State gathering” on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The report, which is to be broadcast in full next week, said the gathering underlined that Islamic State intends to focus on Israel in the future. Formally, the gathering, attended by thousands, was organized by the Tahrir party, which the report described as being the “Palestine branch” of Islamic State. Speakers were filmed anticipating the liberation of Jerusalem and decrying Jewish pollution of the city. Several black IS flags were seen in the footage. He claimed that the Islamic State, “now knocking on Jordan’s door, has marked ‘Palestine’ as the next target on its list.”

Title: And so it goes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2014, 11:56:59 AM

Click here to watch: Hamas Leaders Urge Uprising, Vow to Rebuild Tunnels
The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip has changed the opinions of certain global players who now wish to hold dialog with the group, senior Hamas member Mahmoud al-Zahar said Saturday, according to Ynet. Al-Zahar said nations – he did not give specifics – which had previously regarded his organization as a terrorist group had now undergone a change of heart. The Hamas leader also called for an armed uprising in the West Bank. He said the Palestinian Authority’s security coordination with Israel was a crime and urged its forces to change direction and fight against Israel. “If the Palestinian resistance in the West Bank had a quarter of the tools that the resistance in Gaza holds, Israel would be wiped out in a day,” he said. Al-Zahar repeated the organization’s claim that it had been victorious in the Gaza war, saying the group would “build new tunnels” into Israel to replace those destroyed by the Israeli army. “Victory has many fathers while defeat has only one father named [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” he said.
Watch Here
A senior army intelligence official has admitted that Israel underestimated the tenacity of Gaza terrorists and did not expect the July-August 50-day conflict to last so long — insisting, however, they were soundly beaten. Amid reports that tensions between Hamas and Fatah could hinder the reconstruction of Gaza, al-Zahar said Wednesday he was confident that the Palestinian public wouldn’t hold the group responsible. What happens next in Gaza “is the responsibility of [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas because now he is responsible for the government,” he told the New York Times. “We are not responsible.” Cairo-based senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk said that the organization has already distributed $40 million in Gaza, $2,000 to each family whose home was damaged. On Wednesday, reports in the Arab media indicated that Egypt was meeting with both the Israeli and Palestinian sides and was preparing to issue invitations to ceasefire negotiations in Cairo, but tensions between Hamas and Fatah over the payment of salaries to Hamas employees and administration of border crossings were delaying the talks. These reports came a day after Fatah officials reportedly warned that if Hamas did not cede control of the Gaza Strip to the unity government, Abbas’s presidential guard forces would not deploy along the borders and the crossings would remain closed. Egypt has said repeatedly it would not open the Rafah border crossing as long as it was controlled by Hamas. However, riding an unprecedented wave of popularity following its most recent violent conflict with Israel, Hamas’s leaders have sounded confident that it can maintain support from the people, and since an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire went into effect, Hamas’s leaders have been working the streets to buoy that support.
 

Title: War with Hezbollah coming?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 07, 2014, 09:47:13 AM

Click here to watch: Israel Preparing for ‘Very Violent’ war Against Hezbollah, TV Report Says

Just 10 days after a ceasefire ended a 50-day Israel-Hamas conflict, the Israeli army is “making plans and training” for “a very violent war” against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, an Israeli TV report said Friday night, without specifying when this war might break out. The report, for which the army gave Israel’s Channel 2 access to several of its positions along the border with Lebanon, featured an IDF brigade commander warning that such a conflict “will be a whole different story” from the Israel-Hamas conflict in which over 2,000 Gazans (half of them gunmen according to Israel) and 72 Israelis were killed. “We will have to use considerable force” to quickly prevail over the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, “to act more decisively, more drastically,” said Colonel Dan Goldfus, commander of the 769th Hiram Infantry Brigade. The report said Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 rockets — 10 times as many as were in the Hamas arsenal — and that its 5,000 long-range missiles, located in Beirut and other areas deep inside Lebanon, are capable of carrying large warheads (of up to 1 ton and more), with precision guidance systems, covering all of Israel. Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system would not be able to cope with that kind of challenge, and thus the IDF would have to “maneuver fast” and act forcefully to prevail decisively in the conflict, Goldfus said.

Watch Here

Goldfus said it might be necessary to evacuate the civilian residents of the area. “Hezbollah will not conquer the Galilee (in northern Israel),” the officer said, “and I won’t let it hurt our civilians.” He said that anyone who thought Hezbollah was in difficulties because it has sustained losses fighting with President Bashar Assad in Syria is mistaken. The report noted, indeed, that Hezbollah has now accumulated three years of battlefield experience, and has greater military capabilities and considerable confidence as a consequence. The report said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2012 that, in a future war against Hezbollah, Israel would have to hit homes in villages across southern Lebanon from which Hezbollah would seek to launch rockets into Israel. As with Hamas in Gaza, the report said there were concerns that Hezbollah has also been tunneling under the Israeli border ahead of planned attacks. A deputy local council chief, Yossi Adoni of the Ma’aleh Yosef Council, said dozens of border-area residents have reported the sounds of tunneling under their homes since 2006 — when Israel and Hezbollah fought a bitter conflict known as the Second Lebanon War. “We are absolutely certain there are cross-border tunnels,” Adoni said. “There could be,” noted Goldfus, describing the tunnel threat as “one more concern… If in Gaza there were tunnels, it stands to reason that it’s possible here too.” Israel’s launched a ground offensive in Gaza in mid-July to destroy some 30 Hamas tunnels dug under the border; 11 IDF soldiers were killed during the Israel-Hamas war by gunmen emerging from the tunnels inside Israel.
Source: Times of Israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 10, 2014, 08:36:32 AM

The Islamic Jihad claims that it has already started rebuilding tunnels in Gaza, taking an Al-Jazeera reporter on a tour of one of its new underground constructions in a video translated by MEMRI. An Islamic Jihad operative told the Qatar-owned network that it began rebuilding tunnels "the day the war ended in Gaza." It could not be verified if the tunnel in the Al-Jazeera clip is indeed new, however, the Islamic Jihad claim gives backing to comments made by a senior Israeli diplomatic source on Sunday. The source told reporters that, just two weeks after Operation Protective Edge ended with an Egyptian-brokered truce, Hamas is already working to restore the terrorist tunnels in Gaza, as well as to build up its rocket manufacturing capabilities. The discovery of attack tunnels leading from Gaza into communities in southern Israel was a main impetus behind Israel's decision to launch a ground incursion into the Strip in July. The IDF destroyed more than 30 tunnels during the operation.

Watch Here

The source told reporters that, just two weeks after Operation Protective Edge ended with an Egyptian-brokered truce, Hamas is already working to restore the terrorist tunnels in Gaza, as well as to build up its rocket manufacturing capabilities. The discovery of attack tunnels leading from Gaza into communities in southern Israel was a main impetus behind Israel's decision to launch a ground incursion into the Strip in July. The IDF destroyed more than 30 tunnels during the operation.

Title: Mossad recruiting
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2014, 12:50:28 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/israel-espionage-mossad-internet/2014/09/22/id/596080/?Dkt_nbr=1645F-1&utm_source=Crooks_and_Liars&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=527&utm_campaign=widgetphase2

Title: 12 Tribes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2014, 09:19:14 AM

Masked Arab youth threw stones and fired fireworks at a complex housing a preschool Tuesday afternoon in the Mount of Olives neighborhood in a continuation of increasing incidents of violence in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in particular. In a video filmed by a nearby civilian, the group of arabs can be seen throwing a continued volley of rocks at a playground, causing the children to hide in a protected structure until police arrived on the scene. Batyah Harush, a caretaker at the preschool, said, "We were in the yard and suddenly 10 masked men arrived in the area and starting throwing rocks and firing fireworks in the direction of our yard. The noise really frightened the children and they saw the masked men and panicked. So we went into a shelter and I immediately called the police."

Watch Here

The youth fled upon the arrival of the police. According to residents of the area, the last two months have been saturated by violence and other dangerous activity from the young Arab men who have thrown rocks, fired fireworks, and hurled Molotov Cocktails at Israeli vehicles and security forces. However, the incident at the Mount of Olives was not the only one of its kind Tuesday. In another Jerusalem neighborhood, Armon HaNatziv, an 18-year-old arab threw a rock at a residence. A glass pane was shattered in the attack. Police forces arrested the suspect.

Title: Back to Germany; who would have thought in my lifetime.
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2014, 05:55:25 PM

Interesting article but I don't like this suggestion that Netanyahu is the one who is preventing peace:

"Fears of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe, deter many Israelis from making the move. But Mr Netanyahu’s apparent rejection of compromise with Palestinians, and wars every few years, is eroding hope. Arguments about economic priorities are growing as Israel’s generals demand resources; on October 8th, they secured cabinet approval for a 10% rise in military spending."

For full article from Economist read on:

Jewish migration
Next year in Berlin
Some Israelis yearn for new lives in Germany
Oct 11th 2014 | JERUSALEM | From the print edition Timekeeper CloseSave this article

IS BERLIN the new Jerusalem? A Facebook page launched in Hebrew this month on how to move to a city far from rockets and rocketing prices in Israel has gone viral, reaching 600,000 people in a week. It is called Olim Le-Berlin, “Let’s ascend to Berlin”, using the same rousing verb Jews reserve for emigrating, or “ascending”, to Israel. An Israeli band sings a similar tune, turning the lyrics of Israel’s favourite song, “Jerusalem of Gold”, into a yearning for a “Reichstag of Peace, euro, and light”. Even Professor Manuel Trajtenberg, a leading economist commissioned by the government to look at the high cost of living, which sparked mass protests in 2011, has piped in. “Berlin is more attractive than Tel Aviv,” he says.

The response from official Israel has been vitriolic. Yisrael Ha-Yom, seen as the mouthpiece of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, chided Berlin’s ascenders on its front page. The voice of the nationalist right decried them as an insult to all Holocaust survivors. “See you in the gas chambers,” commented one critic on the Facebook page. The finance minister, Yair Lapid, has promised to extend price controls to more food items.
 
Emigration rates hardly justify such uproar. The German Federal Statistics Office records an increase of just 400 Israeli immigrants per year. Overall, Israel reckons there were about 16,000 new émigrés (inevitably called “descenders”) in 2012, but they were more than offset by incoming Jews from Eastern Europe, America and France, who tend to be more religious and right-wing. Though the Israeli diaspora is growing in Berlin, London and Barcelona, the trend is hardly new. Some 700,000 Israelis have abandoned the Promised Land since its creation, says Sergio DellaPergola, a demographer.

That said, the West’s multicultural cities are exercising a growing attraction, particularly on young, single, non-religious and increasingly female graduates—the type who made Tel Aviv cool. Many Israelis temporarily fled the country during Israel’s summer war in Gaza, after wailing sirens emptied the beaches and kept people indoors. Over Sabbath meals, Israelis who are worried about growing intolerance discuss whether to put their children or their country first.

Fears of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe, deter many Israelis from making the move. But Mr Netanyahu’s apparent rejection of compromise with Palestinians, and wars every few years, is eroding hope. Arguments about economic priorities are growing as Israel’s generals demand resources; on October 8th, they secured cabinet approval for a 10% rise in military spending. On their Facebook page, the Berlin ascenders displayed a bill for groceries in Germany that would cost three times as much in Israel. “Even our forefather, Jacob, went down to Egypt to earn double the salary and pay a third of the rent,” sing the hip-hoppers.

Israelis with Ashkenazi, or East European, ancestry are queuing at German, Hungarian and Polish consulates for what was once regarded as a shameful act of seeking European passports. Their numbers will only swell if the Spanish parliament approves a plan to grant nationality to potentially millions of Sephardi Jews, descended from those it expelled in 1492.

From the print edition: Middle East and Africa

Title: Jerusalem anarchy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2014, 10:37:19 AM

Click here to watch: Netanyahu Furious over Jerusalem Anarchy, Demands Crackdown

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat has spelled out his plan for restoring order to neighborhoods in Jerusalem where Arab attacks on Jews have become daily occurrences, and said that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also forcefully demanded action by the security forces in a recent high-level discussion. Barkat enumerated the neighborhoods currently under attack – from Armon Hanatziv, Har Homa, and Gilo in southern Jerusalem, through the Mount of Olives area, Issawiya and Silwan, northward to Shuafat and Beit Hanina, where the Light Rail has repeatedly come under brutal attack. He commended Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who he said took very seriously the letter Barkat sent him earlier this month, demanding action against the riots in Jerusalem. Netanyahu gathered the Public Security Minister and top police commanders, he said, for a discussion immediately after Yom Kippur. "I have to tell you,” Barkat said, “that I saw the prime minister banging angrily on the table, and committed to make the necessary change, so that the residents of Jerusalem and visitors to Jerusalem, in the seam line neighborhoods, including the Arab neighborhoods, will feel safer than they do at the moment.” In an interview on Galei Yisrael Radio, Barkat said police special forces units in Jerusalem need to be “doubled” in size – at one point, he said 100 Yassam policemen need to be added to the force – and to adopt a more aggressive posture. Instead of waiting inside the Jewish neighborhoods for Arabs to attack – the forces should enter the Arab neighborhoods and use their intelligence gathering abilities to nip attacks in the bud, he explained

Watch Here

Drones and balloons will start to be used by police in Jerusalem for intelligence gathering against the rioters in the coming days, he revealed. In order for the steps to be effective, however, punishment also needs to be made more severe, according to the mayor. Barkat admitted in an interview with Kalman Libeskind that municipal vehicles no longer enter certain neighborhoods because doing so requires a police escort and such escorts are not available. He denied that the Jerusalem Municipality is trying to cover up the seriousness of the attacks on the Light Rail, and the security situation in Jerusalem in general. However, the mayor appears to have made an about face on this matter from his earlier position, which blamed the Light Rail for reporting attacks against it to the press, and preferred to hush-up the "silent intifada" because the reports about it were bad for business. Barkat accused Minister of Public Security Yitzhak Aharonovich of laxness in the face of the challenge in Jerusalem. "Unfortunately,” Barkat wrote in his letter to Netanyahu, “the Public Security Minister isn't providing Jerusalem police with the needed means so that it can defeat the rioters." Barkat said he had seen a video shot recently by residents of Armon Hanatziv, showing them being attacked brazenly by Arab youths who appeared to control the streets, and who were hurling rocks at the residents' homes.

Title: Hamas leader's daughter received critical medical care in Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 23, 2014, 08:49:44 PM

Hamas Leader's Daughter Received Critical Medical Treatment In Israel

An Israeli hospital confirmed Sunday that it had treated the daughter of Hamas’s top leader in the Gaza Strip, weeks after a brutal war between Israel and the Islamist terror group. Avi Shushan, a spokesman for Tel Aviv’s Ichilov Hospital, said the daughter of Ismail Haniyeh was hospitalized for “a number of days” this month. He did not disclose what she was treated for. A spokeswoman for the Israeli military also confirmed the hospital stay. Hamas officials were not immediately available for comment. Israel and Hamas fought a fierce 50-day war this summer that killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians according to Palestinian sources, and 72 people on the Israeli side, mostly soldiers. Israel says half of the Gaza dead were Hamas and other gunmen.

Watch Here

Haniyeh’s daughter was treated in Israel following complications during a standard medical procedure in Gaza, Reuters reported Sunday. Israeli authorities occasionally allow injured and ill Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip and seek care at Israeli hospitals, and both Haniyeh’s mother-in-law and baby granddaughter were treated in Israel in the last year alone. On June 3, Maj. Guy Inbar, an Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman, said the terror group leader’s mother-in-law, 68, was allowed to enter from the Gaza Strip to receive cancer treatment at a Jerusalem hospital. Last November, Haniyeh’s one-year-old granddaughter was evacuated to an Israeli hospital in critical condition, but was returned to her family in Gaza after her condition was deemed incurable, an Israeli military spokesman said. The girl later died of her condition. Haniyeh, the former prime minister of Gaza — prior to the reconciliation with Fatah and the establishment of the unity government — has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction, and refused on countless occasions to disarm. During the summer conflict, Israel bombed Haniyeh’s Gaza home. The Hamas leader was not hurt in the raid.

Title: Who was there first and the most?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2014, 09:28:03 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/584615/posts

Title: Gen Dempsey defends Israel's Gaza mission
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2014, 08:41:47 AM

And we are sending a team to learn from them.


http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/186890/u-s-military-chief-defends-israeli-efforts-to-limit-gaza-deaths?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=7054bf0cf5-Monday_November_10_201411_7_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-7054bf0cf5-207194629

Title: International community outraged! , , , not.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2014, 10:58:05 AM

second post

http://pamelageller.com/2014/11/photo-billboard-in-israel-urges-muslims-to-kill-jews-with-their-cars.html/

Title: POTH: Jerusalem's war of neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2014, 10:26:15 AM

It's POTH, so caveat lector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/world/middleeast/in-jerusalem-war-of-neighbors-the-differences-are-not-negotiable.html?emc=edit_th_20141119&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

Title: Glick: Responding to the Jeruasalem Slaughter...
Post by: objectivist1 on November 22, 2014, 01:32:54 PM

Responding to the Slaughter

Posted By Caroline Glick On November 21, 2014

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

What we are seeing in Jerusalem today is not simply Palestinian terrorism. It is Islamic jihad. No one likes to admit it. The television reporters insist that this is the worst possible scenario because there is no way to placate it.

There is no way to reason with it.

So what else is new? The horrible truth is that all of the anti-Jewish slaughters perpetrated by our Arab neighbors have been motivated to greater or lesser degrees by Islamic Jew-hatred. The only difference between the past hundred years and now is that today our appeasement-oriented elite is finding it harder to pretend away the obvious fact that we cannot placate our enemies.

No “provocation” by Jews drove two Jerusalem Arabs to pick up meat cleavers and a rifle and slaughter rabbis in worship like sheep and then mutilate their bodies.

No “frustration” with a “lack of progress” in the “peace process,” can motivate people to run over Jewish babies or attempt to assassinate a Jewish civil rights activist.

The reason that these terrorists have decided to kill Jews is that they take offense at the fact that in Israel, Jews are free. They take offense because all their lives they have been taught that Jews should live at their mercy, or die by their sword.

They do so because they believe, as former Jordanian MP Ya’qub Qarash said on Palestinian television last week, that Christians and Muslims should work together to forbid the presence of Jews in “Palestine” and guarantee that “not a single Jew will remain in Jerusalem.”

Our neighbors are taught that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, signed the treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 as a ploy to buy time during which he would change the balance of power between his army and the Jews of Kuraish. And 10 years later, once his army gained the upper hand, he annihilated the Jews.

Throughout the 130-year history of modern Zionism, Islamic Jew-hatred has been restrained by two forces: the desire of many Arabs to live at peace with their Jewish neighbors; and the ability of Israeli authorities and before them, British authorities, to deter the local Arab Muslims from attacking.

The monopoly on Arab Muslim leadership has always belonged to the intolerant bigots. Support for coexistence has always been the choice of individuals.

Haj Amin el-Husseini’s first act as the founder of the Palestinian Arab identity was to translate The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and serialize them in the local press.

During the Arab jihad of 1936-1939, Husseini’s gangs of murderers killed more Arabs than the British did. He targeted those who sought peaceful coexistence with the Jews.

His successor Yasser Arafat followed his example.

During the 1988-1991 Palestinian uprising, the PLO killed more Palestinians than the IDF did. Like Husseini, Arafat targeted Palestinians who worked with Israel.

Since Israel imprudently embraced Arafat and the PLO in 1993 and permitted them to govern the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and exert direct influence and coercive power over the Arabs of Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority’s governing institutions have used all the tools at their disposal to silence those who support peaceful coexistence with Israel, and indoctrinate the general public in Islamic and racial Jew-hatred.

Much has been made of the recent spike in incitement of violence by Palestinian leaders led by Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas. But the flames Abbas and his comrades are throwing would not cause such conflagrations if they hadn’t already indoctrinated their audience to desire the destruction of the Jews.

You cannot solicit murder among those who haven’t been taught that committing murder is an act of heroism.

Today Israel must take swift, effective action to stop the slaughter. The damage that has been done to the psyches of the Arabs of Jerusalem and their brethren in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, cannot be repaired in a timeline relevant to the task of preventing the next massacre.

This means that for the time being, on the tactical level, Israel’s only play is strengthening its deterrence.

Israel faces two major constraints in meeting this challenge.

First, the European Union and the Obama administration, as well as the US foreign policy elite, are obsessively committed to a policy of empowering the Palestinians against Israel.

The Spanish parliament’s decision to go ahead with its planned vote to recognize the “State of Palestine,” just hours after the massacre at the Bnei Torah Kehillat Yaakov synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighborhood shows that the EU’s dedication to strengthening the Palestinians against Israel is entirely unrelated to events on the ground.

They don’t care who the Palestinians are or what they do. For their own reasons they have made supporting the Palestinians at Israel’s expense their top foreign policy priority.

Similarly, US President Barack Obama couldn’t contain his compulsion to pressure Israel even in his statement condemning the massacre. Even there, Obama called on Israelis and Palestinians equally to restrain themselves.

Obama’s unabated hostility toward Israel was brought to bear on Tuesday afternoon when the State Department restated its rejection of Jewish property rights in Jerusalem and its desire to see the homes of terrorist murderers left intact for the welfare of their terror-supporting families.

On Tuesday, Israel’s social media outlets were filled with angry rebukes of Western media outlets from CNN to MSNBC to CBS, to the BBC. All these networks, and many others, did everything in their power to explain away the synagogue slaughter as just another instance of a cycle of violence. That is, they all sought to frame the discussion in a way that would lead their viewers to the conclusion that the slaughter of praying rabbis was justified.

While appalling, the coverage was not the least surprising. The Western elite media’s devotion to their false narrative of Israeli culpability for all the problems in the region is absolute. Networks would rather wreck their professional reputations than tell the truth.

Together with the EU, the American policy elite and the Obama administration, the media place Israel’s leaders in a bind. Every step they take to defend the country and protect the rights of Jews meets with automatic and libelous condemnation.

The other impediment Israel faces in deterring anti-Jewish violence against its citizenry is its own weakness. Since the inception of the phony peace process, Israel has continuously rewarded the Palestinians for their murderous violence against its citizenry.

From Israel’s transfer of control over all the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria, to its forcible expulsion of its own people from Gaza, to its repeated releases of terrorists from prison, to its continued transfer of hundreds of millions of shekels in tax revenues to the PA, Israel has showed the Palestinians at every turn that far from being punished for murdering Jews, they will be rewarded for doing so.

Given the US and European support for the Palestinians, Israeli declarations that there will be no future releases of terrorists have no credibility. If terrorists aren’t killed on the spot, they can assume that they will eventually be released; if not in exchange for an Israeli hostage, Israel will release them in an attempt to placate the White House.

But even with these constraints on its actions, Israel can take steps to deter its hate-filled enemies from attacking.

Since the current campaign of murder is being carried out by terrorists largely acting on their own accord, the measures Israel adopts to stop the attacks should be directed primarily against individual terrorists. As for action against the PA, it needs to be credible, consistent and directed to where it will hurt Palestinian leaders the most: their wallets.

With regard to the individual terrorists, the government has made much of its intention to destroy the homes of terrorists. While it sounds good, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of this punitive measure, which is a relic of the British Mandate.

Rather than destroy their homes, Israel should adopt the US anti-narcotics policy of asset seizure.

All assets directly or indirectly tied to terrorists, including their homes and any other structure where they planned their crimes, and all remittances to them, should be seized and transferred to their victims, to do with what they will.

If Israel hands over the homes of the synagogue butchers to the 24 orphans of Rabbi Moshe Twersky, Rabbi Kalman Levine, Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky and Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, not only will justice be served. The children’s inheritance of the homes of their fathers’ killers will send a clear and demoralizing message to other would-be killers.

Not only will their atrocities fail to remove the Jews from Israel. Every terrorist will contribute to the Zionist project by donating his home to the Jewish settlement enterprise.

Just as Israel has repeatedly buckled under US pressure to release terrorists from jail, so it has bowed to US pressure to continue to fund the PA by transferring the tax revenues it collects on goods imported to the PA.

Assuming that the government is too weak to stand up to the Americans, at a minimum it can see that the money is properly used.

To that end, the Knesset should pass a law permitting Israeli terror victims to sue the PA for actual and punitive damages in Israel courts. The sums awarded to the victims should be taken from the tax revenues Israel collects for the PA. The law should apply retroactively to all victims of Palestinian terror carried out since the establishment of the PA in May 1994.

Not only should the law permit Israeli terror victims to sue the PA. It should dictate actions the Justice Ministry must take to assist them in bringing suit.

Israel should also revoke citizenship and residency rights not only from terrorists themselves, but from those who enjoy citizenship and residency rights by dint of their relationship with the terrorists.

Wives who received Israeli residency or citizenship rights though marriage to terrorists should have their rights revoked, as should the children of the terrorists.

Since Tuesday’s massacre, aside from Abbas’s phony condemnation, the Palestinian leadership and public from Fatah to Hamas have been unanimous in their praise for the atrocity.

Today Israel is powerless to influence the hearts of our Arab neighbors. But we can influence their minds. We can deter them from attacking us.

The actions set forth above: asset seizure, revenue seizure and citizenship/residency abrogation for terrorists and their dependents are steps that Israel can take today, despite the hostile international climate.

If the government and Knesset adopt these measures, they will rectify some of the damage Israel has inflicted on itself by showing the Palestinians over two decades that they will be rewarded for their aggression.

If our leaders fail to take these or similar actions, and suffice with complaining about incitement, their condemnations of the murder of Jews will ring as hollow as those sounded by the BBC, Obama and Abbas.

Title: Rumors of sanctions on Israel instead of Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2014, 09:14:49 PM

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31522

Title: Re: Rumors of sanctions on Israel instead of Iran
Post by: G M on December 05, 2014, 10:56:56 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2014, 09:14:49 PM

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31522

Makes sense, our president likes  Iran much more than Israel.

Title: Re: Rumors of Sanctions on Israel...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 06, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

Let's put it plainly:  Obama despises Israel, and is anti-Semitic.  This much is clear based upon his actions since inauguration.

Title: A World Without Israel part one
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 07, 2014, 08:15:07 AM

Haven't watched this yet but it seems promising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpR7P8I1YEI&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=NonMembersMidEastYouTube127&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=FutureOfTheMidEast&utm_content=FutureOfTheMidEast&utm_campaign=FutureOfTheMidEast

Title: Re: A World Without Israel Part One...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 07, 2014, 09:00:09 AM

Thank you for posting this, Crafty.  It is superb.  I am looking forward to parts 2 through 4.  Well worth the members here watching.  Profound discussion.

Title: Re: Rumors of sanctions on Israel instead of Iran
Post by: DougMacG on December 07, 2014, 09:26:13 AM

Quote from: G M on December 05, 2014, 10:56:56 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2014, 09:14:49 PM

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31522

Makes sense, our president likes  Iran much more than Israel.

Oddly, our first female President, Valerie Jarrett, was born in Iran.

I'm no conspiracy buff for what we can't see behind the scenes, but you would think someone would want to hold this administration accountable for what we can see.

Why is it an easier political position to take, to choose sides with radical Islamic terrorism rather than with our only ally in the region?

Title: Re: A World Without Israel Part One...
Post by: DougMacG on December 07, 2014, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: objectivist1 on December 07, 2014, 09:00:09 AM

Thank you for posting this, Crafty.  It is superb.  I am looking forward to parts 2 through 4.  Well worth the members here watching.  Profound discussion.

Agree.  Besides Israel, great points made about the failure of the UN.  Why does it seem to be off limits to propose a better way for peace seeking nations to organize?

Title: What the Israeli Elections Mean for Obama...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 08, 2014, 10:12:01 AM

What Israeli Elections Mean for Obama

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 8, 2014

While in most countries immigration moves the electorate to the left, in Israel immigration moved the country to the right. In the United States the left is counting on demographics to make it easier for them to win elections, but in Israel demographic shifts have made it easier for the right to win.

But the biggest problem for the Israeli left is that it’s tethered to its own version of ObamaCare in the form of the Palestinian Authority which won’t make peace, won’t stop funding terrorism and won’t stop playing the victim. As with ObamaCare, the Israeli left teeters between running on the disastrous peace process that everyone hates and pivoting away from it toward economic bread and butter issues.

For Obama and European leaders, Israel is reducible to the peace process. And the Israeli left depends on the support of foreign governments for its network of foreign funded non-profit organizations. The Israeli left can’t let go of its exploding version of ObamaCare because the left is becoming a foreign organization with limited domestic support. Its electorate isn’t in Israel; it’s in Brussels.

The Israeli left is short on ideas, both foreign and domestic, and its last remaining card is Obama.

Escalating a crisis in relations has been the traditional way for US administrations to force Israeli governments out of office. Bill Clinton did it to Netanyahu and as Israeli elections appear on the horizon Obama would love to do it all over again.

There’s only one problem.

The United States is popular in Israel, but Obama isn’t. Obama’s spats with Netanyahu ended up making the Israeli leader more popular. The plan was for Obama to gaslight Israelis by maintaining a positive image in Israel while lashing out at the Jewish State so that the blame would fall on Netanyahu.

That was what Obama’s trip to Israel had been about. While his approval ratings in Israel briefly picked up, they clattered down again over his attitude during the recent Hamas war. Polls show that the majority of Israelis don’t trust him to have their back on Islamic terrorism or Iran. And that’s bad news for him and for an Israeli left that needs to sell the image of a good Obama and a bad Netanyahu.

The foreign policy crowd is divided on whether Obama should intervene in Israel’s elections and how much. Trial balloons being floated show that Obama Inc. is at the very least willing to play coy about suggestions of sanctioning Israel. The sanctions are unlikely to ever get past Congress, but they never have to exist. Obama’s people are letting the Israeli left and their media outlet Haaretz do the heavy lifting by drawing up political doomsday scenarios and then issuing non-denial denials.

The idea is to undermine Netanyahu without getting Obama’s hands dirty. Anonymous leaks provide plausible deniability without anything that can officially be traced back to Obama. While Obama, Biden and Hillary spin the attacks as “normal disagreements between friends” for the consumption of Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, the Israeli left warns that the relationship between America and Israel has been completely wrecked.

While Jewish Democrats have remained oblivious, as intended, these tactics have only hurt Obama’s image among the Israeli target audience. And that has strengthened Netanyahu’s image as a strong leader willing to stand up for his country’s interests.

In trying to weaken Netanyahu, Obama only made him stronger.

The Israeli left however isn’t done yet. Unpopular with the public, its members still control the police, the judiciary, the media, academia and the entertainment industry. They form the Israeli “Deep State” made up of everyone from top security officials to the media who are constantly warning about the threats to democracy from democracy, the dangers of right-wing extremism and the need to crack down on “incitement” which usually means any view that diverges from that of the left.

When it comes to elections, the left compensates for its unpopularity with fake third parties that claim to be centrist or reformist. Yesh Atid, the current incarnation of the fake third party built around an anchorman who went from high school dropout to the Minister of Finance, is sinking, but it had already fulfilled its purpose. The next incarnation of the fake third party will be headed by Moshe Kahlon.

Moshe Kahlon is a familiar figure, a defector from the conservative Likud party, a fake moderate who claims that the “extreme right” has taken over his old party. Swap out Reagan for Begin and it’s the exact same rhetoric you can hear from a Charlie Crist or a Larry Pressler.

The left may not be able to win a popularity contest, let alone a contest of ideas, but it has been agile at manipulating Israel’s multi-party system to its advantage. It doesn’t need to beat the right. It just needs to build a coalition out of fake third parties fueled by public frustration with the existing dominant parties while finding ways to splinter the right. And that’s where Obama can do the most harm.

Obama has failed at winning over Israelis, but he doesn’t need to if he can force Netanyahu to make enough concessions to destroy his image. And then the right begins to eat itself. It’s the same tactic that Obama used against Congressional Republicans. Uniting the left and dividing the right had worked well in America. Netanyahu’s willingness to compromise has lost the right without winning over anyone else.

Netanyahu may not be beatable this time around, but if his coalition can be watered down with enough leftists then it compromises his ability to get anything done while creating a ticking time bomb. New elections are the result of the ticking time bomb finally going off. The “inclusive” coalition favored by this administration last time around effectively undermined the Netanyahu government.

If a more solid conservative coalition emerges from the election then Obama will have lost. But the overall relationship would remain unchanged even if the left won.

No Israeli government can deliver the things that Obama wants because they are physically impossible. The PLO does not want peace. It will not agree to any final deal that ends all future demands on Israel and all justifications for violence against the Jewish State. And even if such a deal were reached, it would have no impact on Hamas which controls Gaza and will control the West Bank. Nor would it make the regional Muslim violence that the conflict is frequently blamed for vanish into thin air.

Even a government of the left would still be berated because there are Jews living in Jerusalem and across Israel in places that Obama disapproves of. No Israeli government could ethnically cleanse a quarter of a million Jews. And even if it did, new demands and claims of occupied territory would follow.

A government of the left can however give Obama political cover. It would avoid making statements about Iran and freely put Israeli lives at risk to meet administration demands. Its members would help Obama maintain the illusion of a friendly relationship no matter how ugly things become behind the scenes. There would be no more public tension and nothing to raise questions for American Jews.

And that’s what Obama really wants. Israel is meant to be a scapegoat in foreign affairs and a safe fundraising line for Democratic politicians. It’s supposed to take the blame for Obama’s foreign policies while posing for photos with him for Jewish audiences.

That’s where Netanyahu rocked the boat by speaking out. That’s what infuriates Obama.

Obama’s ideal Israeli government would allow itself to be berated and blamed for everything without ever speaking up in its own defense. It would be pathetically grateful for any attention from Obama. That’s all the Israeli left can offer him and it can’t even deliver that because it can’t win.

Title: POTH: Israeli nat. gas offers lifeline for peace?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2014, 09:55:34 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/business/energy-environment/israels-natural-gas-supply-offers-lifeline-for-peace.html?emc=edit_th_20141215&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

Title: Not likely to appear in any of the Pravdas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 19, 2014, 02:18:31 AM

Click here to watch: New Video Sheds Light on What is Really Going on in The Golan Heights

Vice News, a generally anti-Israel media outlet, couldn't help but notice the miracle work Israel is doing in the Golan Heights. The Israeli army is shown providing medical assistance to wounded Syrian rebels in a new video issued Wednesday by Vice News. In the video, military medics in the Golan Heights are seen tending to three Syrians in a military ambulance, assessing their condition and providing initial treatment before moving them to a hospital. The soldiers collect the injured men under cover of night as they are transferred to Israeli hands from across the border. They suffer from various injuries apparently sustained in fighting with the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and appear to be in some pain. The Israeli medical staff seem to do their best to make the three comfortable as they try to identify their injuries and their causes. One is said to have been shot, another possibly hit by shrapnel.

Watch Here

It is unclear which rebel group the three men belong to, and Vice reporter Simon Ostrovsky notes that they could very well be members of organizations hostile to Israel, such as the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. Reports recently presented to the United Nations Security Council have revealed numerous interactions between Israeli troops and rebel groups on the Israel-Syrian border over the past year and a half. UN observers in the Golan Heights meticulously detailed instances of contact between IDF soldiers and rebels, including Syrians being sent into Israel for medical treatment, and the transfer of items and containers, according to records maintained by the UN disengagement force in the Golan demilitarized zone. Most of the dispatches report on cross-border incidents, though several also detail numbers of people sent from Syrian fighting into Israel for medical treatment. “During periods of heavy engagement with Syrian forces, [rebel groups] transferred 89 wounded persons across the ceasefire line to the IDF,” a May 2014 dispatch reads, adding later that “the IDF handed 19 treated and two deceased individuals” back to the insurgents. On another occasion, also dated May 2014, UN monitors observed IDF troops “handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition” on the Syrian side. The reports use “armed members of the opposition” as a blanket term to describe rebel and jihadi groups operating against the Syrian government. A June 2013 memorandum notes that Israel’s “Liaison Officer informed UNDOF that the IDF had provided emergency medical treatment to 20 armed members of the opposition, all of whom had been returned to the Syrian side.” Israel has accepted Syrians for medical treatment for years, setting up a field hospital next to the DMZ, and transferring more seriously injured patients to other medical facilities in the north of the country. Since last year, more than 700 wounded Syrians have been treated in Israeli hospitals via the Syria-Israel border crossing. Israeli officials have in the past refused to identify who they treat and whether they are regime forces, rebels or civilians. UNDOF has patrolled the buffer zone between Syria and Israel since 1974, a year after the Yom Kippur War, helping to maintain a ceasefire between the two countries.

Title: POTH Hamas blocks bridge building trip to Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2014, 04:12:42 AM

Hamas Turns Back 37 Gaza War Orphans From a Bridge-Building Trip to Israel

By ISABEL KERSHNER and MAJD AL WAHEIDIDEC. 28, 2014
Photo
Activists waiting at the Erez border crossing Sunday for youths from Gaza, who had set out for a rare visit to Israel before Hamas turned them back. Credit Amir Cohen/Reuters


JERUSALEM — Thirty-seven young war orphans from Gaza set out on Sunday for a rare visit to Israel. They got as far as the Erez border crossing at the northern end of the Palestinian coastal enclave. There the Hamas authorities turned them back, barring the visit at the last minute.

Israeli officials and organizers of the highly unusual weeklong peace-building visit said that it had been fully coordinated with the Israeli liaison authorities and that Israeli approval had been given. But Hamas, the Islamic militant group that dominates Gaza, apparently went back on an initial agreement to allow the youths to enter Israel.

“This was a suspicious visit that aimed to normalize our children with the Zionist occupation,” Eyad al-Buzom, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry in Gaza, said in a telephone interview. “In order to protect our sons, we prevented them from visiting the occupation,” he said, referring to Israel. Mr. Buzom refused to elaborate, but he said that all “dangerous” trips of this kind would be prevented in the future.

The youths, ages 13 to 16, according to Mr. Buzom, were to be accompanied by five adults from Gaza.

Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist and is sworn to its destruction. Israel, like much of the West, considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization and refuses direct dealings with it.  (A rare statement of the obvious from Pravda on the Hudson)

The visit was organized by Yoel Marshak of the Kibbutz Movement, which represents more than 250 farming communities in Israel, in cooperation with Israel’s Arab and Bedouin communities and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.  Mr. Marshak, a leader of the Kibbutz Movement’s task force and a leftist activist, said the orphans included the children of Hamas fighters who were killed during the 50-day war with Israel this summer.

“In 20 or 30 years, these children will be the leaders in Gaza,” Mr. Marshak said. “The idea was to give them a positive experience in Israel,” he added, speaking by telephone after waiting in vain with a bus on the Israeli side of the Erez crossing. Mr. Marshak said he had received a letter from Hamas several weeks ago giving initial approval for the visit. The reasons for the change of heart were not immediately clear.

Israel, like Egypt to the south, imposes tight restrictions on the movement of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents. The Erez crossing is mostly used by international aid workers, diplomats, journalists and Gaza residents with special permission to enter Israel for medical treatment or other urgent humanitarian reasons.

Mr. Marshak produced a copy of a permit from the Israeli coordination and liaison authority that deals with Gaza, dated Sunday, stating that it had approved the group’s entry on an “exceptional and one-time basis, in light of the special circumstances.” It was addressed to Mr. Marshak and a charity, the Candle for Peace and Brotherhood, based in Kafr Qassem, an Arab town in central Israel.

The group’s itinerary was to include visits to Tel Aviv and Jaffa; the safari park in nearby Ramat Gan; Kafr Qassem and Umm al Fahm; a school and a kibbutz near the border with Gaza; the Bedouin town of Rahat; and the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.


In Ramallah the children were scheduled to meet President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Abbas’s Fatah party and Hamas, its rival, signed a reconciliation pact in April, after seven years of deep political schism, and jointly backed a new government. That pact appears to have changed little so far in Gaza.

Organizers said the trip was supposed to offer the youths a respite from the death and destruction they had experienced in Gaza. More than 2,100 Palestinians were killed in the war, including hundreds of children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry and the United Nations. More than 70 Israelis were killed, most of them soldiers. Among the Israeli casualties was a 4-year-old boy killed by a mortar shell in a kibbutz along the border with Gaza.

Israel began an air assault in July, saying the goal was to curb rocket fire from Gaza. It followed with a limited ground invasion that had the stated purpose of destroying a network of Hamas tunnels that ran beneath the border into Israel.

An Egyptian-brokered cease-fire ended the hostilities in late August.

Mr. Marshak of the Kibbutz Movement said a similar trip took place five years ago after Israel’s three-week air and ground offensive that ended in January 2009. That time, he said, 11 children toured Israel for four days. Hamas stopped them from entering twice, Mr. Marshak said, but pressure was applied and they were allowed to cross the third time.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2014, 10:34:19 AM

second post

Hamas Shows Off Army ‘Ready to Conquer Jerusalem’


 
Click here to watch: Hamas Shows Off Army ‘Ready to Conquer Jerusalem’

The propaganda unit of Hamas's "military wing", the Ezzedine Al-Qassam Brigades, kicked into overdrive recently with a new film, which attempted to portray the terrorist organization's Gazan fighting force as a modern Islamic army, exhibiting advanced weaponry training for a wide range of scenarios - and with its sights on Jerusalem. In the video a large unit of terrorists are shown with all the equipment of a modern army, from combat vests to advanced assault rifles. Several are seen bearing a flag reading "the army of Al-Quds (Jerusalem)." The Hamas "army" is seen conducting an array of operations modeled on attacks launched against Israel from Gaza - including several attacks in recent weeks that the terror group has denied responsibility for. It appears to be an attempt to showcase a recently-announced "popular army", which the Islamist terror group said it formed following Operation Protective Edge to "liberate Palestine". In one scene, the terrorists are seen raiding a model IDF post and kidnapping an Israeli soldier. In another, a sniper is seen shooting an IDF soldier; just last Wednesday an IDF soldier was critically wounded by sniper fire during repairs on the security barrier, although Hamas denied it was behind the attack from territory it controls. Tellingly, however, the head of Hamas's reconnaissance unit was killed by IDF return fire during the incident.

Watch Here

Rockets, including the domestically produced M75, are seen being fired on numerous occasions throughout the propaganda film, after just two weeks ago a rocket was fired on Israel from Gaza in a breach of the truce, marking at least the third such case of rocket fire since Operation Protective Edge. In response to the latest rocket attack, the IAF struck Gaza concrete factories used to rebuild the terror tunnels leading into Israel and built to attack Israeli civilians. Over 30 such tunnels were destroyed in the operation, but since it ended Hamas has been busily rebuilding them. Indeed, the propaganda film shows Hamas terrorists in terror tunnels, preparing for new attacks. Likewise naval commandos sporting diver equipment are shown firing from boats, before hopping off into the water and continuing to fire with assault rifles made for maritime usage. Aside from attempts to model itself as a modern, conventional army of sorts, the video is equally a clear attempt to emphasize the group's jihadi credentials, at a time when other actors - from Islamic Jihad to Al Qaeda and most recently ISIS - have in many ways stolen its thunder. The opening scene includes a commander riding a horse, a common prop utilized by jihadi groups to hark back to the early Islamic armies; equally the white flag of jihad its terrorists are waving - though not identical - bears a resemblance to the classic jihadi flag adapted by groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. At the end of the film, the Hamas army is seen crossing a security barrier and approaching Jerusalem with the Dome of the Rock glittering on top of the Temple Mount, clearly advertising the terror group's aspirations of creating a Palestinian state on the ruins of Israel. Propaganda aside, the much-vaunted "commandos" of Hamas did not fair quite as well during the recent summer war with Israel. Numerous attempts to infiltrate via sea - comprised of terrorists most likely from the same "naval unit" as the one shown in the video - failed miserably, with the terrorists cut down by IDF fire almost immediately upon landing ashore. Indeed much of the propaganda surrounding Hamas's "new" army is unlikely to be much more than that - an attempt to rebuild its image after a largely futile war with Israel which saw it, and the territory it controls, ravaged by fighting with little to show for it. But Israeli intelligence officials will be studying such videos carefully, and those politicians and military leaders who pushed for a more decisive victory during Operation Protective Edge will likely view such a show of force as vindication of their position.

Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: Jordanian Cleric arrested for advocating Jewish Temple Mount Prayer
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2015, 06:20:02 AM

Jordanian Cleric Advocates Jewish Temple Mount Prayer

Click here to watch: Jordan Arrests Cleric for Advocating Jewish Temple Mount Prayer

A Jordanian Muslim cleric has been arrested for advocating Jewish prayer rights on the Temple Mount, just a week after he issued a public statement retracting the comments following a hail of criticism. In a video statement posted online on December 18, Salafi cleric Sheikh Yassin Al-Ajlouni said a place of worship for Jews should be established on the Temple Mount, noting its religious importance to Judaism - although he emphasized that the site should remain "under Hashemite [Jordanian] sovereignty and control," as per existing arrangements. "There should be a special place of worship for the Jews among the Israelis under Hashemite and Palestinian sovereignty, and in agreement with the Israeli regime," Al-Ajlouni said "This by no means entails the harming of the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock," he added, clarifying that under his vision "part of the courtyard, where there are trees, will be allocated for the prayer of the Israelis." He further called on Jordanian and Palestinian Islamic scholars to issue a fatwa (religious ruling) to "clarify their religious position regarding the building of a place of worship dedicated for the Israeli Jews." But the comments unsurprisingly drew the ire of authorities, who do not recognize the Jewish claim to the Temple Mount, leading him to issue a public retraction. In a video dated December 28, the cleric said: "I am retracting my call, in my previous video, to allocate a place of worship for the Jews (on the Temple Mount)." "The Israelis interpreted this call as if I were saying that they have a right to Bayt al-Maqdis [Temple Mount]," he continued. "I would like to emphasize that Bay al-Maqdis is pure Islamic land. "No one is allowed to give it up, trivialize it, or to pass sovereignty over it to any non-Muslim party."

Watch Here

However, apparently that was not enough for Jordanian authorities, who arrested him not long after his retraction. According to Jordanian media, first cited by the Elder of Ziyon blog, Al-Ajlouni was arrested on the orders of the Administrative Governor of the Irbid Governorate. In addition, the "General Mufti Department" Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Sheikh Ajlouni, who is a physics teacher, calling on the Ministry of Education to take "appropriate administrative action" against him "for issuing random fatwas that hurt the feelings of Muslims, and affected the Jordanian efforts to protect the Al-Aqsa Mosque from Zionist attacks." Despite its status as the holiest site in Judaism, Jews are currently banned from praying on the Temple Mount (as are other non-Muslims) due to pressure and threats from Muslim groups - not least among them the Waqf Islamic trust, which administers the site under Jordanian auspices as per Jordan's peace treaty with Israel. Jewish activists have been campaigning to change that, branding such measures illegal and discriminatory - and have faced hostility and even violence, sometimes deadly, by Muslim extremists in response. Al-Ajlouni's comments were unusual given the current discourse within the Muslim world, which denies any Jewish connection to the site. Prominent Jewish Temple Mount rights activist Rabbi Chaim Richman praised his "bold" statement as "extremely positive." Up until the 20th century Islamic literature consistently referred to the Mount as the site of the Jewish Temple of Solomon, but Arab and Muslim opposition to the growing Zionist movement sparked a wave of revisionism which saw nearly all reference to the site's Jewish heritage removed from their history books. Today, the Waqf and Palestinian Authority deny that the Temple Mount was ever Jewish, and actively seek to erase any traces of its Jewish past by destroying precious artifacts.

Source: Arutz Sheva

Title: ISIS in Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2015, 09:19:39 AM

The Israeli Defense Forces have created a new department dedicated to intelligence information on the terrorist organization Islamic State. The IDF first began following the spread of ISIS in April 2014, which they learned about primarily through social networking. However, Channel 2 News recently discovered that the Directorate of Military Intelligence (known in Hebrew as Aman) have increased intelligence collection, thereby developing a specific body charged with gathering intelligence on the terrorist organization. In fact, it was an existing intelligence department whose job has now been redefined, that was entrusted with the highly specialized task. "We made adjustments when we realized that the phenomenon of ISIS breaks any previous historical limits," a senior intelligence officer told Channel 2.

Watch Here

"Most of our intelligence on the organization comes from the network, because ISIS does not belong to a particular arena where we have intelligence sources." Surveillance in Aman is divided by arenas. At first, the IDF tried tracking ISIS through Syria, but quickly realized that the terror group was extraordinarily unique, and could not be tracked through one specific arena. "The moment we saw the first significant surveillance footage, we understood that this is something completely different," the officer added. The IDF tracks, among other things, the fighting methods of the organization, the statements of its leaders, and published propaganda videos. Their major concern is the spread of ISIS within Israel's borders - an already present phenomenon. Another major concern is that Palestinian Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, dissatisfied with their leadership, will join the organization. "For the IDF, it is a very disturbing possibility that these video will affect the Palestinian Arab public, already very frustrated with their leadership, and we follow that trend religiously," the officer noted. He also addressed ISIS' skill in recruiting young people to join the terrorist organization. "ISIS's people are knocking on our border," the officer said. "Today there are strong in Sinai and therefore we have to prepare for it. In general all threats of terror within our border employ all of the IDF." The officer added that with time, Aman's monitoring of the organization will increase even more, given the organization's strengthening and closeness to Israel's borders.

Title: WSJ: Israel's minster without apologies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2015, 12:06:03 PM

Israel’s Minister Without Apologies
A rising conservative star says the old formulas for pursuing peace with the Palestinians are obsolete. The two-state solution? Not anytime soon.
By Bret Stephens
Updated Jan. 9, 2015 6:55 p.m. ET
359 COMMENTS

Tel Aviv

It’s election season in Israel, and so far the most talked-about campaign ad features an Orthodox politician in an unorthodox role. In a YouTube video that quickly went viral, Naftali Bennett plays a fashionably bearded Tel Aviv hipster with a compulsion to say sorry—especially when he’s the one being wronged.

A waitress spills coffee on him: He begs her forgiveness. His car gets rear-ended: He steps out to tell the offending driver how sorry he is. He sits on a park bench and reads an editorial in a left-wing newspaper calling on Israel to apologize to Turkey for the 2010 flotilla incident, in which nine pro-Palestinian militants were killed aboard a ship after violently assaulting Israeli naval commandos. “They’re right!” he says of the editorial.

At last the fake beard comes off and the clean-shaven Mr. Bennett, who in real life is Israel’s minister of economy and heads the nationalist Jewish Home Party (in Hebrew, Habayit Hayehudi), looks at the camera and says: “Starting today, we stop apologizing. Join Habayit Hayehudi today.”
***

“For many years we’ve sort of apologized for everything,” Mr. Bennett explains in his Tel Aviv office. “About the fact that we are here, about the fact that this has been our land for 3,800 years, about the fact that we defend ourselves against Hamas, against Hezbollah.” It’s time, he says, “we raise our heads and say, ‘We’re here to stay, we’re proud of it, and we’re no longer apologetic.’ ”

The message has proved a potent one for the 42-year-old newbie politician, who only became a member of the Israeli Knesset in 2013 and immediately took a major ministerial post. The next parliamentary election doesn’t take place until March 17, which is a double eternity in Israeli politics. But Jewish Home is polling well, and Mr. Bennett is being talked about as a likely foreign or finance minister in the next coalition government, assuming it’s still led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party.

Should a Likud-Jewish Home government form, it could represent a tectonic shift in Israeli politics. For 25 years, between Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six Day War and the 1992 election of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, every Israeli government had categorically rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. Then came the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, after which Israeli governments of both the left and right, including Mr. Netanyahu’s, effectively committed Israel to the two-state solution.

Now the wheel is turning again. “The latest conflict in Gaza was a real earthquake for Israelis,” says Mr. Bennett, referring to last summer’s war.

“For 50 days we were incurring missiles, and they just went on and on from the very place where we did pull back to the ’67 lines. We did expel all the Jews. We did everything according to the book. The expectation might have been, we’ll get applause from the world—‘you’re OK; it’s they who are attacking you’—but what happened was the opposite. The world got angry at us for defending ourselves.”

For decades, “land-for-peace” has been the diplomatically accepted equation for solving the Israeli-Arab conflict. Experience has shown Israelis that it doesn’t always work as anticipated. Peace with Egypt, achieved after Israel agreed to return the conquered Sinai Peninsula, has proved durable. But Israel also withdrew all of its forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and what it got was a haven for Hamas, which used it to fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Doing likewise in the West Bank seems to many Israelis a surefire way of achieving the same result over a larger territorial scale.

Mr. Bennett, however, is making a deeper point. It isn’t only the land-for-peace formula that has failed Israel. The other failure is what one might call land-for-love: the notion that, even if ceding territory doesn’t lead to peace, it will nonetheless help Israel gain the world’s goodwill, and therefore diplomatic and strategic leverage. Instead, after 20 years of seeking peace and giving up land, Israel’s diplomatic isolation has only deepened. And, as he points out, it has deepened over disputes connected to Gaza—from which Israel withdrew—and not the West Bank, where Israel largely remains.

“So why would I follow the bad model,” Mr. Bennett asks, “instead of strengthening the good model?”

The “good model,” in Mr. Bennett’s view, is some version of the current arrangement in the West Bank, or what he calls, per official Israeli (and ancient Biblical) usage, Judea and Samaria.

“Judea and Samaria is imperfect,” he allows, “but it’s working. More Israelis and Palestinians are shopping together. Driving on the same roads. Working together. It’s not ideal there. But it’s working. People get up, go to work in the morning, come home alive.”

That’s a depiction that critics of Israeli policy would furiously contest, claiming that current policy gives Jewish settlers privileged access to the land while consigning nearly two million Palestinians to Bantustan-like enclaves. That, they say, risks transforming Israel from a democracy into an ethnocracy and guaranteeing international pariah status.

Mr. Bennett’s answer is that it’s the Palestinians who bear the blame for proving themselves unworthy of statehood. “They had all the opportunity in the world to build the Singapore of Gaza, he says. “They chose to turn it into Afghanistan.” He also believes that it’s better to find ways to make the best of a difficult situation than try to reach for a solution that is destined for failure. He wants a “Marshall Plan” to improve the Palestinian economy, “autonomy on steroids” for Palestinian politics—but no more.

“The truth is that no one has a good solution for what’s going on,” he says. “We have to figure out what we do over the next several decades. Trying to apply a Western full-fledged solution to a problem that is not solvable right now will bring us from an OK situation to a disastrous situation. So the first rule is, do no harm, which is the opposite of the Oslo process.”

Worse, he adds, is that successive Israeli leaders have felt obliged to go along with a commitment to a two-state solution, even as few of them believe it’s possible to achieve, at least with the current generation of Palestinians. As a result, he suggests, Israeli leaders can fairly be accused of insincerity.

“We go along with this vision that is impractical, and then, we are surprised why the world is angry with us for not fulfilling that vision. You can’t say, ‘I support a Palestinian state’ and then not execute according to that. I think people appreciate honesty.”
***

The comment is a not-too-subtle dig at Mr. Netanyahu, who formally embraced the idea of a Palestinian state in a landmark 2009 speech. Mr. Bennett was once the prime minister’s protégé, and served as his chief-of-staff when Mr. Netanyahu was in the political opposition. But the relationship soured as Mr. Bennett went on to become director-general of the Yesha Council, the umbrella group for Israeli settlers, and became even more embittered when Mr. Netanyahu agreed in 2010 to a 10-month settlement freeze. Over the past year relations between the two men have alternated between threats by the prime minister to fire Mr. Bennett and threats from Mr. Bennett to quit the coalition.

Ultimately, the two men are contesting for leadership of the Israeli right. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, given how much they have in common. Like Mr. Netanyahu, who spent much of his early life in the U.S., Mr. Bennett has strong American roots: Both his parents immigrated to Israel from California, and his English is fluent and all but unaccented. Like Mr. Netanyahu, too, who served in the Israeli special forces, Mr. Bennett was a commander in Maglan, a unit that specializes in going behind enemy lines.

And like Mr. Netanyahu, who worked as a management consultant in Boston in the 1970s, Mr. Bennett lived and worked in New York City, where he founded and ran a cybersecurity company called Cyota, which he sold for a neat profit in 2005. Today, he notes with evident pride, 70% of Americans who bank online use software developed by his company.

One difference, however, is that Mr. Netanyahu is a secular Jew, whereas Mr. Bennett, who wears the knitted kippa common to the religious-nationalist camp, is observant. His belief in the importance of holding on to land is therefore more than just a military or political consideration. It’s fundamental to his world view.

“If your vision is dividing Israel, then it makes no sense in building somewhere that’s not going to be part of Israel,” he says, again drawing an implicit contrast with Mr. Netanyahu. “If your vision is that you’re not going to divide Jerusalem, then it makes all the sense in the world to build there. Because anyway it’s yours.”

Mr. Bennett is equally critical of the government’s handling of last summer’s war with Gaza. The war, he says, took much too long, partly in a misbegotten effort to curry international favor. “I’ll just remind you, there was an endless series of cease-fires with Hamas,” he notes. “And I thought it was a profound mistake to talk to Hamas down in Egypt. You don’t talk to terror organizations! We go in, do what we want to do, get out; if we need to hit them hard we keep it short and keep it very intense. Why do we talk to them?”

Lest anyone mistake Mr. Bennett for an Israeli neoconservative, however, he’s quick to disabuse the impression.

“I don’t believe in regime change, certainly not in the Middle East,” he says. “When I look at the whole arena it’s always the law of unintended consequences works. Look at Syria, look at Egypt. If you ask me how to deal with everything, and it applies here also, it’s effectively deterrence—meaning don’t mess with Israel—it’s having a strong military with a tenfold edge on all of our enemies; it’s having a powerful economy; and strengthening our Jewish character. And not giving up land anymore. If we apply these principles we’ll be fine everywhere.”

So how should Israel—and for that matter the West—conduct a sober and realistic Mideast policy? I ask about Iran.

“Iran’s goal is not to acquire a nuclear weapon today,” he says. “Its goal is to acquire a nuclear weapon tomorrow. So to say that we are postponing the breakout is not the issue. The issue is, do they have a machine that can break out within a relatively short time frame. Roughly 20,000 centrifuges can produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within about four or five weeks. That’s not enough time for the West to identify a breakout. To create a coalition and act, you need about two years. What we need is for the whole machine to be dismantled, not for them to press the pause button.”

Mr. Bennett adds the standard Israeli refrain that the government is preparing for all contingencies and will not outsource its security, but he’s quick to underscore that a nuclear Iran—with the inevitable consequent chain of Mideast nuclear proliferation—is not Israel’s problem alone. “All this will flow over very quickly to the free world,” he warns.

The same goes for the broader problem of radical Islam.

“Anyone who thinks—and I’m talking especially about Europe—that if you sell Israel you buy peace and quiet in Madrid and Paris, they’ve got it all wrong. Israel is the bastion against radical Islam hitting Paris, Madrid and London.”

I interviewed Mr. Bennett on Tuesday night. The following day, jihadists stormed the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, massacring 12 people. There will surely be more such attacks, possibly quite soon. Whatever readers think about Mr. Bennett as an Israeli politician, they might do well to heed his warning to the West:

“The biggest danger for any organism is to not identify that it’s being threatened,” he says. “I want to hope that people realize that the source of danger and risk in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the deep radical Islamic vision of forming a global caliphate.”

Mr. Stephens writes the Journal’s Global View column.

Title: US consulate in Jerusalem arming Palestinians?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 16, 2015, 09:26:39 AM

http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/27673/report-us-consulate-training-arming-palestinians-as-guards-jerusalem/?utm_source=Breaking+Israel+News&utm_campaign=189510e493-BIN+Email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b6d3627f72-189510e493-86443557#AmWPxiZ1foRZ335e.97
Report: US Consulate Training, Arming Palestinians as Guards
 
US Consulate in Jerusalem (Photo: Magister/ Wiki Commons)

Three Israeli security guards serving in the US consulate in Jerusalem have quit over plans to hire and arm 35 new Palestinian guards in violation of a 2011 agreement, reported Yedioth Ahronoth Wednesday. The new guards have been training in an American facility in Jericho.

According to the paper, in 2011, the US consulate was permitted to retain about 100 handguns for the use of security staff, on condition those who handled them were Americans or Israel Defense Force veterans. Palestinians from East Jerusalem serve on the consulate’s security staff, but until now, none of them have been armed.
Sources told the paper that began to change a year and a half ago, when Regional Security Officer Dan Cronin began working there. Since then, employees claimed, seven Israelis have been fired, while only one Palestinian has lost his job.

Employees accused Cronin of voicing pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel opinions. “The law in Israel is merely advice to him,” they told the paper. “Cronin does what he wants. He doesn’t want the Israelis in the consulate.

“The consulate’s conduct is extremely biased towards the Palestinian side, and Cronin is actually raising an armed militia of Palestinians in the consulate. They’re trained in weapons use, Krav Maga, and tactical driving. This is irresponsible. Who is ensuring that putting this weaponry in Palestinian hands will not lead to terror?”
 
According to the unnamed employees, the new guards are being trained in the US as well as Jericho, and some have terrorist connections. Ynetnews (the English edition of Yedioth) reported, “the most senior advisor to the consul general is a Palestinian who served time in Israeli prison because of membership in the PLO.” Another is a relative of a Hamas leader in Jerusalem, Mohammed Hassan Abu Tir, who has served several prison terms in Israel.

The staff also accused the consulate of retaining machine guns and rifles on the premises, which contravenes the agreement, as well.

The consulate refused to respond to the accusations in the media, stating, “The United States’ consulate has complete faith in the professionalism of its staff,. We do not discuss security for our diplomatic delegation, but note that there are many inaccuracies in the claims. Furthermore, we coordinate our work with local authorities in a complete and ongoing manner.”

The consulate refused to elaborate on the alleged inaccuracies.

Israel declared Jerusalem its undivided capital in 1967, after reunifying the city during the Six Day War. Many countries, however, refused to recognize Israel’s claim to the eastern part of the city, and as such keep their embassies in Tel Aviv, maintaining only consular services in Jerusalem.

The Tel Aviv embassy handles Israeli affairs, while the Jerusalem consulate handles Palestinian affairs. As such, ambassadors based in Jerusalem make frequent trips to Area A, the “West Bank” region under Palestinian control which is off-limits to Israelis. They require non-Israeli armed escorts for such trips.

Title: Israel hit Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2015, 08:56:51 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/18/his-first-name-was-jihad-he-was-the-son-of-a-top-hezbollah-commander-the-israelis-just-took-him-out/

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/idf-preparing-for-response-from-hezbollah-after-strike-kills-up-to-12/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breaking+News+Video%3A+Iranian+General+Among+Dead+in+IAF+Golan+Strike&utm_campaign=20150119_m124046183_1%2F19+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Iranian+General+Among+Dead+in+IAF+Golan+Strike&utm_term=IDF+Preparing+for+Response+from+Hezbollah

Title: Mossad opposes Bibi on sanctions
Post by: ccp on January 22, 2015, 08:10:49 AM

I wonder if Soros sent money to Mossad people:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 22, 2015, 08:47:39 AM

The Mossad is an incredibly serious and effective agency headed by very bright and very serious people.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 22, 2015, 08:53:22 AM

Well the left is criticizing Netanyahu for being political so I would not rule out the same for Mossad.   I cannot trust anyone's motives completely anymore.  Not saying theirs are not with the best of intentions.  But I leave all doors open.   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 22, 2015, 01:39:30 PM

Mossad has earned serious respect in my eyes.  Even though what they seem to be saying here surprises me, I will give it serious and respectful consideration.

Title: Consider the source
Post by: G M on January 22, 2015, 02:00:31 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Mossad-in-rare-move-denies-it-contradicted-Netanyahu-by-lobbying-against-stiffer-Iran-sanctions-388616

Title: Obama, Kerry Refusing to Meet with Netanyahu During Upcoming Visit...
Post by: objectivist1 on January 23, 2015, 10:56:46 AM

This President is an absolute disgrace.  He frankly hates Israel and the Jews.  Anyone who can't see that now is completely out-of-touch with reality.
I suppose Obama is OK with Israel being blown off the map by Iran with a nuke.  To him, that would be one less problem in the world...

Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu during his March visit to U.S.    

Published by: Dan Calabrese @ hermancain.com
 

And in ever better news for Bibi, Kerry won't meet with him either.

Now you know: The guy who is happy to throw the Constitution in the shredder if Congress won't give him his way about pretty much anything at all is officially upset because Congress breached "protocol" by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address them.

Even funnier is Obama's excuse for refusing to meet with Netanyahu: Supposedly it's "longstanding principle and protocol" that U.S. presidents don't meet with foreign leaders when they're in the midst of running for re-election, which Netanyahu is coming up on April elections in Israel. Think about it: Netanyahu might take a selfie with Obama and show it to the Israeli electorate as evidence of his close relationship with the most respected leader in the world. We can't have that!

Someone should ask Obama if this sounds familiar: If he won't lead, we will. Flip the sentiment. You get the idea? Obama is only too happy to throw over the Israelis in order to get (what he sees as) a legacy-building deal with Iran. And we all know how Obama negotiates with tyrants. Ask Raul Castro. You give away pretty much everything just so you can announce you've made history. The Israelis know who their allies are in America, and none of them are in the White House at the moment. So if Netanyahu doesn't have to waste his time shaking hands and preening with Obama or the even more self-admiring John Kerry, I'd say it's a score for Bibi:

The White House initially gave an icy response to news of Netanyahu's trip, saying it had not been informed -- a break with protocol.

Twenty-four hours later, the Obama administration announced that neither the president nor his Secretary of State John Kerry would meet Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister -- and his Republican Congressional hosts -- have expressed deep skepticism about a brokered deal, believing Iran cannot be trusted to keep its side of the bargain.

US lawmakers have even sketched plans to impose fresh sanctions on Iran, legislation Obama has said would wreck talks and which he has pledged to veto.

"The president has been clear about his opposition to Congress passing new legislation on Iran that could undermine our negotiations and divide the international community," said Meehan.

Make no mistake: Obama's end game here is to be able to announce a piece-of-paper-waving, "peace in our time" deal with Iran that would make Neville Chamberlain blush. He has no intention of submitting it to the Senate for ratification either because a) he'll rationalize that it's not precisely a treaty and doesn't need ratification; and b) come on, he's Barack Obama, and since when does he submit to Congress on anything?

Boehner's decision to invite Netanyahu in defiance of Obama is encouraging not only insofar as it shows Congress is having none of Obama's nonsense on Iran. It also shows that they have little inclination to let Obama set the agenda, hopefully on anything. That might also augur well for the GOP's approach to Obama's giveaway-a-week approach to governing, which is to say they might completely ignore his proposals and lead with their own. That's exactly what they should do. The electorate basically shoved Obama to the side in November and told him enough is enough. The Republicans are being given their chance to lead, and they need to do it. Letting one of our most important allies know that the White House might not be with them, but America still is, is a great way to start.

Title: Valerie Jarret vows vengence
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2015, 04:21:32 AM

http://patdollard.com/2015/01/will-pay-a-price-valerie-jarrett-threatens-to-hurt-israel-netanyahu-for-spitting-in-obamas-face-over-iran-nukes/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 25, 2015, 09:08:38 AM

Remarkable isn't it.  The First Black President's hatred towards Israel and his corresponding continuous coddling of radical Muslims.  Still astounds me that most Jews just don't care.   Still in love with their latest religion which is not Judaism.  I wonder if anyone has does a study of the anti Semitism in the population of American Blacks.   Could it be higher than whites?

He has closer to 2 yrs. left not one and a half.   :cry: I am counting the months.   

To think that Hillary is already looking to hire his people tells us about her - more of the same but a pretense at being stronger on foreign policy and a massively more  emphasis on girl power.

Title: got your back bro...
Post by: ccp on January 26, 2015, 05:27:44 PM

Why Netanyahu is right to go around Obama to Congress

By Marc A. Thiessen  January 26 at 9:41 AM

Do they talk this way about Iranian President Hassan Rouhani?

After learning that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had accepted an invitation to address a joint session of Congress about the need for new sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration went . . . well, nuclear.

One “senior American official” threatened Netanyahu, telling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that “Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.” Meanwhile a “source close to [Secretary of State John] Kerry” told The Post that the “secretary’s patience is not infinite” and that “playing politics with that relationship could blunt Secretary Kerry’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender.”

Oh, please. No wonder Netanyahu is going around these people to Congress for support. Is Kerry defending Israel as a favor to Netanyahu, or because it is in the United States’ vital interests to stand with our closest ally in the Middle East? Just the threat of withdrawing that support validates Netanyahu’s suspicion that the Obama administration does not have Israel’s back in its negotiations with Iran.

Using anonymous officials to attack Netanyahu is nothing new. Unnamed officials have called him “chickens---,” “recalcitrant,” “myopic,” “reactionary,” “obtuse,” “blustering,” “pompous,” and “Aspergery” — all to one journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, who keeps a running list).

President Obama will not meet with Benjamin Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister visits the U.S. in March as the invited guest of Republican congressional leaders. 

The Obama team’s outrage is a bit overwrought. Clearly, it is not a breach of protocol for a foreign leader to lobby Congress. After all, Obama himself deployed British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby lawmakers to oppose new sanctions on Iran. It seems Netanyahu’s crime is not so much a breach of diplomatic protocol, but rather, opposing the administration’s position.

The fact that Netanyahu felt compelled to speak directly to Congress in order to oppose the administration’s position speaks poorly, not of Netanyahu, but of Obama. If the leader of one of our closest allies is so worried about the deal Obama is going to cut with Iran that he is willing to risk a diplomatic rift with the administration to speak out, perhaps the problem is not with Israel, but with the Obama administration. And it is not just Israel that opposes Obama’s deal with Iran; Arab leaders have made clear that they share Israel’s view.

No doubt politics plays a role in Netanyahu’s decision to address Congress. His speech will come just two weeks before the Israeli elections. But is it wrong for a politician to use the foreign stage of an ally to buttress his electoral case back home? If it is, then Barack Obama — who gave a campaign speech in Berlin before 200,000 adoring Germans who could not vote for him — is the wrong man to level that criticism.

Obama claims that new sanctions on Iran “will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails.” If the mere threat of sanctions is enough to derail Iran’s nuclear talks, then whatever deal is in the works is not worth having. It means that Obama is far more desperate for a deal than Tehran is — which is a sure-fire way to guarantee a bad agreement.

Obama wants a nuclear deal with Iran because it would be a major feather in his political cap at a time when his foreign policy is imploding across the world, from Yemen to Syria to Iraq. For Israel, Iran’s nuclear program is not a political challenge; it is an existential one.

Obama can afford a bad deal because, as that anonymous official put it, he has a year and a half left to his presidency. The people of Israel, on the other hand, will have to live with the consequences long after Obama is gone.

Netanyahu understands this — which is why it is good that he is coming to Washington, and why House Republicans deserve credit for inviting him.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on January 26, 2015, 06:17:31 PM

Comment, Rachel?

Title: Obama attempts regime change of enemy state
Post by: G M on January 27, 2015, 02:45:45 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/26/obama-campaign-team-arrives-in-israel-to-defeat-netanyahu-in-march-elections/

Kippa at AIPAC update...

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 27, 2015, 03:34:07 PM

The biggest enemy of the US is not radical Islam.  It is the liberals.

Title: Israel-Hezbollah escalation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2015, 11:45:08 PM

 Escalation Between Israel and Hezbollah Is Possible
Geopolitical Diary
January 28, 2015 | 23:46 GMT Text Size Print

The aftermath of the Jan. 28 attack by Hezbollah fighters on an Israeli patrol along the Lebanese border, in which two Israeli soldiers died, has forced Israel to formulate an appropriate response. The current retaliatory dynamic began with the Jan. 18 Israeli airstrike against a Hezbollah leader and Iranian general in the Golan Heights. Hezbollah had been expected to respond to that airstrike. Israel's casualty-averse nature and its history of heavy retaliation to similar incidents could lead to an escalation through retaliations following the Jan. 28 attack. It is important to see these events in the broader context of the Syrian civil war, which has consumed considerable Hezbollah resources, and of upcoming Israeli elections. This backdrop will cause both sides to walk a fine line between showing the strength to deter actions by the other and avoiding over-commitment to a new conflict.

On Jan. 28, a unit belonging to the Tzabar Battalion of Israel's Givati Brigade came under fire — allegedly including mortar fire and anti-tank missiles — at the Lebanese border. During the exchange of fire, seven Israeli troops were wounded and two, including a captain, were killed. Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the attack and called it retaliation for the Israeli airstrike 10 days earlier. The Israel Defense Forces responded to the attack by firing up to 30 rounds of artillery into southern Lebanon. The potential for further escalation remains, because Israel's government will feel compelled to show strength in response to the killing of Israeli soldiers.

The retaliation so far appears incomplete compared to retaliations or escalations following similar attacks in the past. Both the 2012 incursion into the Gaza Strip and the 2006 incursion into Lebanon followed acts of escalation that included similar attacks on Israeli military vehicles. The 2006 cross-border Hezbollah raid that led to the larger conflict not only caused several deaths but also resulted in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, another red line. The Israeli population is sensitive to such incidents, even if the casualty count is not particularly high, and will expect the government to act resolutely. The latest Israeli casualties come as campaigning for March elections begin. Moreover, Hezbollah is already committing a large amount of its resources to the Syrian conflict and could be in a weakened position.

What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman Explains.

However, for the Israeli government, a repeat of the 2006 conflict (which was seen as botched) would be politically disastrous. Further retaliation will be constrained as Israel tries to avoid overcommitting while still taking decisive action and exploiting Hezbollah's weakened position. The last fight in Lebanon went badly for Israel, and this will make the Israelis think long and hard before sending ground troops into Lebanon again. Such actions on the ground would make a further escalation particularly significant, as opposed to reciprocal artillery fire across the border. Israel has a spectrum of responses to choose from that fall short of a ground incursion, such as high-value target strikes, assassinations, shelling and airstrikes. These could lead to an escalation between Israel and Hezbollah without necessarily sparking a full-fledged ground incursion.

There are already some signs that Israel is positioning itself for a further response that goes beyond political rhetoric or at least serves as a deterrent against further Hezbollah actions. The continued deployment of heavy military equipment, including armored vehicles for the Givati or Golani brigades and heavy artillery pieces, along the Lebanese border and increased air force activity over southern Lebanon indicate that Israel is wary of further Hezbollah action. However, it also shows Israel is keeping its options open to conduct more offensive actions against the group. On Jan. 28, the Haifa Airport was closed temporarily to accommodate Israeli air force operations, and civilians along the border have been advised to remain indoors.

At the same time, there are indicators of restraint on the Israeli side. The government has requested U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon peacekeepers to maintain their positions in southern Lebanon, despite competing claims of Israeli or Hezbollah shelling leading to the death of a Spanish U.N. soldier on Jan. 28. Israel's intention to keep the U.N. peacekeepers in place, at least for now, indicates that the Israelis are not considering an immediate launch of significant ground incursions. Evidence that further escalation has not yet occurred is the lack of called up reservists and the major unit redeployments required for a ground incursion.

Despite the military buildup, daily life in the north is not being significantly disrupted; national parks and schools will be open Jan. 29 in the northern Israeli areas near Lebanon. This lack of disruption is likely a consequence of Hezbollah's reluctance in applying its potential rocket capabilities, suggesting the group's own level of restraint. However, as political pressure for retaliation grows and further Hezbollah provocation remains possible, the incidents of the last week still hold the seeds of a significant escalation.

Read more: Escalation Between Israel and Hezbollah Is Possible | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Title: Victor Davis Hanson - "Can Israel Survive?"
Post by: objectivist1 on January 29, 2015, 06:54:21 AM

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE         
JANUARY 29, 2015 12:00 AM

Can Israel Survive?

Traditional pillars of the tiny democracy’s security have begun to erode.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Eight million Israelis are surrounded by some 400 million Muslims in more than 20 states. Almost all of Israel’s neighbors are anti-Israeli dictatorships, monarchies, or theocracies — a number of them reduced to a state of terrorist chaos.

Given the rise of radical Islam, the huge petrodollar wealth of the Middle East, and lopsided demography, how has Israel so far survived?

The Jewish state has always depended on three unspoken assumptions for its tenuous existence.

First, a democratic, nuclear Israel can deter larger enemies. In the Cold War, Soviet-backed Arab enemies understood that Israel’s nuclear arsenal prevented them from destroying Tel Aviv.

Second, the Western traditions of Israel — free-market capitalism, democracy, human rights — ensured a dynamic economy, high-tech weapons, innovative industry, and stable government. In other words, 8 million Israelis could count on a greater gross domestic product, less internal violence, and more innovation than, say, nearby Egypt, a mess with ten times more people than Israel and nearly 50 times more land.

Third, Israel counted on Western moral support from America and Europe, as well as military support from the United States.

Israel’s stronger allies have often come to the defense of its democratic principles and pointed out that the world applies an unfair standard to Israel, largely out of envy of its success, anti-Semitism, fear of terrorism, and fondness of oil exporters.

Why, for example, does the United Nations focus so much attention on Palestinians who fled Israel nearly 70 years ago but ignore Muslims who were forced out of India, or Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the cities of the Middle East? Why doesn’t the world worry that Nicosia is a more divided city than Jerusalem, or that Turkey occupies northern Cyprus, or that China occupies Tibet?

Unfortunately, two of these three traditional pillars of Israeli security have eroded.

When the United States arbitrarily lifted tough sanctions against Iran and became a de facto partner with the Iranian theocracy in fighting the Islamic State, it almost ensured that Iran will get a nuclear bomb. Iran has claimed that it wishes to destroy Israel, as if its own apocalyptic sense of self makes it immune from classical nuclear deterrence.

Senator Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) summed up the Obama administration’s current policy on Iran as “talking points that come straight out of Tehran.” Obama has cynically dismissed Menendez’s worries about negotiations with Iran as a reflection not of the senator’s principles, but of his concerns over “donors” — apparently a reference to wealthy pro-Israel American Jews.

Symbolism counts, too. President Obama was about the only major world leader to skip the recent march in Paris to commemorate the victims of attacks by radical Islamic terrorists — among them Jews singled out and murdered for their faith. Likewise, he was odd world leader out when he skipped this week’s 70-year commemoration of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Obama is not expected to meet with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will address Congress in March. An anonymous member of the Obama administration was quoted as calling Netanyahu, a combat veteran, a “coward” and describing him with a related expletive. Another nameless administration official recently said Netanyahu “spat in our face” by accepting the congressional invitation without Obama’s approval and so will pay “a price” — personal animus that the administration has not directed even against the leaders of a hostile Iran.

Obama won’t meet with Netanyahu, and yet the president had plenty of time to hold an adolescent bull session with a would-be Internet comedian decked out in Day-Glo makeup who achieved her fame by filming herself eating breakfast cereal in a bathtub full of milk.

Jews have been attacked and bullied on the streets of some of the major cities of France and Sweden by radical Muslims whose anti-Semitism goes unchecked by their terrified hosts. Jewish leaders in France openly advise that Jews in that country immigrate to Israel.

A prosecutor in Argentina who had investigated the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 — an attack widely believed to have been backed by Iran — was recently found dead under mysterious circumstances.

Turkey, a country whose prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was praised by Obama as one of his closest friends among world leaders, has turned openly non-secular and is vehemently anti-Israel.

Until there is a change of popular attitudes in Europe or a different president in the United States, Israel is on its own to deal with an Iran that has already hinted it would use a nuclear weapon to eliminate the “Zionist entity,” with the radical Islamic madness raging on its borders, and with the global harassment of Jews.

A tiny democratic beacon in the Middle East should inspire and rally Westerners. Instead, too often, Western nations shrug and assume that Israel is a headache — given that there is more oil and more terrorism on the other side.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2015 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2015, 09:04:40 AM

"Another nameless administration official recently said Netanyahu “spat in our face” by accepting the congressional invitation without Obama’s approval and so will pay “a price”

This from a President who spits on the face of the majority in Congress when he gives his SOTU address with multiple veto threats and fraudulent claims.

Remember when he spat in the face of the conservative Justices during the last SOTU?

I hope this administration's attempt at getting Netanyahu to lose will backfire in Israel.   No doubt many liberal Jews in America and some in Israel will work with Obama towards this end.

To me the liberal Jews are like Nazi collaborators if they help Obama.

As Mark Levin would say ->  "yes I said it".

Title: Echoes of the 1930's Re: "The Jewish Problem"...
Post by: objectivist1 on January 30, 2015, 07:52:40 AM

The Ghosts of Auschwitz in the Muslim World

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On January 30, 2015

In exile in Argentina, the world’s most wanted man was writing a defense of the indefensible.

He rejected “so-called Western culture” whose bible “expressly established that everything sacred came from the Jews.” Instead he looked to the “large circle of friends, many millions of people” whose good opinion of his crimes he wanted.

These millions of people were not in Germany. They weren’t even in Argentina.

His fellow Nazis had abandoned him after deciding that the murder of millions of Jews was indefensible and had to be denied instead of defended. But he did not want to be denied. He wanted to be admired.

“You 360 million Mohammedans to whom I have had a strong inner connection since the days of my association with your Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,” Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust wrote. “You, who have a greater truth in the surahs of your Koran, I call upon you to pass judgment on me.”

Eichmann knew he could expect a good verdict from a religion whose prophet had ordered the ethnic cleansing of Jews and which believes the end will

“not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. When a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, it will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’”

There was Eichmann’s Hadith Holocaust with even the rocks and trees finding Jews for the Islamic SS.

A more literal judgment came Eichmann’s way five years later in Jerusalem when Israeli agents used extraordinary rendition to seize him and bring him to trial. But the Muslim world had issued its own verdict long ago when the Mufti of Jerusalem had come to Europe urging the extermination of the Jews.

“This is your best opportunity to get rid of this dirty race… Kill the Jews,” the Mufti had ranted to fellow Muslims.

On the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the ghosts of Eichmann and the Mufti of Jerusalem, who had visited its gas chambers while the Holocaust was underway, still linger there.

A Holocaust survivor in Auschwitz recalled being told that the Mufti’s arrival was a working visit.

“When we have won the war he will return to Palestine to build gas chambers and kill the Jews who are living over there,” an SS officer told him.

Eichmann’s Nazis lost, but the Mufti’s Islamists continue their genocidal agenda. Mein Kampf may be banned in Germany, but it’s a bestseller in the Muslim world.

The edition is often the translation of Louis Heiden aka Luis al-Haj, a Nazi convert to Islam whose introduction proclaims, “National Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star.” The reference was meant literarily. The old Egyptian flag had carried a crescent and three stars on a green field. The new flag of the Arab Republic had two green stars.

Haj worked under Johann von Leers aka Omar Amin, another Muslim convert in the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, who praised the persecution of the Jews under Islam as “an eternal service to the world”.

An earlier edition had been published by the brother of future dictator, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

In two years in Egypt, Mein Kampf had sold 911,000 copies, an extraordinary accomplishment in a country with a working age population of 13 million suggesting that as many as one in fourteen adults might have bought a copy. By American equivalent bestseller standards it had outsold the Da Vinci Code.

During those same years the vast majority of Egyptian Jews had been ethnically cleansed by Nasser.

At the beginning of the decade, Muslim Brotherhood godfather Sayyid Qutb had written his own Mein Kampf titled, “Our Struggle against the Jews” in which he claimed that Allah had sent Hitler. The claim has more recently been repeated by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi on Al Jazeera in ’09.

“The last punishment was carried out by Hitler… Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers,” he said.

Today everyone agrees that the Nazis were evil. By the fifties, even Eichmann’s fellow Nazis were looking to jettison the Holocaust and improve their brand. But the Nazis back then were often treated the way that Muslims are today.

Media coverage emphasized distinctions between the radical and moderate Nazis. (Hitler was, of course, a moderate.) Nazi grievances were treated as legitimate. Their crimes were lied about and covered up.

In 1933, the Associated Press’ wire report claimed that the persecution of Jews had already ended. Another wire story headlined “Jew Persecution Over Says Envoy” cited Secretary of State Hull’s relief that the Hitler regime was doing its best to curb further persecution of the Jews.

Hull would later apologize when the Republican Mayor of New York City referred to the Fuhrer as a “man without honor”. Mayor LaGuardia might have been suffering from Fuhrerphobia.

Jewish protests were treated as shrill and baseless alarmism. “U.S. Investigation Shows No Cause for Protest,” the AP headlined its coverage.

“Notwithstanding assurances given by German government leaders and by Hull that the Nazi excesses against the Jewish race had ceased in Germany, Jewish leaders went ahead with plans for mass protest meetings,” another wire story read. “All requests that these meetings be canceled fell on deaf ears.”

A week before the story, the first official Nazi concentration camp of Dachau had opened.

The media coverage should sound familiar. It’s how Iran’s nuclear buildup is being covered. It’s how Muslim violence against Jews is covered. It’s discussed reluctantly and immediately dismissed. Jews are written off as pests who refuse to listen when Kerry, like Hull, tells them there’s nothing to worry about.

That is how the Holocaust really happened.

Auschwitz just shows us the final stage. It doesn’t show us the sympathy for the Nazis, the willingness of some on the left to see them as allies in overturning the existing system and the anger at the selfishness of the Jews in putting their own desire not to be killed ahead of world peace.

It was easier to appease the Nazis. It is easier to appease the Muslim world. The Jews were not seen as a canary in the coalmine; instead, like the Czechs and then the Poles and then everyone else, they were an obstacle to making a deal with the devil. Today it’s the Nigerian Christians, the Burmese Buddhists and a long list of others around the world including the Jews of Israel who stand in the way of peace.

The ghosts of Auschwitz are still haunting Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza, Iraq, Iran and a hundred other places. The victims are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Yazidis and numberless others. The Nazis began with the Jews. The Muslim saying is, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.”

Auschwitz is what happens when we fail to take threats like that seriously because we want peace at any price. The price of peace was Auschwitz, it was millions dead, countries carved to pieces, peoples enslaved for years and others for generations. The price of peace was ignorance, apathy and then war.

Eichmann found support for Auschwitz in the “surahs of your Koran.” So did the Jihadis who murdered Jews in Paris. If we forget that, then we forget the real lesson of Auschwitz.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2015, 08:34:36 AM

Good find Obj.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2015, 07:31:01 AM

I am biased in favor of Israel while this site is the opposite.   Still keeping an open mind I read with interest some of these articles:

http://irmep.org/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2015, 08:23:19 PM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/syrian-rebel-video-shows-devastating-use-of-attack-tunnel/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel&utm_campaign=20150201_m124226744_2%2F1+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel&utm_term=Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel

Alternate URL  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma_DI_UfaBE&x-yt-ts=1422579428&x-yt-cl=85114404

Dramatic new video footage shows the Free Syrian Army (FSA) battling Assad's forces in the critically strategic city of Idlib in North-western Syria. Idlib is the connector route between Aleppo and the Assad-dominated port of Latakia on the Mediterranean coastal area. The originally rebel-published video highlights the rebels blowing up a massive Assad regime building that they had tunneled under. A rebel “sniper” then uses an M-40 recoilless rifle to fire into the building that had just been leveled. The rebel snipes at his target for about 5 minutes before the Assad forces are able to locate his nest and return counter-fire to his position. The Syrian rebels survive the Assad forces' counter-fire, fire one more M-40 round, and appear to start to move to a new M-40 sniper nest. “Alluhu Akbar” or “G-d is great” can be heard repeatedly throughout the video, signaling success. The M-40 sports a 105mm (4.1”) diameter cartridge that can be armed with either a regular high-explosive warhead or an anti-tank HEAT warhead. The M-40 is “recoilless” in that there is virtually no recoil from the firing of the M-40 round – like there is in the firing of a mortar or a Katyusha rocket. “HEAT” stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank, where there are usually two different components, one that pre-explodes or disarms the tank’s explosive-reactive armor, and a high-speed projectile that then passes through the remaining tank armor into the core of the tank. The M-40 has an effective firing range from about 1 kilometer to a maximum range of about 6.8 kilometers (about 3 miles). It is widely available throughout the world and is very widely used by the rebels against the Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah forces in Syria. The M-40 can be mounted on a jeep, but in the Syrian theater has been mostly used on a tripod as is shown in the video.

Watch Here

Lessons for Israel - There are important lessons to be learned from the video regarding what could happen if Israel ever withdraws from Judea and Samaria. For instance, an M-40 is small enough to be easily transported into and concealed in a high-rise Palestinian residential apartment building, from where a Palestinian terrorist could destroy with pinpoint accuracy anything with 6.8 kilometers of his nest. The M-40 could then be quickly moved out of the apartment, making Israeli return fire on that specific apartment entirely ineffective. And, the IDF would be blamed for firing into a Palestinian civilian building. Route 1 from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is highly exposed and in easy TOW anti-tank or M-40 range of Palestinian villages. Jerusalem would be unreachable, since the Palestinian state would include the mountains surrounding Route 1 from the north and the south.

Title: WSJ: Bret Stephens: Netanyahu's speech
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 02, 2015, 07:52:44 PM

 By
Bret Stephens
Feb. 2, 2015 7:41 p.m. ET
103 COMMENTS

Even friends of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are second-guessing his decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner ’s invitation to address Congress next month on the subject of Iran, over loud objections from the Obama administration. The prospect of the speech, those friends say, has sparked a needless crisis between Jerusalem and Washington. And it has put Democrats to an invidious choice between their loyalty to the president and their support for the Jewish state, jeopardizing the bipartisan basis of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Sensible concerns—except for a few things. Relations between Israel and the U.S. have been in crisis nearly from the moment President Obama stepped into office. Democratic support for Israel has been eroding for decades. It was the U.S. president, not the Israeli prime minister, who picked this fight.

Oh, and if there’s going to be a blowout in U.S.-Israel relations, is now really a worse time than later this year, when the Obama administration will have further cornered Israel with its Iran diplomacy?

Because memories are short, let’s remind ourselves of the Ur-moment in the Bibi-Barack drama. It happened on May 18, 2009, when Mr. Netanyahu, in office for just a few weeks, arrived to a White House that was demanding that he endorse Palestinian statehood and freeze settlements, even as the administration was rebuffing Israeli requests to set a deadline for the nascent nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

The result: Within a month of that meeting, Mr. Netanyahu duly endorsed Palestinian statehood in a speech at Israel’s right-wing Bar-Ilan University—roughly the equivalent of Mr. Obama going to a meeting of the Sierra Club and urging its members to get over their opposition to fracking. By the end of the year, Mr. Netanyahu further infuriated his right-wing base by agreeing to a 10-month settlement freeze, which even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged was “unprecedented.”

What did Mr. Netanyahu get in return from Mr. Obama? While the president stuck to his refusal to set “an artificial deadline,” he did concede in a joint press conference that “we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear—and deploying a nuclear weapon.”

The promise not to “have talks forever” was made six years ago. Since then, diplomatic efforts have included the 2009 “fuel swap” proposal; the 2010 Brazil-Turkey-Iran declaration; the 2011 Russian “step-by-step proposal”; the 2012 diplomatic rounds in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow; and finally the 2013 “Joint Plan of Action,” a six-month interim deal that is now in its 13th month.

Now Mr. Obama is vowing to veto the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill that would end the charade by imposing sanctions on Iran in the event Tehran doesn’t sign an acceptable nuclear deal by the summer—that is, after the third deadline for the interim agreement has expired. The president is also demanding that Democrats rally around him in his histrionic fit over the Netanyahu speech. This is from the same administration that, as Politico’s David Rogers reminds us, never bothered to consult Mr. Boehner on its invitation to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to address Congress in 2011.

This history is worth recalling because it underscores the unpleasant truth about America in the age of Obama. The president collects hard favors from allies and repays them with neglect and derision. He is eager to accommodate the political needs of authoritarian leaders like Iran’s Hasan Rouhani but has no use for the political needs of elected leaders like Mr. Netanyahu. He believes that it is for other statesmen to stake their political lives and risk their national future for the sake of a moral principle—at least as Mr. Obama defines that principle. As for him, the only thing sacred is his own political convenience.

This is the mentality of a peevish and callow potentate. Not the least of the reasons Mr. Netanyahu must not give in to pressure to cancel his speech is that he could expect to get nothing out of it from the administration, while humiliating Mr. Boehner in the bargain.

Mr. Netanyahu also needs to speak because Congress deserves an unvarnished account of the choice to which Mr. Obama proposes to put Israel: either accede to continued diplomacy with Iran, and therefore its de facto nuclearization; or strike Iran militarily in defiance of the U.S. and Mr. Obama’s concordat with Tehran. A congressional vote in favor of Kirk-Menendez would at least make good on Mr. Obama’s unmet promise not to use talks as “an excuse for inaction.”

Above all, Mr. Netanyahu needs to speak because Israel cannot expect indefinite support from the U.S. if it acts like a fretful and obedient client to a cavalier American patron. The margin of Israel’s security is measured not by anyone’s love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Mr. Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the president is a small price to pay for doing so.

Title: White House & POTH misled about Netanyahu invitation?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 08, 2015, 10:23:00 AM

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/breaking-nyt-admits-obama-deliberately-manufactured-netanyahu-spat/

Title: You have a home here with us
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2015, 02:50:54 PM

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Sunday morning for the "massive immigration" of European Jews to Israel following the shooting attack outside a Copenhagen synagogue that killed a Danish Jew. Netanyahu says the government on Sunday will discuss a $46 million plan to encourage Jewish immigration from France, Belgium and Ukraine. "This wave of attacks is expected to continue," Netanyahu said at the start of a Cabinet meeting. "Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home." In an interview with Ynet on Sunday morning, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said European Jews should view Israel as their home. "Israel is always waiting for them. This will never change. Jews can and should have the right to live anywhere, but if there are Jews who are concerned about their future, we are certainly waiting for them," Bennett said.

Some European countries are becoming dangerous for Jews, he said, and his party, Bayit Yehudi, was "profoundly concerned" about a rise of radical Islamic terror and anti-Semitism in the continent. "I spoke today with the leader of the community in Denmark, and they are very worried about what's going on," he added. He argued that the fight aganist Islamic terror in Europe is not a lost cause, "but first and foremost, they have to wake up. They have to identify the threat. They have to realize that these aren't sporadic attacks. There's a very clear and intentional attack on the free world from radical Islam. "We've got to fight it in Iran, fight it in Iraq, fight it in Gaza, Lebanon, and in Europe and America. The world should help Israel fight radical Islam instead of twisting our arm to give in to radical Islam." Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman the two shootings at a synagogue and another at a free speech event, "prove what we have said over the years – that Israel and the Jews are affected by this terrorism before anyone else because they are on the frontline in the war terror is waging against the West and the entire free world." Lieberman called on the international community "to ask for more than declarations and demonstrations against this terrorism, but also shake off the rules of political correctness and fight a real all-out war against Islamic terror and its roots." Minister Lieberman said the Foreign Ministry is in close contact with the Israeli Embassy in Denmark and was following events as they unfolded. President of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, condemned the attacks, dubbing it “both sickening and a sign of the worsening extremism spreading across Europe." "The Jewish community in Denmark is a microcosm of what is happening to Jewish communities across the continent. On the one hand they are under attack from extremist Muslims who see every Jew as a legitimate target, on the other hand, freedom of religion is curtailed by the government, religious slaughter has been forbidden and the parliament is in discussions about the future of religious circumcision," he said. "I truly hope that this latest attack will lead the people of Denmark to rally behind the Jewish community just as they did in 1943, securing the future of the community.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 15, 2015, 04:41:18 PM

Unfortunately Israel is not exactly safe for Jews.  Just a few Iranian nukes could wipe out 50% of the World's Jews.  I hate to be a fatalist but.....

Title: Superb video: Israel's defensible borders
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2015, 03:57:33 PM

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152377793368717

Title: Ben Shapiro: Israel is Hated Precisely BECAUSE it is Jewish...
Post by: objectivist1 on February 18, 2015, 09:17:06 AM

And further - I would argue - and I think it's been amply demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt by his actions - that Obama hates Jews.

Is Israel the Problem, or is it Jews?

Ben Shapiro - February 18, 2015 - www.truthrevolt.org

In the aftermath of the killing of a man at a Copenhagen synagogue by a member of the Religion of Peace, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "This wave of attacks is expected to continue. Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home." Russian emigre Natan Sharansky echoed Netanyahu's call, stating, "There is no future for Jews in western Europe."

In response, European leaders shouted down Netanyahu. "We know there are doubts, questions across the community," said French President Francois Hollande, who was elected with in excess of 93 percent of the Muslim vote. "I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and France, in particular." The same week, Jewish tombstones were spray-painted by the hundreds in eastern France.

But undoubtedly, European anti-Semites will now claim that Netanyahu's comments simply demonstrate why Europe must force out its Jews: because Israel is just so awful. That, at least, is what a German court in the city of Wuppertal concluded after convicting two German Palestinians of setting fire to a synagogue. The Wuppertal court stated that the men were simply attempting to bring "attention to the Gaza conflict." In other words, Jews are fair game because of Israel.

But it's precisely the reverse that is true: Israel is fair game because it is Jewish. This is the dirty little secret of anti-Israel policy: It is almost entirely anti-Semitic policy. That is why Muslims attack Jewish synagogues in Paris during the Gaza war: because Israel is a stand-in for the Jews, not the other way around. Were Israel a Muslim country, the rest of the world would see it as a beacon of light and hope for the future of an entire religion. Because it is Jewish, Muslims target it for destruction, and the rest of the world tut-tuts Israel's nasty habit of attempting to survive. The extra-American world hates Israel because it is Jewish. It does not hate Jews because of Israel. Israel is merely a convenient excuse.

Ironically, radical Muslims, in targeting Jews throughout the world, reinforce the necessity of a state of Israel. Their argument seems to be that Israel is an unnecessary Jewish nationalist cancer; to prove that argument, they suggest killing Jews all over the planet, leaving no place safe for Jews except for Israel.

And so Jews go to Israel by the droves. European governments can rip Netanyahu all they want for his supposedly brusque dismissal of European tolerance, but that supposed tolerance means less and less when Swedish Jews abandon entire cities as the authorities make way for radical Muslims. European governments can condemn the Gaza war, but Jews see that war for what it was: an exercise in Jewish self-preservation, with the Europeans once again attempting to prevent such self-preservation.

Unlike the Europeans, Americans continue to side with Israel because America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. America embraces Judaism, and so it embraces Israel, not the other way around. The formula is simple: Love Jews; love Israel. Hate Jews; hate Israel. Opposing Israeli action may not be anti-Semitism, but it sure does have a funny habit of backing the agenda of anti-Semites.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 18, 2015, 02:52:47 PM

Netanyahu’s Capitol Hill Debacle
The Israeli leader and House speaker are risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations.
By
William A. Galston
Feb. 17, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET
WSJ

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s speech to Congress on March 3 will be both a nakedly partisan event and a momentous policy clash.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend, House Speaker John Boehner was frank about his motives for leaving the White House in the dark about the invitation. “I wanted to make sure that there was no interference,” he said, citing White House “animosity” toward the Israeli leader: “I frankly didn’t want that getting in the way, quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.” Asked whether he had turned what has been a rare bipartisan issue into a political dispute, Mr. Boehner replied, “We had every right to do what we did”—a debatable response to a different question.

If inviting the prime minister of a major American ally to address a joint session of Congress two weeks before his country’s general election without notifying the president and congressional Democratic leaders isn’t rank partisanship, I don’t know what is. Mr. Netanyahu, who is hardly inexperienced in the ways of Washington, had to know how this would be received. The inescapable inference is that he did not care, and it isn’t hard to see why.

Begin with the obvious. While accepting Mr. Boehner’s invitation in principle, the prime minister could have told the House speaker that he was unable to leave Israel until after the election. There is no part of Mr. Netanyahu’s message to Congress that would be less relevant or influential for U.S. audiences if it were delivered on April 3 rather than March 3. There is only one audience for whom the timing might make a difference—the Israeli electorate.

But this is about much more than electoral politics. For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is an existential question, as he made clear in a statement last week that Israel has “a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival.”

Mr. Netanyahu is determined to prevent this offer, or anything like it, from becoming U.S. policy. To that end, he is prepared to mobilize a Republican-led Congress against the president, to force longtime Democratic supporters of Israel to choose between him and President Obama—and, if necessary, to turn U.S.-Israel relations into the partisan issue it has rarely been.

And why not? The prime minister views himself as this generation’s Winston Churchill, with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cast as Adolf Hitler. To bring the U.S. into the looming conflict, Churchill worked with Franklin Roosevelt to overcome a reluctant Congress. Now Mr. Netanyahu must work with Congress to overcome a reluctant president. And like Churchill, Mr. Netanyahu believes that words are his best weapons—words delivered by one man standing alone on a rostrum representing an embattled ally, invoking common interests, shared principles and the bonds of friendship.

The prime minister is confident that he can do this without weakening, let alone rupturing, the relationship between Israel and the U.S. His statement last week featured a long list of past security disagreements between the two countries despite which, he insists, the relationship grew stronger over time.

But this time could be different. In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine, Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and one of Mr. Netanyahu’s closest advisers, detailed Israel’s concerns:

“Israel’s policy is not merely to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon today; it is also to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon in the future. And Israel is very concerned that a deal will be forged that will not dismantle Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability. . . . That is an outcome that is unacceptable to Israel.” Specifically, Israel lacks confidence that international inspections would prevent the diversion of materials produced by the many thousands of centrifuges that reportedly would remain under the terms of the emerging agreement. And once the sanctions are lifted, the Iranian nuclear program could accelerate.

Mr. Netanyahu must know that even with much tougher sanctions, the chances of overcoming these concerns through diplomacy are low. The most the Iranians will offer falls far short of the least that Israel will accept. The real choices reduce to two: an Iran with some negotiated level of nuclear infrastructure supervised with a rigorous inspection regime, or war.

The prime minister must also know that although Israel’s military could inflict significant damage on Iran’s nuclear program, his country could at best delay Iran’s march to the bomb.

So when Mr. Netanyahu addresses Congress, a question will be lurking in the shadows: If negotiations leave Israel facing what it regards as an existential threat, should the U.S. accept the deal? And if we do not, is there an alternative that would be more effective, at a price that the war-weary American people would accept?
Popular on WSJ

Title: Netanyahu's Upcoming Speech...
Post by: objectivist1 on February 18, 2015, 03:04:12 PM

Exactly what planet is Mr. Galston living on???  "Risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations?"  News flash, Mr. Galston - that happened LONG ago - and was initiated by Barack Obama and his administration.  Morality is not relative.  It's frightening to watch the abject denial of reality being exhibited by most of the media and by a small but significant minority of liberal Israelis.  Sometimes there is no alternative to war - one might think the world would have learned that after WWII.  Clearly that isn't the case for legions of ignorant and/or deluded fools.

Title: Anti-Netanyahu Boycott Collapsing...
Post by: objectivist1 on February 18, 2015, 05:23:10 PM

Obama’s Anti-Netanyahu Boycott Is Collapsing

Posted By Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn

The final numbers are not yet in, but it seems clear that the White House-orchestrated campaign to boycott Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is collapsing.

Despite two weeks of intense anti-Netanyahu leaks, insults, and pressure, the White House has so far succeeded in persuading only a handful of Democratic members of Congress to stay away from the speech.

A grand total of two Senators and twelve Representatives have publicly announced that they are boycotting Israel’s prime minister. Assuming that those figures change only marginally in the days ahead, it will mean that 98% of the Senate and 95% of the House of Representatives will be in attendance.

Even the most vocal critics of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are not united against the Israeli leader. Emerging from a meeting with President Obama last week, Caucus chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield told reporters, that the subject of Netanyahu’s speech “didn’t come up” during their 90-minute meeting with the president. But he then proceeded to chastise Israel’s prime minister for supposedly being “disrespectful” to the president, and Congressman Hank Johnson said it was “about President Barack Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader.”

But not all the African-American congress members joined the anti-Netanyahu chorus. U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), who is the only senator in the Congressional Black Caucus, refused to toe the line. The Politico reports that when his colleagues began lambasting Prime Minister Netanyahu, reporters asked Booker where he stood, and he pointedly dissented, saying “I’ve been asked that a number of times–I’m not commenting.”

Knowing of Senator Booker’s longtime support for Israel and close relationship with many American Jewish leaders, we find it difficult that he will go along with an insulting and disrespectful boycott of Israel’s prime minister.

Another major crack in the anti-Netanyahu boycott effort appeared this weekend in the form of a message from Elie Wiesel in a full page advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post, sponsored by “This World: The Values Network.”

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has always been something of a moral compass for the Jewish people–certainly far more than the two or three Jewish organizational leaders who have been quoted as opposing Netanyahu’s visit. We all remember Wiesel bravely confronting President Reagan over his visit to the Bitburg cemetery, not to mention his speaking out on so many other important issues over the years. So Wiesel’s words in the Times and Post ads carry particular weight.

Wiesel announced that he will personally attend Netanyahu’s speech. He appealed to President Obama and Vice President Biden to “put aside the politics” and hear what Israel’s prime minister has to say. He pointed out that Netanyahu will speak to Congress the day before Purim–the day when, in ancient times, “a wicked man in Persia named Haman” sought to destroy the Jews…”Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy,” Wiesel wrote. “The Ayatollah Khomeini has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: ‘the annihilation and destruction’ of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.”

Finally, it’s worth mentioning another crack that appeared in the boycott effort this week. The pro-Palestinian lobbying group J Street, which has been the engine driving the boycott movement, has been circulating a poll claiming that 84% of American Jews support President Obama’s position on Iran.

But now the fraudulent methods used to elicit that 84% number have been exposed. It turns out that the respondents were not asked about the actual terms that Obama is negotiating with Iran. They were asked whether they would support an imaginary agreement under which Iran would completely and permanently give up its capability to produce nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that is not at all what President Obama is insisting upon, according to numerous news reports.

A genuinely objective poll, which asked American Jews whether they want the U.S. to insist that Iran be permanently prevented from having the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, would surely find the vast majority of Jews in favor.

When Prime Minister Netanyahu appears next month before Congress, with the overwhelming majority of Congress members from both parties in attendance, he will explain the truth about the Iranian threat and the danger of the U.S. agreeing to weak and unenforceable terms.

And that, of course, is what the Obama Administration, J Street, and the other Netanyahu-bashers most wish to prevent.

Title: Ex Mossad head disgrees with Netanyahu
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 01, 2015, 06:03:03 PM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4631634,00.html

Title: Why Islam will never accept the State of Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2015, 08:33:31 AM

June 30, 2010
Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel
By Steven Simpson
It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. 

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews -- not just Israelis -- pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam -- as currently interpreted and practiced -- cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/why_islam_will_never_accept_th.html#.VPMp_x1DLf8.facebook#ixzz3TFMWqdwP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 02, 2015, 05:41:59 PM

Very sobering.

Title: BOHICA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2015, 10:48:48 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wYwe0XRWPc

Title: Obama called out by a famous liberal
Post by: ccp on March 04, 2015, 06:00:11 PM

I wonder if Dershowitz is becoming a conservative?   He even showed up on Fox's REDEYE one evening:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alan-Dershowitz-Benjamin-Netanyahu-Obama-Iran/2015/03/04/id/628190/?ns_mail_uid=95994711&ns_mail_job=1611692_03042015&s=al&dkt_nbr=zs7ii81q

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2015, 07:26:22 PM

His articulation of what Bibi said is good-- about expiration of sanctions upon behavior modification-- this is something most people missed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 05:44:17 AM

Netanyahu Receives Modest Boost From U.S. Speech

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still running neck-and-neck with his rivals in the upcoming parliamentary election, which is scheduled for March 17. Israeli polls show Netanyahu’s Likud Party received a slight boost from the prime minister’s speech this week in front of Congress, increasing its likely support by one or two seats. However, it is still in a virtual tie with the center-left Zionist Union. While public opinion surveys showed that many Israelis received Netanyahu’s address to Congress positively, a large percentage also said that the speech would not affect their vote.

Title: Baraq's most recent terrible appointment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2015, 09:34:32 AM

http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/obama-appoints-another-vicious-antisemite-to-critical-nsc-mideast-post.html/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2015, 08:40:58 AM

The center-left Zionist Union has opened up a slim lead against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party in the parliamentary elections scheduled for March 17, according to new polls. The two parties had been virtually tied for weeks, but a new survey by Israel’s army radio found the Zionist Union winning 24 seats, to Likud’s 21. A poll by Channel 2 television, meanwhile, had the Zionist Union winning 25 seats, and Likud winning 21.

There are 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset, and either faction will need to form a coalition with other parties in order to govern. Netanyahu still might have an advantage over his rivals in doing so: Several far-right parties, which would be his natural allies, are expected to capture a significant number of seats. The "swing vote" in the election could be the center-right Kulanu Party headed by Moshe Kahlon, who has not yet indicated which bloc he would support.

Title: Obama betrays Israel to enable Iranian nukes?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2015, 04:26:28 PM

Any confirmation on this?

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/03/02/obama-leaks-info-on-israels-nuke-program-to-iran/

Officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran claim they have documents that prove the United States assisted Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which they claim is a crime according to international laws, according to the Iranian news media. And there is suspicion that President Barack Obama declassified the documents and released them to a left-wing think-tank to hurt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Iranians published a copy of a 129-page memorandum they claim is one of about 100 copies distributed by the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) while under contract with the Pentagon in 1987. The Iranian press reported that Israeli nuclear facilities that were built independently were similar in structure to U.S. nuclear facilities such as Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories which are key facilities for creating and testing nuclear weaponry, Iranian-controlled news agencies reported.

But according to Veterans Today, there are rumors in the Pentagon that President Barack Obama was the person who ordered his minions to release the documents claiming the United States had allowed Israel to conduct not only nuclear espionage and openly sell nuclear weapons technology, but they received illegal American financial aid to build the nuclear weapon. VT claims that Obama’s release of the documents was in reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. Congress in March. Not surprising is the fact that few, if any, American news media outlets covered the story.

“What we see here is a possibility that Obama and the Iranians conspired to hurt Netanyahu and Israel since they oppose a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement. It’s a possible conspiracy and the right hand, the U.S., doesn’t have to know what the left hand, Iran, is doing and vice versa for there to be a conspiracy,” Lyle Kaplan a former counterterrorism unit operative and a prosecutor. “It’s a mysterious paradox that most American Jews hold Ronald Reagan in low-regard after he, right or wrong, helped to make Israel a safer nation in a sea of enemies, while they appear to love Barack Obama who has disrespected Israel and favors the Jewish State’s enemies,” Kaplan noted.

The report titled, “Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations,” claims that Israel’s nuclear facilities were advanced enough for them to formulate, design and build nuclear weapons. The Israelis were “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” the report states.

Title: Arab parties about to become a factor in the Knesset?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2015, 09:39:22 AM

The Arab Joint List Is Reshaping Israeli Politics

How Ayman Odeh could end up leading the opposition after next week’s legislative elections in Israel
By David B. Green|March 12, 2015 12:00 AM|Comments


Until a month ago, it looked as if Israel’s Arab parties might be denied a place in the 20th Knesset. In March 2014, the Knesset had passed the “Governance Bill,” which raises the threshold a party needs to meet in order to enter the legislature. While in past elections, a party needed to attract 2 percent of the vote (equivalent to three Knesset seats), the new bill pushed that up to 3.25 percent (equal to four seats).

The outgoing Knesset has three Arab, or mostly Arab, parties, two of which—Hadash, the former Communist party, and Balad, a secular Arab-nationalist list—would not meet the requirements under the new law. The third list, Ra’am-Ta’al, would make the cut only because it is really two parties—the Islamic Ra’am, and Ta’al, a moderate, secular party represented in parliament by Ahmed Tibi—who have hooked up in past elections for the purpose of not falling below the required percentage.

There is no doubt that the Governance Bill was intended to keep tiny parties, the kind that often form around a single issue or a narrow population group, out of the Knesset, a change that would increase the stability of government coalitions, since it reduces the possibility of small parties—including religious parties—holding the government hostage to attain its support for their limited goals. At the same time, however, it was widely understood that the bill—which was co-sponsored by Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, whose Moldavian-born leader appears to take pleasure in denigrating Israel’s Arab citizens—was an indirect attempt to push the Arab parties, none of which have ever been invited to join a coalition, out of Israel’s legislature altogether. For them, the new threshold seemed to pose an outright threat of extinction, especially given the shrinking rate of participation among eligible Arab voters.

Now, however, less than a week before the March 17 snap election, a very different scenario looks to be emerging. If the polls suggesting that the Arab voting rate could surge back above the 70 percent level are correct, the so-called Arab sector could find itself in a position of political influence it has never before enjoyed. Recent polls suggest that the number of representatives it will have in the new Knesset could reach 13 or more—and not in spite of the Governance Bill, but in large part thanks to it.

“They didn’t have much choice,” says sociologist Sammy Smooha about the decision to unite. Smooha, a professor at Haifa University, has been surveying the Arab public about its political attitudes since 2003. He notes that another possibility would have been for the four parties to split off into two joint lists—and negotiations to that effect did go on—but he says that “all the surveys around, for the last 15 years, showed that a joint list is the first choice of the Arab public.”

Yet no matter how much they may all “look alike” to some Israeli Jews, the country’s Arab citizens are no less fractious than the Jews are: Their political parties range, as noted, from being internationalist, Communist-lite (Hadash) to moderate Islamists (Ra’am; the more extreme Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement won’t participate in national elections) to Balad, probably the Middle East’s only remaining pan-Arab party.

The announcement that an alliance had been formed came only on Jan. 22, less than a week before the final deadline for parties to submit their lists of candidates for the March 17 election. Obviously, a candidate’s place on the list determines his or her chances of being elected, but no less tricky than determining the order of the list was the drafting of an eight-point platform that the Joint List’s four constituent parties—with their widely differing voter bases and philosophies—could all sign on to. Among those points are a demand for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of two states, including full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-Six Day War borders and realization of a Palestinian right of return; recognition of Israel’s Arab population as a national minority, which is to be afforded cultural, religious, and educational autonomy; and the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Other elements in what admittedly sounds more like a wish list than a practical program include a commitment to fight poverty and to raise the minimum wage and full equality for women in all areas of life.

Considering that two of the Joint List’s candidates are polygamists—not uncommon among Israel’s Bedouin population even though state law forbids it—and that its members from the Balad party advocate a state “of all its citizens,” by which they mean a binational state without any special Jewish identity or Law of Return, the agreement on a common platform is also quite an accomplishment. In particular, the insistence on equality for women is not to be taken for granted in the more traditional parts of Muslim Arab society.

A lot of credit for the creation of the list must go to the very visible man at its head, Ayman Odeh. A 40-year-old lawyer from Haifa, Odeh has been the secretary of Hadash since 2006, but this will be the first time he is (presumably) elected to Knesset. For more than a decade, Odeh has led a campaign among Arab youth to discourage them from volunteering for civilian national service in its current form, which is to say, as an alternative to military service, a program that is supervised by the Defense Ministry.

When I interviewed him on the subject three years ago he told me, “I have no problem with a young person volunteering in a hospital in Tel Aviv… Ahlan Usahlan,” using the Arabic expression meaning “Welcome.” His objection, rather, was to the nature of the changes being discussed at the time, starting with the proposal to make participation mandatory, not voluntary.

But that was just the start of his objections. My sense was that at the heart of all the opposition was the fact that a Knesset committee made up solely of Jewish politicians was discussing instituting a program that would be imposed on the Arab minority, without including any members of that minority in the planning process.

Next Tuesday’s election will lead either to a right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud, a center-left government led by Yitzhak Herzog’s Zionist Camp (a cooperative venture of the Labor Party and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah party), or a “unity government,” in which Netanyahu and Herzog agree to share power and work together, maybe even by rotating the office of prime minister between them. Hard as it may be to imagine that last scenario, and as much as it may seem to presage political paralysis in terms of the numbers, a unity government may be the most likely outcome to an election out of which left- and right-wing camps seem destined to emerge with roughly the same number of seats.

If that is the case, the possibility exists that the official opposition, which is always led by the largest party not in the coalition, could be headed by the Joint List. By law, the prime minister is obligated to brief the opposition leader on the state of affairs once a month. Considering that Arabs have never been allowed to sit on the sensitive subcommittees of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, for fear they can’t be trusted with state secrets, it’s hard to imagine Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, briefing Opposition Leader Ayman Odeh on plans for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

The only way that Herzog would be able to form a center-left coalition is with the support of the Arab Joint List, which would have to recommend to President Reuven Rivlin that Herzog form the government. In the past, none of the Arab parties has participated in the process of making a recommendation to the president. While Odeh has said explicitly that his list “will not sit in a coalition”—no Arab party would want to share ministerial responsibility for the next war—he has, however, hinted strongly that the Joint List could support a Herzog-led government “from the outside,” which would mean voting with the coalition in the Knesset without formally joining it.

Interviewed in late February on Israel’s TV Channel 1, Odeh declared that, “We really truly want to influence. … If we find a partner who will agree to our demands of peace and of equality between Jews and Arabs, we will be able to support them.” For those Arabs and Jews who see a peaceful future for Israel dependent on cooperation between the two groups, the prospect of the Joint List supporting a coalition from the outside, and of Arab List MKs even playing leadership roles on Knesset committees and subcommittees, would be welcome.

But being a player, after close to seven decades of being the perennial outside, will take some adjusting. Despite the reconciliatory noises made by Odeh to the Hebrew-language press during the campaign (he’s comfortable enough in the language and culture of the Jewish majority that he will pepper his comments with Talmudic quotes, or analogies from Zionist history), a failure by the Arab List to agree to an excess vote-sharing arrangement with Meretz last week was a sign that not all of the list’s members have the same approach to cooperation. Meretz is a Zionist party, but it has always supported a two-state solution and taken a progressive stance on issues of economic equality, human rights, and other subjects of crucial importance to most Arabs. In short, it shares a lot of positions with the Joint List. Nonetheless, the latter decided not to go with Meretz on an excess-vote arrangement, reportedly because of the objections of Balad, which according to one account was not willing in principle to sign a deal with a Zionist party, but according to another feared it would drive away voters.

Meretz Chairwoman Zehava Galon, whose party is now polling at five seats, which puts it uncomfortably close to the threshold, was sharp in her criticism of the Joint List. “Meretz has proved that it is the only party that believes in true Jewish-Arab solidarity. I hope this isn’t the decision that will condemn us to another four years of Netanyahu’s rule,” she warned.

In the end, Meretz signed a sharing deal with the Zionist Camp, but its preference would have been the Joint List, which didn’t sign an agreement with anyone. The loss of the potential extra seat that having such a pooling arrangement could yield could determine what sort of government emerges from the election. No matter what its composition, that government may now have to reckon with the representatives of Israel’s Arab population in a new way.

Title: Glcik: Israel's next 22 months
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2015, 08:11:16 AM

Israel's Next 22 Months
Caroline Glick | Mar 13, 2015

The next 22 months until President Barack Obama leaves office promise to be the most challenging period in the history of US-Israel relations.


Now unfettered by electoral concerns, over the past week Obama exposed his ill-intentions toward Israel in two different ways.


First, the Justice Department leaked its intention to indict Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez on corruption charges. Menendez is the ranking Democratic member, and the former chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is also the most outspoken Democratic critic of Obama’s policy of appeasing the Iranian regime.


As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote this week at PJMedia, “It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Menendez may be guilty of corruption offenses and that his political opposition on Iran is factoring into the administration’s decision to charge him. Put it another way, if Menendez were running interference for Obama on the Iran deal, rather than trying to scupper it, I believe he would not be charged.”

The Menendez prosecution tells us that Obama wishes to leave office after having vastly diminished support for Israel among Democrats. And he will not hesitate to use strong-arm tactics against his fellow Democrats to achieve his goal.


We already experienced Obama’s efforts in this sphere in the lead-up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the joint houses of Congress on March 3 with his campaign to pressure Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s address.


Now, with his move against Menendez, Obama made clear that support for Israel – even in the form of opposition to the nuclear armament of Iran – will be personally and politically costly for Democrats.


The long-term implications of Obama’s moves to transform US support for Israel into a partisan issue cannot by wished away. It is possible that his successor as the head of the Democratic Party will hold a more sympathetic view of Israel. But it is also possible that the architecture of Democratic fund-raising and grassroots support that Obama has been building for the past six years will survive his presidency and that as a consequence, Democrats will have incentives to oppose Israel.


The reason Obama is so keen to transform Israel into a partisan issue was made clear by the second move he made last week.

Last Thursday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice announced that the NSC’s Middle East Coordinator Phil Gordon was stepping down and being replaced by serial Israel-basher Robert Malley.

Malley, who served as an NSC junior staffer during the Clinton administration, rose to prominence in late 2000 when, following the failed Camp David peace summit in July 2000 and the outbreak of the Palestinian terror war, Malley co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times blaming Israel and then-prime minister Ehud Barak for the failure of the negotiations.

What was most remarkable at the time about Malley’s positions was that they completely contradicted Bill Clinton’s expressed views. Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s shoulders.

Not only did Arafat reject Barak’s unprecedented offer of Palestinian statehood and sovereignty over all of Gaza, most of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, he refused to make a counter-offer. And then two months later, he opened the Palestinian terror war.

As Jonathan Tobin explained in Commentary this week, through his writings and public statements, Malley has legitimized Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Malley thinks it is perfectly reasonable that the Palestinians refuse to concede their demand for free immigration of millions of foreign Arabs to the Jewish state in the framework of their concocted “right of return,” even though the clear goal of that demand is to destroy Israel. As Tobin noted, Malley believes that Palestinian terrorism against Israel is “understandable if not necessarily commendable.”


During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, then-senator Obama listed Malley as a member of his foreign policy team. When pro-Israel groups criticized his appointment, Obama fired Malley.


But after his 2012 reelection, no longer fearing the ramifications of embracing an openly anti-Israel adviser, one who had documented contacts with Hamas terrorists and has expressed support for recognizing the terror group, Obama appointed Malley to serve as his senior adviser for Iraq-Iran-Syria and the Gulf states. Still facing the 2014 congressional elections, Obama pledged that Malley would have no involvement in issues related to Israel and the Palestinians. But then last week, he appointed him to direct the NSC’s policy in relation to the entire Middle East, including Israel.


The deeper significance of Malley’s appointment is that it demonstrates that Obama’s goal in his remaining time in office is to realign US Middle East policy away from Israel. With his Middle East policy led by a man who thinks the Palestinian goal of destroying Israel is legitimate, Obama can be expected to expand his practice of placing all the blame for the absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians solely on Israel’s shoulders.


Malley’s appointment indicates that there is nothing Israel can do to stem the tsunami of American pressure it is about to suffer. Electing a left-wing government to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will make no difference.


Just as Malley was willing to blame Barak – a leader who went to Camp David as the head of a minority coalition, whose positions on territorial withdrawals were rejected by a wide majority of Israelis – for the absence of peace, so we can assume that he, and his boss, will blame Israel for the absence of peace over the next 22 months, regardless of who stands at the head of the next government.

In this vein we can expect the administration to expand the anti-Israel positions it has already taken.


The US position paper regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiation that was leaked this past week to Yediot Aharonot made clear the direction Obama wishes to go. That document called for Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, with minor revisions.


In the coming 22 months we can expect the US to use more and more coercive measures to force Israel to capitulate to its position.


The day the administration-sponsored talks began in July 2013, the EU announced it was barring its member nations from having ties with Israeli entities that operate beyond the 1949 armistice lines unless those operations involve assisting the Palestinians in their anti-Israel activities. The notion that the EU initiated an economic war against Israel the day the talks began without coordinating the move with the Obama administration is, of course, absurd.


We can expect the US to make expanded use of European economic warfare against Israel in the coming years, and to continue to give a backwind to the anti-Semitic BDS movement by escalating its libelous rhetoric conflating Israel with the apartheid regime in South Africa.


US-Israel intelligence and defense ties will also be on the chopping block.


While Obama and his advisers consistently boast that defense and intelligence ties between Israel and the US have grown during his presidency, over the past several years, those ties have suffered blow after blow. During the war with Hamas last summer, acting on direct orders from the White House, the Pentagon instituted a partial – unofficial – embargo on weapons to Israel.

As for intelligence ties, over the past month, the administration announced repeatedly that it is ending its intelligence sharing with Israel on Iran.

The Hillary Clinton email scandal has revealed that during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton transferred top secret information regarding Israel’s operations against Iran to the New York Times. We also learned that the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is being fingered as the source of the leak regarding the Stuxnet computer virus that Israel and the US reportedly developed jointly to cripple Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.

In other words, since taking office, Obama has used the US’s intelligence ties with Israel to harm Israel’s national security on at least two occasions.

He has also used diplomacy to harm Israel. Last summer, Obama sought a diplomatic settlement of Hamas’s war with Israel that would have granted Hamas all of its war goals, including its demand for open borders and access to the international financial system.


Now of course, he is running roughshod over his bipartisan opposition, and the opposition of Israel and the Sunni Arab states, in the hopes of concluding a nuclear deal with Iran that will pave the way for the ayatollahs to develop nuclear weapons and expand their hegemonic control over the Middle East.

AMID ALL of this, and facing 22 months of ever more hostility as Obama pursues his goal of ending the US-Israel alliance, Israelis are called on to elect a new government.

This week the consortium of former security brass that has banded together to elect a leftist government led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni accused Netanyahu of destroying Israel’s relations with the US. The implication was that a government led by Herzog and Livni will restore Israel’s ties to America.

Yet as Obama has made clear both throughout his tenure in office, and, over the past week through Malley’s appointment and Menendez’s indictment, Obama holds sole responsibility for the deterioration of our ties with our primary ally. And as his actions have also made clear, Herzog and Livni at the helm will receive no respite in US pressure. Their willingness to make concessions to the Palestinians that Netanyahu refuses to make will merely cause Obama to move the goalposts further down the field. Given his goal of abandoning the US alliance with Israel, no concession that Israel will deliver will suffice.


And so we need to ask ourselves, which leader will do a better job of limiting the danger and waiting Obama out while maintaining sufficient overall US support for Israel to rebuild the alliance after Obama has left the White House.

The answer, it seems, is self-evident.


The Left’s campaign to blame Netanyahu for Obama’s hostility will make it all but impossible for a Herzog-Livni government to withstand US pressure that they say will disappear the moment Netanyahu leaves office.

In contrast, as the US position paper leaked to Yediot indicated, Netanyahu has demonstrated great skill in parrying US pressure. He agreed to hold negotiations based on a US position that he rejected and went along with the talks for nine months until the Palestinians ended them. In so doing, he achieved a nine-month respite in open US pressure while exposing Palestinian radicalism and opposition to peaceful coexistence.

On the Iranian front, Netanyahu’s courageous speech before Congress last week energized Obama’s opponents to take action and forced Obama onto the defensive for the first time while expanding popular support for Israel.

It is clear that things will only get more difficult in the months ahead. But given the stakes, the choice of Israeli voters next Tuesday is an easy one.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 14, 2015, 09:10:40 AM

All this proves the American Jews who are Democrats are Democrats first, Socialists or Communists second, and sadly Americans a very distant third, and Jews dead last.

I no longer identify with them and I am ashamed and embarrassed by them.

What else can I say.

They disgust me.   What back stabbers they are.

I was so proud as an American Jew to hear Netanyahu give that speech.  I recall texting my sister that I was proud to be Jewish again.

Then the phony liberal Jews support this President.  Why because he is a Democrat - no other reason.  If he was a Republican they would be attacking him till hell freezes over.

Title: Emergency Oil Supply Pact w Israel has not been renewed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 17, 2015, 11:13:19 AM

http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/obama-refuses-to-renew-40-year-old-emergency-oil-supply-pact-with-israel.html/

Title: POTH: The Arab vote-- some profound implications here
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2015, 04:23:11 AM

NAZARETH, Israel — Choruses of beeping horns echoed through this Arab city in northern Israel as word spread that an alliance of Arab parties had received 14 seats in the next Parliament, making it the third-largest bloc.

Long-divided Arab parties’ forming a coalition was unprecedented; so was the size of their new bloc, offering a good reason for Nazareth and other Arab towns to rejoice.

“This is a great achievement,” said Ahmad Tibi, a veteran Arab politician who was elected to Parliament on Tuesday, speaking at the alliance’s headquarters in Nazareth. Men and women cheered and waved flags bearing the alliance’s slogan, “The Will of the People.”

“We will have before us great challenges. We will fight racism, we will fight fascism; we will defend our rights, regardless of the government,” he said. “Today, we are stronger.”

Yet as the euphoria fades, it remains far from clear what influence the Arab cohort, which calls itself the Joint List, will actually have.

Exit polls on Tuesday night showed that the race between the Likud party, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the center-left Zionist Union, led by Isaac Herzog, was very close. But as the votes were counted, Likud actually had a substantial lead.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel posted a video to social media on Tuesday urging Israelis to vote. He said right wing rule was threatened by Arab voters.
Video by YouTube.com/BenjaminNetanyahu on Publish Date March 17, 2015. Photo by Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press.

In any event, Arab parties have never joined governing coalitions, not wanting to be seen as complicit in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Zionist parties do not invite them, explained Jafar Farah, the director of the Mossawa Center, an Arab advocacy group.

Yet the head of the Joint List, Ayman Odeh, sees an achievement in getting this far in Israeli politics.

“There is no Arab in this country who imagined that we would be the third force,” said Mr. Odeh, who only weeks ago was a little-known municipal counselor from Haifa, a mixed Arab-Jewish city in northern Israel.

Some see this election as a beginning in Israeli politics, in which the Arab alliance will become an active oppostion. At the very least, the large turnout gave Arabs more weight to promote their community, said the Mossawa Center director, Mr. Farah.

“The discourse of separation, the discourse of racism, the discourse of incitement, that have been promoted by Bibi Netanyahu and Lieberman is the discourse that we are challenging,” he said, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname and to Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister.

Arabs in Israel number some 1.7 million, forming one-fifth of the country’s population.

Though most are Israeli citizens, they tend to be poorer, less educated and less likely to be employed than their Jewish counterparts. Israeli Arabs say they have felt more marginalized during the years when the government in Jerusalem has been dominated by Mr. Netanyahu and Likud.

For some, it culminated on Tuesday when Mr. Netanyahu, with polls showing Likud falling behind the Zionist Union, implored his party’s faithful to turn out, warning that Arab voters could influence the outcome of the elections.

Later, however, he said in Hebrew on Facebook that “there is nothing wrong with citizens voting, Jewish or Arab, as they wish.”

Few Israeli Arabs appeared mollified.

Both Sami Issa and his son Bassel said they used to vote for Israeli Jewish parties, as did many Arabs in Israel. But separately, they both said that a sense of growing discrimination had pushed them to reconsider.

“I’m an Arab!” said Bassel Issa, 27, a baker. “I vote for Arabs.”

Title: With typical digs worked in, POTH reports Netanyahu's win
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2015, 04:28:22 AM

second post

TEL AVIV — After a bruising campaign focused on his failings, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel won a clear victory in Tuesday’s elections and seemed all but certain to form a new government and serve a fourth term, though he offended many voters and alienated allies in the process.

With 99.5 percent of the ballots counted, the YNet news site reported Wednesday morning that Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party had captured 29 or 30 of the 120 seats in Parliament, sweeping past his chief rival, the center-left Zionist Union alliance, which got 24 seats.

Mr. Netanyahu and his allies had seized on earlier exit polls that showed a slimmer Likud lead to create an aura of inevitability, and celebrated with singing and dancing. While his opponents vowed a fight, Israeli political analysts agreed even before most of the ballots were counted that he had the advantage, with more seats having gone to the right-leaning parties likely to support him.


It was a stunning turnabout from the last pre-election polls published Friday, which showed the Zionist Union, led by Isaac Herzog, with a four- or five-seat lead and building momentum, and the Likud polling close to 20 seats. To bridge the gap, Mr. Netanyahu embarked on a last-minute scorched-earth campaign, promising that no Palestinian state would be established as long as he remained in office and insulting Arab citizens.

Mr. Netanyahu, who served as prime minister for three years in the 1990s and returned to office in 2009, exulted in what he called “a huge victory” and said he had spoken to the heads of all the parties “in the national camp” and urged them to help him form a government “without any further ado.”

“I am proud of the Israeli people that, in the moment of truth, knew how to separate between what’s important or what’s not and to stand up for what’s important,” he told an exuberant crowd early Wednesday morning at Likud’s election party at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds. “For the most important thing for all of us, which is real security, social economy and strong leadership.”

But it remained to be seen how his divisive — some said racist — campaign tactics would affect his ability to govern a fractured Israel.

Mr. Herzog also called the election “an incredible achievement.” He said he had formed a negotiating team and still hoped to lead “a real social government in Israel” that “aspires to peace with our neighbors.”

“The public wants a change,” he said at an election-night party in Tel Aviv, before the Likud’s large margin of victory was revealed by the actual vote count. “We will do everything in our power, given the reality, to reach this. In any case, I can tell you that there will be no decisions tonight.”
Photo
An Arab Israeli woman casting her vote in the Arab town of Umm el-Fahm. Credit Atef Safadi/European Pressphoto Agency

Based on the results reported on YNet, Mr. Netanyahu could form a narrow coalition of nationalist and religious parties free of the ideological divisions that stymied his last government. That was what he intended when he called early elections in December. President Reuven Rivlin, who in coming days must charge Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Herzog with trying to forge a coalition based on his poll of party leaders’ preferences , said shortly after the polls closed that he would suggest they join forces instead.
Continue reading the main story

“I am convinced that only a unity government can prevent the rapid disintegration of Israel’s democracy and new elections in the near future,” he told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Both camps rejected that option publicly, saying the gaps between their world views were too large. Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Herzog started working the phones immediately after the polls closed, calling party heads to begin the horse-trading and deal-making in hopes of lining up a majority of lawmakers behind them.

The biggest prize may be Moshe Kahlon, a popular former Likud minister who broke away — in part out of frustration with Mr. Netanyahu — to form Kulanu, which focused on pocketbook issues. Mr. Kahlon leans to the right but has issues with the prime minister, and he said Tuesday night that he would not reveal his recommendation until the final results were tallied.

Kulanu — Hebrew for “All of Us” — won 10 seats , according to the tally YNet reported Wednesday based on 99.5 percent of ballots counted. That is enough to put either side’s basic ideological alliance over the magic number of 61 if they also win the backing of two ultra-Orthodox parties that won a total of 14 seats.

“The clearest political outcome is that Kahlon is going to be the kingmaker, and it really depends on how he is going to play his cards,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute. “It very much depends on Kahlon.”

Silvan Shalom, a Likud minister, told reporters that the prime minister would reach out first to Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home party and to Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu, two archconservatives, and “of course Moshe Kahlon,” predicting a coalition “within the next few days” of 63 or 64 seats.

“Israel said today a very clear ‘yes’ to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to the Likud to continue leading the State of Israel,” Mr. Shalom said. “We’ll do it with our allies. We’ll have a strong coalition that is able to deal with all the important issues.”

The Zionist Union said, essentially, not so fast.

Nachman Shai, a senior lawmaker from the Labor Party, which joined with the smaller Hatnua to form the new slate, said Mr. Herzog could still form a coalition, thought he did not specify how, and advised the public to “wait and see.” “They’re trying to cash the check and create a certain atmosphere of victory," Mr. Shai told reporters. “We’ll do the same.”

The murky exit-poll predictions led to a murky reaction from the White House, where a spokesman said that President Obama remained “committed to working very closely with the winner of the ongoing elections to cement and further deepen the strong relationship between the United States and Israel, and the president is confident that he can do that with whomever the Israeli people choose.”

The Joint List of Arab parties won 13 seats, making it the third-largest parliamentary faction. Its four component parties previously had 11.

The unity seems to have lifted turnout among Arab voters to its highest level since 1969, said the list’s leader, Ayman Odeh. Arab parties have never joined an Israeli coalition, but Mr. Odeh has indicated that he would try to help Mr. Herzog in other ways in hopes of ending Mr. Netanyahu’s tenure.

Yesh Atid, a centrist party that won a surprising 19 seats in the 2013 election, its first, earned 11 this time. The Jewish Home lost votes to Mr. Netanyahu’s swing to the right and ended up with eight, according to YNet, down from its current 12. The ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu had six, and the leftist Meretz four.

A new ultra-Orthodox breakaway faction apparently failed to pass the raised electoral threshold to enter Parliament, which means its votes will be discarded, costing the right-wing bloc.

As the results of Israel’s tight election roll in, Israelis reflect on the issues they hope the next prime minister will make priorities.
Video by Quynhanh Do, Tamir Elterman and Emily B. Hager on Publish Date March 17, 2015. Photo by Gil Cohen Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images.

Turnout was near 72 percent, four percentage points higher than in 2013, which analysts attributed to the surprisingly close contest between the Likud and Zionist Union.

“For the first time in many years, we see a serious strengthening in the two major parties,” said Yehuda Ben Meir of the Institute for National Security Studies. “Both parties are higher up at the expense of the smaller parties, which is good for stability, and it’s a move to the center. The larger parties are always more to the center than the satellite parties.”

But Mr. Plesner of the Democracy Institute said the results showed the need for electoral reform because Israel’s “system is so fragmented, so unstable, so difficult to govern.”

Tuesday’s balloting came just 26 months after Israel’s last election, but the dynamic was entirely different. In 2013, there was no serious challenge to Mr. Netanyahu. This time, Mr. Herzog teamed up with Tzipi Livni to form the Zionist Union, an effort to reclaim the state’s founding pioneer philosophy from a right-wing that increasingly defines it in opposition to Palestinian national aspirations.

They promised to stop construction in isolated Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, to try to renew negotiations with the Palestinians, and to restore relations Mr. Netanyahu had frayed with the White House. Mostly, though, they — along with Yesh Atid and Kulanu — hammered the prime minister on kitchen-table concerns like the high cost of housing and food.

Mr. Netanyahu talked mainly about the threats of an Iranian nuclear weapon and Islamic terrorism, addressing economics only in the final days. That was also when he made a sharp turn to the right, backing away from his 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict and sounding an alarm Tuesday morning that Arabs were voting “in droves.”

Many voters complained about a bitter campaign of ugly attacks and a lack of inspiring choices.

“I am happy today to be able to vote, but I know I’ll be unhappy with the result, no matter who wins,” said Elad Grafi, 29, who lives in Rehovot, a large city south of Tel Aviv. Sneering at the likelihood of any candidate being able to form a coalition stable enough to last a full term, he added, “Anyway, I’ll see you here again in two years, right?”

In the Jerusalem suburb of Tzur Hadassah, Eli Paniri, 54, a longtime Likud supporter, said he “voted for the only person who should be prime minister: Netanyahu.”

“I am not ashamed of this,” Mr. Paniri said after weeks of Netanyahu-bashing from all sides. “He is a strong man and, most important, he stood up to President Obama.”

Title: And here is the WSJ's report
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2015, 04:33:12 AM

Third post


By
Joshua Mitnick
Updated March 18, 2015 6:08 a.m. ET
171 COMMENTS

TEL AVIV—Benjamin Netanyahu has won a fourth term as Israel’s prime minister, with his right-wing Likud party seizing a decisive five-seat advantage in parliament over the main opposition Zionist Union party.

With 99% of the ballots counted, Likud is slated to control 29 of parliament’s 120 seats to 24 for Isaac Herzog’s Zionist Union, Israel Radio reported early Wednesday.

That advantage means Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving premier after David Ben-Gurion, will have little difficulty in forming a majority coalition based on right-wing nationalist and religious parties.

After declaring victory “against all odds’’ before a crowd of ecstatic Likud activists shortly after midnight on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu promised to form a government swiftly.

In a statement later Wednesday morning, he said he had already spoken by telephone with leaders of right-wing and religious parties that won seats in parliament, as well as Moshe Kahlon, leader of the centrist Kulanu party and a former Likud member.

Mr. Herzog conceded the election in a phone call to Mr. Netanyahu, telling reporters Wednesday morning that he had congratulated the prime minister on his victory. “I wished him success,” he said.

Leader of the Labor Party, Mr. Herzog in December joined Tzipi Livni and her Hatnua party in forming a joint slate, Zionist Union, to unseat Mr. Netanyahu. He said his party’s showing was “a wonderful achievement” and vowed to pursue a coalition that “closes social gaps…a party that will seek peace with our neighbors.”

Gadi Wolfsfeld, a political scientist at IDC Herzliya, an Israeli university, said the vote could pave the way for a government far more right-wing than Mr. Netanyahu’s current one. That would give Mr. Netanyahu greater latitude to resist the U.S. and Europe and their calls for peace talks with the Palestinians and a freeze on construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The outcome of Tuesday’s vote differed sharply with exit polls released by Israeli news channels after voting stations closed. Those surveys showed Mr. Herzog and Mr. Netanyahu in a virtual tie.

In the waning days of the three-month campaign, voter surveys showed Likud trailing Zionist Union by four seats. But while support for Mr. Herzog’s liberal-left coalition remained steady, backing for Likud surged, apparently as a result of Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute campaign push to secure right-wing votes.

Mr. Netanyahu renounced his previous support for a Palestinian state, declared there was a well-funded foreign conspiracy to topple him and voiced alarm that a large turnout by Israeli Arab voters could determine the outcome of the election.

He warned that Mr. Herzog would give up territory to the Palestinians, who seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war.


“We have a different approach,” Mr. Netanyahu said Tuesday. “They [Zionist Union] want to withdraw. I don’t want to withdraw. If I put together the government, it will be a nationalist government.”

During the campaign, Mr. Herzog accused the prime minister of neglecting Israel’s economy. Besides reducing the gap between rich and poor Israelis, he said he would revive peace efforts with the Palestinians and repair relations with the Obama administration, which have frayed because of differences over nuclear negotiations with Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians.

“Whoever wants to follow Bibi’s path of despair and disappointment will vote for him,” Mr. Herzog said after casting his vote on Tuesday, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. “But whoever wants change, hope, and really a better future for Israel, will vote the Zionist Camp led by me.”

Write to Joshua Mitnick at joshua.mitnick@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ

Title: Re: Israel election, Netanyahu
Post by: DougMacG on March 18, 2015, 08:24:45 AM

Over here we wonder how this election could have even been close.

(WSJ)  "During the campaign, Mr. Herzog accused the prime minister of neglecting Israel’s economy."

This accusation resonated.  We have seen the success of the Israeli economy but lately there are serious complaints of very high cost of living, over-regulation, and other problems.  Netanyahu reportedly neglected domestic issues with his focus on security threats.  His opponents would address these problems with the wrong solutions.  Now that he won, I hope he will do as America should do, energize the free economy at home, as the right thing to do AND as an essential component of any national security strategy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 19, 2015, 05:36:41 AM

"But whoever wants change, hope, and really a better future "

Change and hope - gee wiz - where did we ever hear this phrase from?   Sound familiar.   

He means give the country away to the world.  Just like here.

Title: Levin on Baker
Post by: ccp on March 21, 2015, 12:10:52 PM

This could go under Bush or '16 thread but I settled on this.  Mark Levin has the same feelings about Baker as me.  He worked for Reagan as did Baker.   I don't recall George Schultz being a lot better with regard to his affect with "Jews".

Well W brought back Rumsfeld.  That did not work.   Cheney I like but I am certainly in the minority.   Too bad Kissinger is too old.   When he speaks I listen.
(like I do with Levin who is one of the few real warrior's fighting out fight left:


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/20/levin-criticizes-jebs-association-with-israel-hater-advisor/

Title: Krauthammer: No peace in our time
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 21, 2015, 01:43:45 PM

As usual, CK nails it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-peace-in-our-time/2015/03/19/8df19520-ce61-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?postshare=1021426951825559

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 22, 2015, 06:05:21 PM

Just when one thinks there may be just a tiny crack in the dam that hold Jews to the Democrat party the "out" will be to simply look ahead to Hillary.  Thus the liberal Jews will remain mostly silent as long as they can then start propping her up.

This article nicely outlines what to us is obvious:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/22/israel-beware-of-obama/

Title: Excellent History Resource
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2015, 07:40:30 PM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html#8

Title: Obama Leaks Israeli Nuke Secrets...
Post by: objectivist1 on March 27, 2015, 05:15:03 AM

Obama Leaks Israeli Nuke Secrets

Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 27, 2015

President Obama ratcheted up his personal war on the State of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by leaking Israel’s nuclear secrets to the media.

This betrayal of one of America’s most loyal allies took the form of the Pentagon’s quiet declassification of a 386-page top-secret memo, titled, “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations.” The report from 1987, released just before Netanyahu’s address March 3 to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, goes into intricate detail about the Israeli nuclear weapons program and explains how Israel became a nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s.

Israel is “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs,” according to the report by the taxpayer-funded Institute for Defense Analysis. “That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level.”

By the 1980s Israelis were close to being able to produce bombs a thousand times more powerful than atomic bombs, the report states.

Israel’s nuclear infrastructure is “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories,” it states, noting that research facilities in Israel  “are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,” which have been essential to the development of the U.S. nuclear arms program.

The reports indicates that in some cases, Israeli military technology “is more advanced than in the U.S.”

Israel has never officially acknowledged it possesses a nuclear arsenal, reportedly in order to avoid a regional arms race. By releasing the memo, the U.S. government has breached an informal agreement with Israel to not communicate publicly about its nuclear weapons.

Given the Obama administration’s well-documented hostility to the Jewish state, there can be little doubt that the release of the report was a malicious act calculated to undermine Israel’s security. Remember that red diaper baby Obama was a close friend of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi and that he is now putting forward a maximal effort to help the murderous mullahs of totalitarian Iran develop a nuclear weapons capability.

And when not golfing, appearing on late night TV shows, or berating Republicans as “enemies,” America’s Marxist president has spent much of his time in the Oval Office sticking it to Israel. It is hardly exaggeration to say that beating up on Israel is the cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy.

The sections of the report about Israel were declassified but the Pentagon “kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document,” according to Israel National News.

All of this means that the Obama administration, which is notorious for dragging its heels and failing to comply with even the most trivial of Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests, suddenly opted to declassify an ally’s vital military secrets while the media’s attention was focused on Netanyahu and his approaching speech. It used a dusty old FoIA request, which it could easily have stonewalled for years, as a pretext for the document dump.

The three-year-old request came from anti-Israel activist Grant F. Smith, director of something called the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), in Washington, D.C. He has written two histories of AIPAC and was editor of the book Neocon Middle East Policy, according to his official biography.

Breitbart News reports that Smith’s IRmep “organizes an anti-Israel conference each year in Washington, D.C. Last year, the conference featured speakers from anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist publications. During the Q & A session, a speaker openly called for education about the supposed ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration’ during the Holocaust, while another endorsed the possibility that ‘Israel had a hand in 9/11.'”

Meanwhile, an unnamed senior Israeli government official explained Obama’s hostile actions to the Times of Israel.

“The White House is driven by three main motives,” said the official. “The first is revenge [over the Congress speech]. The second is frustration: It’s no secret that they were involved in an attempt to bring down the Netanyahu government – something that we have clear knowledge of – and failed. The third [motive] is the administration’s attempt to divert attention from the negotiations with Iran to the Palestinian issue.”

Earlier this week President Obama sent his cadaverous White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to blast Israel in a speech to the Israel-hating leftist group J Street, which the top Obama aide referred to as “our partner.”

McDonough indicated the White House was less than pleased with Netanyahu’s efforts in recent days to explain what he was trying to say when he vowed there would be no Palestinian state while he is prime minister.

“We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made,” McDonough said. He added disingenuously, “The United States will never stop working for a two-state solution and a lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians so richly deserve.”

If there is no two-state agreement, Israel will experience “further isolation,” which a Politico article interpreted to mean there will be “more divestment, boycotts and efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international community.”

McDonough received a standing ovation when he said, “An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end.”

The Obama administration’s efforts to defeat Netanyahu in the March 17 Knesset elections flopped spectacularly.

Two weeks after Netanyahu’s March 3 address to Congress which 58 Democratic lawmakers boycotted, the prime minister’s Likud party went on to win a historic victory. Obama refused to attend the speech and with anger in his voice claimed he didn’t even watch it on television. The president, always the sore loser, also took his sweet time congratulating Netanyahu.

The Obama administration funneled U.S. taxpayer dollars to a radical anti-Israel group that aimed to drive Netanyahu from office. The U.S.-based group receiving the money, OneVoice International, in turn worked with V15, an “independent grassroots movement” in Israel, according to Ha’aretz. V15’s unofficial motto was said to be “anyone but Bibi,” a reference that includes the prime minister’s nickname.

Obama operatives temporarily relocated to Israel to try to give Netanyahu the boot. OneVoice hired Obama campaign aides such as Jeremy Bird of political consulting powerhouse 270 Strategies. Bird was national field director for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

Even though Obama lost this fight, that doesn’t mean he is finished with Israel.

Before Obama leaves office on that glorious day in January 2017, he will have many more opportunities to do injury to the Jewish state that his insidious ideology requires him to despise.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on March 27, 2015, 08:24:33 AM

Things like this make Obama and the US far worse than just an ally who won't help; he undermines security in the region to the point causing a nuclear arms race.  It makes me upset about the comparisons of Obama to Cruz or Rubio.  He doesn't do this because he has is young (over 50) or because he was once a first term Senator.  What will Cruz do on the other side of the spectrum, go nuts about liberty and security because he is young and inexperienced?  Obama does things like this because he is a jerk, narcissist, liar who is wrongheaded about which side America should be on.  Did they bother to deny the leak?  Or other leaks, or wiretapping journalists, or using the IRS against political opponents, or a thousand other acts of deception, corruption...  Why don't they leak documents that are under subpoena from Congress?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on March 27, 2015, 09:39:13 AM

Obama's rise to power was based on his opposition to the war that stopped Saddam's Iraq, who had already bombed Israel, from going nuclear.  We shouldn't be surprised now.

Title: Comparisons of Obama to Cruz, Rubio...
Post by: objectivist1 on March 27, 2015, 09:58:15 AM

This infuriates me, as well, Doug.  For someone as intelligent as Charles Krauthammer to make such an idiotic comparison based on Obama being a "one-term Senator" is beyond stupid.  Obama is not who he is as a result of having one term (or zero, or 4) in the U.S. Senate.  He is who he is as a result of his ideology, which is informed by his father and mother's hatred of America and what they considered to be its corrupt founding.  He is an Alinskyite and communist to the core.  His hatred of America and of Jews and Israel knows no bounds.  To equate this in any way with Cruz or Rubio is completely mindless.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 28, 2015, 07:51:29 AM

"For someone as intelligent as Charles Krauthammer to make such an idiotic comparison based on Obama being a "one-term Senator" is beyond stupid."

What did Krauthammer say?

I didn't hear this.

Title: Re: Krauthammer...
Post by: objectivist1 on March 28, 2015, 08:30:03 AM

He said, paraphrasing - on "Special Report with Bret Baier," regarding Ted Cruz's announcement of his candidacy on Monday, that "We've tried having a one-term Senator as President and it didn't work out so well.  We don't need to try it again."  Essentially dismissing Cruz as a serious candidate for this reason alone.  I found it idiotic.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 28, 2015, 08:35:34 AM

Never mind I found Charle's comparison that you speak of.

I agree he is totally off the mark.  

The implication is that Obama is not qualified or stupid, or not able to see what he is doing.   Again like everyone who concludes this continues to misread Obama.   I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and doing so quite purposely.

If only we could get a conservative who is as effective at rebuilding and undoing damage as Obama and his mob are at destroying the US we would be quite lucky.

Obama the "one term" senator has, with his master planners, done quite a job at advancing their agenda.
If only Rubio, Cruz or someone from the right do the same thing.....  Not holding my breath.  

I believe it is over for the conservatives.

But I hold out hope.   (I am wrong)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 28, 2015, 08:36:52 AM

thanks obj.  I typed just as you posted.  Charles stated the same in his most recent column where he handicaps the Republican hopefuls for '16.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 05, 2015, 01:56:03 PM

New footage from the Israeli Navy showcases the most advanced submarine in the IDF's arsenal: the Dolphin-class INS Tanin (Crocodile). The nuclear-capable submarine boasts an array of sophisticated weaponry, as well as the latest in intelligence-gathering technology. It stands at a whopping 68 meters long, compared to 57.3 meters on average for other submarines. "The submarine will receive more long-term missions, and for a greater amount of time, than submarines" the IDF possesses, one navy officer explained, adding that as a result the Navy had "extended by several days our ability to operate silently and secretly in enemy territory." The submarine's commander, Lieutenant Colonel "G", echoed those sentiments, adding that as a result of the sensitive nature of the missions it will be undertaking only the most elite navy personnel will be operating it. "Even the smallest mistake by a soldier could foil the mission in the best-case scenario, and in the worst case reveal the submarine and leave it vulnerable to attack," he said.

Sailors worked closely with the defense ministry, intelligence agencies, the air force and other elite IDF units, he added. Commander of Haifa naval base General David Salamah explained the importance of Israel's submarine fleet to national security. Israel's submarines regularly operate "deep within enemy territory", he noted. "We are talking about a major upgrade to the navy and the entire IDF, in the face of the challenges posed to the State of Israel."

=====================

Also see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9VyYKRGIm4

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2015, 05:43:37 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/idf-overnight-operation-nabs-hamas-terrorists-in-shechem/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breaking+News+Video%3A+IDF+Overnight+Operation+Nabs+Hamas+Terrorists+in+Shechem&utm_campaign=20150415_m125328932_4%2F15+Breaking+News+Video%3A+IDF+Overnight+Operation+Nabs+Hamas+Terrorists+in+Shechem&utm_term=IDF+Overnight+Operation+Nabs+Hamas+Terrorists+in+Shechem

Title: Israel alone
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 20, 2015, 06:25:50 PM

Global View
Israel Alone
Previous quarrels between Washington and Jerusalem were about differing Mideast perceptions. Now the issue is how the U.S. perceives itself.
by Bret Stephens
April 20, 2015 7:37 p.m. ET


Recent conversations with senior Israeli officials are shot through with a sense of incredulity. They can’t understand what’s become of U.S. foreign policy.

They don’t know how to square Barack Obama’s promises with his policies. They fail to grasp how a president who pledged to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons is pushing an accord with Tehran that guarantees their proliferation. They are astonished by the nonchalance with which the administration acquiesces in Iran’s regional power plays, or in al Qaeda’s gains in Yemen, or in the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical weapons, or in the battlefield successes of ISIS, or in Russia’s decision to sell advanced missiles to Tehran. They wonder why the president has so much solicitude for Ali Khamenei’s political needs, and so little for Benjamin Netanyahu’s.

In a word, the Israelis haven’t yet figured out that what America is isn’t what America was. They need to start thinking about what comes next.

The most tempting approach is to wait Mr. Obama out and hope for better days with his successor. Israel and the U.S. have gone through bad patches before—under Ford in the 1970s, Reagan in the early ’80s, Bush in the early ’90s, Clinton in the late ’90s. The partnership always survived the officeholders.

So why should it be different this time? Seventy percent of Americans see Israel in a favorable light, according to a February Gallup poll. The presidential candidates from both parties all profess unswerving friendship with the Jewish state, and the Republican candidates actually believe it. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is broadly unpopular and likely to become more so as the fiascoes continue to roll in.

Yet it’s different this time. For two reasons, mainly.

First, the administration’s Mideast abdications are creating a set of irreversible realities for which there are no ready U.S. answers. Maybe there were things an American president could have done to help rescue Libya in 2011, Syria in 2013, and Yemen last year. That was before it was too late. But what exactly can any president do about the chaos unfolding now?

Shakespeare wrote that there was a tide in the affairs of men “which taken at the flood, leads men on to fortune.” Barack Obama always missed the flood.

Now the president is marching us past the point of no return on a nuclear Iran and thence a nuclear Middle East. When that happens, how many Americans will be eager to have their president intervene in somebody else’s nuclear duel? Americans may love Israel, but partly that’s because not a single U.S. soldier has ever died fighting on its behalf.

In other words, Mr. Obama is bequeathing not just a more dangerous Middle East but also one the next president will want to touch only with a barge pole. That leaves Israel alone to deal as best as it can with a broadening array of threats: thousands more missiles for Hezbollah, paid for by sanctions relief for Tehran; ISIS on the Golan Heights; an Iran safe, thanks to Russian missiles, from any conceivable Israeli strike.

The second reason follows from the first. Previous quarrels between Washington and Jerusalem were mainly about differing Mideast perceptions. Now the main issue is how the U.S. perceives itself.

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt, every U.S. president took the view that strength abroad and strength at home were mutually reinforcing; that global security made us more prosperous, and that prosperity made us more secure.

Then along came Mr. Obama with his mantra of “nation building at home” and his notion that an activist foreign policy is a threat to the social democracy he seeks to build. Under his administration, domestic and foreign policy have been treated as a zero-sum game: If you want more of the former, do less of the latter. The result is a world of disorder, and an Israel that, for the first time in its history, must seek its security with an America that, say what it will, has nobody’s back but its own.

How does it do this? By recalling what it was able to do for the first 19 years of its existence, another period when the U.S. was an ambivalent and often suspicious friend and Israel was more upstart state than start-up nation.

That was an Israel that was prepared to take strategic gambles because it knew it couldn’t afford to wait on events. It did not consider “international legitimacy” to be a prerequisite for action because it also knew how little such legitimacy was worth. It understood the value of territory and terrain, not least because it had so little of it. It built its deterrent power by constantly taking the military initiative, not constructing defensive wonder-weapons such as Iron Dome. It didn’t mind acting as a foreign policy freelancer, and sometimes even a rogue, as circumstances demanded. “Plucky little Israel” earned the world’s respect and didn’t care, much less beg, for its moral approval.

Perhaps the next American president will rescue Israel from having to learn again what it once knew. Israelis would be wise not to count on it.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Title: Iran kisses and makes up with Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 22, 2015, 07:08:51 PM

Iran Rekindles Relations With Hamas
A rift between Tehran and the terrorist group in Gaza has been repaired, and aid is flowing again.
By
Con Coughlin
Updated April 21, 2015 8:04 p.m. ET
WSJ

Iran is the leading Shiite protagonist in the increasingly bitter conflict against rival Sunni Muslims in the Arab world, but lately that hasn’t prevented Tehran from rekindling one Sunni alliance. The ayatollahs are rebuilding relations with the military wing of Hamas, the Sunni Islamist group that controls Gaza.

According to a senior Western intelligence official, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards during the past few months have transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam brigades. Intelligence reports show that the funds have been transferred on the direct orders of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds Force, who also dedicated an annual budget to finance Hamas’s military operations.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal ENLARGE
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal Photo: REUTERS/Fadi Al-Assaad

The funds, according to the intelligence reports, are being used primarily to help Hamas rebuild the network of tunnels that were destroyed during the Israeli Defense Force’s response to rocket attacks launched by Hamas militants from Gaza last summer.

Apart from using Iranian aid to rebuild the tunnel network in anticipation of future confrontations with the Israeli military, the Palestinian brigades are also replenishing their depleted stocks of medium-range missiles, according to the official familiar with the intelligence reports.

The restoration of relations between the Revolutionary Guards and the al-Qassam brigades in Gaza is the latest example of Iran’s deepening military involvement in the Middle East, which so far this year has seen Quds Force officers supporting military operations in Iraq, Syria and, most recently, Yemen. In each instance, the Iranians are basically supporting their Shiite allies, such as the Badr brigades in Iraq and Houthi militiamen in Yemen, against Tehran’s Sunni enemies.

But when it comes to dealing with Hamas, the Iranians are clearly prepared to set aside their antipathy for militant Sunni groups.

Until three years ago, Iran had supplied Hamas fighters with weapons and funding for more than a decade, but relations soured after a rift developed between Tehran and the Hamas leadership over Iran’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Assad regime is mainly drawn from Syria’s minority Alawite sect, which for many years has enjoyed the support of Iran’s Shiite clerical leadership.

When Sunni opposition groups launched a campaign to overthrow the Assad regime four years ago, Tehran deployed teams of Revolutionary Guards to Damascus to ensure the survival of its pivotal regional ally. The move caused a falling out with Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas’s political wing. Mr. Meshaal is a close ally of the Sunni Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which supports many of the factions fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. It was for this reason that Mr. Meshaal moved from Damascus to Qatar in 2012, with the result that the Qataris have replaced Iran as the main financial backers of Hamas, promising to provide a billion dollars for reconstruction in Gaza following last summer’s conflict.

But Mr. Meshaal, who has lived in exile most of his life, has not always enjoyed a good working relationship with commanders of the military wing in Gaza, who often complain that he doesn’t have a full grasp of their needs. It now appears from Western intelligence reports that the Iranians have taken advantage of the split between the political and military wings of Hamas to revive their links with the al-Qassam brigades.

The Revolutionary Guards are eager to revive their relationship with Hamas because it gives them access to Israel’s southern border, in addition to the northern border with Lebanon, where Iran funds Hezbollah militants. Tehran is also willing to set aside its sectarian differences with Hamas because its Palestinian militants share the same long-term objectives as the ayatollahs: the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

Iran’s renewed relations with Hamas in Gaza will exacerbate tensions between Tehran and Sunni states in the Persian Gulf, such as Qatar, who want to maintain their own relationships with the Hamas leadership. The Qatari military is currently supporting the Saudi-led military offensive against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the fact that Iran, Qatar’s bitter rival, is trying to supplant the Qataris as Hamas’s main military backer is likely to lead to renewed tensions between Tehran and Doha.

For the West and for Israel’s allies, the renewed relationship between Iran and Hamas raises a larger concern. Given that Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and its allies, Iran’s fresh outreach to the group should raise another caution flag as world powers negotiate with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program.

Mr. Coughlin is defense editor of the Telegraph (U.K.) and the author of “Khomeini’s Ghost” (Ecco, 2009).

Title: Knife attack solved by firepower
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 04, 2015, 08:27:19 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/stabbing-attack-thwarted-in-jerusalem/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Stabbing+Attack+Thwarted+in+Jerusalem%2C+Terrorist+Shot&utm_campaign=20150504_m125623790_5%2F4+Breaking+Israel+Video%3A+Stabbing+Attack+Thwarted+in+Jerusalem%2C+Terrorist+Shot&utm_term=Stabbing+Attack+Thwarted+in+Jerusalem

Title: Vatican recognizes Palestine as State.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2015, 10:40:05 AM

Vatican to Recognize Palestinian State in New Treaty
The Vatican said Wednesday that it had concluded a treaty to recognize Palestinian statehood, a symbolic but significant step that was bound to be welcomed by many Palestinians but was likely to cause deep concern for the Israeli government.
Formal recognition of a Palestinian state by the Vatican, which has deep religious interests in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories that include Christian holy sites, lends a powerful signal of legitimacy to the efforts by the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, to achieve statehood despite the long paralyzed Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Israel has grown increasingly alarmed about the increased international acceptance of Palestine as a state since the United Nations upgraded the Palestinian delegation’s status in 2012 to that of a nonmember observer state. A number of European countries have also signaled their acceptance of Palestinian statehood.
Pope Francis, the leader of the world’s 1 billion Catholics, has long signaled his wish for a Palestinian state. For the past year, the Vatican had informally referred to the country as “state of Palestine,” in its yearbook as well as in its program for Francis’ 2014 visit to the Holy Land.
A statement from a joint commission of Vatican and Palestinian diplomatic officials, posted on the Vatican news website, said “the work of the Commission on the text of the agreement has been concluded,” and that it will be submitted for formal approval and for signing “in the near future.”
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/middleeast/vatican-to-recognize-palestinian-state-in-new-treaty.html?emc=edit_na_20150513

Title: Anti-BDS measures gaining ground
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2015, 06:16:51 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/18/illinois-passes-historic-anti-bds-bill-as-congress-mulls-similar-moves/

Title: Israel fuct by France
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2015, 09:56:20 AM

"According to French initiative, if sides fail to reach agreement by deadline, Paris will officially recognize Palestine"

What kind of an initiative is this? How does that produce any incentive for Fatah to make necessary compromises for peace, when they will get what they want, if they simply wait long enough?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4659872,00.html

Title: Great video clip
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 24, 2015, 03:30:44 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtLYzAzIIeQ#t=70

Title: Israeli TV show hit for both Israelis and Palestinians
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2015, 07:50:29 PM

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/what-if-the-wire-were-set-in-ramallah-israeli-tv-show-fauda/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Editors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2014_EditorsPicksRS5%2F29

Title: Former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2015, 07:28:31 AM

By
Michael B. Oren
June 15, 2015 7:09 p.m. ET
408 COMMENTS

‘Nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes.” When I was Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 to the end of 2013, that was my standard response to reporters asking who bore the greatest responsibility—President Barack Obama or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—for the crisis in U.S.-Israel relations.

I never felt like I was lying when I said it. But, in truth, while neither leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately.

Israel blundered in how it announced the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods and communities in Jerusalem over the border lines that existed before the Six Day War in 1967. On two occasions, the news came out during Mr. Netanyahu’s meetings with Vice President Joe Biden. A solid friend of Israel, Mr. Biden understandably took offense. Even when the White House stood by Israel, blocking hostile resolutions in the United Nations, settlement expansion often continued.

In a May 2011 Oval Office meeting, Mr. Netanyahu purportedly “lectured” Obama about the peace process. Later that year, he was reported to be backing Republican contenderMitt Romney in the presidential elections. This spring, the prime minister criticized Mr. Obama’s Iran policy before a joint meeting of Congress that was arranged without even informing the president.

Yet many of Israel’s bungles were not committed by Mr. Netanyahu personally. In both episodes with Mr. Biden, for example, the announcements were issued by midlevel officials who also caught the prime minister off-guard. Nevertheless, he personally apologized to the vice president.

Mr. Netanyahu’s only premeditated misstep was his speech to Congress, which I recommended against. Even that decision, though, came in reaction to a calculated mistake by President Obama. From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.

The first principle was “no daylight.” The U.S. and Israel always could disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage common enemies and render Israel vulnerable. Contrary to many of his detractors, Mr. Obama was never anti-Israel and, to his credit, he significantly strengthened security cooperation with the Jewish state. He rushed to help Israel in 2011 when the Carmel forest was devastated by fire. And yet, immediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and America.

“When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas—“not a single brick,” I later heard he ordered Mr. Netanyahu—while making no substantive demands of the Palestinians.

Consequently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas boycotted negotiations, reconciled with Hamas and sought statehood in the U.N.—all in violation of his commitments to the U.S.—but he never paid a price. By contrast, the White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for building in areas that even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part of Israel.

The other core principle was “no surprises.” President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.

Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.

Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40 years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps—formerly the Palestinian position—as the basis for peace-making. If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.

Israel was also stunned to learn that Mr. Obama offered to sponsor a U.N. Security Council investigation of the settlements and to back Egyptian and Turkish efforts to force Israel to reveal its alleged nuclear capabilities. Mr. Netanyahu eventually agreed to a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction—the first such moratorium since 1967—and backed the creation of a Palestinian state. He was taken aback, however, when he received little credit for these concessions from Mr. Obama, who more than once publicly snubbed him.

The abandonment of the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles climaxed over the Iranian nuclear program. Throughout my years in Washington, I participated in intimate and frank discussions with U.S. officials on the Iranian program. But parallel to the talks came administration statements and leaks—for example, each time Israeli warplanes reportedly struck Hezbollah-bound arms convoys in Syria—intended to deter Israel from striking Iran pre-emptively.

Finally, in 2014, Israel discovered that its primary ally had for months been secretly negotiating with its deadliest enemy. The talks resulted in an interim agreement that the great majority of Israelis considered a “bad deal” with an irrational, genocidal regime. Mr. Obama, though, insisted that Iran was a rational and potentially “very successful regional power.”

The daylight between Israel and the U.S. could not have been more blinding. And for Israelis who repeatedly heard the president pledge that he “had their backs” and “was not bluffing” about the military option, only to watch him tell an Israeli interviewer that “a military solution cannot fix” the Iranian nuclear threat, the astonishment could not have been greater.

Now, with the Middle East unraveling and dependable allies a rarity, the U.S. and Israel must restore the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles. Israel has no alternative to America as a source of security aid, diplomatic backing and overwhelming popular support. The U.S. has no substitute for the state that, though small, remains democratic, militarily and technologically robust, strategically located and unreservedly pro-American.

The past six years have seen successive crises in U.S.-Israeli relations, and there is a need to set the record straight. But the greater need is to ensure a future of minimal mistakes and prevent further erosion of our vital alliance.

Mr. Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States and a member of the Knesset, is the author of “Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide” (Random House, 2015).

Title: Re: Israeli reconciliation with Turkey looks likely
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2015, 10:44:00 PM

Analysis
Forecast

    Regional developments will further align Israeli and Turkish interests over time, ultimately leading to a formal reconciliation.
    In the short term, cooperation between Israel and Turkey will continue behind closed doors.

Israel and Turkey may once again be taking steps toward repairing their relationship, which has been damaged since the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in May 2010. On June 22, Haaretz reported that the new director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, met in Rome with an undersecretary in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Feridun Sinirlioglu. The pair reportedly discussed mending ties between their countries, something that the Israeli and Turkish governments have tried several times to achieve over the past five years. Israel in particular maintains a deep interest in improving its relations with Turkey, while the weak performance of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) in recent elections may have cleared some of the obstacles preventing the two countries from burying the hatchet. Though Israel and Turkey still must overcome a significant amount of inertia to fully revive their relationship, the two share too many common interests to remain at odds over the long term.
Reconciliation: A History of Stalled Attempts

Many attempts have been made to restore Israeli-Turkish ties. Perhaps the most notable occurred during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Israel in March 2013, when he cajoled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into apologizing to Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister at the time. By May, Netanyahu's office was optimistic enough to announce that an agreement with Ankara was imminent. However, the draft deal agreed to by both sides sat on Netanyahu's desk for months and ultimately remained unsigned. The following February, a new round of talks led to yet another agreement that was again derailed by Netanyahu's reticence and Erdogan's demands that Israel include a written pledge to lift the Gaza blockade — a request that, according to Israeli media, had not been included in the reconciliation deal. Obama tried to pressure Erdogan to accept the proposal, but to no avail.

The most recent olive branch, then, should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But putting aside the unpredictable stops and starts of what has become a convoluted diplomatic process, it is important to note who is publicizing the most recent revival of talks: Israeli sources quoted in an Israeli newspaper. Turkey, for its part, initially stayed silent on the matter, neither confirming nor denying the report until Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu verified the rumor two days later. Equally strange was the initial report's claim that Gold did not inform the team tasked by Netanyahu to develop the 2014 draft agreement about the meeting — information that normally would not be included in a report about a secret diplomatic meeting. Meanwhile, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson confirmed that Gold went to Rome but did not reveal why. While it remains unclear who initiated the meeting in Italy, it is clear that it was Israel that wanted the world to know about it.
Two Possible Explanations

There are two possible explanations for Israel's eagerness to highlight the renewed talks. The first centers on internal Israeli politics. Netanyahu's May 25 appointment of Gold as the Foreign Ministry's next director general — a post that has been conspicuously vacant since Avigdor Lieberman resigned May 4 — signaled the prime minister's intention to empower and solidify control over the ministry. Lieberman's irreverence toward the very idea of reconciliation with Turkey was one of the main sticking points on the Israeli side preventing talks from moving forward. Because Netanyahu also never particularly trusted Lieberman, he appointed several of his own special envoys to carry out sensitive diplomatic missions, including reconciliation with Turkey, while Lieberman was in office. Once Lieberman's position became available, the Times of Israel speculated that Netanyahu would give the post to Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog in order to persuade his party to join the ruling coalition. But Netanyahu's decision to select Gold instead, when taken together with his initial choice to leave the post vacant for a spell, indicates that the prime minister intends to essentially run the Foreign Ministry himself. Gold has long been Netanyahu's confidant; his trip to Rome and the subsequent leaks emphasizing the exclusion of other key Israeli officials involved in Israeli-Turkish relations could be a move by either Gold or Netanyahu to reassert the Foreign Ministry's control over Israeli foreign policy. In addition, Netanyahu's use of Gold, a trusted adviser and an accomplished diplomat, rather than previous envoys as the primary negotiator in Rome could indicate how serious he is about healing the rift between Israel and Turkey this time around.

The second explanation is that Netanyahu sees the results of Turkey's recent general elections, which have at least momentarily curbed the influence of Erdogan and the ruling AKP, as an opportunity to reopen a dialogue with Ankara. All of the AKP's potential coalition partners have publicly criticized Erdogan's enmity toward Israel. It is possible, then, that the leaks were designed to test the waters and signal that the Israelis are ready to reconcile if the Turks will meet them at the table. Netanyahu may even be hoping to subtly influence the coalition-building talks currently underway in Turkey. Sinirlioglu's attendance at the Rome meeting indicates that the Turks, though they have not publicly admitted as much, continue to be serious about normalizing relations with Israel. (Sinirlioglu served as Turkey’s ambassador to Israel from 2002 to 2007, and he is a well-respected figure within Turkish diplomatic circles and the ruling party.)
With Converging Interests, a Better Outlook

The Israeli government, for its part, is deeply interested in smoothing things over with Turkey. Israel is a small country in a hostile neighborhood that depends on its relationships with regional and global powers to ensure its survival. But there are also a number of specific areas in which partnering with Turkey could prove beneficial to Israel. For example, the Islamic State's attempts to carve out a caliphate alongside the ongoing rebellion in Syria have created chaos on both the Israeli and Turkish borders. The conflict has hit particularly close to home for Israel's Druze community. On June 11, Syrian militant group Jabhat al-Nusra killed 20 Druze villagers in Idlib province, prompting Israel's 130,000-strong Druze community to pressure the government to help their Syrian brethren. Neither Israel nor Turkey wants to see the Syrian conflict spill over their borders, and thus the two countries share the common goal of keeping the violence contained.

The energy sector provides another attractive opportunity for cooperation with Turkey. Israel hopes to become an exporter of natural gas, but the steep cost of developing Israel's giant Leviathan field will require substantial foreign investment to fund the construction of the necessary export infrastructure. Theoretically, a pipeline running through Turkey would face many obstacles, but it is nevertheless an appealing idea for Israel. On the security front, Turkey maintains ties with Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority. While Israel views Turkey's relationship with Hamas with suspicion, the Israeli government would gain legitimacy with other regional and global powers if it established friendly ties with Ankara.

One of the most important factors driving Israel toward Turkey has nothing to do with Ankara and everything to do with Washington, which has been consistently pushing Israel and Turkey to mend ties. Netanyahu's personal relationship with Obama has been publicly antagonistic, and rekindling Israel's relations with Turkey could at least somewhat lessen the tension between Israel and its most important patron.

For Turkey, its relationship with Israel is more complicated. In 2010, when Israeli-Turkish ties first disintegrated, Stratfor noted that Israel was a liability to Turkey's expansionist agenda at the time. But in the years since the flotilla incident, the rise of jihadism in Syria, the eclipse of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the AKP's recent electoral setbacks have aligned Turkey's interests more closely with those of Israel. Stratfor sources have also suggested that the Turkish military is pushing for normalization in the hope that it could receive military training and aid from Israel — an arrangement that was once robust. With Erdogan and the AKP facing so many challenges at home, revitalizing Turkey's relationship with Israel may be an easy compromise that placates Turkey's many political parties and figures who believe strong ties with Israel to be in Turkey's best interest — especially since Israel is at odds with Iran, Turkey's natural competitor in the Middle East.

At this point, many of the issues that continue to separate Israel and Turkey are more personal than geopolitical. Lieberman's resignation from the Israeli Foreign Ministry may help the reconciliation process, but Netanyahu's pride could continue to stand in the way, as it has in previous attempts to reach a deal. Erdogan, for his part, has consistently made public and inflammatory statements about Israel over the past few years, as has Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. However, reports suggest Davutoglu's influence may be waning, which could further open the door to a normalization.

Even so, it would be premature to assume that one secret meeting in Rome indicates Israel and Turkey are finally ready to resolve their differences. (As if to underscore this point, a new flotilla will soon depart from Athens in an attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza — a stark reminder of the flotilla that derailed Israeli-Turkish relations in the first place.) Though Erdogan's power has been temporarily diminished, any Turkish government formed will likely be short-lived; new elections, if held, could restore at least some of Erdogan's previous authority.

Still, the process of patching up the Israeli-Turkish relationship, however circuitous, continues. This time, though, regional developments are bringing the two countries' interests closer together, which will eventually lead to a formal reconciliation. In the meantime, cooperation between Israel and Turkey will continue, if only behind closed doors.

Title: Big new Hamas Tunnel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2015, 09:05:49 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-unveils-new-tunnel-it-says-reaches-into-israel/

Title: By deed Pope says Temple Mount is Palestinian/Muslim
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2015, 05:28:23 PM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17147#.VZMzzS7Ce9Z

Title: ISIS going after Hamas in Gaza?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 19, 2015, 02:26:39 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-blamed-for-exploding-seven-Hamas-Islamic-Jihad-cars-in-Gaza-409439

Title: Re: ISIS going after Hamas in Gaza?
Post by: G M on July 19, 2015, 06:38:56 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 19, 2015, 02:26:39 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-blamed-for-exploding-seven-Hamas-Islamic-Jihad-cars-in-Gaza-409439

That would be awesome.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2015, 07:30:08 AM

Click here to watch: Iran Releases Video Threatening Missile Strike on Israel

A video threatening that the safety of Israel will not be ensured despite the nuclear deal signed between world powers and Tehran last week was released on the official YouTube page of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollal Ali Khamenei this week. The video begins with a clip of US President Barack Obama ensuring that the US "will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel's security." A montage of Iranian missiles blasting off follows, accompanied by a voice-over from a speech by Khamenei in which he declares, "Israel's security will not be ensured whether there will be a nuclear agreement or not." The video was released as Iran's leaders try to convince hardliners in the country to accept the concessions it made in the nuclear deal. An Iranian official said Wednesday that Iran will not accept any extension of sanctions beyond 10 years. Abbas Araqchi, one of several deputy foreign ministers, also told a news conference Iran would do "anything" to help allies in the Middle East, underlining Tehran's message that despite the deal Iran will not change its anti-Western foreign policy.

Watch Here

Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, told supporters on Saturday that US policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, in a Tehran speech punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Under the accord, Iran will be subjected to long-term curbs on its nuclear work in return for the lifting of US, European Union and UN sanctions. The deal was signed by the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the EU. The world powers suspected Iran was trying to create a nuclear bomb; Tehran said its program was peaceful. The accord was a major success for both Obama and Iran's pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani. But both leaders have to promote it at home to influential hardliners in countries that have been enemies for decades. Araqchi, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, told the televised conference that any attempt to re-impose sanctions after they expired in 10 years would breach the deal. He was referring to a resolution endorsing the deal passed by the UN Security Council on Monday. The resolution allows all UN sanctions to be re-imposed if Iran violates the agreement in the next 10 years. If Iran adheres to the terms of the agreement, all the provisions and measures of the UN resolution would end in 10 years.
Source: Jpost

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on July 26, 2015, 01:50:29 PM

Ah, the good old days, when we were told that Iran was a rational actor and Obama had lots of Jews in his administration  so Israel was safe.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2015, 09:00:21 AM

Occasionally Stratfor slides into glibness in the service of having a narrative that fits in with the Stratfor's Big Narrative about how the world works.  IMHO this piece does just that to some extent, but remains worth the reading nonetheless.



 How the U.S.-Iranian Pact Affects Israel
Analysis
August 3, 2015 | 09:45 GMT
Print
Text Size
Summary

Editor's Note: This is the second installment of an occasional series on the evolving fortunes of the Middle East that Stratfor will be building upon periodically.

The U.S.-Israeli relationship was forged in the crucible of the Cold War, when Israel functioned as a meaningful counterweight to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. The Iran nuclear deal is not so much an existential threat to Israel as it is a development that burdens it to act and to help shape the region the way the United States desires. Israel may often be forced to the front lines in the coming years, whether as a result of Iran striking via proxies such as Hezbollah or whether by becoming an appealing secondary target for the Islamic State and other jihadist groups. It will also find itself in strange alliances, such as partnering with the Saudis against Iran, with Hamas and Egypt against the Islamic State, and simultaneously with Turkey and various Kurdish factions.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Israeli relationship will endure. Although this relationship will not be the cushy arrangement it was during U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, Israel will still be important to the U.S. strategy of creating a balance of power in the Middle East.

Analysis

Judging from the openly antagonistic relationship between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would be easy to assume that the Iranian deal will further fray the ties between Israel and the United States. Indeed, part of Washington's strategy to create a balance of power means forging more pragmatic relationships with regional powers: In this case, countries such as Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The United States was not going to avoid an agreement with Iran just because Israel said to.


But that does not mean Washington will abandon its relationship with Israel. Israel essentially is an American insurance policy should Iran or Turkey prove able to capitalize too effectively on regional turmoil. Though the United States cannot depend solely on Israel to shape the region to Washington's wishes, Israel still serves a very important role in Washington's overall strategy: A powerful Israel, armed to the teeth by the United States, precludes the possibility of one power dominating the region completely. This means Israel will still enjoy significant American support, but it also means Israel will become a target for would-be regional hegemons.
The Role of Israel's Geography

For any power emanating from the east, whether based in present-day Iraq or Iran, Israel is situated on particularly important strategic territory. The ancient Persian Empire pushed to the eastern Mediterranean precisely because it required an anchor in the Levant to protect against aggressive actions from Mediterranean powers. Without a foothold in the Levant, Iran cannot feel secure.

Even if Iran's Shiite crescent strategy had succeeded in the 2000s, Iran's proxy in the Levant, Hezbollah, would have had to face an aggressive Israel that would not have tolerated such a powerful Iranian-backed force so close to home. The Lebanon conflict of the 1980s was disastrous for Israel, but it also demonstrated that when sufficiently threatened Israel will extend its influence north to the Litani River. A Hezbollah stronghold connected by land all the way to Iran's Zagros Mountains would have forced Israel's hand.

Israel is also important strategic territory for a potential Mediterranean power such as Turkey. The simplest reason is that without controlling the greater Levant, a Mediterranean power leaves itself open to attack from an eastern power such as Iran. Turkey's geographic core is the Sea of Marmara, and its greatest geopolitical advantage is its control of important maritime trade routes in the Mediterranean; an ambitious foreign power with a grip on the Levant could disrupt valuable trade routes or challenge maritime domination of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, if Turkey ever hopes to reclaim even a portion of the power it wielded as the Ottoman Empire, when it controlled both the northern and southern littorals of the Mediterranean, control of Israel is an imperative. Without it, no government in Istanbul can easily project land-based military power into the southern Mediterranean.

An Eventual Call to Action

The Israelis will not necessarily find the Middle East's new diplomatic climate a temperate one. The current front-line battleground in the Middle East is Iraq and Syria. Yemen is the secondary front, but Israel will not be able to stay out of the general fray forever. When the Syrian civil war eventually abates, Israel may find that it is bordered to the north by either an Iranian-backed Alawite state, a Sunni Islamist state with ties to Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or some other as-yet-unimaginable entity. This unknown is nothing short of terrifying for Israel, and it will have to be vigilant against attacks from both conventional forces and militants. Stratfor has written about how the Palestinian question in recent years has been a minor irritant at worst for the Israelis, but the possibility that a foreign power could use the Palestinian issue against Israel cannot be overlooked.

Like other Middle Eastern players, Israel will have to be become significantly more opportunistic. It will be unable to simply build a security fence on all sides of its borders and let the Middle East stew in its own juices. Traces of change in Israel's behavior are already apparent. Stratfor sources indicate that furtive Saudi-Israeli relations have accelerated in recent months and that Riyadh and Israel have working understandings regarding the conflict in Syria. A recent sophisticated attack by the Islamic State's Sinai Peninsula franchise in Egypt has created a shared fear among Egypt, Hamas and Israel, and all three will work to combat the Islamic State's attempt to establish a base of operations in Sinai.

Moreover, talks between important officials in Israel and Turkey were leaked to the media in June. Although formal reconciliation has not occurred yet, Israel will work with Turkey on issues of shared interest, particularly in Syria but also in preventing Iran from becoming too powerful. Also, there are indications that Israeli and the Palestinian National Authority might return to the negotiating table. This runs parallel to Israel's quiet exchanges with Hamas. All the while, Israel will continue to maintain relationships with stateless groups in the region such as the Kurds and the Druze, while forging new alliances and alignments to minimize the fallout from the emerging balance of power.

The relative calm and quiet Israel has experienced in recent decades is not the norm. Israel is not in jeopardy of being overrun by Iran or any other Middle Eastern power for as long as the United States backs it. And while changes in U.S. strategy have downgraded Israeli influence over the strategic decisions Washington makes, Israel remains an integral part of the overall U.S. attempt to create a more stable Middle East. Israel has had years to prepare for this situation. The new strategic environment will force Israel to be much more aggressive in pursuing calculated relationships with old enemies and new friends. Israel is not going anywhere, but that should not obscure the fact that its geopolitical circumstances just became significantly more perilous.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on August 03, 2015, 12:32:27 PM

Dumbest. Stratfor.Article.Ever.

Title: Israel's new demographic order
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2015, 06:05:36 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/a-new-israeli-demographic-order/16659

Title: Stratfor: The Case against attacking Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 30, 2015, 04:56:10 PM

By George Friedman

On Aug. 21, Israeli Channel 2 Television aired a recording of Ehud Barak, Israel's former defense minister and former prime minister, saying that on three separate occasions, Israel had planned to attack Iran's nuclear facilities but canceled the attacks. According to Barak, in 2010 Israel's chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, refused to approve an attack plan. Israeli Cabinet members Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz backed out of another plan, and in 2012 an attack was canceled because it coincided with planned U.S.-Israeli military exercises and a visit from then-U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The fact that the interview was released at all is odd. Barak claimed to have believed that the tape would not be aired, and he supposedly tried unsuccessfully to stop the broadcast. It would seem that Barak didn't have enough clout to pressure the censor to block it, which I suppose is possible.

Yaalon, like Ashkenazi, was once chief of staff of Israel Defense Forces but was also vice premier and Barak's successor as defense minister. Steinitz had been finance minister and was vocal in his concerns about Iran. What Barak is saying, therefore, is that a chief of staff and a vice premier and former chief of staff blocked the planned attacks. As to the coinciding of a U.S.-Israeli exercise with a planned attack, that is quite puzzling, because such exercises are planned well in advance. Perhaps there was some weakness in Iranian defenses that opened and closed periodically, and that drove the timing of the attack. Or perhaps Barak was just confusing the issue.

A number of points are worth noting: Ehud Barak is not a man to speak casually about highly classified matters, certainly not while being recorded. Moreover, the idea that Barak was unable to persuade the military censor to block the airing of the recording is highly improbable. For some reason, Barak wanted to say this, and he wanted it broadcast.

Part of the reason might have been to explain why Israel, so concerned about Iran, didn't take action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Given the current debate in the U.S. Congress, that is a question that is undoubtedly being asked. The explanation Barak is giving seems to be that senior military and defense officials blocked the plans and that the Israelis didn't want to upset the Americans by attacking during a joint exercise. The problem with this explanation is that it is well known that Israeli military and intelligence officials had argued against an Israeli strike and that the United States would have been upset whether or not joint exercises were occurring.

It would seem, intentionally or unintentionally, that Barak is calling Israeli attention to two facts. The first is that militarily taking out Iranian facilities would be difficult, and the second is that attempting to do so would affect relations with Israel's indispensible ally, the United States. Military leaders' opposition to the strikes had been rumored and hinted at in public statements by retired military and intelligence heads; Barak is confirming that those objections were the decisive reason Israel did not attack. The military was not sure it could succeed.
The Potential for Disastrous Failure

A military operation, like anything else in life, must be judged in two ways. First, what are the consequences of failure? Second, how likely is failure? Take, for example, the failure of the U.S. hostage rescue operation in 1980. Apart from the obvious costs, the failure gave the Iranian government reason to reduce its respect for U.S. power and thus potentially emboldened Iran to take more risks. Even more important, it enhanced the reputation of the Iranian government in the eyes of its people, both demonstrating that the United States threatened Iranian sovereignty and increasing the credibility of the government's ability to defend Iran. Finally, it eroded confidence in U.S. political and military leaders among the U.S. public. In reducing the threat and the perception of threat, the failure of the operation gave the Iranian regime more room to maneuver.

For the Israelis, the price of failure in an attack on Iranian nuclear sites would have been substantial. One of Israel's major strategic political assets is the public's belief in its military competence. Forged during the 1967 war, the IDF's public image has survived a number of stalemates and setbacks. A failure in Iran would damage that image even if, in reality, the military's strength remained intact. Far more important, it would, as the failed U.S. operation did in 1980, enhance Iran's position. Given the nature of the targets, any attack would likely require a special operations component along with airstrikes, and any casualties, downed pilots or commandos taken prisoner would create an impression of Israeli weakness contrasting with Iranian strength. That perception would be an immeasurable advantage for Iran in its efforts to accrue power in the region. Thus for Israel, the cost of failure would be extreme.

This must be measured against the possibility of success. In war, as in everything, the most obvious successes can evolve into failure. There were several potential points for failure in an attack on Iran. How confident were the Israelis that their intelligence on locations, fortifications and defenses were accurate? How confident were they that they could destroy the right targets? More important, perhaps, how certain could they be that the strikes had destroyed the targets? Finally, and most important, did they know what Iran's recuperative capabilities were? How quickly could the Iranians restore their program? Frequently, an operationally successful assault does not deal with the strategic problem. The goal of an attack was to make Iran incapable of building a nuclear weapon; would destroying all known targets achieve that strategic goal?

One of the things to bear in mind is that the Iranians were as obsessed with Israeli and U.S. intelligence efforts as the Israelis and Americans were obsessed with the Iranian programs. Iran's facilities were built to be protected from attack. The Iranians were also sophisticated in deception; knowing that they were being watched, they made efforts to confuse and mislead their observers. The Israelis could never be certain that they were not deceived by every supposedly reliable source, every satellite image and every intercepted phone call. Even if only one or two sources of information were actually misleading, which sources were they?

A failed Israeli assault on Iran would cause a major readjustment among other regional players in the way they perceive Israel and Iran. And for Israel, the perception of its military effectiveness is a strategic asset. There was a high risk of damaging that strategic asset in a failed operation, coupled with a strong chance that Israeli actions could unintentionally bolster Iran's power in the region. The likelihood of success was thrown into question by Israel's dependence on intelligence. In war, intelligence failure is a given. The issue is how great the failure will be — and there is no way to know until after the strike. Furthermore, operational success may not yield strategic success. Therefore, the ratio of potential risk versus reward argued against an attack.
Considering Iran's Capabilities

There is another side to this equation: What exactly were the Iranians capable of? As I have argued before, enriched uranium is a necessary but insufficient component for a nuclear weapon. It is enough to create a device that can be detonated underground in controlled conditions. But the development of a weapon, as opposed to a device, requires extensive technology in miniaturization and ruggedization to ensure the weapon reaches its target. Those who fixated on progress in uranium enrichment failed to consider the other technologies necessary to create nuclear weaponry. Some, including myself, argued that the constant delays in completing a weapon were rooted both in the lack of critical technologies and in Iranian concerns about the consequence of failure.

Then there is the question of timing. A nuclear weapon would be most vulnerable at the moment it was completed and mounted on its delivery system. At that point, it would no longer be underground, and the Israelis would have an opportunity to strike when Iranians were in the process of marrying the weapon to the delivery device. Israel, and to an even greater extent the United States, has reconnaissance capabilities. The Iranians know that the final phase of weapon development is when they most risk detection and attack. The Israelis may have felt that, as risky as a future operation may seem, it was far less likely to fail than a premature attack.
Barak's Motivations

Whether intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally) Barak was calling attention, not to prior plans for an attack on Iran, but to the decision to abandon those plans. He pointed out that an Israeli chief of staff blocked one plan, a former chief of staff blocked a second plan and concern for U.S. sensibilities blocked a third. To put it in different terms, the Israelis considered and abandoned attacks on Iran on several occasions, when senior commanders or Cabinet members with significant military experience refused to approve the plan. Unmentioned was that neither the prime minister nor the Cabinet overruled them. Their judgment — and the judgment of many others — was that an attack shouldn't be executed, at least not at that time.

Barak's statement can be read as an argument for sanctions. If the generals have insufficient confidence in an attack, or if an attack can be permanently canceled because of an exercise with the Americans, then the only option is to increase sanctions. But Barak also knows that pain will not always bring capitulation. Sanctions might be politically satisfying to countries unable to achieve their ends through military action or covert means. As Barak undoubtedly knows, imposing further restrictions on Iran's economy makes everyone feel something useful is being done. But sanctions, like military action, can produce unwelcome results. Measures far more painful than economic sanctions still failed to force capitulation in the United Kingdom or Germany, and did so in Japan only after atomic weapons were used. The bombing of North Vietnam did not cause capitulation. Sanctions on South Africa did work, but that was a deeply split nation with a majority in favor of the economic measures. Sanctions have not prompted Russia to change its policy. Imposing pain frequently unites a country and empowers the government. Moreover, unless sanctions rapidly lead to a collapse, they would not give Iran any motivation not to complete a nuclear weapon.

I don't think Barak was making the case for sanctions. What he was saying is that every time the Israelis thought of military action against Iran, they decided not to do it. And he wasn't really saying that the generals, ministers or the Americans blocked it. In actuality, he was saying that ultimately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked it, because in the end, Netanyahu was in a position to force the issue if he wanted to. Barak was saying that Israel did not have a military option. He was not attacking Netanyahu for this decision; he was simply making it known.

It's unlikely that Barak believes sanctions will compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program, any more the current agreement does. My guess is that for him, both are irrelevant. Either the Iranians do not have the ability or desire to build a bomb, or there will come a point when they can no longer hide the program — and that is the point when they will be most vulnerable to attack. It is at that moment, when the Iranians are seen arming a delivery system, that an Israeli or U.S. submarine will fire a missile and end the issue.

If Barak didn't want a strike on Iran, if Netanyahu didn't want a strike and if Barak has no confidence in agreements or sanctions, then Barak must have something in mind for dealing with an Iranian nuclear weapon — if it ever does appear. Barak is an old soldier who knows how to refrain from firing until he is most certain of success, even if the delay makes everyone else nervous. He is not a believer in diplomatic solutions, gestures to indirectly inflict pain or operations destined for failure. At any rate, he has revealed that Israel did not have an effective military option to hamper Iran's nuclear program. And I find it impossible to believe he would rely on sanctions or diplomacy. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success. 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 31, 2015, 06:32:04 AM

"And I find it impossible to believe he would rely on sanctions or diplomacy. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success."

I don't follow this reasoning.  How in the world is it that waiting for Iran to commit to arming a delivery system increases the chance for success? (of a military strike)

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2015, 09:07:15 AM

I guess the argument is that by acting before then the blow back would be more than Israel could handle.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 31, 2015, 09:21:05 AM

Aren't they [Iran] working on long range delivery systems?

missles

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2015, 01:31:15 PM

Some of Iran's missiles already reach eastern Europe and they have plenty that reach Israel.  Also very much worth noting is the over 100,000 rockets Iran has placed with Hezbollah.   Russia looks to be going forward with selling the advanced anti-aircraft system to Iran, and Baraq-Kerry's deal allows Iran to buy missiles and rockets on the open market.

Title: Stratfor: Israel and Turkey reconnecting?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 03, 2015, 10:12:36 AM

 Turkey, Israel: A Slow, Steady Strengthening of Ties
Geopolitical Diary
September 3, 2015 | 01:01 GMT
Text Size
Print

On June 26, Stratfor published an article predicting that regional developments were bringing Israeli and Turkish interests into greater alignment. The leading indicator behind that forecast was a secret meeting between the director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, and the undersecretary in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Feridun Sinirlioglu. In the past week, additional signs have indicated that the rapprochement is continuing apace.

It has long been thought that Turkey and Israel could cooperate in the energy sector. Though Israel's efforts to develop the relatively large Leviathan natural gas field have stalled as a result of domestic politics, and despite the Aug. 30 announcement of the discovery of a natural gas field even larger than Leviathan in Egyptian waters, both sides still have a great deal of political will to eventually export Israeli natural gas to Turkey. Multiple Turkish natural gas company executives, such as Nusret Comert and Batu Aksoy, have said in interviews recently that Turkey remains interested in developing and importing Israeli natural gas. Turkey wants to be the chief transit state to Europe for Eastern Mediterranean natural gas, and as a result of its fear of being excluded by Israeli, Egyptian and Cypriot understandings, it is eager to work with Israel.

What is a Geopolitical Diary?

For its part, Israel wants to use economic connections to repair and maintain strategic relationships in the region; its intention was to use Leviathan to do so with Jordan and Egypt. However, Egypt's natural gas discovery may actually prompt Israel to take a closer look at Turkey, assuming the Israeli parliament can agree on what to do with Leviathan's natural gas.

It also has become clear that there is an understanding between Feridun Sinirlioglu, who has been appointed foreign minister, and Gold. On his appointment, Gold sent a letter of congratulations to Sinirlioglu, and speaking to reporters in Jerusalem on Sept. 1, Gold extolled Sinirlioglu's personal qualities, calling him a "first-class diplomat" and saying Turkey was lucky to have him.

Most interesting, however, is the arrival of a Turkish business delegation in the Palestinian territories and Israel. The delegation, led by Prof. Guven Sak, the managing director of The Economic Policy Research Foundation in Turkey, is the first Turkish delegation to visit Israel since the Mavi Marmara debacle five years ago. The delegation visited Gaza on Aug. 30 and spoke of the potential for establishing an industrial zone in the Gaza Strip. The delegation met with Deputy Leader of Hamas and former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to discuss developing Gaza's economy. The delegation also met with Palestinian Labor Minister Mamoun Abu Shahla, who said after his meeting that Turkey had donated 20 million euros (about $22.5 million) to the Palestinian working fund.

The following day, the delegation headed to Israel, where it met with Israeli Deputy Minister of Regional Cooperation Ayoub Kara. Reportedly, Sak and his fellow Turkish business leaders are interested in developing an industrial zone in the West Bank as well, near the city of Jenin. According to Daily Sabah, the Turkish delegation communicated a desire to invest $100 million into the potential industrial zone. Palestinians have already purchased the 1,300 acres for the initialization of the project at a cost of $10 million, and the project has the support of Israel, the United States and the European Union. Kara highlighted the project's potential to help in rebuilding the fractured relationship between Ankara and Jerusalem.

The development of industrial zones in the Palestinian territories is not new. In 1974, Israel built the Erez industrial zone in the Gaza Strip. Before it fell into disuse after Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the zone held more than 180 different businesses that employed about 5,000 Gazans. The decision to have Israeli businesses withdraw from the Erez zone was announced in June 2004 by then-Israeli Minister of Industry and Trade and Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who would go on to serve as prime minister.

Ever since Israel withdrew from the industrial zone, Turkey has sought to resuscitate the project. At the time, Turkey was seeking to burnish its regional leadership credentials by owning the Gaza issue and being concerned for Gaza's plight. Then-Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territories in January 2006, at the time hoping to sign agreements that would lead to the creation of 10,000 jobs for Palestinians. In 2007, reports surfaced about then-head of Turkish Chambers of Commerce and Bourses Rifat Hisarciklioglu meeting with then-Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in January 2007 to discuss reviving the Erez industrial zone.

Despite these commitments, the restoration of Erez by Turkish-Israeli-Palestinian partnership was never realized. Talk of developing a new industrial zone outside of Jenin in the West Bank, which the visiting Turkish delegation seems to be most serious about, or of recovering Erez must then be taken with a grain of salt when evaluating whether the project itself will come to fruition. That multiple stakeholders are on board for the creation of the zone outside Jenin is a start, but many hurdles remain.

Still, there is a sense of deja vu surrounding these proceedings. Many of the same players who previously tried to rebuild Erez or use the industrial zone model are still around; Sak, though not leading delegations back in 2006, has always been a vocal supporter of such plans. It also harkens back to a time before the Mavi Marmara incident, when relations between Turkey and Israel were strong. Trade has continued between the two countries. Defense exports resumed as early as 2013, in part because of U.S. pressure, and the business and security establishments in both countries have continued to cooperate as much as possible while lamenting the current frayed state of national ties.

Where once Turkey's interests were in distancing itself from Israel, the countries' interests are now converging. Israel is upset with the United States about the Iran deal, and Turkey, while it is more welcoming of Iran than Israel is, still views Iran as a competitor. Furthermore, U.S. pressure on Turkey to participate in its campaign against the Islamic State has increased, as has U.S. frustration with Turkey's using the pretense of attacking the Islamic State to strike at its Kurdish problem in the southeast and its rather blunt hostility toward one of Washington's best allies against the Islamic State thus far: Syrian Kurds. The United States often has urged Turkey and Israel to make up, and reconciling means scoring an easy victory with Washington while making public cooperation that has never truly stopped behind the scenes. Turkey wants the removal of Bashar al Assad from Damascus; Israel at this point just wants an assurance that stability will reign on its northern border. Moreover, developing an understanding with Turkey as it asserts itself more in Syria will become important for an Israeli government that has become more wary of activities in Syria and on its northern border in general in recent weeks.

Turkey's and Israel's broader strategic interests are continuing to align, and smaller indicators — such as the Turkish delegation's visit concerning industrial zones, a degree of cordiality between Turkish and Israeli diplomatic officials absent in recent years and statements from business elites — all point to the relationship's continuing regeneration. Gold has been hesitant to declare an open reconciliation yet, and such a prediction would be premature, but that is ultimately less important than the reality that the two countries' underlying partnership appears to be strengthening.

Title: Caroline Glick: The Upside of Obama's Nuke Deal...
Post by: objectivist1 on September 04, 2015, 10:43:26 AM

As usual, some insightful analysis by Caroline Glick:

A GLORIOUS DEFEAT

The upside of the Iran nuke deal.

September 4, 2015  Caroline Glick   

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.


Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause.

Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle.

The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna.

On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable.

Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150b. would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna.

The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council.

After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda.

So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office.

As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb.

Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads.

That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003.

The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator.

As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways.

First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike.

Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike.

There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges.

For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership.

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations.

Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country.

By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly.

Better eight years late than never.

The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear.

As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours.

By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term.

Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally.

In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted.

By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position.

Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe.

Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor.

Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic.

Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran.

Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.

Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Thankfully, they are mistaken.

Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal.

AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy.

We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections.

Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security.

If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight.

On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.”

Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel.

The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor.

All in all, a rather glorious defeat.

Title: Israel's nukes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2015, 04:24:21 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-lets-mordechai-vanunu-detail-its-nuclear-program-on-primetime-tv/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2015, 11:48:33 AM

Click here to watch: Islamic State's Sinai Branch Releases Video Showing Advanced Missiles

A new video produced by ISIS’s Wilayat Sinai branch in the Sinai Peninsula released on Wednesday reveals that the group has new sophisticated weaponry, which it hopes to use to launch a war against Israel. The new 37-minute video, produced in ISIS’s well-known sleek style, opens by criticizing Egypt’s “apostate” relationship with the State of Israel over a clip from the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978. Calling Sinai the “southern gates to Jerusalem,” and “an opening to fight a war against the Jews,” the video also includes clips of the Temple Mount, former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak shaking hands with former Israeli president Shimon Peres, as well as talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and even includes animation from Israel’s Channel 10 showing a terrorist attack on an Israeli bus in 2011 on its way to Eilat. In the video, Wilayat Sinai, then known as Ansar Bait al-Maqdis [Supporters of Jerusalem], boasted its responsibility for the 2011 attack, as well as various rocket attacks, which they claim were revenge for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Additionally, the group quotes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, saying that “the Jews and the ‘Crusaders’ [Christians] will taste what they tasted in the Battle of Khaybar,” referring to the battle in which the prophet Muhammad’s army slaughtered a tribe of Jews north of Medina. Sinai is referred to in the video as being part of the historical “Land of Canaan” and therefore part of the “holy land of Palestine.” Michael Horowitz, a security analyst and member of the Levantine Group, told The Jerusalem Post that Wilayat Sinai often depicts the Egyptian Army as collaborating with Israel, noting that the group often refers to the Egyptian military as the “Camp David Army.”

Watch Here

Though the video can be seen as a threat to Israel, Horowitz believes that despite Israeli concerns of threats from the terrorist group, the video’s anti-Israel rhetoric is mostly aimed at delegitimizing the Egyptian military. By depicting the Egyptian military as Israel’s watchdogs, its rhetoric is actually meant to justify the opposite, and legitimize the fact that the group is fighting the Egyptian army rather than Israel. Following the threats to Israel, the video shows clips of deposed Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, while accusing the Egyptian government of creating “a democracy of infidels,” including fake Salafists and the “bankrupt” Muslim Brotherhood. The video mostly focuses on Wilayat Sinai’s attacks on Egyptian military and civilian targets over the past year, showing clips of the group’s ever increasing strength. These include a bomb attack on the police station in the town of Sheikh Zuweid, as well as the use of the latest generation of Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles against tanks, APCs, and on one occasion, an Egyptian navy ship in the Mediterranean on July 19. According to Horowitz, “The most significant and new element that this video seems to depict is the group’s usage of advanced missiles. Most notably the video shows that the group used an anti-aircraft missile, likely an SA-18 Igla, which is concerning, in light of the Egyptian military’s reliance on air power.”
Source: Jpost

Title: Israel big loser in Russia's new dominance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2015, 04:15:11 PM

Click here to watch: Israel is the biggest loser in Russia’s Syria build-up

By deploying troops, aircraft and weapons to Syria, Russia has over the past fortnight surprised the US, outmaneuvered regional players such as Turkey, and positioned itself as a decisive player in any postwar regional order.

However, Israel, the pre-eminent military power in the Levant, has arguably emerged as the biggest loser from the Kremlin’s Syrian gambit.

Watch Here

By stationing about 2,000 troops and setting up what analysts say could become three bases around Latakia, Moscow has bolstered the flagging regime of Bashar al-Assad, whose main allies in the four-year-old war are Israel’s leading regional enemies: Iran and the militant group Hizbollah.

Israeli planes and artillery have struck inside Syria several times since 2013 to prevent the transfer of weapons to the militant group, and Israel accuses the Assad government of working with Iran to open a front against it in the Syrian Golan. Now it must co-ordinate any potential strikes with Moscow.

Russia’s move also comes amid Israeli government unease over a US-led nuclear agreement with Iran, which Israel contends is open to violation and will enhance Tehran’s ability to finance future regional military adventures.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has put the best possible face on what some analysts are calling the “game-changing” move by Russia. Emerging from hastily arranged talks with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin on Monday, Mr Netanyahu said that Israel and Russia had agreed a joint co-ordination mechanism to “prevent misunderstandings” — code for clashes or dogfights over Syria.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on September 26, 2015, 06:03:43 PM

Almost like Putin has more flexibility in Obama's second term. Where would he have gotten that idea?

Title: Obama stabs Bibi in back
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2015, 06:07:18 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/01/obama-pulled-john-kerry-samantha-power-netanyahu-un-speech/

Title: No worries, Obama has Israel's back
Post by: G M on October 02, 2015, 01:24:47 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQPfKhuWgAAH1z6.jpg

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQPfKhuWgAAH1z6.jpg)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 02, 2015, 07:40:33 AM

GM,

Great post.    :-D

Could go under (dark) humor too.

Title: Israeli Disgraces Dead Terrorist with Pork...
Post by: objectivist1 on October 14, 2015, 08:55:02 AM

ISRAELI PUTS PORK ON DEAD TERRORIST'S BODY, DENYING HIM HIS VIRGINS

If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. "

October 13, 2015  Daniel Greenfield



Muslims murder non-Muslims confident that if they die, they'll get access to "paradise" and 72 virgins to rape in the hereafter. Muslim clerics make even more extravagant promises, claiming that dead killers will receive all sorts of added benefits. Muslims who have killed (other Muslims) or committed adultery will still get an express ticket to paradise if they die while killing non-Muslims.

As long as he doesn't come into contact with a pig.

There's a long history of people fighting Muslim Jihadis by wrapping their Jihadis in pigskin or shooting them with lard bullets. US soldiers did it not all that long ago in the Philippines. While the belief that pork on a corpse can stop someone from going to heaven is nonsense... so is the underlying belief that killing non-Muslims atones for all sins. And if it deters Muslims, it's a plus. And if it doesn't, it still shows them that people aren't as helpless in the face of their racist violence as their governments often appear to be.

This latest video takes place in Israel where, after a series of bloody terrorist attacks, a dead terrorist had pork dumped on his face by a local.

Kiryat Arba resident has lit the internet on fire over the weekend, after footage surfaced of him placing what he says is a piece of pork on the body of a dead terrorist killed by Israel Police during an attack on Israeli civiilians Friday.

In the video, Magen David Adom (MDA) medics can be seen performing resuscitation on the terrorist. In the interim, the resident succeeds in getting close to the body and placing the piece of meat upon it, sarcastically telling the terrorist to "enjoy" it.

Even the acting mayor of Kiryat Arba, Yisrael Bramson, backed the radical act.

"I was there when it happened," he said. "I think this is a very basic and legitimate response."

"I do not condemn what happened," he added. "They do not need to get their bodies back, you have to throw them into the sea at best."

"The terrorist came to slaughter the Jews and we had to treat him like he meant to treat us."

Bramson added. "The day before I was in the area and saw the intestines of the Jewish boy in a tent of Hazon David, I prefer this to that."

This had been previously done a decade ago.

Residents at Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, were the first to claim to have defiled the body of a dead Palestinian with "pigskin and lard". Residents of Efrat, a Jewish settlement near Bethlehem, said they did the same to a Palestinian building worker who tried to blow up their supermarket on Friday, but was shot dead before most of the explosives detonated.

Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, defended the practice: "If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. We should do anything to save life."

Indeed. Here's a clip from a movie about the US fight against the Moro Jihadists in the Philippines and the effect of pigskin on morale.

Title: I wasn't expecting this , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2015, 10:38:22 PM

https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153091183917689/

Title: The Settlements: Kerry vs. Dershowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2015, 10:45:41 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425570/john-kerry-palestinian-attacks-israel-settlements?X0byd9Jq65262yEu.01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhbCtAz_BQc&feature=youtu.be 

Title: Re: I wasn't expecting this , , ,
Post by: DougMacG on October 15, 2015, 06:54:11 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2015, 10:38:22 PM

https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153091183917689/

That wasn't my experience with Muslims from Morocco in Europe.   (mugged in Amsterdam, 1991)

Title: Re: I wasn't expecting this , , ,
Post by: G M on October 15, 2015, 07:00:09 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2015, 10:38:22 PM

https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153091183917689/

Was she later murdered by her parents for expressing unislamic thoughts?

Title: Re: I wasn't expecting this...
Post by: objectivist1 on October 15, 2015, 07:39:51 AM

Crafty - here is what is VERY important to understand:

While there are no doubt some Muslims who sincerely believe what this woman is expressing, her sentiments are directly in conflict with Islamic teaching and law.  If she were living in any other country than Israel, she would face death for such comments.  Secondly, I am not convinced, nor should anyone necessarily be - that she is sincere.  Taqiyya - "deception" is an integral, accepted concept of Islam.  It holds that it is not only permissible, but a duty for Muslims to lie to unbelievers to accomplish infiltration and subterfuge.  It is vitally important that one NOT be easily fooled by this tactic.

I repeat - EVERY school of Islamic jurisprudence holds that Jews are subhuman descendants of apes and pigs, and Christians are not much better.  Both deserve death if they refuse to convert to Islam.  This is simply a fact - any Muslims who deviate from this face the death penalty in Islamic countries.  Those who dare to express opinions such as this woman are a very tiny minority of the total Muslim population, and there is NO organized program in any mosque to teach these values that she expresses.  Islam is most definitely NOT a religion of peace.  It is a totalitarian political/ideological system with a god grafted onto it to lend it an air of legitimacy.  It differs from every other religion on the planet in this regard.

Title: Almost like the president hates Israel...
Post by: G M on October 15, 2015, 03:50:57 PM

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/359540.php

Paging Rachel...

Title: Abbas welcomes Israeli blood
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2015, 01:13:18 PM

By Tzipi Hotovely
Oct. 18, 2015 7:10 p.m. ET
1017 COMMENTS

The latest surge of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis has come in the immediate wake of explicit calls by the Palestinian leadership to “spill blood.” This well-orchestrated campaign of violence follows many years in which Palestinian children have been taught to idolize the murder of Jews as a sacred value and to regard their own death in this “jihad” as the pinnacle of their aspirations.

Such violence has deep roots. It goes back to the rampages at the behest of Haj Amin al-Husseini, a Muslim activist and at one point grand mufti of Jerusalem, in the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s. It continued with the fedayeen Palestinian militants in the 1950s and ’60s, and evolved into the terrorism of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Fatah under Yasser Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas. Anyone who claims that Palestinian terror against Jews dates only to 1967, or is a response to Israeli settlements, should become more informed of the conflict’s history.

Yet the apathy shown by the international community to the death-culture fostered by Palestinian elites, and the unbalanced manner in which subsequent violence is often treated by the international media—as if there is any kind of symmetry between terrorists and their victims—is doing long-term, and possibly irrevocable, harm to generations of Palestinians.

A few recent examples underscore the depth of the problem.

Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, said the following on Palestinian television on Sept. 16: “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.”
Opinion Journal Video
Touro Institute Professor Anne Bayefsky on the Obama administration’s rhetoric on Palestinian terrorism at the United Nations. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Two weeks later, on Oct. 1, Palestinian terrorists murdered an Israeli couple, Eitam and Naama Henkin, in cold blood in front of their four children, who ranged from 9 years old to 4 months.

Days later, with the Henkin children still in mourning, PLO official Mahmoud Ismail went on official Palestinian television, PBC, and proclaimed their parents’ murder to be a fulfillment of Palestinian “national duty.” He was one of several Palestinian officials who condoned the murder.

Such statements strike a resonant chord among generations of Palestinian children who have been taught that Jews are the descendants of “barbaric monkeys” and “wretched pigs” (a phrase from a poem repeatedly recited on PBC television, to the applause of children.) They have been taught that “armed conflict” (a common Palestinian euphemism for the murder of Jews) against “the so-called State of Israel” is both a religious duty and an act purportedly legitimized by the United Nations—a falsehood repeated in a number of 12th-grade Palestinian textbooks.

The Palestinian Authority also pays handsome stipends to terrorists and their families, which serve as a powerful incentive to carry out acts of terror.

Is it surprising, then, that Mr. Abbas’s explicit call for “blood on its way to Allah” has resulted in a surge of stabbings and other attacks against Israelis? Is it any wonder that viewers of official television recently were treated to the sight of a Palestinian boy, dressed up in battle fatigues, telling a smiling talk-show host of his wish to become an engineer “so that I can build bombs to blow up all the Jews.”

The unending stream of blood-drenched caricatures and video clips that circulate virally through Palestinian social media is a telling indication of how profoundly the worship of violence is entrenched in Palestinian society. So are the many schools, city squares and sports tournaments named for arch-terrorists.

The cultivation of this culture of death is having devastating effects. As Palestinian terror touches more Jewish families, Israelis, especially of the younger generation, are increasingly resigning themselves to the fact that Palestinian society is guided by a dramatically different set of values.

Israeli society and Jewish tradition sanctify life. Palestinian society glorifies death. Israeli children grow up on songs of peace and the biblical vision of “nation shall not lift up sword against nation.” Palestinian children are taught to hate.

Yet there is no international outcry. No indignation at the exploitation of Palestinian children from all the nongovernmental organizations and U.N. agencies that profess to monitor human-rights abuses.

This is tragic because the international community could make a practical difference. About a third of the Palestinian Authority’s budget is financed by foreign aid. This money is intended to develop Palestinian infrastructure and foster economic growth, but it is being misused by the Palestinian Authority to promote the murder of Jews and to sow destruction within Israel. The international community can wield its influence toward a cessation of incitement.

Turning a blind eye to the enormous harm that the Palestinian leadership is doing to its own people—by raising successive generations of children on blind hatred of the Jews and Israel—is dooming these children to a bleak future. This ought to be a compelling reason for the international community to seriously rethink the strange tolerance it exhibits toward the Palestinian death-culture.

Changing this culture of death is no less important for the Palestinians than for Israel.

Ms. Hotovley is deputy foreign minister of Israel.

Title: Robert Spencer Discusses Recent Violence in Jerusalem...
Post by: objectivist1 on October 22, 2015, 07:45:44 AM

As usual - Robert cuts through all the B.S. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m931wnll2s0

Title: Jew hatred before the creation of Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2015, 11:48:47 AM

http://www.andrewbostom.org/2015/10/palestinian-muslims-el-husseinis-and-muhammads-willing-jew-executioners/

Title: Gaza U. dean calls for targeting women and children
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2015, 07:00:44 PM

Second post:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/gaza-university-dean-urges-attacks-on-israeli-women-children/ 

Title: WSJ: Spy vs. Spy and the fraying relationship
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2015, 07:12:19 PM

y Adam Entous
Oct. 22, 2015 9:01 p.m. ET
20 COMMENTS

The U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications in 2012, fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.

Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site. Worried that Israel might ignite a regional war, the White House sent a second aircraft carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft, a senior U.S. official said, “in case all hell broke loose.”

The two countries, nursing a mutual distrust, each had something to hide. U.S. officials hoped to restrain Israel long enough to advance negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that the U.S. had launched in secret. U.S. officials saw Israel’s strike preparations as an attempt to usurp American foreign policy.

Instead of talking to each other, the allies kept their intentions secret. To figure out what they weren’t being told, they turned to their spy agencies to fill gaps. They employed deception, not only against Iran, but against each other. After working in concert for nearly a decade to keep Iran from an atomic bomb, the U.S. and Israel split over the best means: diplomacy, covert action or military strikes.

Personal strains between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu erupted at their first Oval Office meeting in 2009, and an accumulation of grievances in the years since plunged relations between the two countries into crisis.

This Wall Street Journal account of the souring of U.S.-Israel relations over Iran is based on interviews with nearly two dozen current and former senior U.S. and Israeli officials.

U.S. and Israeli officials say they want to rebuild trust but acknowledge it won’t be easy. Mr. Netanyahu reserves the right to continue covert action against Iran’s nuclear program, said current and former Israeli officials, which could put the spy services of the U.S. and Israel on a collision course.
A shaky start

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu shared common ground on Iran when they first met in 2007. Mr. Netanyahu, then the leader of Israel’s opposition party, the right-wing Likud, discussed with Mr. Obama, a Democratic senator, how to discourage international investment in Iran’s energy sector. Afterward, Mr. Obama introduced legislation to that end.

Suspicions grew during the 2008 presidential race after Mr. Netanyahu spoke with some congressional Republicans who described Mr. Obama as pro-Arab, Israeli officials said. The content of the conversations later found its way back to the White House, senior Obama administration officials said.

Soon after taking office in January 2009, Mr. Obama took steps to allay Israeli concerns, including instructing the Pentagon to develop military options against Iran’s Fordow facility, which was built into a mountain. The president also embraced an existing campaign of covert action against Iran, expanding cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, the Israeli spy agency.

Mossad leaders compared the covert campaign to a 10-floor building: The higher the floor, they said, the more invasive the operation. CIA and Mossad worked together on operations on the lower floors. But the Americans made clear they had no interest in moving higher—Israeli proposals to bring down Iran’s financial system, for example, or even its regime.

Some covert operations were run unilaterally by Mossad, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, according to U.S. officials.

The first Oval Office meeting between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in May 2009—weeks after Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister—was difficult for both sides. After the meeting, Mr. Obama’s aides called Ron Dermer, Mr. Netanyahu’s adviser, to coordinate their statements. Mr. Dermer told them it was too late; Mr. Netanyahu was already briefing reporters. “We kind of looked at each other and said, ‘I guess we’re not coordinating our messages,’ ” said Tommy Vietor, a former administration official who was there.

In 2010, the risk of covert action became clear. A computer virus dubbed Stuxnet, deployed jointly by the U.S. and Israel to destroy Iranian centrifuges used to process uranium, had inadvertently spread across the Internet. The Israelis wanted to launch cyberattacks against a range of Iranian institutions, according to U.S. officials. But the breach made Mr. Obama more cautious, officials said, for fear of triggering Iranian retaliation, or damaging the global economy if a virus spread uncontrollably.

Israel questioned whether its covert operations were enough, said aides to Mr. Netanyahu. Stuxnet had only temporarily slowed Tehran’s progress. “Cyber and other covert operations had their inherent limitations,” a senior Israeli official said, “and we reached those limitations.”

Mr. Netanyahu pivoted toward a military strike, raising anxiety levels in the White House.

The U.S. Air Force analyzed the arms and aircraft needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded Israel didn’t have the right equipment. The U.S. shared the findings, in part, to steer the Israelis from a military strike.

The Israelis weren’t persuaded and briefed the U.S. on an attack plan: Cargo planes would land in Iran with Israeli commandos on board who would “blow the doors, and go in through the porch entrance” of Fordow, a senior U.S. official said. The Israelis planned to sabotage the nuclear facility from inside.

Pentagon officials thought it was a suicide mission. They pressed the Israelis to give the U.S. advance warning. The Israelis were noncommittal.
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. ENLARGE
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. Photo: CHAVOSH HOMAVANDI/AFP/Getty Images

“Whether this was all an effort to try to pressure Obama, or whether Israel was really getting close to a decision, I don’t know,” said Michéle Flournoy, who at the time was undersecretary of defense for policy.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, was moving toward diplomacy. In December 2011, the White House secretly used then-Sen. John Kerry to sound out Omani leaders about opening a back channel to the Iranians.

At the same time, the White House pressed the Israelis to scale back their assassination campaign and turned down their requests for more aggressive covert measures, U.S. officials said.

The president spoke publicly about his willingness to use force as a last resort to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—“I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in March 2012—but some of Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers weren’t convinced.

In early 2012, U.S. spy agencies told the White House about a flurry of meetings that Mr. Netanyahu convened with top security advisers. The meetings covered everything from mission logistics to the political implications of a military strike, Israeli officials said.
Warning signs

U.S. spy agencies stepped up satellite surveillance of Israeli aircraft movements. They detected when Israeli pilots were put on alert and identified moonless nights, which would give the Israelis better cover for an attack. They watched the Israelis practice strike missions and learned they were probing Iran’s air defenses, looking for ways to fly in undetected, U.S. officials said.

New intelligence poured in every day, much of it fragmentary or so highly classified that few U.S. officials had a complete picture. Officials now say many jumped to the mistaken conclusion that the Israelis had made a dry run.

At the time, concern and confusion over Israel’s intentions added to the sense of urgency inside the White House for a diplomatic solution.

The White House decided to keep Mr. Netanyahu in the dark about the secret Iran talks, believing he would leak word to sabotage them. There was little goodwill for Mr. Netanyahu among Mr. Obama’s aides who perceived the prime minister as supportive of Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign.

Mr. Netanyahu would get briefed on the talks, White House officials concluded, only if it looked like a deal could be reached.

The first secret meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, held in July 2012, was a bust. But “nobody was willing to throw it overboard by greenlighting Israeli strikes just when the process was getting started,” a former senior Obama administration official said.

Israeli officials approached their U.S. counterparts over the summer about obtaining military hardware useful for a strike, U.S. officials said.

At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys, aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes. Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines.

The Israelis also sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the U.S. military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed to destroy Fordow.

Mr. Netanyahu wanted “somebody in the administration to show acquiescence, if not approval” for a military strike, said Gary Samore, who served for four years as Mr. Obama’s White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction. “The message from the Obama administration was: ‘We think this is a big mistake.’ ”

White House officials decided not to provide the equipment.

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu spoke in September 2012, and Mr. Obama emerged convinced Israel wouldn’t strike on the eve of the U.S. presidential election.

By the following spring, senior U.S. officials concluded the Israelis weren’t serious about a commando raid on Fordow and may have been bluffing. When the U.S. offered to sell the Ospreys, Israel said it didn’t have the money.

Former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who championed a strike, said Mr. Netanyahu had come close to approving a military operation against Iran. But Israel’s military chiefs and cabinet members were reluctant, according to Israeli officials.

While keeping the Omani talks secret, U.S. officials briefed the Israelis on the parallel international negotiations between Iran and major world powers under way in early 2013. Those talks, which made little headway, were led on the U.S. side by State Department diplomat Wendy Sherman.

Robert Einhorn, at the time an arms control adviser at the State Department, said that during the briefings, Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers wouldn’t say what concessions they could live with. “It made us feel like nothing was going to be good enough for them,” Mr. Einhorn said.

U.S. spy agencies were monitoring Israeli communications to see if the Israelis had caught wind of the secret talks. In September 2013, the U.S. learned the answer.

Yaakov Amidror, Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser at the time, had come to Washington in advance of a Sept. 30 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.

On Sept. 27, Mr. Amidror huddled with White House national security adviser Susan Rice in her office when she told him that Mr. Obama was on the phone in a groundbreaking call with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani.

Mr. Amidror had his own surprise. During a separate meeting in the Roosevelt Room, he told several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers that Israel had identified the tail numbers of the unmarked U.S. government planes that ferried negotiators to Muscat, Oman, the site of the secret talks, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Amidror, who declined to comment on the White House discussions, said that it was insulting for Obama administration officials to think “they could go to Oman without taking our intelligence capabilities into account.” He called the decision to hide the Iran talks from Israel a big mistake.

U.S. officials said they were getting ready to tell the Israelis about the talks, which advanced only after Mr. Rouhani came to office. During the Sept. 30 meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, the president acknowledged the secret negotiations. The secrecy cemented Israel’s distrust of Mr. Obama’s intentions, Israeli officials said.

Mr. Samore, the former White House official, said he believed it was a mistake to keep Israel in the dark for so long. Mr. Einhorn said: “The lack of early transparency reinforced Israel’s suspicions and had an outsize negative impact on Israeli thinking about the talks.”

Israel pushed for the U.S. to be more open about the Iran negotiations. Ms. Rice, however, pulled back on consultations with her new Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, who took over as Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. ENLARGE
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. Photo: US State Department/REUTERS

In exchanges with the White House, U.S. officials said, Mr. Cohen wouldn’t budge from demanding Iran give up its centrifuges and uranium-enrichment program. Israeli officials said they feared any deviation would be taken by the U.S. as a green light for more concessions.

In one meeting, Mr. Cohen indicated Mr. Netanyahu could accept a deal allowing Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges, U.S. officials said. Soon after, Mr. Cohen called to say he had misspoken. Neither side was prepared to divulge their bottom line.

In November 2013, when the interim agreement was announced, Mr. Samore was in Israel, where, he said, the Israelis “felt blindsided” by the terms. U.S. officials said the details came together so quickly that Ms. Sherman and her team didn’t have enough time to convey them all. Israeli officials said the Americans intentionally withheld information to prevent them from influencing the outcome.
Listening in

As talks began in 2014 on a final accord, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted White House officials that Israelis were spying on the negotiations. Israel denied any espionage against the U.S. Israeli officials said they could learn details, in part, by spying on Iran, an explanation U.S. officials didn’t believe.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials clamped down on what they shared with Israel about the talks after, they allege, Mr. Netanyahu’s aides leaked confidential information about the emerging deal.

When U.S. officials confronted the Israelis over the matter in a meeting, Israel’s then-minister of intelligence said he didn’t disclose anything from Washington’s briefings. The information, the minister said, came from “other means,” according to meeting participants.

Ms. Sherman told Mr. Cohen, Israel’s national security adviser: “You’re putting us in a very difficult position. We understand that you will find out what you can find out by your own means. But how can we tell you every single last thing when we know you’re going to use it against us?” according to U.S. officials who were there.

Mr. Netanyahu turned to congressional Republicans, one of his remaining allies with the power to affect the deal, Israeli officials said, but he couldn’t muster enough votes to block it.

U.S. officials now pledge to work closely with their Israeli counterparts to monitor Iran’s compliance with the international agreement.

But it is unclear how the White House will respond to any covert Israeli actions against Iran’s nuclear program, which current and former Israeli officials said were imperative to safeguard their country.

One clause in the agreement says the major powers will help the Iranians secure their facilities against sabotage. State Department officials said the clause wouldn’t protect Iranian nuclear sites from Israel.

Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, said the U.S. and Israel could nonetheless end up at odds.

“If we become aware of any Israeli efforts, do we have a duty to warn Iran?” Mr. Hayden said. “Given the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it’s going to be more complicated than ever.”

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com 

Title: Obama vs Netanyahu
Post by: ccp on October 24, 2015, 06:40:29 AM

Mark Levin read much of this article the other day and the insights are very interesting indeed.   I don't subscribe to the WSJ but I post this anyway.   Could anyone else post if they are permitted to do so?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/spy-vs-spy-inside-the-fraying-u-s-israel-ties-1445562074?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2015, 09:11:50 PM

By Adam Entous
Oct. 22, 2015 9:01 p.m. ET
506 COMMENTS

The U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications in 2012, fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.

Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site. Worried that Israel might ignite a regional war, the White House sent a second aircraft carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft, a senior U.S. official said, “in case all hell broke loose.”

The two countries, nursing a mutual distrust, each had something to hide. U.S. officials hoped to restrain Israel long enough to advance negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that the U.S. had launched in secret. U.S. officials saw Israel’s strike preparations as an attempt to usurp American foreign policy.

Instead of talking to each other, the allies kept their intentions secret. To figure out what they weren’t being told, they turned to their spy agencies to fill gaps. They employed deception, not only against Iran, but against each other. After working in concert for nearly a decade to keep Iran from an atomic bomb, the U.S. and Israel split over the best means: diplomacy, covert action or military strikes.

Personal strains between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu erupted at their first Oval Office meeting in 2009, and an accumulation of grievances in the years since plunged relations between the two countries into crisis.

This Wall Street Journal account of the souring of U.S.-Israel relations over Iran is based on interviews with nearly two dozen current and former senior U.S. and Israeli officials.

U.S. and Israeli officials say they want to rebuild trust but acknowledge it won’t be easy. Mr. Netanyahu reserves the right to continue covert action against Iran’s nuclear program, said current and former Israeli officials, which could put the spy services of the U.S. and Israel on a collision course.
A shaky start

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu shared common ground on Iran when they first met in 2007. Mr. Netanyahu, then the leader of Israel’s opposition party, the right-wing Likud, discussed with Mr. Obama, a Democratic senator, how to discourage international investment in Iran’s energy sector. Afterward, Mr. Obama introduced legislation to that end.

Suspicions grew during the 2008 presidential race after Mr. Netanyahu spoke with some congressional Republicans who described Mr. Obama as pro-Arab, Israeli officials said. The content of the conversations later found its way back to the White House, senior Obama administration officials said.

Soon after taking office in January 2009, Mr. Obama took steps to allay Israeli concerns, including instructing the Pentagon to develop military options against Iran’s Fordow facility, which was built into a mountain. The president also embraced an existing campaign of covert action against Iran, expanding cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, the Israeli spy agency.

Mossad leaders compared the covert campaign to a 10-floor building: The higher the floor, they said, the more invasive the operation. CIA and Mossad worked together on operations on the lower floors. But the Americans made clear they had no interest in moving higher—Israeli proposals to bring down Iran’s financial system, for example, or even its regime.

Some covert operations were run unilaterally by Mossad, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, according to U.S. officials.

The first Oval Office meeting between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in May 2009—weeks after Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister—was difficult for both sides. After the meeting, Mr. Obama’s aides called Ron Dermer, Mr. Netanyahu’s adviser, to coordinate their statements. Mr. Dermer told them it was too late; Mr. Netanyahu was already briefing reporters. “We kind of looked at each other and said, ‘I guess we’re not coordinating our messages,’ ” said Tommy Vietor, a former administration official who was there.

In 2010, the risk of covert action became clear. A computer virus dubbed Stuxnet, deployed jointly by the U.S. and Israel to destroy Iranian centrifuges used to process uranium, had inadvertently spread across the Internet. The Israelis wanted to launch cyberattacks against a range of Iranian institutions, according to U.S. officials. But the breach made Mr. Obama more cautious, officials said, for fear of triggering Iranian retaliation, or damaging the global economy if a virus spread uncontrollably.

Israel questioned whether its covert operations were enough, said aides to Mr. Netanyahu. Stuxnet had only temporarily slowed Tehran’s progress. “Cyber and other covert operations had their inherent limitations,” a senior Israeli official said, “and we reached those limitations.”

Mr. Netanyahu pivoted toward a military strike, raising anxiety levels in the White House.

The U.S. Air Force analyzed the arms and aircraft needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded Israel didn’t have the right equipment. The U.S. shared the findings, in part, to steer the Israelis from a military strike.

The Israelis weren’t persuaded and briefed the U.S. on an attack plan: Cargo planes would land in Iran with Israeli commandos on board who would “blow the doors, and go in through the porch entrance” of Fordow, a senior U.S. official said. The Israelis planned to sabotage the nuclear facility from inside.

Pentagon officials thought it was a suicide mission. They pressed the Israelis to give the U.S. advance warning. The Israelis were noncommittal.
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. ENLARGE
Iranian students in a November 2013 demonstration defending their country's nuclear program outside the Fordow Uranium Conversion facility in Iran. Photo: CHAVOSH HOMAVANDI/AFP/Getty Images

“Whether this was all an effort to try to pressure Obama, or whether Israel was really getting close to a decision, I don’t know,” said Michéle Flournoy, who at the time was undersecretary of defense for policy.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, was moving toward diplomacy. In December 2011, the White House secretly used then-Sen. John Kerry to sound out Omani leaders about opening a back channel to the Iranians.

At the same time, the White House pressed the Israelis to scale back their assassination campaign and turned down their requests for more aggressive covert measures, U.S. officials said.

The president spoke publicly about his willingness to use force as a last resort to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—“I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in March 2012—but some of Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers weren’t convinced.

In early 2012, U.S. spy agencies told the White House about a flurry of meetings that Mr. Netanyahu convened with top security advisers. The meetings covered everything from mission logistics to the political implications of a military strike, Israeli officials said.
Warning signs

U.S. spy agencies stepped up satellite surveillance of Israeli aircraft movements. They detected when Israeli pilots were put on alert and identified moonless nights, which would give the Israelis better cover for an attack. They watched the Israelis practice strike missions and learned they were probing Iran’s air defenses, looking for ways to fly in undetected, U.S. officials said.

New intelligence poured in every day, much of it fragmentary or so highly classified that few U.S. officials had a complete picture. Officials now say many jumped to the mistaken conclusion that the Israelis had made a dry run.

At the time, concern and confusion over Israel’s intentions added to the sense of urgency inside the White House for a diplomatic solution.

The White House decided to keep Mr. Netanyahu in the dark about the secret Iran talks, believing he would leak word to sabotage them. There was little goodwill for Mr. Netanyahu among Mr. Obama’s aides who perceived the prime minister as supportive of Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign.

Mr. Netanyahu would get briefed on the talks, White House officials concluded, only if it looked like a deal could be reached.

The first secret meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, held in July 2012, was a bust. But “nobody was willing to throw it overboard by greenlighting Israeli strikes just when the process was getting started,” a former senior Obama administration official said.

Israeli officials approached their U.S. counterparts over the summer about obtaining military hardware useful for a strike, U.S. officials said.

At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys, aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes. Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines.

The Israelis also sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the U.S. military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed to destroy Fordow.

Mr. Netanyahu wanted “somebody in the administration to show acquiescence, if not approval” for a military strike, said Gary Samore, who served for four years as Mr. Obama’s White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction. “The message from the Obama administration was: ‘We think this is a big mistake.’ ”

White House officials decided not to provide the equipment.

Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu spoke in September 2012, and Mr. Obama emerged convinced Israel wouldn’t strike on the eve of the U.S. presidential election.

By the following spring, senior U.S. officials concluded the Israelis weren’t serious about a commando raid on Fordow and may have been bluffing. When the U.S. offered to sell the Ospreys, Israel said it didn’t have the money.

Former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who championed a strike, said Mr. Netanyahu had come close to approving a military operation against Iran. But Israel’s military chiefs and cabinet members were reluctant, according to Israeli officials.

While keeping the Omani talks secret, U.S. officials briefed the Israelis on the parallel international negotiations between Iran and major world powers under way in early 2013. Those talks, which made little headway, were led on the U.S. side by State Department diplomat Wendy Sherman.

Robert Einhorn, at the time an arms control adviser at the State Department, said that during the briefings, Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers wouldn’t say what concessions they could live with. “It made us feel like nothing was going to be good enough for them,” Mr. Einhorn said.

U.S. spy agencies were monitoring Israeli communications to see if the Israelis had caught wind of the secret talks. In September 2013, the U.S. learned the answer.

Yaakov Amidror, Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser at the time, had come to Washington in advance of a Sept. 30 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.

On Sept. 27, Mr. Amidror huddled with White House national security adviser Susan Rice in her office when she told him that Mr. Obama was on the phone in a groundbreaking call with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani.

Mr. Amidror had his own surprise. During a separate meeting in the Roosevelt Room, he told several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers that Israel had identified the tail numbers of the unmarked U.S. government planes that ferried negotiators to Muscat, Oman, the site of the secret talks, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Amidror, who declined to comment on the White House discussions, said that it was insulting for Obama administration officials to think “they could go to Oman without taking our intelligence capabilities into account.” He called the decision to hide the Iran talks from Israel a big mistake.

U.S. officials said they were getting ready to tell the Israelis about the talks, which advanced only after Mr. Rouhani came to office. During the Sept. 30 meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, the president acknowledged the secret negotiations. The secrecy cemented Israel’s distrust of Mr. Obama’s intentions, Israeli officials said.

Mr. Samore, the former White House official, said he believed it was a mistake to keep Israel in the dark for so long. Mr. Einhorn said: “The lack of early transparency reinforced Israel’s suspicions and had an outsize negative impact on Israeli thinking about the talks.”

Israel pushed for the U.S. to be more open about the Iran negotiations. Ms. Rice, however, pulled back on consultations with her new Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, who took over as Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. ENLARGE
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, huddled with Iranian officials, including Hossein Fereydoun, center, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right, before addressing a news conference about a nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July. Photo: US State Department/REUTERS

In exchanges with the White House, U.S. officials said, Mr. Cohen wouldn’t budge from demanding Iran give up its centrifuges and uranium-enrichment program. Israeli officials said they feared any deviation would be taken by the U.S. as a green light for more concessions.

In one meeting, Mr. Cohen indicated Mr. Netanyahu could accept a deal allowing Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges, U.S. officials said. Soon after, Mr. Cohen called to say he had misspoken. Neither side was prepared to divulge their bottom line.

In November 2013, when the interim agreement was announced, Mr. Samore was in Israel, where, he said, the Israelis “felt blindsided” by the terms. U.S. officials said the details came together so quickly that Ms. Sherman and her team didn’t have enough time to convey them all. Israeli officials said the Americans intentionally withheld information to prevent them from influencing the outcome.
Listening in

As talks began in 2014 on a final accord, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted White House officials that Israelis were spying on the negotiations. Israel denied any espionage against the U.S. Israeli officials said they could learn details, in part, by spying on Iran, an explanation U.S. officials didn’t believe.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials clamped down on what they shared with Israel about the talks after, they allege, Mr. Netanyahu’s aides leaked confidential information about the emerging deal.

When U.S. officials confronted the Israelis over the matter in a meeting, Israel’s then-minister of intelligence said he didn’t disclose anything from Washington’s briefings. The information, the minister said, came from “other means,” according to meeting participants.

Ms. Sherman told Mr. Cohen, Israel’s national security adviser: “You’re putting us in a very difficult position. We understand that you will find out what you can find out by your own means. But how can we tell you every single last thing when we know you’re going to use it against us?” according to U.S. officials who were there.

Mr. Netanyahu turned to congressional Republicans, one of his remaining allies with the power to affect the deal, Israeli officials said, but he couldn’t muster enough votes to block it.

U.S. officials now pledge to work closely with their Israeli counterparts to monitor Iran’s compliance with the international agreement.

But it is unclear how the White House will respond to any covert Israeli actions against Iran’s nuclear program, which current and former Israeli officials said were imperative to safeguard their country.

One clause in the agreement says the major powers will help the Iranians secure their facilities against sabotage. State Department officials said the clause wouldn’t protect Iranian nuclear sites from Israel.

Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, said the U.S. and Israel could nonetheless end up at odds.

“If we become aware of any Israeli efforts, do we have a duty to warn Iran?” Mr. Hayden said. “Given the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it’s going to be more complicated than ever.”

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com

Title: 2012: Suha Arafat says husband planned second intifada all along
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2015, 12:32:34 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Suha-Arafat-admits-husband-premeditated-Intifada

Title: Strong vid clip with Brook Goldstein
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2015, 12:59:48 PM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/brooke-goldstein-absolutely-destroys-every-person-blaming-israel-for-muslim-terror/

Title: Israeli hospital saves life of Abbas's Brother-in-law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2015, 01:38:00 PM

Third post

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbass-brother-in-law-gets-life-saving-heart-surgery-in-israel/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2015, 07:26:05 PM

CD thanks for finding and posting the WSJ article.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2015, 08:32:03 PM

Yip! :-D

Title: WSJ: A boy's discovery about the Temple Mount
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 26, 2015, 09:30:23 AM

By Jerold S. Auerbach
Oct. 25, 2015 4:49 p.m. ET
61 COMMENTS

A 10-year-old Russian boy, Matvei Tcepliaev, recently made an extraordinary discovery in Jerusalem. Working as a volunteer in the Temple Mount Sifting Project, he found a 3,000-year-old seal—engraved limestone about the size of a thimble, with a hole at one end so it could be hung from a string—from the time of King David.

The artifact was nestled in the hundreds of tons of earth and rock that had been illegally excavated from below the Temple Mount in the late 1990s by the Muslim Waqf, a trust that retains authority over the contested site. The Temple Mount is sacred ground for Jews, Muslims and Christians, but Jewish historical claims are denied by many Muslims.

The sifting project in Emek Tzurim National Park in Jerusalem, started in 2005 and has uncovered several historically significant objects, but the seal may be the most important. Dating from the era of King David’s conquest of Jerusalem and the building of the Jewish First Temple by his son and successor, Solomon, the seal confirms the ancient Jewish presence in Jerusalem—more than a millennium before the Muslim Dome of the Rock was built above the ruins of the ancient temples.

If it is ironic that the Muslim excavation, undertaken to build an underground mosque, ultimately confirmed Jews’ historical claims, it is no less ironic than the fact that the Waqf came to rule the site at Israel’s instigation.

Following Israel’s extraordinary victory over its Arab foes in the Six-Day War in June 1967, which included capturing the entire city of Jerusalem, Israeli Col. Motta Gur proclaimed: “The Temple Mount is in our hands.” Joyous Israeli soldiers gathered at the Western Wall below and sang Hatikva, the national anthem. Shlomo Goren, a brigadier general and future chief rabbi of Israel, exultantly blew his shofar.

But Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had other ideas about Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount. A secular Israeli, he relied on a rabbinical consensus that Jews were forbidden to set foot on the Mount lest they risk desecrating the unknown site of the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctuary of the Jewish temple that housed the Ark of the Covenant.

After declaring that “we have reunited the city, the capital of Israel, never to part it again,” Dayan met with Muslim leaders inside the Dome of the Rock. An agreement was reached: The Waqf ban on Jews visiting the Temple Mount would be ended—even if many preferred to continue to observe the rabbinical prohibition—but Jews wouldn’t be allowed to pray there.

Shakespeare, not the Bible or Quran, proclaimed: “What’s past is prologue.” Dayan’s concession prepared the way for conflict on the Temple Mount that continues today. The Palestinians’ Second Intifada erupted in September 2000 after Likud leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount—not to pray but to assert the legitimacy of a Jewish presence at the most ancient Jewish holy site. He was widely castigated for asserting a historical truth.

A similarly tragic scenario is now unfolding in Jerusalem, and throughout Israel, as Palestinians attack Jews with bullets, knives and rocks. Although Secretary of State John Kerry absurdly attributed the bloody rampage to Palestinians’ frustration with Israeli settlement-building, informed observers note that the outbreak of violence has been stoked by false rumors that Israel is on the verge of rewriting the Temple Mount rules, including allowing Jews to pray there.

This may or may not be a prelude to a third intifada. What is clear is that for years the Muslim Waqf has continued to oversee excavations below the surface of the Temple Mount, with callous disregard for what archaeologists could learn about the Mount’s Jewish history in antiquity.

That policy is of a piece with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s dismissal of any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. “Al-Aksa is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet,” Mr. Abbas told activists at an Oct. 14 meeting in his Ramallah office, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Not that Jews ever doubted their religious roots at Temple Mount, but now they have a 10-year-old boy to thank for providing them with a three-millennia-old artifact that refutes modern propaganda designed to rewrite history. Just as the seal was used long ago as evidence of authority, so today it puts a stamp of approval on Jewish claims to their history at the holiest site in Jerusalem.

Mr. Auerbach is a professor emeritus of history at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Mass. 

Title: Muslim preschool girl holds knife, says "I want to stab a Jew"...
Post by: objectivist1 on October 28, 2015, 06:28:37 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/muslim-preschool-girl-holds-knife-says-i-want-to-stab-a-jew

Title: Iran Deal doomed to fail
Post by: ccp on October 28, 2015, 06:12:32 PM

 





"I wonder why Hillary Clinton went along with all this"

No matter.  Liberal Jews will vote for her no matter what.

Anyway finally someone with some honesty from the Left though as usual it is too late:

******Dennis Ross: Critics were right about Obama, Iran and Israel

By Jennifer Rubin October 28 at 11:45 AM    

  President Obama shakes hands with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2013. (Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press)

Dennis Ross, former senior adviser to President Obama, arguably should have come out strongly against the Iran deal — and advised Hillary Clinton (he served in her husband’s administration) that the administration was not leveling with the American people. His interview with the Times of Israel is revealing.

Remember that the president says the deal blocks Iran’s pathway to the bomb. No, says Ross: “One of my main concerns is what happens after year 15, when they basically can have as large a program as they want, and the gap between threshold status and weapon status becomes very small.” Well, at least the deal staved off trouble for the time being. Er, not exactly: “The more you make it clear that for any misbehavior they pay a price, and it’s the kind of price that matters to them, the more likely they are to realize the firewall is real, and the less likely they are to ever test it.” But the deal does not do that; to the contrary, it prevents graduated sanctions since imposition of any sanctions frees Iran from the deal. Sure, but Iran’s behavior in the meantime shows that it won’t exploit the deal and pursue its own religious zealotry. Not at all: “We’re already seeing them ratchet it up in Syria. Everyone is focusing on what the Russians are doing, but Iran is adding significant numbers of Revolutionary Guard forces to the ground, it’s not just Hezbollah forces. I think this is a harbinger of things to come.”

Too bad then that Ross did not unequivocally oppose the deal and urge Democrats to do the same. Now he is willing to admit it virtually guarantees that Iran will get a bomb; it has not specified means for imposing penalties without overthrowing the deal; and Iran’s behavior is worse than ever. That seems to be exactly what critics of the deal have said all along.

Ross also confirms Obama critics’ accusation that Obama is reflexively partial to the Palestinians. “It tends to look at Israel through a lens that is more competitive, more combative, that sees Israel more in problematic terms,” he explains. He adds that since Obama “looks at the Palestinians as being weak, there is this reluctance to criticize them. ‘They’re too weak to criticize’ is what I say in the Obama chapter. And if they are too weak to criticize, they are too weak to be held accountable, too weak to be responsible. They’re too weak to have a state. Well, if you want the Palestinians to have the responsibility of a state, you have to hold them responsible.” In perhaps the most damning portion of his interview, Ross lets on that Obama’s contrarianism toward the George W. Bush administration represented a deliberate attempt to alienate Israel:

When the president comes in, he thinks we have a major problem with Arabs and Muslims. And he sees that as a function of the Bush administration — an image, fairly or not, that Bush was at war with Islam. So one of the ways that he wants to show that he’s going to have an outreach to the Muslim world is that he’s going to give this speech in Cairo. So he wants to reach out and show that the US is not so close to the Israelis, which he thinks also feeds this perception. That’s why there’s an impulse to do some distancing from Israel, and that’s why the settlement issue is seized in a way.

In sum, Ross (not to mention the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren) confirms a good deal of what Obama apologists deny. It turns out the Iran deal really does not stop Iran from getting the bomb. It turns out Obama was guilty of the bigotry of low expectations, never really wanting to hold the Palestinians to account. And from the get-go, he sought to shove Israel away from the United States. It was not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “fault” that the relationship deteriorated. It was by design.

I wonder why Hillary Clinton went along with all this. And I wonder why Ross (and other responsible Democrats) waited this long, allowing this much damage to U.S. national security and the U.S.-Israel relationship to occur before speaking up. I suppose partisan loyalty and naked political ambition trump all other considerations.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on October 28, 2015, 06:43:51 PM

Iran getting nukes isn't a failure, if your name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Title: Re: Obama and Iran...
Post by: objectivist1 on October 28, 2015, 06:59:36 PM

Again, GM is precisely correct.  What far too many still fail to understand after 7 years of Barack Obama is that HE IS ACHIEVING HIS GOALS.  He is not incompetent.  He is achieving exactly what he set out to do - knock the United States of America down on the world stage.  The truth is that Barack Obama would love to see Iran wipe Israel off the map.  He would consider this a service to the world, and with the added benefit of not having to use the U.S. military.  This is the ugly truth.  That millions of American Jews don't understand this is a tragedy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2015, 07:52:22 PM

The facts do not contradict your thesis.  :cry: :cry: :cry: :x :x :x :x :x :x

Title: Israeli Soldiers Disguised as Muslims Raid Hospital, Kill Terrorists...
Post by: objectivist1 on November 12, 2015, 10:52:20 AM

This is REALLY rich.  Predictably, the establishment media is outraged.  How dare the Israelis kill these Palestinian terrorists!?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260762/israeli-soldiers-disguised-muslims-raid-hospital-daniel-greenfield

Title: Funding campaign to buy a weapon to kill the Jews
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2015, 07:26:47 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-fundraising-campaign-Buy-a-weapon-to-kill-a-Jew-in-Israel-434271?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Title: Israeli racism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2015, 08:04:06 AM

https://www.facebook.com/WZOisrael/photos/a.336505146413873.77754.112210295510027/732431726821211/?type=3

Title: Palestinians sharpen their knives
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2015, 09:58:05 AM

second post

 Palestinians Sharpen Their Knives
Geopolitical Diary
November 20, 2015 | 01:55 GMT Text Size
Print
(Stratfor)

Two separate attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on Thursday add to the long list of stabbings, shootings and vehicular attacks racked up by Palestinian lone wolf militants over the past couple of months. A knife-wielding Palestinian from the West Bank who had a permit to work in Israel entered a store being used informally as a synagogue in Tel Aviv near the restaurant where he worked and stabbed three Israeli men, committing the third attack in the city this year. Shortly thereafter, a Palestinian man conducted a drive-by shooting targeting vehicles stopped in traffic in the Etzion settlement bloc in the West Bank. Five people were killed in the two attacks.

Two days before the assaults, the Israeli government banned the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, a long-standing Islamist group that split with the more moderate southern branch of the Islamic Movement in the 1990s over whether to support the Oslo I Accord and whether to run for the Knesset. (The northern branch was opposed to both, while the southern branch supported the Oslo agreement and is now part of the Knesset's third-largest political bloc, which is made of up Arab parties.) Israel has banned the northern faction on grounds of its alleged financial and institutional links to Hamas and its role in busing in and encouraging Palestinian supporters to defend and Arabize the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

What is a Geopolitical Diary?

The Israeli Cabinet apparently had decided to ban the group two weeks earlier but did not make the decision public until Tuesday. Israel's security service reportedly expressed concerns that announcing the decision would incite attacks. Moreover, Israel likely anticipated that the West would criticize it for curbing political freedoms. The political climate following the attacks in Paris, however, may have been more conducive to announcing the decision. Nonetheless, banning the northern faction of the Islamic Movement may incite attacks like the ones on Thursday. Israel made a notable move in trying to maintain a balance with the Palestinians by signing an agreement with the Palestinian Authority on Thursday to bring 3G high-speed cellular services to the West Bank, resolving a long-standing grievance by the Palestinians. But improved cellphone service is by no means the antidote to these frequent violent outbursts.

Banning a group like the northern faction of the Islamic Movement may fall into the category of countering "soft terrorism" by going after the groups inciting the "hard terrorism." But such a strategy risks exacerbating the problem. The northern Islamic Movement likely will go underground with its charity and social activities, and its supporters will be all the more emboldened to resist efforts to silence the group. Moreover, the more moderate voices that the Israeli government counts on to drown out the more radical elements will have a stronger impetus to speak out in defense of their radical counterparts for the sake of their own credibility. Unsophisticated attacks such as the ones seen thus far, by definition, do not require significant training or operational security. As the past couple of months have shown, enough anger and frustration can mobilize a fair amount of Palestinians willing to charge into a crowd with a knife or in a car.

Nor will government measures close Palestinian ears to radical rhetoric. In a collection of Palestinian media excerpts compiled by the Middle East Media Research Institute during the height of the knife attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem, officials, clerics and even children are shown glorifying the knife as a symbol of the Al-Aqsa resistance. In one instructional video, a man wearing a black ski mask wordlessly demonstrates how to sharpen a knife and stab an Israeli in three different ways. Another shows a mother of one of the knife attackers unexpectedly pulling a knife from her bosom in the middle of a news interview, and another shows a young couple holding the birth certificate of their newborn baby bearing the name "Knife of Jerusalem."

In such a climate, it can be difficult to draw a clear line between isolated attacks and a full-blown intifada. Most agree that the spike of violence since late September is a collection of spontaneous outbursts with no clear goal or leadership, whereas an intifada exhibits a clear aim, designated leadership and organizational coherence. But the knife culture developing in the West Bank and Jerusalem suggests this could be more than just a fad. And the sheer spontaneity of these attacks confounds Israeli counterterrorism efforts. There is no one group or leader who can be held accountable, no finite number of cells that need to be broken up.

Fatah leaders have been careful to temper their praise of the attacks by still referring to them as "habbeh," or outbursts, to preserve the delicate political understanding that Fatah has with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, says the sustainability of the violence makes it an intifada. This does not necessarily mean Hamas will try to steal the show and create another front from its base in Gaza. Hamas is still trying to build up sustainable operations in the West Bank, and the group is still recovering from its last military engagement with the Israelis in Gaza. From what we can discern, Hamas has not replenished its rocket arsenal enough to get involved in the fray beyond encouraging lone wolf attacks.

That said, Hamas' reaction to growing competition from the Islamic State bears close watching. To capitalize on the recent Palestinian attacks over Al-Aqsa, the Islamic State has put out an extensive media campaign titled "Slaughter the Jews," which includes video clips of militants threatening Israel in Hebrew. The Islamic State's fledgling presence in Gaza and significant activity in Sinai already has Hamas on guard, and the last thing Hamas (or Israel) wants is the outbreak of a conflict that would risk weakening Hamas and creating more space for the Islamic State to operate.

But the Islamic State is certainly testing Hamas' patience. In its recent media campaign, the Islamic State criticized Hamas for standing in the way of jihad with Israel, for selling out by participating in elections instead of following Sharia, and for "shamelessly" embracing a relationship with Iran. For now, it appears Hamas is resisting being prodded into action by local Islamic State affiliates, and it is continuing crackdowns on the Islamic State in Gaza. The success or failure of Hamas' containment strategy against the Islamic State will be a major determinant of whether the ongoing habbeh becomes a new and more defined phase of conflict for Israel.

Title: Partners in peace-- what could go wrong?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2015, 10:16:50 AM

https://www.facebook.com/theisraelproject/videos/10154534156057316/

Title: Caroline Glick: America's War Against the Jews on Campus...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 02, 2015, 11:33:24 AM

THE AMERICAN WAR AGAINST THE JEWS

Anti-Semitic forces on campus have only gotten worse -- and don't plan on backing down.

December 2, 2015  Caroline Glick

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

The foundations of American Jewish life are under assault today in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago. Academia is ground zero of the onslaught. The protest movements on campuses are first and foremost anti-Jewish movements.

For the past decade or so, Jewish communal leaders and activists have focused on just one aspect of this anti-Jewish campaign. Jewish leaders have devoted themselves to helping Jewish students combat the direct anti-Semitism inherent to the anti-Israel student movements.

Despite the substantial funds that have been devoted to fighting anti-Israel forces on campuses, they have not been diminished. To the contrary, with each passing year they have grown more powerful and menacing.

Consider a sampling of the anti-Jewish incidents that took place over the past two weeks.

Two weeks ago, Daniel Bernstein, a Jewish student at University of California Santa Cruz and a member of the university’s student government was ordered not to vote on a resolution calling for the university to divest from four companies which do business with Israel.

Bernstein represents UCSC’s Stevenson College at the university student government. He is also vice president of his college’s Jewish Student Union. Ahead of the anti-Israel vote, Bernstein received a message from a member of his college’s student council ordering him to abstain from the vote on Israel divestment.

The student council, Bernstein was informed, had determined that he was motivated by “a Jewish agenda,” and therefore couldn’t be trusted to view the resolution fairly.

In the same message, Bernstein’s correspondent gave him a friendly “heads up” that his fellow students are considering removing him from office because he is a Jew supported by the Jewish community.

To his credit, Bernstein ignored his orders. He voted to oppose the anti-Israel resolution.

Following the incident Bernstein published a statement decrying the anti-Jewish discrimination and hatred now rampant on his campus.

Among other things, he wrote, “I wish that [my] being subjected to anti-Semitism was a shocking new occurrence. But the truth is that I’m not shocked. I’m not shocked because this hatred and ignorance has followed me everywhere. I’m not shocked because Jewish students have been targeted with this vile racism all over the [University of California] UC system for years, and especially since BDS became a major issue of discussion. Anti-Semitism ... has ... become an inseparable part of campus politics right here at UC Santa Cruz and across the UC system.”

Then there is the growing movement of professional associations that boycott Israel.

Last week the National Women’s Studies Association passed a resolution to join the BDS movement. The resolution, written in turgid, incomprehensible prose, proclaimed that the only state in the Middle East that provides full and equal rights to women is so evil that it must be singled out and boycotted, sanctioned and divested from.

Whereas Bernstein was personally targeted, and the NWSA criminalizes Israel, at CUNY, on November 12, a group of protesters targeted the Jewish community as a whole.

That day, as part of a national “million student march,” where students demanded free tuition, anti-Jewish students at CUNY rallied at Hunter college and introduced a new demand: the expulsion of all Israel supporters from campus.

Congregating in the center of the campus, some 50 students chanted in unison, “Zionists out of CUNY!”

Aside from an anodyne statement in favor of “freedom of expression,” CUNY administrators had nothing to say about the affair.

For their part, Hunter’s administrators issued a statement “condemning the anti-Semitic comments,” made by the rally participants.

But no disciplinary measures were taken against any of them.

Speaking to the Algemeiner, StandWithUs’s northeast regional director Shahar Azani said that the Hunter incident “is another example of the hijacking of various social causes by the anti-Israel movement.”

In making this claim, Azani was merely repeating the position taken by Jewish communal leaders and activists involved in the fight to defend Jews and Israel on university campuses. Unfortunately, this position is incorrect.

According to the prevailing wisdom guiding Jewish communal responses to the onslaught against Jewish students on campuses, the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish movements are distinct from the wider anti-liberal forces now disrupting campus life throughout the US. As Jewish leaders see things, there is no inherent connection between the protesters embracing victimhood and demanding constraints on freedom of expression, inquiry and assembly (and free tuition), and those who seek to drive Jews out of the public sphere on college campuses.

In other words, they believe that Zionists can be crybullies too.

But they can’t.

The crybully movement, which demands that universities constrain freedom to cater to victim groups, is necessarily hostile to Jews. This is the reason that at the same time that “victims” from blacks to transgenders are coddled and caressed, Jews have emerged as the only group that is not protected. Indeed, the BDS movement requires universities to discriminate against Jewish students.

The inherent conflict between the tenets of the “progressive” movement and Jewish rights is exposed in a guide to racial “microaggressions” published earlier this year by the University of California. Students and faculty must avoid committing these “microagressions” if they want to stay on the right side of campus authorities and the law.

The UC defines “microagressions” as, “brief, subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating messages to the recipient because of his or her group membership (such as race, gender, age or socio-economic status).”

Transgressors can expect to be accused of engendering a “hostile learning environment,” an act that can get you expelled, fired and subjected to criminal probes.

As law professor Eugene Voloch reported in The Washington Post last June, among other things, the list of offenses includes embracing merit as a means of advancing in society. A statement along the lines of “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” can destroy a person’s academic career.

So too, statements rejecting race as a significant factor in judging a person’s competence are now deemed racist. For instance statements to the effect of, “There is only one race, the human race,” “America is a melting pot” or “I don’t believe in race” can land a student or instructor in hot water.

In a column last week, Dennis Prager noted that the list castigates as racism all the pillars of liberal society in America. The list, he wrote, shows that “the American university is now closer to fascism than to traditional liberty.”

Prager is right, of course. But the fascist takeover of American academia will not affect all Americans equally.

Jews are the greatest victims of this state of affairs.

For the better part of the past hundred years, the upward mobility of American Jewry has been directly correlated with America’s embrace of meritocratic values. The more Americans have looked past race and ethnicity and judged people by their talents, characters and professional competence, the higher Jews have risen. Conversely, where qualities other than competence, talent and professionalism have determined social and professional status, Jews have suffered. They have faced discrimination and their opportunities to advance have been limited.

Academia is but a small component of American society. But to earn a place in America’s middle, upper-middle and upper classes, you need at least an undergraduate degree. Moreover, university graduates go on to populate and head the state and federal governing bureaucracies, the business world, the entertainment sector and every other major area of human endeavor in American society.

Academia’s simultaneous rejection of core liberal principles and legitimization of anti-Semitic forces is not a coincidence. Jews are a constant reminder that human agency – rather than race and other group identities – has everything to do with a person’s ability to excel in academics and beyond. For fascist principles to hold, Jews must be demonized and hated.The intrinsic link between anti-Semitism and fascism and their simultaneous embrace by a key American institution means that the equal rights and freedoms of Jews are far more threatened in America today than most Jewish leaders and activists have realized. The Jewish community’s failure to date to successfully defeat the anti-Semitic forces on campuses owes at least in part to its failure to recognize or contend with the dual nature of the problem.

Title: Israel honors WWII GI
Post by: G M on December 02, 2015, 03:37:56 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-honors-us-gi-who-told-the-nazis-we-are-all-jews/

Title: Stratfor: Third Intifada?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2015, 06:28:57 AM

 A Third Intifada in the Making?
Analysis
December 3, 2015 | 09:16 GMT Print
Text Size
Rescue teams and police gather at the site of an alleged Palestinian attack against an Israeli security guard on Nov. 10. (AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images)
Summary

Over the past few months, a wave of violence has enflamed tensions between Israelis and Palestinians once again. This time, though, it has taken on a new character, and rumors of a third intifada — the "intifada of knives" — abound.

It is hard to know at what point a string of attacks constitutes an intifada, the Arabic word for an awakening or uprising, just as it is difficult to predict just how long the latest surge in violence will last. But what is clear is that an opportunity has emerged for Palestinian leaders looking to shore up their legitimacy and make progress on certain political goals. However, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will face several constraints in taking advantage of the events unfolding before them.

Analysis

True to traditional intifada form, the latest spate of attacks was provoked by Israel's perceived encroachment on the Temple Mount, one of the most religiously significant and politically charged sites in the world. Rumors that the Israeli government plans to change the status quo that bans non-Muslim prayer at the Temple Mount set off the stabbings in September. The Second Intifada began much the same way in 2000, when former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the holy complex — a move Palestinians considered highly provocative. Tensions surrounding the Temple Mount also exacerbated the First Intifada: In October 1990, the Temple Mount Faithful, a Jewish extremist group that wanted to rebuild King Solomon's temple where the Al-Aqsa Mosque stands, decided to lay a cornerstone at the compound, sparking the violent Temple Mount riots. The complex stands as a powerful symbol of the deeply entrenched divide between Israelis and Palestinians, and of their decadeslong struggle for control of a finite but priceless piece of land. It is no surprise, then, that it also stands at the center of their conflict today.

Yet the recent flare-up in violence is different from its predecessors in terms of its structure and political ramifications. The First Intifada began when violence erupted among the Palestinian population that Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) then co-opted and led. Seven years later, Palestinian leaders once again lent cohesion and direction to widespread unrest, this time playing an even greater organizational role in directing the suicide bombings that came to characterize the Second Intifada. In this way, both intifadas had political goals that came from leaders who could negotiate and plan exit strategies.

The same is not true of the "intifada of knives," which is occurring organically and outside of the Palestinian leaders' control. In fact, Israel is having difficulty identifying any links between the numerous lone wolf attackers and Hamas or the PLO. The attacks are also difficult for Israeli security forces to detect and prevent, since lone-wolf assailants wielding edged weapons typically leave little to no communication and logistics trail to track. While the attacks have been mostly concentrated in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a recent stabbing in Tel Aviv could reflect the widening of Palestinian attackers' target sets in the future. And as security threats mount, leaders on both sides will be weighing their options on how to respond.

The Palestinian Perspective

In the West Bank, the embattled Palestinian Authority is primarily concerned with securing its own stability, longevity and territorial control. The group is already struggling to protect its share of power from Hamas, its main rival for the Palestinians' support, and for the most part it is only able to do so with the collaboration and help of the Israeli government. However, by benefiting from Israel's political, economic and security assistance, the Palestinian Authority is now open to attacks against its legitimacy among Palestinians, feeding into the Hamas narrative that the more moderate group refuses to stand up to perceived Israeli tyranny. As a result, the Palestinian Authority's popularity has dropped in the West Bank as support for Hamas has risen. In September 2014, just after Israel's Operation Protective Edge in Gaza concluded, The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 61 percent of Palestinians would vote for Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh if he ran for the Palestinian presidency. A year later, the same organization found that two-thirds of Palestinians wanted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resign. And student council elections in April, which are seen as predictive of Palestinians' political leanings, yielded an unexpectedly large victory for Hamas in the West Bank.

Given the Palestinian Authority's waning support, it might make sense for the group to try to spearhead a third intifada to regain its legitimacy among Palestinians and take back its political market share from Hamas. But then again, such a move would also hasten the demise of the Palestinian Authority's relationship with Israel — the very ties that have kept it afloat so far.

Hamas, by comparison, has more experience fighting against Israel, particularly in the recent past. However, it does not mean the group is better suited to wage an intifada. The security barriers walling Israel off from Gaza and the West Bank limit Hamas' ability to funnel weapons and support to attackers on the ground, making it difficult to directly harness and coordinate grassroots attacks inside Israel. Consequently, the group would be largely restricted to providing rhetorical support from afar and supplementing the intifada with rocket launches. And yet even there its capabilities would be limited. Hamas has the ability to resume short-distance rocket launches, but it has been unable to restock its collection of long-range rockets such as the Iranian-made Fajr-5 or the Syrian-made Khaibar-1, which can reach Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Dimona, since Operation Protective Edge ended. The lack of long-range rockets is due in part to increased Egyptian security at the Gaza-Sinai border, in part to Sudan's shift away from allowing militants' weapons to transit its borders, and in part to Israel's heightened monitoring of maritime weapons smuggling routes.

And Hamas, like the Palestinian Authority, has its own competition for power to worry about in Gaza. The Islamic State, along with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other smaller groups, is challenging Hamas' authority in the territory, capitalizing on the perception among a sizable Palestinian minority that Hamas' strategy against Israel is not extreme enough to enact change. The struggle for legitimacy could persuade Hamas to take charge of a third intifada. In October, senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said it was necessary to turn the attacks against Israelis into a full-fledged intifada by using guns and explosives. Along the same lines, Haniyeh urged Palestinians to ramp up the intifada through armed resistance. Still, if Hamas were to assume a leadership role in escalating the violence against Israelis, the group could expect Israel to strike at its positions in Gaza — something Hamas is presently ill equipped to recover from.

Israel's Strategy

For its part, Israel has adopted the strategy of holding Palestinian leaders accountable for things that happen in the territories under their control. The Israeli government rarely distinguishes rockets launched by Hamas from those launched by the Islamic State in Gaza, and it frequently holds the Palestinian Authority responsible for any acts of violence perpetrated by Palestinians from the West Bank. Its methods of doing so often affect the Palestinian population as a whole, including conducting mass arrests, ramping up settlement building and curbing Palestinians' ability to enter Israeli territory for work. By doing so, though, the Israeli government creates somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy by antagonizing more moderate Palestinians.

However, Israel's defense establishment has recommended the adoption of several conciliatory measures if the violence subsides as well. These include releasing prisoners, giving additional weapons to the PNA and increasing the number of work permits granted to Palestinian laborers. In fact, many Israeli officials are pushing for more serious steps toward reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority to stave off any further official encouragement of a third intifada. Palestinian leaders could well use their position to quell the violence in exchange for significant concessions, thus boosting their image among their constituents. Still, cooperating with Israel often undermines leaders' legitimacy among Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority probably would not be able to pull it off successfully. Therefore, it is far more likely that spontaneous violence and mounting tension between Israeli and Palestinian leaders will continue.

Officially, Abbas has not endorsed the string of stabbing attacks that have left 23 Israelis dead since September. But ever mindful of his need to demonstrate strength to his Palestinian constituents and rivals, Abbas has stopped short of condemning the attacks outright. Israelis have perceived his lackluster response as an intentional provocation of further attacks. Consequently, the Israeli government will likely continue to hold Abbas accountable for any further violence, using his purported responsibility as a pretext to avoid making political concessions. This could accelerate the deterioration of the relationship between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, potentially even bringing Abbas' presidency to an end.

In a reflection of the dismal state of Israeli-Palestinian relations, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made no mention of reviving peace talks during his latest trip to the region in late November. Palestinians are increasingly becoming more frustrated and desperate, and many believe the status quo cannot be changed without dramatic action. According to a 2015 Gallup poll, Palestinians are more supportive of an armed struggle against Israel than they have been for at least a decade, and more than two-thirds of the population believes that frictions between Israelis and Palestinians are worsening. The growing frustration that has fed into the latest "intifada of knives" is an opportunity for Palestinian leaders to change the status quo in Israel, but it is unclear whether they will be able to overcome the obstacles in the way of their success.

Title: Jordanian politician says "Happy Hanukkah"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2015, 08:28:10 AM

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israel-and-the-middle-east/jordanian-opposition-leader-wishes-israelis-a-happy-hanukkah-17636

Title: Partners in peace-- what could go wrong? 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2015, 09:30:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9H_0g8-84I

Title: WSJ: Turkey and Israel about to reconnect?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2015, 08:53:08 AM

By Dion Nissenbaum
Updated Dec. 18, 2015 10:43 a.m. ET
10 COMMENTS

ISTANBUL—Israel and Turkey are poised to re-establish diplomatic ties after years of tense relations, officials from both countries said Friday, a move that could renew close cooperation between two of America’s strongest allies in the region.

Top Israeli and Turkish officials met for secret talks this week in Switzerland, where they worked to complete a deal to restore relations that collapsed in 2010 after 10 Turks were killed when Israeli commandos raided a ship carrying activists trying to break Israel’s economic blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Officials from both countries cautioned Friday that details of the agreement were still being worked out and the deal could still collapse—the two sides came close but failed to secure a similar deal in February 2014. But they said the talks offered the most promising sign that Turkey and Israel were ready to put the politically charged incident behind them.

The talks came as the international fight against the extremist group Islamic State injects news strains and transforms long-standing alliances in the region.

Russia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war has altered the battlefield and led to new efforts by Turkey, the U.S. and their allies to end the conflict and combat Islamic State.

Ankara’s close ties with Moscow unraveled last month when a Turkish jet shot down a Russian bomber carrying out airstrikes in Syria near Turkey’s border. Russia has imposed modest economic sanctions on Turkey and demanded an apology from Turkish leaders who have sought to contain the diplomatic and financial damage to their country.

With Turkey’s relations with Russia deteriorating, Ankara has sought to mend ties with Israel and stepped up talks with the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On Wednesday, Israel’s national security adviser, Yossi Cohen, and Joseph Ciechanover, Mr. Netanyahu’s special envoy to Turkey, met for secret talks in Switzerland with Feridun Sinirlioglu, undersecretary at Turkey’s Foreign Ministry, according to a senior Israeli official.

At the meeting, the official said, negotiators agreed that Israel would establish a special fund to compensate families of the victims killed in the 2010 raid on the MV Mavi Marmara. Turkey would ensure that Israeli officials are shielded from prosecution over the incident, according to details released by Israeli officials.

Ankara also would bar a top Hamas militant from entering the country to deter him from planning attacks against Israel from Turkish soil. In addition, the two sides would launch talks over a natural gas pipeline between the two countries and resume normal diplomatic relations by sending ambassadors back to their respective capitals.

The May 31, 2010, Israeli raid on six civilian ships in international waters sparked an international furor. The attack on the Mavi Marmara was captured by dramatic video that showed Israeli commandos rappelling down to the deck from helicopters as some activists tried to fight back. Nine activists were killed and a 10th died later. Turkey withdrew its ambassador to Israel and later expelled Israel’s ambassador to Turkey.

In 2013, at the urging of President Barack Obama, Mr. Netanyahu called Recep Tayyip Erdogan, then prime minister of Turkey, to apologize. But the gesture failed to jump-start talks on restoring relations.

Earlier this week, Mr. Erdogan, now Turkey’s president, hinted at warming Israeli-Turkish relations, saying an agreement could be good for the region.

Title: The propaganda war continues!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2016, 12:45:34 PM

https://www.facebook.com/alan.silver.372/videos/10153198136143225/

Title: Debunking the Palestinian Lie and Military Requirements of Israeli Defense
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2016, 02:36:38 PM

Debunking the Palestinian Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U 

Military requirements of Isreali self-defense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0

Title: Don't hold your breath waiting for reciprocal examples , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 10, 2016, 10:55:56 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-first-jordanian-phd-wants-to-bring-peace-through-water/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/world/middleeast/all-bedouin-tech-company-hints-at-shift-in-israel.html?emc=edit_th_20160110&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

Title: Liberal Jewish magazine on extreme Israeli Jewish group
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2016, 08:39:46 AM

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/196516/jewish-isis-in-the-west-bank?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=fc79a90599-Sunday_January_17_20161_15_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-fc79a90599-207194629

Title: Don't hold your breath waiting for reciprocal examples , , ,2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2016, 04:08:33 PM

second post

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/the-most-revealing-video-about-how-israel-treats-palestinians/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Mother-of-six+Dafna+Meir+stabbed+to+death+in+front+of+her+children&utm_campaign=20160117_m129319627_1%2F17+Breaking+Israel+Video%3A+Mother-of-six+Dafna+Meir+stabbed+to+death+in+front+of+her+children&utm_term=The+Most+Revealing+Video+About+How+Israel+Treats+_27Palestinians_27

Title: Zoom Out
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2016, 05:41:13 PM

Third post

http://www.israellycool.com/2016/01/05/zoom-out-2/

Title: Where does all that aid for Palestinians go?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2016, 11:50:11 AM

Where Does All That Aid for Palestinians Go?
An outsize share of per capita international aid, even as the Palestinian Authority funds terrorists.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, Jan. 6. ENLARGE
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, Jan. 6. Photo: ABED AL HASHLAMOUN/European Pressphoto Agency
By Tzipi Hotovely
Jan. 24, 2016 4:10 p.m. ET
104 COMMENTS

One often-cited key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is economic development. To that end, there seems to be broad agreement about the importance of extending development aid to help the Palestinians build the physical and social infrastructure that will enable the emergence of a sustainable, prosperous society. But few have seriously questioned how much money is sent and how it is used.

Such assistance will only promote peace if it is spent to foster tolerance and coexistence. If it is used to strengthen intransigence it does more harm than good—and the more aid that comes in, the worse the outcome. This is exactly what has been transpiring over the past few decades. Large amounts of foreign aid to the Palestinians are spent to support terrorists and deepen hostility.

For years the most senior figures in the Palestinian Authority have supported, condoned and glorified terror. “Every drop of blood that has been spilled in Jerusalem,” President Mahmoud Abbas said last September on Palestinian television, “is holy blood as long as it was for Allah.” Countless Palestinian officials and state-run television have repeatedly hailed the murder of Jews.

This support for terrorism doesn’t end with hate speech. The Palestinian regime in Ramallah pays monthly stipends of between $400 and $3,500 to terrorists and their families, the latter of which is more than five times the average monthly salary of a Palestinian worker.

According to data from its budgetary reports, compiled in June 2014 by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the PA’s annual budget for supporting Palestinian terrorists was then roughly $75 million. That amounted to some 16% of the foreign donations the PA received annually. Overall in 2012 foreign aid made up about a quarter of the PA’s $3.1 billion budget. More recent figures are inaccessible since the Palestinian Authority is no longer transparent about the stipend transfers.

Embarrassed by public revelations of the misuse of the foreign aid, in August 2014 the Palestinian Authority passed the task of paying stipends to terrorists and their families to a fund managed by the Palestine Liberation Organization, also led by Mr. Abbas. Lest there be any doubt as to the purely cosmetic nature of the change, Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah made assurances as recently as September 2015 that the PA will provide the “necessary assistance” to ensure these terror stipends.

This procedural ruse apparently calmed the consciences of donor governments that continue to transfer aid. It is difficult to think of another case in which such a forgiving attitude would be taken regarding foreign aid to an entity that sponsors terror.

This situation is particularly disturbing given the disproportionate share of development assistance the Palestinians receive, which comes at the expense of needy populations elsewhere. According to a report last year by Global Humanitarian Assistance, in 2013 the Palestinians received $793 million in international aid, second only to Syria. This amounts to $176 for each Palestinian, by far the highest per capita assistance in the world. Syria, where more than 250,000 people have been killed and 6.5 million refugees displaced since 2011, received only $106 per capita.

A closer look at the remaining eight countries in the top 10—Sudan, South Sudan, Jordan, Lebanon, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo—is even more alarming. CIA Factbook data show that these countries have a combined population of 284 million and an average per capita GDP of $2,376. Yet they received an average of $15.30 per capita in development assistance in 2013. The Palestinians, by comparison, with a population of 4.5 million, have a per capita GDP of $4,900.

In other words, though the Palestinians are more than twice as wealthy on average than these eight countries, they receive more than 11 times as much foreign aid per person. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a case in point: Its 79 million people have a per capita GDP of $700, yet they receive only $5.70 in aid per person.

Between 1993 (when the Oslo Process began) and 2013, the Palestinians received $21.7 billion in development assistance, according to the World Bank. The Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to use these funds for economic and social development. Tragically, as seen in Hamas-run Gaza, it prefers to use the funds on its terrorist infrastructure and weaponry, such as cross-border attack tunnels and the thousands of missiles that have rained down in recent years on Israel.

In Judea and Samaria, the “West Bank,” the situation is equally disturbing. Aside from funding terrorists and investing in hate speech, the PA stubbornly refuses to remove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from “refugee” rosters, deliberately keeping them in a state of dependence and underdevelopment for no purpose other than to stoke animosity toward Israel.

It is difficult to come away from these facts without realizing the deep connection between the huge amounts of foreign aid being spent, the bizarre international tolerance for patently unacceptable conduct by the Palestinians and the lack of progress toward peace on the ground.

Donors to the Palestinians who support peace would do well to rethink the way they extend assistance. Money should go to economic and civic empowerment, not to perpetuate a false sense of victimhood and unconditional entitlement. It should foster values of tolerance and nonviolence, not the glorification and financing of terrorism.

Ms. Hotovely is the deputy foreign minister of Israel.

Title: IDF preparing for arrival of ISIS on Syrian Border
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2016, 10:12:49 PM

IDF Preparing for Arrival of ISIS on Syrian Border
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
January 29, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5143/idf-preparing-for-arrival-of-isis-on-syrian-border

 
 As conflict and mayhem continue to rage across Syria, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is preparing to encounter the threat of ISIS and al-Qaida forces right on its borders, and could encounter such threats in the coming months.

The preparations come as the Syrian civil war shows no sign of letting up. This is a conflict that has led to the violent deaths of 300,000 Syrians, and the displacement of more than 10 million others, 4.5 million of whom have fled the country.

Today, the IDF's Military Intelligence Directorate views Syria as a former state that has broken apart into multiple 'Syrias.' The Assad regime controls barely 30 percent of Syria and is fully reliant on the foreign assistance of Russia, Hizballah, and Iran. Sunnis and Shi'ites wage daily war on one another.

It is worth examining the wider recent events in the multifaceted Syrian conflict, and place the IDF's preparations in their broader regional perspective.
In Syria's murderous kill-or-be-killed environment, Salafi-jihadist doctrines flourish, in the form of ISIS, which views Shi'ites (including the Assad regime and Hizballah) as infidels who must be destroyed.

ISIS cells have operated recently in Lebanon too, targeting Shi'ite Hizballah's home turf of Dahiya in southern Beirut with two large bombings in November that claimed over 40 lives, while ISIS in Iraq continues to target Shi'ites.

Today, ISIS has between 30,000-50,000 members who are dedicated to expanding their caliphate and killing all those who disagree with their doctrine, including even fellow Sunni jihadi members of al-Qaida's branch in Syria, the Al-Nusra Front, which has 8,000-12,000 members.

ISIS continues to use its territory in Syria and Iraq to plot major, mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Western cities. At the same time, its budgetary future looks uncertain, as oil funds have decreased significantly following allied air strikes on oil facilities. In the past year, 45 percent of ISIS's $1.3 billion budget came from oil, far less than the oil revenue in 2014.

Unlike ISIS, al-Qaida believes in following a phased, slower plan in setting up a caliphate, and the two jihadist organizations have been at war with each other for more than two years in Syria.

Shi'ites led by Iran are fighting to stop the Salafi-jihadis' spread. Under the command of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-Quds Force unit commander, Qassem Suleimani, Iranian fighting forces and advisers moved into Syria. Iran has sustained more than 300 casualties there thus far.
Hizballah, too, is heavily involved in Syria's battles, losing an estimated 1,300 fighters and sustaining 10,000 injuries – meaning more than half of its conscripted fighting force has been killed or wounded. Iran and its proxies are using the mayhem to try to spread their own influence in Syria.
Near Israel's border with Syria, the Al-Yarmouk Martyrs Battalions, which is affiliated with ISIS, has set up many posts.

An estimated 600 members of the group control a population of around 40,000 Syrians. Al-Yarmouk is at war with al-Qaida's Jabhat Al-Nusra, which maintains a few thousand members in the Syrian Golan near Israel.

Jabhat Al-Nusra's membership is mostly derived of local Syrians, who tend to be more hesitant to start a war with Israel that would result in their areas, and relatives, being badly affected. Yet 10 to 15 percent of its membership comes from abroad, and have no commitment to the area. These foreign fighters have no qualms about precipitating attacks on Israel. At the moment, however, Jabhat Al-Nusra is bogged down by its fight with Al-Yarmouk.
ISIS has officially put Israel in its sights, and its leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, declared his intention at the end of December to attack Israel.

The IDF is taking the threat seriously and is preparing for a range of possible attacks, including strategic terror attacks, cross-border raids, the sending of bomb-laden armored vehicles into Israel, and rocket, missile, small-arms, and mortar fire on the Israeli Golan Heights.

One possibility is that the heavily armed Al-Yarmouk group, which is facing the southern Golan Heights, might follow an Islamic State directive to attack Israel.
In 2014, Al-Yarmouk became an ISIS representative, swearing allegiance to it, though it is not fully subordinate to it.

Al-Yarmouk's late leader, known as Al Khal ("the uncle"), was killed in November in an attack by Jabhat Al-Nusra. Before his violent end, Al Khal only partially committed himself to ISIS, and turned down ISIS requests to send fighters to Iraq.

Al-Yarmouk's response to Jabhat Al-Nusra's attacks came in December, when it assassinated a Jabhat Al-Nusra commander in his armored vehicle, just 400 meters from the Israeli border.  Al-Yarmouk subscribes to the Salafi jihadist ideology and has shoulder-held missiles, tanks, and other weapons looted during raids on the Assad regime military bases.

But Israel is also preparing for the possibility of encountering ISIS itself, not just an affiliate group.

ISIS proper is currently situated 40 kilometers from the Israeli border in southern Syria. One possibility is that Russian airstrikes will cause ISIS forces to ricochet southwards, towards Israel.

The IDF is gathering intelligence on all armed groups near its border, exhausting many resources to assess their capabilities, and intentions.

Israel watched as Shi'ite Hizballah came from Lebanon to block Sunni jihadist advances towards Lebanon in recent months, and as Russian airstrikes blocked the advance of the rebels northwards, to Damascus.

The IDF remains in a heightened state of alert along the Syrian border, though it is also working to avoid the creation of easy targets for the array of predatory forces on the other side.   As part of its preparations, the IDF's Northern Command has given more autonomy to regional field commanders to enable faster responses to surprise attacks by reducing the initial chain of command during emergencies.  Inter-branch cooperation between intelligence, ground forces, and the air force has also been tightened.

Additionally, the IDF has fortified its border fence with Syria, adding electronic sensors to better be able to detect and respond to a potential attack in time.
The underlying assumption within military circles is that, sooner or later, ISIS will turn its guns on Israel, and the IDF does not intend to be caught off guard when that happens. 

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Title: Feminine protection
Post by: G M on January 30, 2016, 05:37:50 AM

http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/No-Rape-in-Israel.jpg

(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/No-Rape-in-Israel.jpg)

Choose to not be a victim.

Title: Partners in peace-- what could go wrong? 3.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2016, 10:18:26 PM

https://www.facebook.com/ILuvFreedom/videos/1655979804653081/

Title: Hamas and ISIS
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2016, 10:46:51 AM

Hamas Dances With the Devil
by Paul Alster
Special to IPT News
February 19, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5163/hamas-dances-with-the-devil
 
 The Gaza-based Hamas terror organization has more than its fair share of problems at the moment. Quite likely against its better judgment, it is becoming increasingly reliant on a controversial and dangerous relationship with Sinai Province, the vicious ISIS affiliate in Sinai.

Most of Hamas' problems are related to cash flow. Funds from sympathetic donor states such as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are sporadic and insufficient, while relations with another benefactor, Iran, have come under great strain due to Hamas' support for Syrian rebel factions opposing the Assad regime that fights alongside Iranian-backed Hizballah. The wages of public sector workers often go unpaid for months at a time, and according to a 2015 World Bank report, Gaza's unemployment rate is the highest in the world at 43 percent.

Add into the mix the failure of Arab nations to deliver on pledges to rebuild parts of Gaza damaged during the 2014 summer war with Israel, and Egypt's refusal – apart from a brief respite earlier this week – to open the crucial Rafah crossing, and things look bleak for Hamas. The only goods legally entering Gaza are the many hundreds of truckloads arriving daily from Israel via the Kerem Shalom crossing.

Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has cracked down severely on the Sinai smuggling tunnels in and out of Gaza that flourished during the time of his Muslim Brotherhood predecessor Mohammed Morsi.

In a search of a friend, or at least a partner with whom it can have a mutually beneficial relationship, Hamas cut a deal with Sinai Province despite having cracked down violently on ISIS supporters in Gaza in order to keep a grip on power in the overcrowded coastal enclave. This collaboration risks legitimizing the ISIS affiliate in Hamas' own backyard, undermining its brutal dominance in Gaza, and providing the jihadists' supporters with an argument that it is Sinai Province and not Hamas that is keeping the show on the road.

Formerly known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, Sinai Province was previously affiliated with al-Qaida. That changed in late-2014 when the Bedouin terror group switched allegiance to Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Its extreme, ultra-violent ideology has long been viewed even by Hamas as fanatical, so getting into bed with such an organization clearly carries inherent risks.

Sinai Province is believed to have been behind last October's bombing of a Russian airliner from the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, a shocking mass murder that dealt a huge blow to Egypt's already ailing tourist industry.

"This [partnership] is not so much because of a shared vision or shared ideology but because, at this point in time, anybody is doing business with anybody within Sinai," regional terror expert Benedetta Berti said earlier this month in an interview with the British Israel Communications & Research Centre (BICOM). "This creates a clash between what Hamas wants for Gaza, which is not a proliferation of pro-ISIS cells, and some of the deals part of the group is doing in Sinai."

"Salafist groups are not a challenge in the sense that they are going to overthrow Hamas, but they are definitely a political challenge," Berti added, "especially if we look at public opinion polls – we see that more and more people are losing faith in the Hamas government."

Senior Israel military officials claim that injured Sinai Province fighters continue to be ferried through the tunnels into Gaza for medical treatment. They believe this has been ongoing since last summer. Hamas denies treating the jihadis, but is believed to have paid Sinai Province to help keep supply lines open for weapons, including help in clandestinely transferring the lethal Russian-made Kornet anti-tank guided missiles into Gaza. In return, Sinai Province gets to keep a share of the weaponry.

It also has been an open secret for some time that Abdullah Kishta, the notorious Gaza-based weapons expert, is helping train Sinai Province to use the Kornet and other weapons such as MANPAD surface-to-air-missile systems in attacks against Egyptian forces.

Kishta's training has paid rich dividends with a devastating series of large-scale assaults by Sinai Province on Egyptian forces, including major attacks that have inflicted heavy losses. The group has an estimated 500 to 1,000 members, well trained and well organized local Bedouins. There is no evidence thus far of foreign fighters joining their cause, unlike in ISIS conflict zones in Syria and Iraq.

Israel watches closely from the other side of the border. Privately, many Israeli officials acknowledge that with Palestinian rivals Fatah unlikely to assert any real pressure on Hamas in Gaza, they prefer that Hamas stays in power. The alternative – any one of a number of ISIS-affiliated or other Salafist groups – could prove far more problematic for the Jewish State.

"For Israel, the desire to avoid escalation prevents it from confronting Hamas's [weapons] buildup openly and dictates a policy of imposed passivity, heightened by the difficulty in ensuring that provisions brought to the Gaza Strip, especially construction materials, are not used for military buildup – though it is highly probable that this is precisely the case," Maj. Gen (ret.) Amos Yadlin, executive director of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), wrote Wednesday.

Israeli supplies – some humanitarian food aid and some intended for reconstruction – continue to enter Gaza. If they didn't, and people starved, that could potentially spark an uprising against Hamas, further destabilizing Gaza and opening the door for Hamas' opponents, including Islamic State, to attempt an uprising.

Israel also is wary that Sinai Province could mount a cross-border attack into its territory, launching missiles toward Eilat, or copying Hamas in attempting to tunnel from Sinai into southern Israel to kidnap or murder Israelis.  Hamas, though, remains under severe pressure. Only time will tell if its marriage of convenience with the Islamic State affiliate is a shrewd move to ensure survival, or a calamitous error of judgment.

Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist. Follow him on Twitter @paul_alster and visit his website: www.paulalster.com.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 22, 2016, 06:34:51 PM

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/22/israel-eats-its-own-palestine-violence-intifada-netanyahu-livni-herzog-lapid/?wp_login_redirect=0

Title: IDF racing to restructure for new type of war
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 24, 2016, 10:21:10 AM

IDF Racing to Restructure Itself for New Middle East Warfare
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
February 23, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5169/idf-racing-to-restructure-itself-for-new-middle

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is in a race against time, and it is a race that is relevant to how other Western powers will also deal with the rise of radical, armed, Islamic groups proliferating across the Middle East.  As the IDF's commanders look around the region, they see heavily armed, hybrid, Islamic sub-state foes that are replacing states. The traditional threat of hierarchical armies is fading quickly away, into obscurity.

The Sunni and Shi'ite jihadist entities on Israel's borders – Hamas, Hizballah, ISIS-affiliated groups in Syria, Jabhat Al-Nusra, as well as elements of Iran's IRGC forces – are all building their power and preparing for a future unknown point in time when they will clash with Israel.

The IDF is preparing, too, but it is not only counting how many soldiers, tanks, fighter planes, and artillery cannons it can call up in the next round. The IDF is in a race to adapt to 21st century Middle Eastern warfare, which bears no resemblance to how wars were fought in the 20th century.

In this new type of conflict, enemies appear and vanish quickly, use their own civilians as cover, bombard Israeli cities with projectiles, seek out the weakest link in Israel's chain, and send killing squads through tunnels to attack Israeli border villages.  In this type of clash, the enemy looks for a 'winning picture' at the start of any escalation. This means landing a surprise blow that will knock Israeli society off balance, at least for a short while.  To be clear, all of the hostile sub-state actors currently are deterred by Israel's considerable firepower and are unlikely to initiate a direct, all-out attack right now.  The price they would pay for such action is deemed too high, for now.

Yet, opportunities and circumstances can suddenly arise that would alter these calculations, and put these terrorist organizations on a direct collision course with the IDF.  Israel has fought four conflicts against Hamas and Hizballah in the past 10 years, and emerged with the conclusion that the era of state military versus state military warfare is over. 

Acknowledging this development is one thing; the organizational transformation that must follow is quite another. Israel did not want to enter any of the past four conflicts that were forced upon it, but since they occurred, they have aided in the IDF's adaptation process, which has been as complex as it has been painful, and is far from over.

"What you have to do against an enemy like this, and it is a great difficulty for militaries, including the IDF, is to operate in a combined, cross-branch [air force, ground forces, navy] manner, and to keep it [operations] focused. Focus the ground maneuver and firepower, on the basis of the intelligence you get," a senior IDF source said earlier this month in Tel Aviv, while addressing the challenges of adaptation.

Taking southern Lebanon, the home base of Hizballah, as an example, the area has well over 100 Shi'ite villages that have been converted into mass rocket launching zones.  With one out of every 10 Lebanese homes doubling up as a Hizballah rocket launching site (complete with roofs that open and close to allow the rocket to launch), Hizballah has amassed over 120,000 projectiles – some of them GPS guided – with Iran's help. This arsenal, pointed at Israel, forms one of the largest surface to surface rocket arsenals on Earth.

Would sending several military divisions into such an area be sufficient for Israel in stopping the rocket attacks? Without focused intelligence, the military source argued, the answer is a resounding no. Israel's reliance on intelligence has never been more paramount in the age of sub-state, radical enemies.
"The urban areas swallow up our forces. If we can't focus the maneuver, no amount of forces will be sufficient in dealing with this issue. It must be focused, and the information that must direct this focus is real-time intelligence," the source said.

The IDF's Military Intelligence Directorate has the mammoth task of building up a battle picture and a database of targets ahead of any conflict. After a conflict erupts, it must start the process all over again within a few days, when the entire map of threats changes in the modern dynamic battlefield.
This is a far cry from the old intelligence work that looked at enemy tank divisions and infantry formation.

IDF planners believe that any future conflict with a hybrid, terror-guerrilla military force will consist of five stages. An "opening picture" – that surprise blow intended to shock Israelis – will mark the start of hostilities, in which Israel must deny the adversary its "winning picture." This will be followed by an exchange of firepower. After a few days, Israel would need to call up reserves, and then launch a ground offensive. Throughout this period, the Israeli home front would absorb heavy rocket fire, while the Israel Air Force would pound enemy targets. The IAF could fire thousands of precision-guided munitions every 24 hours, if it deploys its firepower to the maximum, as it would in an all-out clash with Hizballah.

Israeli air defense systems like Iron Dome could soften the blow to the home front significantly, but this is truer with respect to Gazan rockets than against the downpour of Hizballah rockets and missiles, which would overwhelm air defenses.  The ground offensive must destroy "70 to 75 percent of [enemy] capabilities," the source said. "If there are 100 missiles and two operatives on the other side, and you kill the operatives, than the missiles become irrelevant."
The last phase is the end stage, and it is unlikely that an entity like Hamas or Hizballah would wave a white flag when hostilities conclude, even if most of their capabilities have been destroyed.

The era of clear-cut military victories, like Israel experienced in the 1967 Six Day War, is gone, the source said.

With this reality in view, the IDF's steps to adapt itself to modern threats include the ability to gather huge quantities of intelligence and deliver them, in real-time, to the forces that need them most in the battlefield, right down to the level of a battalion commander.  This requirement includes establishing an "operational Internet," an internal IDF network that allows battalion commanders to access Military Intelligence target data in their area, and direct their units accordingly.  It would also allow field commanders to communicate directly with a fighter jet pilot or drone operator, or even a missile ship commander, for the type of cross-forces cooperation the IDF thinks will be most effective in shutting down threats.

As a result, the IDF's C4i Branch has spent recent years overcoming many hurdles and objections and integrating the command and control networks of the air force, navy, and ground forces. It then directly linked them up to Military Intelligence.

By the end of this year, the first IDF division will have a "military Internet" network, complete with applications and browsers, up and running.

"I don't want a squad commander walking around with a screen in his hand. He has to be aware of his soldiers. [But] the battalion commander should certainly have this," the source said.

In 2014, the IDF did not do a good enough job in detecting, in real-time, the location of Hamas rocket launches in Gaza. It got away with this failure because of the effectiveness of the Iron Dome anti-rocket batteries. But against Hizballah's much larger arsenal, no amount of air defenses will be sufficient, and the IDF therefore is working on improving its rocket detection and accurate return fire abilities.

"In the next stage [of our development], if you detect the rocket launch areas and the centers of activity of the enemy, and transmit them [to your own forces], you can learn the enemy's patterns better," the officer said.

Knowing the enemy has never been more important for Israel's ability to defend itself against the jihadist entities that are replacing states in the Middle East. As these radical Islamist organizations prepare for the day of battle, Israel does the same, through updating its old 20th century battle doctrines and bringing them up to speed with its rapidly changing and chaotic environment.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Title: HEzbollah threatens tens of thousands of missiles into Israeli ammonia tanks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 29, 2016, 01:29:18 PM

http://www.investigativeproject.org/5179/hizballah-leader-brags-about-capabilities-that

Title: Arab Israeli Doctor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2016, 12:55:36 PM

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-israel-is-giving-me-the-voice-of-an-arab-doctor/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Title: GLICK: Lebanon no more; it is now an Iranian colony
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2016, 07:09:13 AM

http://pamelageller.com/2016/03/lebanon-no-more-hezbollahs-iranian-colony.html/

Title: Israeli badass
Post by: ccp on March 16, 2016, 08:52:16 PM

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=301139019511

Title: Dubai security chief urges coalition with Israel?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2016, 08:34:33 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-twitter-blitz-dubai-security-chief-opposes-palestinian-state-urges-coalition-with-israel/

Title: Re: Dubai security chief urges coalition with Israel?!?
Post by: DougMacG on March 25, 2016, 09:04:21 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2016, 08:34:33 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-twitter-blitz-dubai-security-chief-opposes-palestinian-state-urges-coalition-with-israel/

A breath of fresh air.  This has been more than two decades in coming.  Saddam Hussein attacked four of his neighbors, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi and Israel, but Israel doesn't count because everyone wants to attack them. 

ISIS is enemy to both Sunni and Shia states plus Israel (and the US, Russia and Europe, etc.).  Israel is probably the strongest power in the region other than what's left of Obama's America and The Soviet Putin.  How long can you ignore your strongest potential ally while your existence is threatened?

Meanwhile, Israel is threatening no one other than those who are actively attacking them.

Title: Hamas War Crimes in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2016, 02:49:58 AM

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes

Title: IDF medic saves Palestinian
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2016, 06:37:57 PM

https://www.facebook.com/ISRAEL.TRUTH/videos/881192381893513/

Title: Pressure building in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2016, 08:01:14 AM

The Gaza Time Bomb
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
March 30, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5238/the-gaza-time-bomb
 
 On the surface, the Gaza Strip looks relatively calm, with few security incidents occurring since the end of the protracted 2014 summer conflict between Hamas and Israel. Behind the scenes, pressure within the Islamist-run enclave is gradually building again, just as it did prior to the 2014 war. Gaza's civilian population is hostage to Hamas's dramatically failed economic policies, and its insistence on confrontation with Israel, rather than recognition of Israel and investment in Gaza's economic future.  Ultimately, the civilian-economic pressure cooker in Gaza looks likely to explode, leading Hamas to seek new hostilities with Israel, for which it is preparing in earnest.

Right now, Hamas remains deterred by Israel's firepower, and is enforcing its part of the truce. Hamas security forces patrol the Strip's borders to prevent Gazans from rioting, to stop them from trying to escape Gaza into Israel, and to stop ISIS-affiliated radicals who fire rockets at Israel.  Hamas is using the current quiet to replenish its rocket arsenal, dig its combat tunnel network, and build up sea-based attack capabilities. It is investing many resources in cooking up new ways to surprise Israel in any future clash. These efforts have not gone unnoticed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Hamas has not fired a single rocket into Israel since August 2014, but it encourages violence in the West Bank as part of a strategy to destabilize its Palestinian rival, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Hamas in Gaza also works remotely to set up and orchestrate terrorism cells in the West Bank, while plotting way to overthrow Fatah from power. The Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence agency, has successfully foiled nearly all of these efforts thus far, saving many Israeli lives, and the PA's rule, too.

A deeper look at processes under way in Gaza reveals why the status quo seems untenable in the long run. Thirty percent (910,000) of Gaza's population of 1.85 million are aged 15 to 29, and out of these, 65 percent are unemployed. This represents one of the highest unemployment rates for young people in the world. Many are university educated and deeply frustrated. The overall unemployment rate in Gaza is 38.4 percent, and rising steadily. Eighteen thousand Gazan university students graduate every year. Most of them have nothing to do with their degrees, and return home to a life of idle unemployment. Many Gazans dream of leaving. The suicide rate is growing. Under Hamas's rule, these young people see no change on the horizon.
Out of the total population of Gaza, 1.3 million receive assistance from United Nations aid workers, without which, a humanitarian crisis would likely ensue.
Those who dare complain, such as Gazan bloggers, find themselves whisked away into Hamas police custody, where they receive firm warnings to remain silent, or else.

Meanwhile, the Gazan population is growing at an unsustainable rate. Since Israel pulled out all of its soldiers and civilians in 2005, 600,000 Gazans have been born. This is a generation that has never been to Israel (unlike the older Gazans), and its only experience of Israel is through air force missiles fired at Hamas targets following clashes sparked by the jihadist regime's military wing.

Many of these young people are exposed to the propaganda of Hamas's media outlets, like the Al-Aksa television station, which is a major source of incitement. Some are also exposed to the wider world through the Internet, and are aware that life can be different for them.  By 2020, Gaza's population will hit 2.3 million people. It could run out of drinking water. This might prompt a civilian revolt, which could push Hamas into starting a new war with Israel to distract attention.

To try to relieve the pressure, Hamas leaders make promises that they cannot keep, such as the setting up of a sea port, and the opening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt, which the anti-Hamas Egyptian government opened just 18 times in 2015 for fear of allowing jihadists in Gaza to pour into the restive Sinai Strip.

A Hamas delegation traveled to Egypt earlier this month to try to mend relations with the Cairo government. The effort resulted in failure, after Egyptian officials accused Hamas of failing to acknowledge its collaboration with the ISIS-affiliated Sinai Province insurgents.

Changes are underway within Hamas itself, which are causing the Izzadin Al-Qassam Brigades military wing to gain power at the expense of the political wing, which is led by Ismael Haniyeh.

Yiyhe Sinwar is a senior Hamas member with growing power, operating in the gray zone between both wings. He is close to military wing chief Muhammed Def, and to Haniyeh. Sinwar's power represents the rise of military wing's influence, where many members are finding their way into political elite positions in Gaza.

Marwan Isa is another senior Hamas member, influential to both wings. While the political wing has, behind closed doors, been hesitant to support the military wing's disastrous adventures against Israel, its ability to veto future attacks may vanish.

Additionally, Hamas is running out allies as it did before the 2014 war.

Iran continues to fund its military wing, as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Yet Tehran's ability to traffic weapons into Gaza has been ruined by Egypt's tunnel demolition drive.  Iran's overall influence on Gaza, therefore, is limited.

The Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Qatar has also stepped back from Hamas, limiting its funding projects in Gaza to civilian reconstruction only, building a modern highway in Gaza and a fancy new neighborhood in Khan Younis. However, no Qatari funds go to Hamas's military build-up. Turkey's assistance to Hamas is limited, too. It paid for a new Gaza hospital and 11 mosques, but beyond that, its support is mostly rhetorical.

The Arab world is indifferent to Gaza, meaning that Hamas is in strategic distress.

ISIS-inspired ideology is penetrating Gaza, and a few thousand former Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad members have defected to small Salafist-jihadist groups there. These groups have been responsible for all rocket fire into Israel since the summer of 2014.

In fact, the only state that makes major efforts to care for Gaza's civilians is Israel. Israel provides 60 percent of Gaza's electricity (30 percent is locally produced and Egypt provides the remaining 10 percent).

In 2015, Israel allowed 104,000 Gazans through the Erez border crossings to assist traders and humanitarian journeys. At the Kerem Shalom vehicle crossing, 900 trucks pass each day from Israel into Gaza, carrying all manner of goods, from fuel, to construction materials and commercial goods.
For Gaza civilians, the only ray of light seems to shine from the reconstruction mechanism, which Israel quietly set in motion after Hamas cynically used Gazan civilian areas as rocket launching zones and urban combat bases.

Israel set up a computerized reconstruction system that closely monitors and enables the rebuilding, while preventing the use of concrete and dual use items from falling into Hamas's hands. Gaza contractors who cannot account for their materials on the computerized systems are immediately removed from their positions, a heavy price to pay in the unemployment-rife Gaza Strip.

Funded by international donors and the Palestinian private sector, the mechanism, which Israel pushed to set up, has repaired 80,000 of the 130,000 housing units damaged during the conflict. Another 20,000 are currently being repaired.

Of the 18,000 homes completely destroyed in 2014, nearly 11,000 have already been rebuilt, and material for nearly 2,000 more homes has been bought and paid for.  The reconstruction program is providing jobs and a little hope for Gazans. But it is unlikely to be sufficient to stave off an economic collapse. Again, the rebuilding effort is funded almost entirely by outside sources while Hamas invests tremendous resources into terrorism-guerilla capabilities and denies the Gazan people the opportunity of economic development by refusing to recognize Israel.

Until Gaza is run by people with different priorities, its residents have little hope their lives will improve.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 30, 2016, 09:05:35 AM

"Since Israel pulled out all of its soldiers and civilians in 2005, 600,000 Gazans have been born"

Out of 1.85 million?  Just in the last 11 yrs?   This is part of the military strategy.

Israel should be airdropping BCP and condoms.

Title: British commander on the IDF
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2016, 12:28:31 AM

https://www.facebook.com/1780124725544063/videos/1781626642060538/

Title: Gaza fishing zone expanded
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 04, 2016, 11:35:44 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/middleeast/israel-expands-palestinian-fishing-zone-off-gazas-coast.html?emc=edit_th_20160404&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193

Title: Palestinian kindergarden graduation ceremony
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 06, 2016, 01:26:00 PM

https://www.facebook.com/americanbikers/videos/983786451710525/?pnref=story

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 06, 2016, 01:31:29 PM

link "not available".

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 06, 2016, 03:19:25 PM

Working for me.

Title: SS man who became Mossad hit man
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2016, 12:30:42 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.711115

Title: Aaron Klein straightens out Bernie Devito
Post by: ccp on April 17, 2016, 09:42:56 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/04/16/danny-devito-bernie-really-stood-palestinians/

Title: Caroline Glick; King of Jordan; Dershowitz; tunnels
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 19, 2016, 09:11:57 AM

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/caroline-glick-shut-down-the-debate-with-this-bombshell-speec

http://www.lastampa.it/2016/04/11/vaticaninsider/eng/world-news/king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan-funds-holy-sepulchre-restoration-work-NalrFqTHDnrSKv62cJWIsM/pagina.html

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/alan-dershowitz-went-off-on-this-anti-israel-student-and-it-was-epic/

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/idf-uncovers-hamas-tunnel-stretching-from-gaza-into-israel/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=IDF+uncovers+Hamas+tunnel+stretching+from+Gaza+into+Israel&utm_campaign=20160419_m130921010_04%2F19+Breaking+Israel+Video%3A+IDF+uncovers+Hamas+tunnel+stretching+from+Gaza+into+Israel&utm_term=Hamas+Terror+Tunnel+Uncovered+in+Southern+Israel

Title: Make or break moment for Palestinian violence?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 21, 2016, 09:10:34 AM

Make or Break Moment for Palestinian Violence
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
April 21, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5315/make-or-break-moment-for-palestinian-violence
 
 The coming Passover holiday represents a make-or-break moment that could decide whether Palestinian violence and terrorism fizzles out, or escalates into a new and more dangerous phase.

Israel's defense establishment is on alert to the possibility that tensions surrounding Jerusalem's Temple Mount (known to Palestinians as the Al-Aqsa holy site) could resurface and trigger a new outburst of terrorism, just as a seven-month wave of largely unorganized terrorist attacks begins to draw down.
The tensions could well appear again during Passover, when the number of visits by religious Jews to the Temple Mount rises. There is no shortage of elements in the Palestinian arena – from Hamas media outlets to social media users – who will eagerly present such visits as part of an imagined Israeli conspiracy to take over the site.

As a result, Israel's defense establishment has advised the government to prohibit any politicians, from any political party, to further inflame tensions by visiting the site.

Against this background, the Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency has quietly thwarted a steady flow of mass-casualty, organized terror plots, planned and orchestrated by Hamas. Any one of these plots could have changed the strategic picture and led to an escalation on multiple fronts had they materialized.
Hamas has been deeply disappointed by the recent decrease in terrorism and by its failure to bypass Shin Bet's intelligence networks.

On April 18, a Palestinian bomb blew up on board a bus in Jerusalem and injured 21 civilians, including, possibly, the bomber himself. A media ban is in place that prevents publication of further details on the investigation.

Israelis watched TV news broadcasts of scenes of a bus in flames and emergency vehicles attending the site with much concern. They had hoped such bombings, which tore through Israeli cities in the dark days of the second Palestinian Intifada 15 years ago, were long behind them.  Unlike 15 years ago, Israel's security forces operate all across the West Bank on a nightly basis to thwart attacks. Yet it only takes one plot to slip through the cracks for the terrorists to achieve their goal.

The bus bombing goes to show the inherently unstable nature of the security situation. On one hand, the number of terror stabbings, shootings, and car ramming attacks – all part of the unorganized violence – have plummeted in the past two months. On the other, such incidents could soon resurge and be joined by organized, more lethal events.

Fatah's official Facebook account praised the bus attack, but this is only part of the real picture.

Away from the rhetoric, on the ground, the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority has actually improved its security coordination with Israel, and has stopped 20 percent of organized terrorism plots brewing in the West Bank, according to figures cited recently by Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon.
A senior Israeli military source said in April that "tensions in Jerusalem, particularly in the context of Al-Aqsa, are there. It characterizes the holiday period. We are going with the working assumption that we will encounter this."

The source described seeing "a lot of orchestrated terror attempts by [the large Palestinian] organizations. We can see many attempts being made on a continuous basis." In West Bank raids, security forces discovered ready-made explosive devices and high-quality assault rifles, like M-16s and Kalashnikovs in the possession of would-be terror cells.

"The numbers [of such attempts] are high," the source said. "But we are very effective. "The Shin Bet is a very significant aspect of this. Although there are attempts, and there is very high motivation [to carry out attacks], we succeed in thwarting them, and they have not been able to reach a situation in which they can really launch a quality attack."

Ten would-be kidnapping terror plots were thwarted since October, the source added.

Israel's defense establishment also is improving in an area that it has, until now, really struggled to deliver results – the ability to pick up warning signs of a lone-wolf attack and stop it in time.

Improved social media analysis, using new big data algorithms, are part of this improvement, defense sources say.

Meanwhile, to the south, the IDF announced this week the detection of a new Hamas cross-border attack tunnel, stretching from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel.   It is the first tunnel discovered since the cessation of hostilities in August 2014 between Hamas and Israel and represents the renewed effort by Hamas's military wing to prepare attack options for when war breaks out again.

Hamas views the current ceasefire as a tactical regrouping break. It has no intention of stopping its multi-generational jihad against Israel's very existence, and it views Gaza as its base of operations for this "holy war."

The Hamas military wing, the Izzadin Al-Qassam Brigades, is readying itself for future conflict. It is manufacturing rockets, mortar shells, and digging tunnels for Hamas's elite Nuhba force of 5,000 heavily armed guerilla-terrorists who make up one quarter of all of Hamas's armed members.

The plan was to inject these murder and kidnap squads into southern Israel through tunnels. But Hamas's tunnel tactics are now in trouble. Israel used new technological and intelligence capabilities to detect the new tunnel, and has invested hundreds of millions of shekels in the research and development of new detection systems.  If the IDF's Southern Command can begin to systematically detect tunnels as Hamas digs them, and destroy them, Hamas would find itself wasting treasure and blood (many workers die in tunnel collapses during the construction stage) for very little return. Hamas would lose one of its main investments in its future offensive capabilities.

That frustration could spur Hamas to try even harder to set up cells remotely that sow death and destruction in Israeli cities. Israel's intelligence personnel will continue to work around the clock, away from the headlines and spotlights, to prevent that from happening.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Title: Glick: Estranged IDF Generals
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 22, 2016, 03:08:16 PM

http://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=451975

Title: Re: Glick: Estranged IDF Generals
Post by: G M on April 22, 2016, 05:57:45 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 22, 2016, 03:08:16 PM

http://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=451975

Europe isn't, and will not be Israel's friend.

Title: Documentary: The Long Way Home
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2016, 05:49:20 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgp2AxpLOok&feature=youtu.be

Title: Hamas caught smuggling rocket material
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 04, 2016, 06:54:52 AM

Hamas Caught Smuggling Rocket Material as Israel Considers Re-Opening Gaza Border
by IPT News  •  May 3, 2016 at 11:51 am
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5338/hamas-caught-smuggling-rocket-material-as-israel

 
Israel's Tax Authority says it intercepted roughly four tons of ammonium chloride – enough to produce hundreds of rockets – that were being smuggled into the Gaza Strip.

The chemical was hidden in salt shipments to Gaza early last month which were transported through the Nitzana crossing between Egypt and Israel.
"Ammonium chloride is defined as a dual-use substance and its passage into the Gaza Strip requires a permit since it is liable to be used by Gaza-based terrorist organizations – such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad – in the production of long-range rockets," a Tax Authority statement said.

The Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence agency, believes the salt importer has "ties to the Hamas military wing" and "sought to bring the material into the Strip for use in Hamas's production facilities."

Israeli authorities have thwarted dozens of attempts to smuggle prohibited material into Gaza. This latest interdiction reinforces the fact that Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza continue trying to smuggle material intended for terrorist activities cloaked as goods meant for Gaza's civilians.
Despite deeply concerning smuggling activities, Israel plans to reopen the Erez crossing into Gaza following eight years of closure.

"It is in our interests that a significant amount of truckloads of food continues to go to Gaza...It is our interest that Gazans live in dignity. Both from a humanitarian point of view and because this is a way to protect the peace, in addition to existing security deterrents," a spokesperson for Israel's defense minister Moshe Ya'alon said in a statement.

The Defense Ministry revealed that 513 trucks of humanitarian and commercial goods entered the Gaza Strip on Sunday alone.
Many in the international community demands that Israel open all border crossings and end the blockade of Gaza. Unfortunately, many of the individuals and states pressuring Israel overlook the fact that Gaza's rulers exploit existing border entry points to enhance their terrorist infrastructure at the expense of local reconstruction efforts.

Until Hamas' ceases to prioritize its jihad against Israel over the well-being of its citizens, Palestinians in Gaza will continue to suffer. In the meantime, the overwhelming evidence confirms that Israel is going above and beyond to balance its legitimate security considerations with humanitarian concerns in Gaza.

Title: Re: Israel, Hamas, Arab implosion, NATO upgrades ties with Israel
Post by: DougMacG on May 04, 2016, 08:45:17 AM

Walter Russell Mead points out that larger failures and threats in the Middle East make the Palestinean issue smaller:  http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/05/02/the-arab-implosion-continues/

In related news, NATO upgrades ties with Israel.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-04/nato-upgrades-ties-with-israel-amid-mounting-regional-threats?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 04, 2016, 08:52:45 AM

That is good.  Israel will be kicked out once Trump defunds Nato........ :cry:

Title: Israel's dilemma
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 04, 2016, 08:12:42 PM

Israel's Palestinian Dilemmas
by Efraim Inbar
BESA Center Perspectives
May 3, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/5989/israel-palestinian-dilemma
 
 

Israelis have gradually come to accept that the Palestinians are neither interested in real peace nor capable of establishing a viable state.

Ever since the Palestinian terrorist wave began in September 2000, the Israeli body politic increasingly has resigned itself to the probability that there is no partner on the Palestinian side with which to reach a historic compromise with the Jewish national (Zionist) movement. The hopes for peace that were generated by the Oslo process in 1993 have been replaced by the stark realization that violent conflict will not end soon.

Moreover, the hostile messages about Israel purveyed in the Palestinian Authority (PA) educational system and official media leave little doubt about the rabid anti-Semitism prevalent in Palestinian society, which ensures that conflict with the Jews will continue. And thus, the central premise of the Oslo process seems exceedingly improbable. The premise was that partition of the Land of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian political entity (what is known as the two-state paradigm) would bring peace and stability. Alas, this paradigm has been deeply discredited.

Palestinian demands for control of the Temple Mount and the 'right of return' are insurmountable obstacles.

Aside from and beyond the assessment that the PA has no intention of accepting a Jewish state in any borders, the fact remains that the two sides remain far apart on most of the concrete issues to be resolved. Palestinian demands for control of the Temple Mount and the so-called "right of return," for example, are insurmountable obstacles. Any pragmatic impulse that might otherwise have emerged in Palestinian politics is consistently countered by Hamas, whose growing influence reflects the Islamist tide that is surging across the wider region.

To make matters worse, the assumption that the Palestinians are capable of establishing a state within the parameters of a two-state paradigm has not been validated. The PA was unable to get rid of multiple militias and lost Gaza to Hamas, mirroring the inability of other Arab societies in the region to sustain statist structures.

Protracted ethno-religious conflicts end only when at least one of the sides becomes war-weary.

Finally, protracted ethno-religious conflicts end only when at least one of the sides becomes war-weary, and runs out of energy for sustaining the conflict. That is not true of either Israeli or Palestinian society.

As a result of these trends, Israel essentially, if not formally, has given up on conflict resolution in the short run, and instead effectively has adopted a strategy of patient conflict management. But such a strategy brings policy dilemmas of its own.

The first dilemma is whether or not to admit that Israel no longer believes that negotiations can lead to a durable agreement in the near term.

Truth has its virtues, but much of the world does not want to hear this particular truth and is still committed to an unworkable formula. There is, in any case, something to be said for acceding to the wishes of the international community by continuing to participate in negotiations. Doing so signals that Israel is ready to make concessions, which maintains the domestic social cohesion necessary for protracted conflict (management) while projecting a positive image abroad.

Participating in fruitless talks affirms Israel's readiness to compromise and maintains domestic cohesion, but discourages fresh thinking.

On the other hand, negotiations toward the doubtful "two-state solution" keep a fictitious formula alive and prevent fresh thinking about alternative solutions from emerging. Moreover, the "peace process" requires moderation, which entails swallowing Palestinian provocations and restraining punitive action.

A second dilemma is related to the "carrot and stick" approach toward the Palestinians. In the absence of meaningful negotiations, Israel, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has advocated the promotion of "economic peace" as a part of conflict management, on the assumption that Israel has nothing to gain from hungry neighbors. This is why Israel does not oppose international financial support for the PA, despite the corruption and inefficiency of the latter. Jerusalem also provides water and electricity to the PA, and to Hamas-ruled Gaza, so that Israel's Palestinian neighbors do not dive into total desperation.
 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long argued that only "rapid economic growth" can provide "a stake for peace for the ordinary Palestinians."
But the carrot mitigates the impact of the stick. The Palestinians, it must be recalled, wage war on Israel. Exacting pain from opposing societies is what war is all about, and pain can have a moderating effect on collective behavior. Egypt, for example, decided to change course with regard to Israel because it grew reluctant to pay the costs of maintaining the conflict.

Since the Palestinians have chosen to pursue their goals by causing Israel continued pain – rather than by accepting generous peace deals offered by Ehud Barak (2000) and Ehud Olmert (2007) – Israel has every right to punish them, in the hope that a bit of pain might influence their future choices in a productive direction. But by adopting an "economic peace" approach, Israel creates disincentives to Palestinian moderation, and signals its desperation at the prospect of changing Palestinian behavior.

The Palestinian Authority survives largely because of Israel's security measures and economic backing.

A third dilemma implicit in the conflict management approach is what to do about the hostile PA, which survives largely because of Israel's security measures and economic backing. The collapse of the PA is one possible outcome of a succession struggle after Mahmoud Abbas leaves the political arena.

Whether or not the collapse of the PA is desirable is debatable. On the one hand, the PA propagates vicious hatred toward Israel in its educational system, conducts an ongoing campaign of international delegitimization against Israel, and denies Jewish links to the Land of Israel and to Jerusalem in particular. It glorifies terrorists and allows them to be role models in its schools. It deliberately reinforces the hostility that fuels the conflict, preventing the emergence of a more pragmatic Palestinian leadership.

On the other hand, the PA conveniently relieves Israel of the burden of responsibility for more than one million Palestinians living in the West Bank. PA security forces help combat Hamas influence in the West Bank (although far less than the PA is given credit for). The functioning of the PA, however imperfect, also keeps the Palestinian issue off the top of the international agenda – something that is very much in Israel's interests. A descent into chaos resulting from the total collapse of the PA would invite international intervention.

An additional question for Israel to consider relates to the appropriate level of diplomatic activism on the Palestinian issue. Many advocate Israeli diplomatic initiatives in order to prevent unfavorable plans from being placed on the agenda by global actors. The nature of such initiatives is usually unclear, but activism is part of the Israeli Zionist ethos and "taking initiative" appeals to the impatient Israeli temperament.

Israel's leaders are correct in opting for a conflict management approach to relations with the Palestinians.

On the other hand, a patient wait-and-see approach allows others to make mistakes and gives Israel the latitude to wait on a more favorable environment. In fact, this was the approach favored by David Ben-Gurion. He believed in buying time to build a stronger state and in hanging on until opponents yield their radical goals.

Each of these dilemmas leads to a policy gamble. The short-term existential security imperatives of a small state further complicate Israel's choices. Even if Israel's leaders are correct in opting for a conflict management approach for the moment, they are in an unenviable position.

Efraim Inbar, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Title: The Jewish voting block is no longer important.
Post by: ccp on May 05, 2016, 09:13:26 PM

And as long as most wealthy Jews give to their beloved Democrat Party we will continue from now on to be taken for granted.  Obama proved that.  Get the dough then screw us over.  As a Jew I simply cannot separate myself from Israel.  Apparently many other Jews don't feel the same way.

"Among secular Jews - the core of the Democratic Party's Jewish voting bloc - caring about Israel ranked fifth as "an essential Jewish trait" (43 percent) - right before "having a good sense of humour" (42 percent)."

"As the US support for Israel was waning, so too was support for Israel among American Jews."

At first I thought this from AlJazeera so what.  The author seems more from the right though then the left.  OTOH some on the right are not "friends" of Israel.  Then again are not many Jewish Democrats.  They love Obama don't they?

 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/jewish-votes-matter-election-160503085918136.html

Title: Glick: Time for a new Israeli diplomatic initiative
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2016, 10:20:46 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/OUR-WORLD-Time-for-a-new-Israeli-diplomatic-initiative-453560

Title: Glick: The Fruits of Subversion
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2016, 06:04:32 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-The-fruits-of-subversion-453875

Title: Sounds like the US
Post by: ccp on May 17, 2016, 12:00:22 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-disintegration-of-Israeli-society-454222

Title: A sea change in Israeli politics?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2016, 11:06:48 AM

Long article,seems significant:

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/203309/bogie-yaalon-next-ariel-sharon?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=933450958d-Sunday_May_29_20165_27_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-933450958d-207194629

Title: Jew are out of favor with Democrats
Post by: ccp on May 31, 2016, 04:54:56 PM

Even liberal Jews side with arabs in Palestine more then Israel.   As said they are no longer Jews .  They are crats:

http://observer.com/2016/05/theres-no-room-left-for-a-pro-israel-democrat/

Title: Palestinian education
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 01, 2016, 11:58:45 AM

https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153733666297689/

Title: Re: Palestinian education
Post by: G M on June 01, 2016, 12:02:27 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 01, 2016, 11:58:45 AM

https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153733666297689/

Partners in peace!

Title: Israel puts gorillas near Gaza so Intl community will care if rockets kill them
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2016, 08:30:04 PM

http://www.themideastbeast.com/israel-place-gorillas-near-gaza-hopes-intl-community-will-care-rocket-attacks/

Title: Ten years, $40B in aid proposed
Post by: ccp on June 14, 2016, 11:32:37 AM

Well this seems good:

election year or not:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/14/40-billion-aid-to-Israel-is-largest-ever-to-any-country-says-Susan-Rice/5461465914964/

Title: extravagant, yes
Post by: ccp on June 16, 2016, 03:06:31 PM

I have to admit what in the world does he need a $1600 haircut for?  I could take him to my barber and get it done for $15 bucks.  I mean give me a break.  I thought Clinton's $400 job was a lot.
What kind of con artist can get away with charging Washington DC lawyer/Plastic surgeon rates for a hair cut?:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-leader-spent-1-600-hairdresser-york-trip-152323349.html

Title: Turkey and Israel' shotgun wedding
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 17, 2016, 07:52:15 AM

Backstage at Turkey's Shotgun Wedding with Israel
by Burak Bekdil
The Gatestone Institute
June 14, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6072/turkey-israel-shotgun-wedding
 
 
Share:   

  Be the first of your friends to like this.
 
The Grand Synagogue of Edirne in northwest Turkey hosted its first wedding ceremony in 41 years on May 29.

There is every indication that Turkey and Israel are not far away from normalizing their troubled diplomatic relations.

According to Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, for instance, the former allies are "one or two meetings" away from normalization.
If, however, Ankara and Jerusalem finally shake hands after six years of cold war, it will be because Turkey feels increasingly isolated internationally, not because it feels any genuine friendship for the Jewish nation.

In all probability, the "peace" between Turkey and Israel will look like the definition of peace in Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary: "In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting" -- despite the backdrop for peace looking incredibly (but mischievously) convenient.
If Ankara and Jerusalem finally shake hands, it will be because Turkey feels isolated internationally.

On May 29, a Jewish wedding ceremony was held in a historical synagogue in the northwestern province of Edirne for the first time in 41 years. A few months before that, in December, the Jewish year 5776 went down in history possibly as the first time in which a public Hanukkah candle-lighting ceremony was held in Muslim Turkey in a state-sponsored event. All that is nice -- but can be misleading.

There are two major problems that will probably block a genuine normalization. One is Hamas, and the other is the seemingly irreversible anti-Semitism which most Turks devour.

In a powerful article from this month, Jonathan Schanzer forcefully reminded the world that although Saleh Arouri, a senior Hamas military leader, was expelled from his safe base in Istanbul, "... many other senior Hamas officials remain there. And their ejection from Turkey appears to be at the heart of Israel's demands as rapprochement talks near completion."

Schanzer says that there are ten Hamas figures currently believed to be enjoying refuge in Turkey, and he names half a dozen or so Hamas militants there, including Mahmoud Attoun, who was found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of a 29-year-old Israeli. Also enjoying safe haven in Turkey are three members of the Izzedine al-Qassam brigades. Schanzer adds that "there are a handful more that can be easily identified in the Arabic and Turkish press, and nearly all of them maintain profiles on Facebook and Twitter, where they regularly post updates on their lives in Turkey."
 
Turkish President (then Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) meeting with Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal (center) and Ismail Haniyeh in June 2013.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has claimed more than once that Hamas is not a terrorist group but a legitimate political party. He has held innumerable meetings with senior Hamas officials including Khaled Mashaal, head of its political bureau. In addition, Erdogan came up with the idea that Zionism should be declared a "crime against humanity."

Anti-Semitism, as mentioned, is the other problem. Erdogan deliberately spread anti-Semitic sentiments to an already xenophobic society until he decided to go (relatively) silent when he recently realized that Turkey's cold war with Israel was not sustainable. This does not mean that his or Turkish society's views regarding Jews have changed.

Earlier this year, for instance, one of Erdogan's chief advisors appeared in pro-government media to attack political rivals as "raising soldiers for the Jews." This sentiment is not confined to government big guns.

The first Jewish wedding at Edirne synagogue after 41 years was, no doubt, a merry event, both for the Turkish Jewish couple and politically, but it failed to mask the ugly side of the coin. Unlike a normal Turkish wedding (or, say, a Jewish wedding in the U.S.), unusually tight security measures were taken in the neighborhood around the synagogue, including the closure of roads leading to the synagogue and security searches of the wedding guests. The guests had to go through a metal detector at the door of the synagogue. Road closures and a metal detector for a wedding?!

There was more. Turks happily expressed their feelings in social media to "celebrate" the Jewish wedding. "One of my biggest dreams is to kill a Jew," wrote one Twitter user. "[Hitler] did not do it in vain," wrote another. The Hitler series went on with "He was a great man," "Where are you Hitler?" and "We are all Hitler."

This is the backstage scene in the country where a Jewish couple happily married at a synagogue for the first time in 41 years -- the same country supposedly to "normalize" its ties with Israel.

Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Title: WW2 era Palestinian flag with Star of David?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2016, 11:37:13 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Fw3HD3N_I

I have not gone through the cited sources at the end of this clip yet, but it they bear it out, this is quite interesting.

Title: Why wasn't the wife busted?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 20, 2016, 02:49:38 PM

The Orlando jihad mass murderer was anything but a “lone wolf.”

June 20, 2016
Robert Spencer

Noor Salman, the wife of Omar Mateen, the Orlando gay nightclub jihad mass murderer, has gone missing, and with good reason: she explodes the idea that Mateen was a “lone wolf” terrorist. She should be arrested – but now she is gone.

Salman witnessed him selling his house to his brother-in-law for $10 – a clear indication that the couple knew jihad was in the offing. She has admitted to law enforcement authorities that she and her husband had recently been “scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [the nightclub where the jihad massacre took place] for attacks.” Mateen texted her during his massacre, asking if she had seen the news; she responded that she loved him.

As authorities deliberated over whether or not to arrest her, Salman herself showed more dispatch. Last Wednesday, the killer’s father, Seddique Mir Mateen, told reporters that Salman was “no longer here.”

No one seems to have asked Seddique Mateen himself where she has gone, but he probably knows. There are, after all, numerous indications that he may not be as upset about his son’s jihad massacre as he has claimed: he is an open supporter of the Taliban, and the morning after the murders, he posted online a video in which he claims that he was “not aware what motivated” Omar to “go into a gay club and kill 50 people,” but then he adds: “God will punish those involved in homosexuality,” as it is “not an issue that humans should deal with.”

Despite Seddique Mateen’s professed puzzlement over his son’s actions and denial that Omar had been “radicalized,” is it really any wonder that a man who grew up in a household in which the Taliban were held up as positive role models would turn out to be a jihad terrorist? Omar Mateen is known to have cheered at school when al-Qaeda flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001; is it likely that his father, a supporter of al-Qaeda’s allies and collaborators the Taliban, rebuked him for doing so?

While not revealing where Noor Salman is, the family issued a statement saying: “Noor is completely innocent and [was] unaware of the attacks.” It added the claim that she is unable to comprehend “cause and effect.” The mainstream media, always anxious to exonerate Islam from responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings, even dragged out Salman’s middle school teacher to say: “Noor had difficulty with retention, she had difficulty with conceptualizing, understanding, all challenges to her. She tried hard. She was very sweet.”

All that may be so, but Noor Salman is an adult now, and her difficulty in middle school is irrelevant to whether or not she aided her husband in preparing for his jihad massacre. She should have been arrested, and the whole family needs to be investigated. Former Department of Homeland Security official Philip Haney responded trenchantly to common media claims that Mateen was “self-radicalized”: “As though nobody knew anything – that’s completely preposterous. If you know anything about the Islamic worldview, family and community is ultimately central to everything they do. The concept of operating alone is anathema to the Islamic worldview. They just don’t do it. So, self-radicalization – what does that even mean any more? Nobody is self-anything in this world we live in.”

Yet the feds let Noor Salman slip through their fingers – and whatever Muslim community in which she is hiding now isn’t calling the police to alert them of her whereabouts. Was the FBI too complacent in its politically correct dogma that Muslims in America all hold to a benign, peaceful form of the faith, and that any Muslim in the U.S. who becomes a jihad murderer must have been “radicalized on the Internet,” to be too concerned about the possibility that Omar Mateen’s family was complicit in his attack? How long will it be before Seddique Mateen and the rest of the family absconds, as did Noor Salman?

The Orlando jihad massacre was eminently preventable: the FBI questioned Omar Mateen but deemed him unworthy of close scrutiny, even after a gun shop owner reported him; agents didn’t even bother to visit the shop. This was after Mateen bragged to coworkers about jihad ties, but the FBI called off investigation, dismissing the coworkers as “Islamophobic,” and after Mateen threatened to kill a sheriff and his family, and the FBI dismissed the threat. Now they have let Noor Salman slip through their fingers. Would it have been “Islamophobic” to arrest her? And how many more Americans have to die before the politically correct fantasies that hamstring law enforcement today are discarded?

Title: Glick on the Israeli Left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 21, 2016, 10:26:11 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Explaining-the-Israeli-Left-457308

Title: Re: Glick on the Israeli Left
Post by: G M on June 21, 2016, 12:05:45 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 21, 2016, 10:26:11 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Explaining-the-Israeli-Left-457308

Funny how the left in various nations is actively trying to commit national suicide by various means.

Title: Hamas thanks Turkey for its' deal with Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 29, 2016, 10:36:52 AM

https://www.clarionproject.org/news/hamas-thanks-turkey-after-israel-reconciliation-deal

Title: Palestinian shahid hero kills 13 year old girl in sleep, mom proud
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2016, 01:13:43 PM

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/263363/muslim-mom-murderer-13-year-old-jewish-girl-my-son-daniel-greenfield#.V3U7Wa_vPz0.facebook

Title: Israeli Diplomatic Spring
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2016, 08:04:00 PM

As always with Glick, very interesting!

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-Israels-diplomatic-spring-459221

Title: AIPAC
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2016, 09:07:27 AM

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/207251/the-end-of-aipacs-israel-monopoly?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=22373608fc-July_11_20167_11_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-22373608fc-207194629

Title: Is Israel more accepted in the Middle East
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 20, 2016, 11:17:19 AM

Is Israel More Accepted in the Middle East?
A briefing by Efraim Inbar
July 20, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6122/is-israel-more-accepted-in-middle-east
 
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University and a Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, briefed the Middle East Forum in a conference call on June 30, 2016.
 
Summary account by Marilyn Stern, Middle East Forum Board of Governors

The Israeli-Turkish renewal of diplomatic relations reflects Jerusalem's growing regional strength. While the agreement stipulates the provision of humanitarian Turkish aid to Gaza via the Ashdod port, the naval blockade of Hamas remains intact despite Ankara's longstanding insistence on its removal.
The agreement also provides for the supply of Israeli gas to Turkey, thus strengthening Ankara as an energy bridge to Europe while reducing its energy dependence on Moscow and Tehran. Jerusalem must nevertheless strive to avoid excessive dependence on Ankara, should it choose to build a pipeline to Turkey via Cyprus.

The courtship of the Jewish state by an Islamist regime with wide-ranging regional ambitions is a direct corollary of the current geopolitical reality, which makes collaboration with Israel a necessity.
 
Islamist-led Turkey's courtship of Israel reflects Jerusalem's growing regional strength.

Given the Saudi-Turkish failure to topple the Assad regime, Iran's regional surge in the wake of the nuclear deal, Egypt's jihadist predicament in the Sinai Peninsula, and the Obama administration's Middle Eastern retreat, Israel is increasingly seen as the foremost, perhaps only bulwark against Tehran's hegemonic ambitions, and a key ally in the regional anti-jihadist struggle. Hence the reported support of some Arab states for Israel's first-ever election to chairmanship of a permanent UN committee, and hence the $1 billion-plus annual purchases of Israeli goods by the Gulf states.

Israel's greater regional acceptability notwithstanding, one should not hold too high hopes for further gains. Strategic environments by their nature are susceptible to vicissitudes, while deeply ingrained anti-Jewish stereotypes and perceptions among Middle Easterners will take generations to change. Hence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's current predicament is unlikely to lead to the restoration of the intimate Turkish-Israeli political and military collaboration of the 1990s, just as the Saudi-Israeli collaboration will likely remain covert for quite some time given the desert kingdom's Wahhabi source of legitimacy.

Title: Glick: Time to walk away from US aid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2016, 10:23:17 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-one-Time-to-walk-away-from-US-aid-462677

Title: Cong. Tammy Duckworth against Israeli missile defense
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2016, 07:36:09 AM

More Democrat Anti-Israel Efforts by Major Clinton Supporter
July 29, 2016 By Stephen Frank Leave a Comment

    The DNC hacked emails shows the Party was willing to smear Bernie Sanders with the “crime” of being born Jewish.  Obama used your tax dollars to try to defeat Netanyahu for the leadership of Israel.  He spent time early in his administration denouncing Bush and apologizing to terrorist for opposing them.  The Democrat Party hates Israel.  Now we have another example.

    Illinois Congresswoman Tammy Ducksworth, who used her speech before the Democrat convention to denounce Donald Trump as dangerous, herself decided to put their safety and security of Israel at risk.

    “Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.), a House Armed Services Committee member and Hillary Clinton ally, told observers that U.S. funding for Israel’s missile defense systems is not the “best solution.”

    Duckworth’s criticism of longstanding U.S. funding for Israeli security needs drew criticism from pro-Israel congressional advocates who have sought for years to ensure the Jewish state can defend against attacks by rogue terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.”

    Who do Democrats hate Israel?  Because it is a free State.  Why does the American Jewish’s community continue to support those that want to do it harm?  Crazy.  (full disclosure, I am Jewish).
    Photo Courtesy of Rusty Stewart, Flickr

    Photo Courtesy of Rusty Stewart, Flickr

Clinton Ally, Lawmaker Rejects U.S. Funding for Israeli Security Needs

Duckworth opposes helping Israel protect against terrorism

BY: Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon,  7/28/16

PHILADELPHIA—A Democratic lawmaker scheduled to address the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Thursday evening has come out against U.S. funding for critical Israeli security needs, sparking criticism about her commitment to joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to fight terrorists.

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.), a House Armed Services Committee member and Hillary Clinton ally, told observers that U.S. funding for Israel’s missile defense systems is not the “best solution.”

Duckworth’s criticism of longstanding U.S. funding for Israeli security needs drew criticism from pro-Israel congressional advocates who have sought for years to ensure the Jewish state can defend against attacks by rogue terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

The comments come as criticism of Israel has emerged as a centerpiece of the Democratic convention. One lawmaker compared Jewish Israeli settlers to “termites” earlier this week, and protesters on the streets of Philadelphia have burned the Israeli flag.

“Oftentimes the best path to a security is peace,” Duckworth said at an event sponsored by J Street, a Middle East advocacy group known for its criticism of Israel. “Sometimes the best solution is not more weapons; sometimes the best solution is actually entering negotiations and find a way to work together in peace.”

Duckworth’s comments have been interpreted as a shot at a bipartisan effort to ensure that Israel receives full funding from the United States for its security needs. The pro-Israel effort is being spearheaded by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) and Mark Kirk (R., Ill,), whom Duckworth is seeking to unseat in November. At least 35 senators from both parties have lent their support to the effort.

“These joint U.S.-Israel programs continue to yield critical defense capabilities that protect Israel from missile and rocket threats from as near as the Gaza Strip and Lebanon to as far as Iran,” the senators wrote in a letter to the chair and vice chair of the Senate subcommittee on defense appropriations, which was also backed by Sens. David Vitter (R., La.), David Perdue (R., Ga.), Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), and Tim Kaine (D., Va.), who was selected as Clinton’s vice presidential running mate.

“As you know, investments over the years in U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs have saved the lives of countless civilians from indiscriminate rocket and missile attacks,” the letter states.

Kirk told the Free Beacon that Duckworth’s stance is not supported by the majority of Congress.

“This administration repeatedly ignored Iran’s illegal missile launches and threats against Israel in order to protect the flawed Iran nuclear deal,” Kirk said. “The bipartisan majority of the United States Senate agrees with the American people in favor of Israel missile defense to protect innocent people against terrorist rocket and missile attacks.”

Kevin Artl, a spokesman for the Kirk campaign, told the Washington Free Beacon that Duckworth is embracing fringe policies in order to ingratiate herself with the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

“Another reckless and irresponsible foreign policy position by Duckworth who is clearly kowtowing to her top financial contributors at the J Street PAC,” Artl said. “What is becoming abundantly clear is that Duckworth’s national security views are being driven by those who fill her campaign coffers.”

Duckworth has been a vocal supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement, which paved the way for Tehran to access billions of dollars in once-frozen assets.

One top official with a prominent pro-Israel organization described Duckworth’s position as dangerous to Israel’s security and the Democratic Party’s support for Israel.

“Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and missiles pointed at Israeli civilians and Duckworth is trying to prevent the Israelis from being able to defend themselves against these weapons,” said the source. “This position is so fringe it’s even to the left of President Obama, who regardless of his differences with the Israeli government, has always been clear that the United States must always ensure that the Israelis have what they need to defend themselves.”

Update 9:33 p.m.: Following publication, a Duckworth spokesman told the Free Beacon, “Congresswoman Duckworth did not criticize the Senate letter. As the only member of the Illinois Congressional Delegation on the Armed Services Committee, she has been a strong advocate for Israel’s security and self defense. The Congresswoman has consistently supported military aid for Israel, including voting to provide hundreds of millions of dollars for missile defense programs like Iron Dome

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 30, 2016, 02:44:18 PM

" Why does the American Jewish’s community continue to support those that want to do it harm? "

How many times and for how many years have I tried to dissect this question?

Liberal American Jews are now Liberal Democrats.  Being Jewish is no longer as much a source of pride as is being a Democrat.

Beholden to the Democrat Party trumps (no pun intended) everything else.

Republicans are the new Nazis.

Title: Interesting trip down memory lane
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 04, 2016, 05:45:15 PM

https://www.facebook.com/571014393049698/videos/637020223115781/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on August 04, 2016, 06:50:56 PM

I hit on the link and it says this FB page not available.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 04, 2016, 06:55:47 PM

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/israel-world-vision-manager-in-gaza-funneled-money-to-hamas/

Title: Israel bitterly rejects Baraq's assertion in now back Iran deal.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2016, 04:32:54 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-bitterly-rejects-obamas-claim-it-now-backs-iran-nuclear-deal/

Title: UN Envoy calls for GAza Aid cutoff while Hamas is in power
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2016, 01:44:10 PM

UN Special Envoy Calls for Gaza Aid Cutoff While Hamas in Power
by IPT News  •  Aug 15, 2016 at 3:09 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5579/un-special-envoy-calls-for-gaza-aid-cutoff-while
 
A special envoy to the United Nations (UN) wants international humanitarian organizations to cease assistance transfers to Gaza, "as long as Hamas is in control."

Recent reports detail how Hamas is diverting millions of dollars intended for Gaza's civilians in order to rebuild the organization's terrorist capabilities.

"The enemy of the people of Gaza is Hamas, not Israel. Hamas has hijacked the coastal strip and rules over its people with an iron fist," UN Special Envoy Laurie Cardoza-Moore said Thursday. "For decades, the leadership of Hamas has robbed its people of aid money...The time has come to halt all aid money into the Gaza Strip as long as Hamas is in control."

Cardoza-Moore's strong message comes shortly after Gaza-based UN employee was indicted for laundering charitable donations to improve Hamas' naval capabilities. Earlier this month, Israel's Shin Bet domestic security service reported that Hamas funnelled tens of millions of dollars from World Vision, a U.S.-based international charity.

The terrorist group reportedly siphoned 60 percent of the charity's resources in Gaza to reconstruct Hamas' tunnel network and military installations, in addition to purchasing weapons intended to kill Israelis. This translated to roughly $7.2 million each year.  The money was intended to help in civilian reconstruction efforts for Gaza's population, including building greenhouses, enhancing agricultural projects, helping fishermen, and promoting mental and physical health initiatives.

Instead "these [funds] were all used as a pipeline to transfer money to Hamas," Shin Bet said.

Hamas terrorists also falsely listed their children as injured to collect money intended to help children in Gaza who were actually wounded.

"If the international community wants to help the impoverished people of Gaza, they must work to free them from Hamas...It is unacceptable that hundreds of millions of dollars are likely being directly transferred to the coffers of an international terrorist organization in the name of Christianity and humanity. No church or humanitarian organization should send a single cent to Gaza as long as it is run by a band of murderous terrorist bandits," said Cardoza-Moore.
Since the end of the summer 2014 war between Israel and Hamas, several reports emerged documenting how the terrorist group prioritizes killing Israelis over serving its population. The latest investigations uncover important details on how Hamas exploits legitimate charitable organizations globally to finance its terrorist capabilities at the expense of needy civilians and societal development.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2016, 11:41:33 AM

 
FROM THE DESK OF
Michael Sachs
NORTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR


As summer draws to a close, I want to be sure you’ve seen recent stories that highlight America’s alliance with Israel, expanding relations between Israel and other nations, and Iran’s continuing malign behavior.

Beginning on Aug. 15, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) joined the U.S. Air Force for a three-week military exercise held at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. This year marks the second consecutive year of the Jewish state’s participation in the realistic aerial combat exercise. Israeli pilots flew alongside counterparts from several other nations, including two countries—the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan—with which Israel does not have official diplomatic relations.
And once again, as our nation struggles to deal with a natural disaster, Israel is proving itself to be a stalwart ally. IsraAid, Israel’s international aid organization, is sending volunteers to help communities in Louisiana ravaged by recent flooding.

On the diplomatic front, the Turkish parliament approved the June 2016 reconciliation deal on Aug. 20. Only three days later, Turkey’s foreign minister announced that Israel and Turkey are set to exchange ambassadors, officially ending the six-year rift in relations between the two countries.

Also, on Aug. 22, Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold made a groundbreaking visit to Guinea, a Muslim-majority African country that has recently resumed diplomatic relations with the Jewish state after a 49-year break.

On the medical front, in an Aug. 22 paper, Israeli and European researchers shared their discovery of how melanoma (skin cancer) cells spread to other parts of the body, which may one day improve diagnosis and treatment.

While there is much to celebrate, AIPAC is closely tracking Iran’s continued activities. On Aug. 23, four Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ships harassed an American destroyer sailing through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international waterway. Also this week, the former leader of the IRGC reportedly said a new Iranian military unit has been formed to fight in Arab countries in the region, with the eradication of Israel as its main objective. And, on Aug. 21, Iran revealed its new, advanced missile defense system designed to intercept cruise and ballistic missiles, drones and aircraft.

In short, while we celebrate the Jewish state’s ongoing achievements, Israel continues to face a complex array of threats. I hope that your summer has been restful, and I look forward to partnering with you this fall to further strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship.


Sincerely,
Michael Sachs

Title: Glick: The end of Abbas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 30, 2016, 06:29:41 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-world-The-end-of-Mahmoud-Abbas-466366

Title: The Alliance of the Imperilled
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2016, 07:33:44 AM

Israel and the Alliance of the Imperiled
by Ethan Seletsky
The Jewish Advocate
August 26, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6224/israel-alliance-of-the-imperiled
 
 

Israel, despite constant existential threats and its history as a terror target, has kept its people relatively safe, earning a 2015 Global Terrorism Index impact rank of 24th. This rank is not only better than most Middle Eastern countries, but also is better than the likes of China, Russia and India.

Israel, through decades of thought and investment in counterterrorism, maintains security by reducing its areas of vulnerability and proactively targeting terrorist infrastructure and operatives. Israel has not suffered a major attack on its airports since the 1972 shooting at Ben Gurion Airport. Israel uses checkpoints and physical barriers in order to limit vulnerability and the activities of terrorists. Targeted strikes aggressively pursue those that seek to spill innocent blood.
 
The Israeli company Cyberark won Best Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) Protection at the SC Awards Europe 2014.

The private sector contributes as much as the government to the strength and innovation of Israeli counterterrorism. Israeli companies areactively involved in creating technologies designed to increase security for individuals and nations.

These include a GPS based mobile security network aimed at increasing response times to terrorist attacks, medical emergencies, and other time-sensitive emergencies; software that can suppress background noise to seek out speech related to terrorist activities; and a programthat can seek out and identify those showing signs of online radicalization.

As neighboring nations face the increasingly rabid Islamic State, the security tactics and expertise of Israel are extremely valuable international commodities. Israel, in turn, could gain a large amount of international favor and begrudging cooperation from nations that have historically been enemies to the Jewish state by acting as a teacher and security expert.

There are precedents for this. Israeli officials regularly host American security officials and law enforcement officers in order to teach counterterrorism and security tactics. This helps to cement the relationship between these two allied democracies and provides insight into the pressures and realities faced by Israel. According to David C. Friedman of the Anti-Defamation League, officers who return from these visits "understand Israel and its security needs in ways a lot of audiences don't."

Israel has already used military aid as a tool for foreign relations, particularly in Africa and Latin America. This allowed Israel to build relationships outside of the hostile Middle East.

Israel is now poised to make new allies in the region to unify against the common enemy of Islamic fundamentalism. Israeli intelligence, technology, and expertise have already proven themselves in the war against Islamic extremism. Egypt and Israel combat Islamic State affiliates in the Sinai Peninsula. Israel is already working with Jordan against Levantine Islamic State threats.

It is one thing to be secure against one's rivals; it is quite another to be something they need.

As a result, relations between the three nations have improved, in what has been described as a "unity of the threatened."

The Saudis and the Turks, who have seen a dramatic increase in Islamic State attacks, are in prime position to join this alliance of the imperiled. In the wake of Iran, which stands upon the threshold of nuclear capabilities, this alliance of the imperiled is all the more vital for the future of peace in the Middle East.
This is an opportunity for Israel to rebuke its critics and demonstrate its ability to cooperate and seek out peace. It is one thing to be secure against one's rivals; it is quite another to be something they need.
...
Of course, some nations will decline this opportunity. The French have stubbornly refused to utilize Israeli technology in the past for fear of negative publicity. As terror threats proliferate in the years to come, however, the price of such obstinacy will be far too high.

Ethan Seletsky is a research intern at the Middle East Forum.
 

Title: Glick: Obama's money and Israel's Sovereignty
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2016, 08:10:43 AM

http://carolineglick.com/obamas-money-and-israels-sovereignty/

Title: Peace through victory
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2016, 12:01:27 PM

http://www.meforum.org/6269/israel-win-lose-solution

Title: Did bRoCk screw AIPAC? and Israel? afterall.
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2016, 07:58:15 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/tel-aviv-diary-obama-exacts-cold-revenge-netanyahu-499392

Title: Israel's new friends
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 20, 2016, 05:37:02 PM

How Some Muslim Nations are Forging a Real Peace with Israel
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
September 20, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5653/how-some-muslim-nations-are-forging-a-real-peace
 

Title: Baraq's November Surprise?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2016, 11:41:10 AM

Obama's November Surprise
by Gregg Roman
The Hill
September 26, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6305/obama-november-surprise-for-israel
 
 
President Obama is contemplating a surprise move to permit anti-Israel action by the UN Security Council during his final months in office.

There is growing speculation that President Obama will spring a diplomatic surprise on Israel during the interregnum between the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 8 and his departure from office in January.

Some say the surprise will be a speech laying down parameters for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or some type of formal censure of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but the scenario generating most discussion is a decision to support, or perhaps not to veto, a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.

This would be a bombshell. Washington's long-stated policy is that a Palestinian state should be established only through an agreement negotiated directly between the two sides. In practice, this would require that Palestinian leaders agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and concede the so-called "right of return" for refugees of the 1948 war and their descendants to areas within Israel's borders, a prospect which would mean the demographic destruction of Israel.

Past administrations understood the folly of recognizing Palestinian statehood before a peace settlement.

For decades, Palestinian leaders have made it clear they won't do this: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas doesn't mince words, telling a gathering of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo in November 2014, "We will never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel." Efforts to win recognition of Palestinian statehood by foreign governments and multilateral institutions are designed to skirt this precondition for statehood.

Any state that comes into existence without Palestinian leaders formally recognizing Israel will be a brutal, unstable train wreck, with areas under its jurisdiction likely to remain a hotbed of terrorism. On top of whatever existing factors are producing the endemic corruption and autocracy of the Abbas regime (not to mention the Hamas regime in Gaza), unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will vindicate radicals who have been saying all along that there's no need to compromise.

On the other hand, official Palestinian acknowledgement once and for all that Israel is not just here to stay, but has a right to stay, would deprive Palestinian leaders of time-honored tools for manipulating their constituents – appealing to and inflaming their baser anti-Jewish prejudices, promising them salvation if they'll only shut up 'til the Zionists are defeated, and so forth. Instead, they will have to do things like govern well and create jobs to win public support.
 
Palestinian incitement to violence starts early. Above, the second grade Palestinian textbook Our Beautiful Language depicts Israelis uprooting trees from Palestinian land.

Previous American administrations have understood that recognizing Palestinian statehood before Abbas and company allow Palestinian society to undergo this transformation would be the height of irresponsibility. This is why American veto power has consistently blocked efforts to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state by way of the UN Security Council.

Notwithstanding his apparent pro-Palestinian sympathies and affiliations prior to running for the Senate and later the White House, President Obama initially maintained this policy. The expressed threat of an American veto foiled Abbas' 2011 bid to win UN member-state status for "Palestine." He settled for recognition of non-member-state status by the General Assembly in 2012.

As moves by the PA to bring the issue of statehood to the UN picked up steam last year, however, it appeared to walk back this commitment. While U.S officials privately maintained there was "no change," Obama and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power refused – despite the urging of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid – to state publicly that the U.S. would use its veto to stop a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood.

The conventional wisdom was that Obama's refusal to make such a public declaration was intended to exert pressure on Netanyahu to tone down his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, and later to punish him for it or hold it out to secure concessions. As his presidency enters its final months, it's clear something even more nefarious is at work.

Congress must use the tools at its disposal to make a reckless policy reversal by Obama as difficult as possible.

President Obama's failure to clarify his administration's position has greatly damaged prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Even if it is Obama's intention to veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes up at the UN, his refusal to publicly state this – or, put differently, his determination to go on the record for the history books not saying it – has fueled perceptions among Palestinians and European governments facing pressures of their own that American will is softening.

It is imperative that Congress use the tools at its disposal to make this unwise path as difficult as possible for the Obama administration.

Ultimately, a one-sided UN declaration such as this serves only to postpone by a long shot the day when Palestinian leaders accept Israel as it is – the homeland of the Jewish people – and allow their subjects to enjoy the lasting peace and prosperity they and their neighbors deserve.

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum.

Title: Is Obama about to recognize Palestine State?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2016, 12:51:42 PM

President Obama is rumored to be considering a major reversal of decades-long U.S. policy toward Israel by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state before a peace agreement is negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Congress must act to counter this bold and reckless move that endangers Israel's security and America's strategic interests.

There is much at stake: Israel is a free and democratic ally in a hostile region that has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors. Before it occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights in 1967, these territories were used as a base of war and terrorism against the Jewish state. Offers to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank that would allow for a safe and secure Israel have been repaid by intifada after intifada.

Others have argued persuasively that any Palestinian state established in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel will become a virtually ungovernable hotbed of terrorism sure to threaten not just Israel, but also the region and the world. The events in Gaza in the past decade strongly support this position. Ordinary Palestinians will also suffer, forced to endure rule by the same Islamic fanatics and brutal, corrupt autocrats who have destroyed their economy.
Any Palestinian state established absent a peace agreement with Israel will be a hotbed of terrorism.

A White House decision to support unilateral Palestinian statehood would unquestionably be contrary to the will of Congress: 88 senators recently signed a letter opposing such an action, while 388 members of the House have signed a similar letter supporting a veto of all "one-sided" UN resolutions concerning the Israel/Palestine issue.

And these numbers understate congressional opposition: several senators refused to sign the letter because they thought it was insufficiently strong.

Furthermore, a White House reversal on unilateral Palestinian statehood would also be contrary to the stated policies of both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

To dissuade a determined White House from this course of action, Congress will have to do more than write letters. Here are some of the legislative options that could throw significant roadblocks in its path.

Congress should make clear it will sanction a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

First, Congress should make clear its intention to sanction any unilaterally-declared Palestinian state and its new leaders, blocking their access to U.S. banking and markets, similar to sanctions on the Iranian regime. Loss of access to the U.S. financial system would be extremely costly to any Palestinian regime.
Second, Congress should make clear its intention to immediately and completely cut hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the event that President Mahmoud Abbas succeeds in his bid to win Palestinian statehood recognition at the UN.

Congress reduced this aid by 22 percent last year in retaliation for the PA's continuing terrorism incitement. It would be a significant blow to a new state to cut all such aid.
 
PA President Mahmoud Abbas meets with relatives of Palestinian "martyrs" against Israel in a photo published by the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 2, 2016.

Third, Congress should mandate that any newly-created Palestinian state be designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This designation would include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; and various other restrictions. The Palestinian Authority (PA) currently uses a shell-game to pay the families of terrorists, something Congress is currently working to stop. Other PA ties to various terrorist activities go back decades.
Finally, Congress should review and update decades-old federal laws prohibiting U.S. funding of any UN organization that "accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states" to ensure that they apply and cannot be skirted if Abbas wins Security Council recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Now would be a good time for Congress to stop shirking its duty to shape foreign policy.

Congress should use its power boldly to exert influence over this vital issue. Large majorities in Congress opposed the Iran nuclear deal and had both the facts and public opinion on their side. But due to the peculiarities of the law and the politics of the situation, they were outmaneuvered. Congress should work to ensure this situation is not repeated.

Though knowledgeable and trusted congressional leaders like Senators Arthur Vandenberg and Henry "Scoop" Jackson once led coalitions in Congress that held great influence in foreign affairs, there is a bipartisan belief that Congress has shirked its duty to shape foreign policy in recent decades. Now would be a good time to start taking it back.

Clifford Smith is director of the Middle East Forum's Washington Project.
 

Title: Re: Is Obama about to recognize Palestine State?
Post by: G M on October 01, 2016, 06:48:12 PM

Rachel unavailable for comment.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2016, 12:51:42 PM

President Obama is rumored to be considering a major reversal of decades-long U.S. policy toward Israel by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state before a peace agreement is negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Congress must act to counter this bold and reckless move that endangers Israel's security and America's strategic interests.

There is much at stake: Israel is a free and democratic ally in a hostile region that has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors. Before it occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights in 1967, these territories were used as a base of war and terrorism against the Jewish state. Offers to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank that would allow for a safe and secure Israel have been repaid by intifada after intifada.

Others have argued persuasively that any Palestinian state established in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel will become a virtually ungovernable hotbed of terrorism sure to threaten not just Israel, but also the region and the world. The events in Gaza in the past decade strongly support this position. Ordinary Palestinians will also suffer, forced to endure rule by the same Islamic fanatics and brutal, corrupt autocrats who have destroyed their economy.
Any Palestinian state established absent a peace agreement with Israel will be a hotbed of terrorism.

A White House decision to support unilateral Palestinian statehood would unquestionably be contrary to the will of Congress: 88 senators recently signed a letter opposing such an action, while 388 members of the House have signed a similar letter supporting a veto of all "one-sided" UN resolutions concerning the Israel/Palestine issue.

And these numbers understate congressional opposition: several senators refused to sign the letter because they thought it was insufficiently strong.

Furthermore, a White House reversal on unilateral Palestinian statehood would also be contrary to the stated policies of both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

To dissuade a determined White House from this course of action, Congress will have to do more than write letters. Here are some of the legislative options that could throw significant roadblocks in its path.

Congress should make clear it will sanction a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

First, Congress should make clear its intention to sanction any unilaterally-declared Palestinian state and its new leaders, blocking their access to U.S. banking and markets, similar to sanctions on the Iranian regime. Loss of access to the U.S. financial system would be extremely costly to any Palestinian regime.
Second, Congress should make clear its intention to immediately and completely cut hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the event that President Mahmoud Abbas succeeds in his bid to win Palestinian statehood recognition at the UN.

Congress reduced this aid by 22 percent last year in retaliation for the PA's continuing terrorism incitement. It would be a significant blow to a new state to cut all such aid.
 
PA President Mahmoud Abbas meets with relatives of Palestinian "martyrs" against Israel in a photo published by the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 2, 2016.

Third, Congress should mandate that any newly-created Palestinian state be designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This designation would include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; and various other restrictions. The Palestinian Authority (PA) currently uses a shell-game to pay the families of terrorists, something Congress is currently working to stop. Other PA ties to various terrorist activities go back decades.
Finally, Congress should review and update decades-old federal laws prohibiting U.S. funding of any UN organization that "accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states" to ensure that they apply and cannot be skirted if Abbas wins Security Council recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Now would be a good time for Congress to stop shirking its duty to shape foreign policy.

Congress should use its power boldly to exert influence over this vital issue. Large majorities in Congress opposed the Iran nuclear deal and had both the facts and public opinion on their side. But due to the peculiarities of the law and the politics of the situation, they were outmaneuvered. Congress should work to ensure this situation is not repeated.

Though knowledgeable and trusted congressional leaders like Senators Arthur Vandenberg and Henry "Scoop" Jackson once led coalitions in Congress that held great influence in foreign affairs, there is a bipartisan belief that Congress has shirked its duty to shape foreign policy in recent decades. Now would be a good time to start taking it back.

Clifford Smith is director of the Middle East Forum's Washington Project.
 

Title: Hamas' funding drying up
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2016, 10:40:07 AM

Hamas Funding Sources Drying Up
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
November 14, 2016
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5699/hamas-funding-sources-drying-up

 
 Hamas in Gaza is facing an acute financial crisis as its overseas cash sources dry up. This is forcing the Islamist regime and its armed terrorist wing, the Izzadin Al-Qassam Brigades, to resort to increasingly desperate measures, such as using international aid organizations to funnel cash away from Gazan civilians.

Hamas's dire financial situation has multiple causes. Egypt has effectively blocked off many smuggling tunnels linking Gaza to Sinai, which previously were used to transfer money into Gaza from Hamas donors.

Additionally, Hamas finds itself without a clear international backer these days. Not only is Egypt under the rule of President Sisi decidedly hostile, but relations between Hamas are Iran are unstable, rising and falling periodically due to disagreement over conflict raging in Syria.

Iran provides Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad with military support through its own generals, and thousands of assistance fighters from its Lebanese terror proxy Hizballah. Palestinians generally oppose the Assad regime.

Nevertheless, Iran sometimes does try to smuggle money to Hamas, but this source of funding is unreliable.

Qatar's financial aid to Gaza has, since the 2014 Israel-Hamas war, and is limited to civilian reconstruction programs. Here, too, Hamas has gotten involved, seized apartment buildings to use as financial assets.

Israel's Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman told the Israeli Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee late last month that sources of outside funding for Hamas are drying up.  Recent revelations by Israel's domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, confirm this situation.

In August, the Shin Bet revealed that Hamas had been targeting international aid organization operating in Gaza, rerouting money intended for humanitarian assistance towards preparations for war with Israel.  For example, Hamas stole 60 percent of the annual budget of the World Vision international air organization, stealing 7.2 million dollars a year from it, according to the Shin Bet. Money intended to feed and help Gazan children instead went towards purchasing weapons, building bases, and digging attack tunnels.  The theft went as far as taking thousands of food packages intended for Gazan civilians and sending them to armed members of Hamas territorial battalions, according to the Shin Bet investigation.

World Vision responded by firing 120 Gaza employees.

Also in August, Israel charged an engineer from Gaza with exploiting his position in the United Nations Development Program, which rebuilds damaged residential buildings, for rerouting 300 tons of construction material to help build a Hamas naval terrorist base.

On Nov. 1, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) exposed a Hamas plan to smuggle money to its operatives in Israeli prisons, and to its West Bank terror cells, by forcing Palestinians who have travel papers allowing them into Israel to act as cash smugglers.  Two Hamas operatives targeted Gazan civilians at a border crossing on their way to Israel for business or medical treatment, said the IDF's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai.

In July, the Shin Bet arrested two Gazans with tens of thousands of dollars hidden in their shoes. They were under Hamas orders to transfer the cash to operatives in the West Bank to fund terrorist attacks. Hamas intelligence agents had been approaching Gazan civilians systematically for money smuggling purposes, Shin Bet said.

Hamas's financial situation is part of a larger ticking bomb that is the Gazan economy. "The whole of the Gaza Strip is in economic-civilian distress," Liberman told Knesset.

Noting that 95 percent of Gaza's civilian economic funding come from the international community, Liberman said Israel faced a structural tension between its wish to improve the living conditions of ordinary Gazans and the attempts by Hamas to exploit Israel's humanitarian steps. Hamas has stolen construction material, injected into Gaza by Israel for civilian reconstruction, to build itself up militarily, Liberman said.

According to Liberman, as part of its bid to keep money from the international community pouring into Gaza's economy, Hamas also refuses to resolve crises. For example, it did not take link up Gaza's purification plant, paid for by the World Bank (and costing $100 million), to the electric grid, despite the fact that Israel approved a unique electrical supply to it, Liberman added.

Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of Gaza's water is unfit for consumption, and it will take at least two years for the international community to set up desalination plants on Gaza's coastline. A water crisis will likely strike Gaza long before that, Liberman said. Israel is formulating a water crisis response policy.
The warning signs from Gaza's economic situation continue to mount, driven by Hamas's insistence of using the enclave as a fortress of jihadist hostility towards Israel and ignoring its peoples' basic needs.

Hamas's 26,000 armed members, and 40,000 government employees receive their salaries, and the regime is building up its armed forces despite the cash shortages. Ordinary Gazans, on the other hand, are on their own.

Yaakov Lappin is a military and strategic affairs correspondent. He also conducts research and analysis for defense think tanks, and is
the Israel correspondent for IHS Jane's Defense Weekly. His book, The Virtual Caliphate, explores the online jihadist presence.

Title: WSJ: Ending Aid to Palestinian Terrorists
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2016, 12:49:37 PM

In his eulogy recently for Israeli statesman Shimon Peres, President Obama spoke of the “unfinished business” of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Now he or Donald Trump have an opportunity to advance the cause—by backing legislation to stop the flow of U.S. tax dollars to Palestinian terrorists.

Since the 1990s, as the U.S. and other countries have sent billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians, Palestinian leaders have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in rewards to those who carry out bombings, stabbings and other attacks in Israel. These payments, codified in Palestinian law, are an official incentive program for murder that in any other context would be recognized as state sponsorship of terror. But the U.S. and other Western states have looked the other way while continuing to send aid, giving Palestinian leaders no incentive to stop.

Senators Lindsey Graham,Dan Coats and Roy Blunt have introduced a bill to end U.S. economic aid unless Palestinian leaders stop rewarding terrorists. It’s called the Taylor Force Act, after the 28-year-old U.S. Army veteran stabbed to death in March by a Palestinian in the Israeli city of Jaffa. Other American victims of recent Palestinian terrorism include 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel and 18-year-old Ezra Schwartz.

“They will never achieve peace when you pay one of your young men to kill someone like Taylor Force. That’s inconsistent and it needs to stop,” Mr. Graham (R., S.C.) says. “We’re not going to invest in a group of people that have laws like this. It’s just not a good investment.” The same Palestinian laws guarantee civil-service employment to terrorists upon their release from prison—the bloodier their crime, the cushier their post.“If you’re in jail for five to six years, you come out with the civilian rank of department head or lieutenant in their security forces, you get to choose. If you’re in jail 25 to 30 years, you become a deputy minister or a major general,” Mr. Graham adds.

Mr. Coats (R., Ind.) notes that Congress tried to stop subsidizing terror payments in 2014, but Palestinian leaders dodged that law with a “shell game” that passed payments through the Palestine Liberation Organization, which technically isn’t a recipient of U.S. aid. When lawmakers raised this with the State Department they got only a “tepid” response, says Mr. Coats. One State Department report praised the payments as “an effort to reintegrate” released prisoners into society.

The truth is these payments are blood-soaked gifts from a Palestinian leadership still devoted more to destroying Israel than to building a Palestinian state. This has always been the chief impediment to peace. Mr. Obama is unlikely to act in his final days, but the Trump Administration and new Congress could send a powerful message by passing the Taylor Force Act. 

Title: The World retains its' ability to surprise: Arabs getting friendly with Israel?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2016, 07:47:25 PM

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2016/11/everybody-loves-israel/

Title: Glick: Amona and the Rule of Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2016, 08:30:08 AM

This case looks to be coming up front and center.  Here it looks like Glick is breaking down the legal issues in a way not likely to be covered elsewhere:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-world-Amona-and-the-rule-of-law-473272

Title: Glick: Israel's consitutional idenity crisis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 02, 2016, 08:44:00 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-one-Israels-constitutional-identity-crisis-474225

Title: American jews begin to wake up: Trump is very good for Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 08, 2016, 09:31:35 AM

Some interesting discussion of issues here:

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/219421/trump-netanyahu-america-israel-relationship

Title: Glick: Serious Read
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2016, 06:33:03 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Israels-first-project-with-Trump-474883

Title: US embassy to Jerusalem
Post by: ccp on December 17, 2016, 09:46:47 AM

I don't know enough about the situation to comment:

Tom Freidman vs David Friedman
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/16/ny-times-friedman-moving-us-embassy-jerusalem-madness-full-employment-iran-act/

Title: Glick: Israel and the Rising New West
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2016, 09:54:07 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Israel-and-the-rising-new-West-476279

Title: I am not sure if he really opposes the outgoing
Post by: ccp on December 23, 2016, 04:23:34 PM

POTUS or this is more show for his constituency:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/schumer-israel-un-veto/2016/12/23/id/765404/

They have been speaking negotiations for a lifetime.  Lets face it.  Many Muslims simply will not recognize the Jews as having rights to a Jewish state in Israel.  So what is there to negotiate?

Until The Arabs recognize this there is nothing else to say.

If Isis can burn to death two Turks one can only imagine what they would just like to do to Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 23, 2016, 06:14:51 PM

Went to Huffington Post to see what all the liberal Jews are saying now about their king Obama that he screwed over our homeland.  Interesting that by 9 pm EST there is exactly zero mentions of the abstention from voting at the UN.  Plenty of Trump bashing and linking him to Russia.

I am waiting for Paul Krugman and Naom Chomsky to laud this landmark shift in US policy towards Israel.

Title: Obama's Tantrum
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2016, 09:34:33 PM

The decision by the United States to abstain from a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its settlements on the West Bank is one of the most significant, defining moments of the Obama Presidency.

It defines this President’s extraordinary ability to transform matters of public policy into personal pique at adversaries. And it defines the reality of the international left’s implacable opposition to the Israeli state.

Earlier in the week, Egypt withdrew the Security Council resolution under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. President-elect Donald Trump also intervened, speaking with Egypt’s government and, via Twitter, urging Mr. Obama to block the resolution, as have past U.S. Administrations and Mr. Obama himself in 2011.

As was widely reported Friday after the U.N. vote, the White House decided to abstain—thereby allowing the pro-Palestinian resolution to pass—in retaliation against the intervention by Messrs. Netanyahu and Trump.

Mr. Obama’s animus toward Prime Minister Netanyahu is well known. Apparently Mr. Obama took it as an affront that the President-elect would express an opinion about this week’s U.N. resolution.

It is important, though, to see this U.S. abstention as more significant than merely Mr. Obama’s petulance. What it reveals clearly is the Obama Administration’s animus against the state of Israel itself. No longer needing Jewish votes, Mr. Obama was free, finally, to punish the Jewish state in a way no previous President has done.

No effort to rescind the resolution, which calls the settlements a violation of “international law,” will succeed because of Russia’s and China’s vetoes.

Instead, the resolution will live on as Barack Obama’s cat’s paw, offering support in every European capital, international institution and U.S. university campus to bully Israel with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer implored the Administration to veto the resolution, noting rightly that it represents nothing more than the “Zionism is racism” bias at the U.N. Let Senator Schumer note the true nature of his party’s left wing.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Administration’s action “shameful.” Senator Lindsey Graham said he will form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or reduce U.S. financial support for the U.N. That should proceed.

For Donald Trump, meet your State Department. This is what State’s permanent bureaucrats believe, this is what they want, and Barack Obama delivered it to them.

Tweets won’t change this now-inbred hostility to America’s oldest democratic ally in the Middle East. Mr. Obama’s pique, however, has made it crystal clear to the new Administration where the lines in the sand are drawn.

Title: Excellent piece on Obama, Israel, and the UN resolution.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2016, 10:00:33 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443327/united-nations-israel-settlements-resolution-barack-obama-betrayal-israel

Title: Re: Obama's Tantrum
Post by: DougMacG on December 24, 2016, 10:12:00 AM

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/252744/

The most instructive thing about Obama’s Security Council abstention is he didn’t have the guts to do it earlier, when he stood to lose something by doing it. Only after he calculated there was nothing more to squeeze from that particular quarter did he run up the Jolly Roger. Had it cost him it would have meant something, even as a gesture.

But even more interesting was his willingness to damage the Democratic party who he’s leaving with political bill, not to mention the fact that the policy his abstention represents makes little sense.

Israel is likely to emerge as a linchpin in the region, after Obama’s power vacuum bomb reduces the nearby countries to waste. If Turkey and Iran fall apart, which is not inconceivable, then Obama will have antagonized the last man standing.

It was bad timing and pointless, like a punch thrown by a fighter lying on the canvas — at the referee. That would leave his legacy a consistently dysfunctional whole: conceived in delusion, executed in incompetence and spite.

Title: Re: Obama's Tantrum
Post by: G M on December 24, 2016, 11:09:48 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/226104/la-times-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape-andrew-c-mccarthy

Rachel unavailable for comment.

Quote from: DougMacG on December 24, 2016, 10:12:00 AM

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/252744/



The most instructive thing about Obama’s Security Council abstention is he didn’t have the guts to do it earlier, when he stood to lose something by doing it. Only after he calculated there was nothing more to squeeze from that particular quarter did he run up the Jolly Roger. Had it cost him it would have meant something, even as a gesture.

But even more interesting was his willingness to damage the Democratic party who he’s leaving with political bill, not to mention the fact that the policy his abstention represents makes little sense.

Israel is likely to emerge as a linchpin in the region, after Obama’s power vacuum bomb reduces the nearby countries to waste. If Turkey and Iran fall apart, which is not inconceivable, then Obama will have antagonized the last man standing.

It was bad timing and pointless, like a punch thrown by a fighter lying on the canvas — at the referee. That would leave his legacy a consistently dysfunctional whole: conceived in delusion, executed in incompetence and spite.

Title: Bolton, and Glick on the UN Resolution
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2016, 02:55:44 PM

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5260207465001/?#sp=show-clips

As Ambassador Bolton said in the clip below from Fox News, Obama killed the peace process by pushing this anti-Semitic, evil resolution. He killed the peace process and all prospects for peace by destroying the foundation of the process. That foundation was "land for peace."

Land for peace formed the basis of UN Security Council resolution 242 from the end of the 1967 Six Day War. It stipulated that in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel and peace with the Jewish state, Israel would cede some of the land that it took control over during the course of that war.

But Friday's resolution says that Israel has no right to any of the land, that the presence of Israelis in that land -- yes, including the Western Wall -- is illegal. So Israel has no land to give and the Arabs will give no peace. And that is that.

The other thing the resolution does is annul all the bilateral agreements that Israel signed with the PLO, which formed the basis of their peace process. Those agreements were all witnessed by the US, the EU and Russia. And those agreements committed the sides to the bilateral framework for resolving their conflict.

In signing the agreements, the Palestinians committed themselves to not going to the UN or any other international body to coerce a settlement with Israel. Their UN strategy is a material breach of the agreements they signed.

Friday's resolution makes zero mention of any of those agreements. In pretended they don't exist. And in so doing, it killed them. They are dead.

For 23 years, confined by the Oslo framework, Israel was wary of taking the unilateral step of applying its law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria just as it was wary of building new Jewish communities in the areas. But now that those agreements are dead, Israel has no such limitations on its actions. It can act unilaterally just as it did in the past.

To be clear, this resolution is terrible for Israel. But it is mainly terrible for Jews in the West, and particularly in America.

Some argue that the resolution increases the threat that the International Criminal Court will try Israeli leaders or even private citizens. But this argument makes no sense. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC convention. It has no jurisdiction over us.

The greatest victims of this resolution are not Israeli Jews, they are the Jews of the Diaspora, and particularly Jews in the West. Harassment of Jews in the US, Canada and Europe by Muslim thugs and their useful leftist idiots both on and off campus will rise as a result of this resolution.

There is an ironic silver lining to this resolution for Israel.
First, there is the obvious silver lining which is that we don't need to lie about Obama anymore. He revealed himself in his final month as the Jew hating, Israel hating bastard we have always known him to be but our leaders, out of fear that he would act as he did on Friday felt compelled to pretend that the man who gave the bomb to Iran is a friend of ours.

Second, and more importantly, there is the irony of the consequences of the resolution.

By joining the UN gang rape of Israel in an act of diplomatic terrorism against the Jewish people and the Jewish state, Obama destroyed not only all prospects for peace. He destroyed all prospects for Palestinian state.

He destroyed all prospects for Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. He destroyed all prospect of any Israeli withdrawal at all.

And he even managed to weaken the UN which will now faces a massive cut in funding from the Trump White House and the Republican controlled Congress.

The news of this resolution hit us like a brick wall. It hurts to see a room full of well dressed, well schooled, supposedly cultured and caring people acting like a lynch mob of Cossacks setting fire to synagogues and attacking Jewish villagers with pitchforks. It is nauseating beyond measure to watch Samantha Power, who branded herself as "Miss Genocide," as in, the redhead who fights for the powerless, standing with murderers against innocent, law abiding, human rights respecting, good Jews.

But we've been through much worse and survived and prospered. Samantha Power won't even merit a footnote in history, except in the section on the greatest hypocrites in the early 21st century.

Obama will go on to become Jimmy Carter on steroids. He will be relentless, and powerful. But we will survive him as well.

And John Kerry will remembered first and foremost for betraying the men that served with him in Vietnam. All the treacheries he committed since, including this one, were preordained the moment he stepped out of the crowd and libeled his brothers in arms.

With G-d's help, we Jews will survive and thrive and move on from strength to strength, as our forefathers did, as we have always done.

Title: Obama shafts Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2016, 05:59:26 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-shafts-israel-article-1.2921949

Title: McCarthy: Baraq betrays Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2016, 06:20:55 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443327/united-nations-israel-settlements-resolution-barack-obama-betrayal-israel

Title: Dershowitz: Trump was right to try to stop Obama
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2016, 09:53:20 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Dershowitz-Trump-was-right-to-try-to-stop-Obama-476402

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 25, 2016, 03:11:38 AM

Dershowitz is a strong advocate for Israel.  Yet he is a terrible partisan Democrat on most everything else.

Ask him who he voted for President in '08 and '12.  Ask 80% of my fellow Jews who they thought they needed to vote for to prove how liberal they are in '08, '12, '16.

Title: Are Israeli settlements the problem?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 25, 2016, 07:57:47 AM

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/957648907611299/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Title: Haaretz supports Obama and the resolution
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 25, 2016, 04:31:19 PM

second post

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761269

Title: Caroline Glick interview on the UNSC Resolution
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 26, 2016, 09:46:53 AM

http://thelandofisrael.com/caroline-glick-unsc-resolution-is-a-betrayal/

Title: Israelis say Obama-Kerry drafted it
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 26, 2016, 06:38:47 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/26/israeli-spokesman-we-have-ironclad-information-that-the-obama-pushed-this-un-resolution/

Title: Re: Israelis say Obama-Kerry drafted it
Post by: G M on December 26, 2016, 06:59:00 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 26, 2016, 06:38:47 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/26/israeli-spokesman-we-have-ironclad-information-that-the-obama-pushed-this-un-resolution/

Who could have possibly guessed that Rev. Wright's most well known follower would have done this?

Rachel unavailable for comment.

Title: Glick: Obama's play has just begun
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2016, 12:18:52 PM

Caroline Glick
9 hrs ·

Here is what I think is a reasonable assessment of Obama's likely timeline for action against Israel.

Today, December 27, 2016: John Kerry is scheduled to address the UN Security Council and lay out his blueprint for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

January 15, 2017: Kerry participates in French President Hollande's summit along with other leaders of the so called Quartet. The Quartet produces a document ratifying Kerry's speech as a unanimous position.

January 16, 2017: Obama makes a speech for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday. In his speech he merges Palestinian statehood with the civil rights movement and announces it is time for Palestine to be formally recognized.

January 17, 2017: The Security Council convenes to ratify the Quartet's blueprint for Palestine as a Security Council resolution. The resolution will probably only speak of a process of bringing Palestine in as a full member in order to prevent automatic US defunding of the UN in accordance with standing US law requiring a funding cut-off in response to any UN recognition of Palestine.

January 20, 2017: Donald Trump is inaugurated and presented with Obama's fait accompli.

Obama has without a doubt been lobbying the incoming members of the Security Council to support this program, just as he lobbied the current members to support last Friday's resolution.

The only person who can derail this operation is Donald Trump.

Title: Re: Glick: Obama's play has just begun
Post by: DougMacG on December 28, 2016, 06:19:55 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2016, 12:18:52 PM

Caroline Glick
Here is what I think is a reasonable assessment of Obama's likely timeline for action against Israel.
Today, December 27, 2016: John Kerry is scheduled to address the UN Security Council and lay out his blueprint for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
January 15, 2017: Kerry participates in French President Hollande's summit along with other leaders of the so called Quartet. The Quartet produces a document ratifying Kerry's speech as a unanimous position.
January 16, 2017: Obama makes a speech for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday. In his speech he merges Palestinian statehood with the civil rights movement and announces it is time for Palestine to be formally recognized.
January 17, 2017: The Security Council convenes to ratify the Quartet's blueprint for Palestine as a Security Council resolution. The resolution will probably only speak of a process of bringing Palestine in as a full member in order to prevent automatic US defunding of the UN in accordance with standing US law requiring a funding cut-off in response to any UN recognition of Palestine.
January 20, 2017: Donald Trump is inaugurated and presented with Obama's fait accompli.
Obama has without a doubt been lobbying the incoming members of the Security Council to support this program, just as he lobbied the current members to support last Friday's resolution.

The only person who can derail this operation is Donald Trump.

Jan 21, President Trump suspends US financial support for the United Nations of terror and kleptocracy, proposes US embassy move to Jerusalem.

Title: Re: Haaretz supports Obama and the resolution
Post by: DougMacG on December 28, 2016, 07:19:59 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on December 25, 2016, 04:31:19 PM

second post

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761269

The liberal left is alive and well in Israel too, temporarily defeated by a great leader, Netanyahu.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on December 28, 2016, 07:35:34 AM

Pre-answering John Kerry's speech today, an old proverb describes the Kerry dilemma perfectly and I want to be first to put this out there.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

We will help Israel attain peace by taking away the only thing they have to offer in exchange for peace.  Makes sense if you have absolutely no awareness of history, reality or strategy.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on December 28, 2016, 08:58:32 AM

Quote from: DougMacG on December 28, 2016, 07:35:34 AM

Pre-answering John Kerry's speech today, an old proverb describes the Kerry dilemma perfectly and I want to be first to put this out there.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

We will help Israel attain peace by taking away the only thing they have to offer in exchange for peace.  Makes sense if you have absolutely no awareness of history, reality or strategy.

But， community organizer!

Title: Re: Israel, UN Security Council, George Friedman
Post by: DougMacG on December 28, 2016, 10:32:11 AM

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/12/27/a_meaningless_un_security_council_resolution_112154.html

Neither the United Nations resolution nor Trump’s shift is of great significance. Over the years, throughout the world, UNSC resolutions have been met with indifference. It does not matter what the UNSC says. It matters what the permanent members of the UNSC do. In the case of Israel and Palestine, no one on either side can do very much of significance. As for public opinion, that is fairly well locked into place. There are four camps: those who are pro-Israeli, those who are pro-Palestinian, those who wring their hand and express pieties and those who couldn’t care less. Nothing that happened at the U.N. will change anyone’s mind.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 28, 2016, 02:37:11 PM

Legal issues concerning boycotts, embargoes, arrest in various countries, DO matter.

Title: McCarthy on Kerry - Obama
Post by: ccp on December 28, 2016, 05:52:03 PM

The great friends of Israel.   

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443390/john-kerry-speech-israel-jewish-democratic-one-state-solution-islam

According to to Gerathy,

Kerry saluted
“Yasser Arafat’s transformation from outlaw to statesman.”


Remember Arafat.   The murderer who was the single figure who refused Clinton's peace deal yet the elites thought him worthy of a Nobel Peace prize just like Obama , another one worthy of such a prize which is really a joke prize.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443392/john-kerry-secretary-state-failure-weakness

Title: First the Stab In the Back, Now the Twist of the Knife: Obama, Kerry Set to Dec
Post by: G M on December 28, 2016, 07:09:45 PM

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367600.php

December 28, 2016
First the Stab In the Back, Now the Twist of the Knife: Obama, Kerry Set to Declare Palestinian Statehood

If the despicable action of not vetoing the blatantly anti-Israeli UN resolution was supposed to be a parting kick in the groin to the Jewish state - and it's pretty clear that the US actually crafted Resolution 2334 - Obama would have done it on January 20th, 2017 some time before noon. But there are still 23 days left for this momzer to inflict an incredible amount of damage. And it seems as if he's about to commit one of the worst acts imaginable, after eight years of heretofore unimaginable destruction and strife.

    Multiple media outlets are reporting that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is finalizing a document that the Obama administration hopes will form the basis for a UN Security Council resolution that officially recognizes a Palestinian state before the end of Barack Obama's term on January 20th. This comes on the heels of the UN Security Council's adoption of resolution 2334 on December 23rd. That resolution declared that all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, it stated that the Security Council recognizes the 1967 ceasefire lines as the border between Israel and "Palestine", and it officially gave East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. But it stopped short of formally recognizing a Palestinian state. Resolution 2334 speaks of a Palestinian state in the future tense, but this new resolution that John Kerry is reportedly working on would give immediate and permanent UN Security Council recognition to a Palestinian state.

For those who have not looked at a map, the distance from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is roughly 35-40 miles, give or take. Not exactly vast open country, but it's defensible. Barely. If Israel were to go back to its pre-1967 borders, as per Obama's and Kerry's plan, that distance would be cut to about 10 miles at its widest point. The Israelis refer to that as the Auschwitz borders for good reason.

But Obama doesn't just seek to destroy Israel because he's an anti-Semite (and he is). This is indicative of his hatred for the country that twice elected him president.

    When Obama chose to lead the anti-Israel lynch mob at the Security Council last week, he did more than deliver the PLO terrorist organization its greatest victory to date against Israel. He delivered a strategic victory to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status. That is, he carried out a strategic strike on American power.

    By leading the gang rape of Israel on Friday, Obama undermined the rationale for American power. Why should the US assert a sovereign right to stand against the radical forces that control the UN? If US agrees that Israel is committing a crime by respecting the civil and human rights of its citizens to live in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, then how can America claim that it has the right to defend its own rights and interests, when those clash with the views of the vast majority of state members of the UN?

Since its founding in 1948, the modern State of Israel has been the lone beacon of freedom and enlightenment surrounded by a vast wasteland of medieval tyranny, pig-ignorance, squalor, barbarity and a blind, centuries-old unreconstructed hatred. In spite of this, it has year after year made concession after concession in a desperate attempt to stop generational bloodshed and save the lives of not only its own children but of children whose parents use them as suicide bombers. It has only earned them enmity. And the twin ideologies of Islam and Marxism are converging with the aim of wiping Israel off the map and annihilating every Jew that Hitler couldn't gas now in sight; all thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States.

Having backed Israel into a corner by all but giving Iran nukes, and now opening a second front at the UN to annihilate the Jewish state politically, I suppose Bibi's only response must be as unthinkable as Obama's incitement: Annex the West Bank and to hell with the consequences.

Title: MEF Three Reasons Kerry is wrong
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 28, 2016, 07:44:44 PM

John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements
by Gregg Roman
The Los Angeles Times
December 28, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6451/john-kerry-is-dead-wrong-about-israeli-settlements
 
 
Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Israel for settlement policies that "make two states impossible" on December 28.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which describes Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal, should never have passed last week. But the U.S. refused to use its veto power, in part because, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry explained in a speech on Wednesday, the Obama administration believes settlements are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. In the outgoing administration's view, extreme criticism is, conversely, necessary to advance the peace process.

This argument is dead wrong. Still, let's examine it.

Although administration officials have been reluctant to explain the precise reasoning behind their last-minute series of attacks on Israel, as near as I can tell it rests on three assumptions.

The first, as Kerry outlined in his speech, is that a freeze on Israeli settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian negotiators to make painful compromises at the negotiating table. It supposedly does this by easing Palestinian suspicions that Israel either won't make major territorial concessions at the negotiating table, or won't implement these concessions once made.

The main impediment to compromise is Palestinian unwillingness to accept the existence of a Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put this assumption to the test in November 2009 when he imposed a 10-month moratorium on new housing construction (East Jerusalem excepted) at the urging of the Obama administration.

What happened? Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to return to talks until the very end of the moratorium and remained every bit as intransigent as before.

The main impediment to Palestinian compromise is not Palestinian suspicion; it is the fundamental unwillingness of Palestinian leaders across the spectrum to accept the existence of a Jewish state alongside their own.

Some settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian moderates to build public support for compromise.

What's more, a strong case can be made that some settlement growth actually makes it easier for Palestinian moderates to build public support for compromise by underscoring that a continuation of the status quo is untenable and injurious to Palestinian national aspirations in the long run.

The Obama administration's second assumption is that pressure from the international community or from the United States will bring about this supposedly desirable settlement freeze.

However, by collapsing the distinction between East Jerusalem and bustling Israeli towns just inside the West Bank — which no major Israeli political party will contemplate abandoning — and the remaining settlements, most of which Israelis are willing to give up, this policy does the opposite.

"It is a gift to Bibi Netanyahu, who can now more easily argue to Israelis that the bad relationship with America these last eight years wasn't his fault," notes the writer Jonah Goldberg.

Finally, even if it were true that a settlement freeze would make it easier for Palestinian negotiators to trust Israel and that international pressure would increase the willingness of Israeli leaders to accept such a freeze, these effects would be far overshadowed by the problems created by branding Israeli claims outside the 1949 armistice line illegal and invalid.

Palestinian leaders will have double the trouble compromising now that the UN has endorsed their maximalist demands.

Since Palestinian leaders already have trouble justifying to their people the abandonment of territorial claims to Ma'ale Adumim, the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem, and so forth, they will have double the trouble now that the United States has endorsed these demands. What Palestinian leader can sign away territory to which Washington and the Security Council have declared Israelis have no legitimate claim?

Kerry stated plainly that Israel is to blame for the demise of the two-state process, and that — unless its leaders listen to counsel — Israel will not survive as both a Jewish and a democratic state. Now that the administration's views are crystal clear, pundits should spare us the back and forth on whether its eleventh-hour obsessions are good for peace – no one as smart as Obama or Kerry can possibly believe that it is.

The more interesting question, sure to be the focus of congressional hearings next year, is why the administration used its last few weeks to damage relations with Israel.

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum, a research center headquartered in Philadelphia.
 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 29, 2016, 04:51:06 AM

"The main impediment to compromise is Palestinian unwillingness to accept the existence of a Jewish state."

It has been this way since ~ 1800 BC.

Certainly since 1947.

Israel has always wanted peace.   They just want to be recognized and accepted.   For some reason the world (perhaps bribed by oil) seems to single the Jews out as not having this right.

Kerry just ignores this.   He stabs Israel in the back just like he did to his fellow soldiers in Vietnam.  Hey but he is married to ketchup billiionaire.  Good for him.

Title: Lurch to the left
Post by: G M on December 29, 2016, 07:55:21 AM

(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/kerry_vietnam1.jpg)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/kerry_vietnam1.jpg

Title: Re: Lurch to the left
Post by: DougMacG on December 29, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: G M on December 29, 2016, 07:55:21 AM

(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/kerry_vietnam1.jpg)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/kerry_vietnam1.jpg

What a picture, really shows ashamed of his country as he so falsely reported his facts.  The man hasn't changed.  How is it that out of hundreds of millions of people, this is what rises up to nearly the top?

Title: Charles K summarizes the Brock Kerry treachery
Post by: ccp on December 30, 2016, 05:51:06 AM

in  a nut shell.
This could go under the anti semitism thread as well because it is really hard to see any other way.
I alway figured obama was one of the Jew hating blacks like Sharpton and J Jackson and spike lee to name a feew, of which there are many , though certainly not all:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443416/security-council-settlements-resolution-shameful-betrayal-obama

Title: Isn't this the guy The video of whom
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2016, 10:48:39 AM

and one Baraq Obama that the LA Times buried back in 2008?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/opinion/john-kerry-and-israel-too-little-and-too-late.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 30, 2016, 11:47:42 AM

Gott love this part.  Speaking about civil society should speak out about Israel  ....   while arabs are murdering each other and other all over the world.

"European countries, Russia, China, India, and civil society in the United States and elsewhere must act decisively to underscore the global isolation of the proponents of unending occupation and colonization in Palestine. As too little and too late as Resolution 2334 and the Kerry speech were, they do offer an opening for an overdue global response to the arrogance of the Israeli and American enablers of the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people."

Title: And now for something different
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2016, 04:03:56 PM

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/you-are-the-racist-actually-not-me/

Title: Return Israel to it's 967 B.C. borders!
Post by: G M on December 30, 2016, 05:40:52 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/813923965299101696

(https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/813923965299101696/photo/1)


https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/813923965299101696/photo/1

Title: NRO good article with interesting background context on the settlements
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2016, 11:42:59 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443422/obama-israeli-settlements-security-barrier-palestinians-jerusalem-no-public-support

Title: poTH: Is Trump the friend Israel needs?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2017, 06:41:52 AM

ISTRUM p the friend Israel Needs?

By BERNARD AVISHAIDEC. 31, 2016


JERUSALEM — “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect.” Thus President-elect Donald J. Trump tweeted just before Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict last week. He added: “They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but …”

Mr. Trump was presuming to side with Israel in its regional fight, but … as Mr. Kerry implied, particularly when he spoke elegiacally of Shimon Peres, one cannot be a friend to Israel without actually being a friend to some Israelis over others, one conception of Israel, the region, and Jews, for that matter, over another. These are also Jewish culture wars — centered on Israel, but played out vicariously among American Jews — and Mr. Trump has stepped, or stumbled, into the thick of them. Nor do they affect Jews alone, given America’s web of relations in the region. One hopes and trusts that senior appointees to his foreign policy team will take notice.

Their job became more difficult last month when Mr. Trump’s transition team named David M. Friedman, his bankruptcy lawyer, as the next United States ambassador to Israel, soon after announcing an intention to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Mr. Friedman, a major fund-raiser for the Beit El settlement built on the hills around the West Bank city of Ramallah, would doubtless feel at home in Jerusalem, where I live for half the year. The mental atmosphere of Greater Israel is nested here and in its encircling settlements.

By contrast, he would barely know what to make of Tel Aviv, where the embassy is now. That city is the heart of what could be called “Global Israel,” a Hebrew hub in a cosmopolitan system.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Opinion Room for Debate
    Should the U.S. Embassy Be Moved From Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? DEC. 27, 2016

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

Mr. Friedman’s allies in Israel’s right-wing Likud Party and its nationalist and Orthodox coalition partners see the land, including the West Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria, as holy. They regard any strategic territorial compromise entailing a withdrawal of Israeli sovereignty as sinful. In this respect, they benefit politically from the violence produced by the occupation.

Perhaps 40 percent of Jewish Israelis hold these attitudes, which imply others, such as theocracy over Supreme Court defenses of individual dignity, or privileges for Jewish citizens over Arab citizens, whose right to vote they consider provisional. A clear majority of these rightists want the release of Yigal Amir, who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. They see Europeans as anti-Semitic unless proven otherwise, Reform Jews as apostates, and Islam as terrorism’s gateway drug. Last week, the editor in chief of Haaretz, Aluf Benn, warned that Greater Israel zealots have moved to control the news media, schools, courts and army. “That means replacing the heads of cultural institutions and threatening a halt to government funding for those who don’t go with the flow,” he said.

People in Tel Aviv are cut from different cloth. Invite friends from Tel Aviv to dinner in Jerusalem, and they raise an eyebrow, as if you’re asking them to leave Israel for the ancient Kingdom of Judea.

The ethos of Tel Aviv — which runs, in effect, up the seaboard to Haifa — reflects the attitudes of another 40 percent of the Israeli Jewish population, which declares itself secular. One can slice the data many ways, but these Israelis see themselves as a part of the Western world and Israel’s Jewishness as custodianship of a historic civilization, not Orthodox rabbinical law.

Zionism, to them, means a culture. There may be a sentimental attachment to the rhetoric of Zionism’s insurgent period around independence: “redeeming” the land of Israel, “answering” the Holocaust, building a “majority” of people with J-positive blood, and so forth. But for most liberal Israelis, Zionism concretely means building a modern Hebrew-speaking civil society that can assimilate all comers.

There are some less liberal, who might call themselves “centrists.” They fear (or loathe) Arabs — about a third of secular Israelis would entertain expulsion — and have given up on the Oslo peace process, if not the two-state solution in the abstract. Yet they think the occupation, for which their conscripted children provide the backbone, should be run according to civilized norms. They fear (or loathe) settlers, too. In 2016, reflecting on the influence of the settlers, senior military and political leaders worried publicly about the growth of Israeli “fascism.”

America has coasts; Israel has a coast.

Which brings me to American Jews. According to the Pew Research Center, a clear majority, more than 70 percent, see themselves in shades of classical liberalism. Over 70 percent consider it a duty to remember the Holocaust; their significant concern for Israel — which about 40 percent profess — is seen in that light. Four-fifths do not keep kosher; nearly 60 percent say “working for justice and equality” is an integral part of their values (but then, more than 40 percent say “a sense of humor” is).
Photo
Ultra-Orthodox Jews burning leavened food before Passover near Tel Aviv. Credit Oded Balilty/Associated Press

When not in Jerusalem, I live in New England. It is hard to find Jews who are not proudly erudite, emancipated, attending synagogue only sporadically, comfortable with intermarriage, identified with the Democratic Party. Liberal American Jews overwhelmingly support the two-state solution. Their largest political organization, J Street, welcomed the United Nations Security Council condemnation of settlements. They cannot imagine rallying to an apartheid Israel.

American Jews are more likely to identify with Philip Roth’s protagonists than with a figure like Mr. Friedman, who might have been a Rothian foil. Righteously Orthodox, he traffics in the pathos of anti-Semitism (he dismissed J Street supporters as “worse than kapos,” the Jewish trustees in Nazi concentration camps), mocks the Anti-Defamation League for criticizing anti-Semitic messaging in Mr. Trump’s final campaign ad, and has cozied up to Republicans for whom being pro-Israel is tantamount to being pro-guns on the world stage.

Institutions on the right of the organized Jewish American community like the Zionist Organization of America openly embrace the minority sentiments Mr. Friedman espouses.

“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Conference of Presidents profess neutrality,” J Street’s founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, told me, “but their unwillingness to criticize Friedman or to defend critics of Israeli policies from attack put them in much the same space.”

In consequence of this rift, which has been long in the making, only about 30 percent of young American Jews polled in 2013 said that Israel plays a part in their lives. More and more, as the writer Peter Beinart noted, are becoming indifferent to Jewish community life altogether.

Mr. Trump’s professed friendship for Israel, then, brings an unexpected moment of truth. It will advance the cause of extremists in Israel, while making a majority of American Jews more skeptical of American policy and organized Jewish institutions — and no less skeptical of him.

Mr. Trump may feel he is discharging a personal debt to Orthodox neo-Zionists, who, alone among American Jews, disproportionately vote Republican. But Mr. Friedman will ultimately be accountable to the secretaries of state and defense, whose charge will be Middle East policy as a whole. Can they be expected to go along with the friendship program?

Soon after he left his post as head of Central Command, Mr. Trump’s choice for defense secretary, Gen. James N. Mattis, lamented that Israel was headed for “apartheid.” He has also questioned the price America has paid in the region for being identified with Israel’s actions. And, in the end, he endorsed the Iran nuclear deal.

The pick for state, Rex W. Tillerson, is a self-described risk manager, who spent his professional life at ExxonMobile managing huge upfront investments that would have to be recouped over a generation. What he has cared most about are the rewards of long-term stability, irrespective of a nation’s governing ideology or tyrannical behavior.

Mr. Trump reportedly complied with Mr. Netanyahu’s request to pressure Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, to prevent the United Nations Security Council vote on settlements. Does it serve regional stability for Mr. Sisi to be seen as Mr. Netanyahu’s agent?

The more immediate risk to stability would be the embassy move. Of Israel’s neighbors, the most vulnerable state — and the most crucial to American interests — is Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom, which has signed a peace agreement with Israel, has long been on the defensive for its association with the United States. The country also shares a border both with Syria and the Islamic State and has accepted a million refugees from the Syrian war. Jordan’s capital, Amman, is by most reckonings majority Palestinian, including a substantial middle class and two large Palestinian refugee camps, which are decidedly less affluent. The residents of the camps have become increasingly receptive to radical Sunni jihadist ideas.

After the announcement about the embassy move, polls showed that 44 percent of Israelis thought Mr. Trump a “true” friend — but only 6 percent believed he’d make good on the promise. The skepticism is revealing. Both Israelis and Palestinians are alert to how violence in the occupied territories could spread; the distance from Amman to Jericho, in the West Bank, is roughly that from Newark Airport to Kennedy Airport. Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian public opinion expert, told me in December that an embassy move “could ignite the territories.” Is this the time for America to signal approval for Israel’s annexation of the whole of Jerusalem, merely to back the Israeli right’s symbolic claim?

Mr. Trump has heated up the Jewish culture wars and, inadvertently or otherwise, advanced fanaticism. His incoming national security team is made up of people who purport to be realists, so here are the facts: Safeguard American interests and, as a byproduct, you strengthen Israeli democracy; Israeli advocates of Greater Israel, and their American allies, subvert both.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2017, 07:03:06 AM

Andrew McCarthy - last part of the article (link below)

------
This week, Obama betrayed our Israeli allies by orchestrating (and cravenly abstaining from) a U.N. Security Council resolution. As I’ve explained, the ostensible purpose of the resolution is to condemn the construction of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria that Israel has controlled since 1967; the real purpose is to declare that those territories are sovereign Palestinian land, and thus that Israel is “occupying” it in violation of international law (“international law” is the gussied-up term for the hyper-political, intensely anti-Israeli Security Council’s say-so).
What does this have to do with our enemy’s ideology? Everything.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation. Hamas, the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood branch that has been lavishly supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other Muslim governments, is more explicit about this than its rival for Palestinian leadership, Fatah. But both are clear on the matter. They take the doctrinal position that any territory that comes under Islamic control for any duration of time is Islam’s forever. (That’s why Islamists still refer to Spain as al-Andalus and vow to retake it, notwithstanding that they lost it half a millennium ago.)

Further, radical Islam regards the presence of a sovereign Jewish state in Islamic territory as an intolerable affront. Again, the reason is doctrinal. Do not take my word for it; have a look at the 1988 Hamas Charter (“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”). Article 7, in particular, includes this statement by the prophet Muhammad:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” . . . (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Understand: Al-Bukhari and Muslim are authoritative collections of hadith. These memorializations of the prophet’s sayings and deeds have scriptural status in Islam. Hamas is not lying — this story of an end-of-times annihilation of Jews is related, repeatedly, in Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., here.) And please spare me the twaddle about how there are competing interpretations that discount or “contextualize” these hadith. It doesn’t matter which, if any, interpretation represents the “true Islam” (if there is one). What matters for purposes of our security is that millions of Muslims, including our enemies, believe these hadith mean what they say — unalterable, for all time.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation.
________________________________________
Even after all the mass-murder attacks we have endured over the last few decades, and for all their claptrap about respecting Islam as “one of the world’s great religions,” transnational progressives cannot bring themselves to accept that something as passé as religious doctrine could dictate 21st-century conflicts. So, they tell themselves, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is simply about territorial boundaries and refugee rights. It could be settled if Israel, which they reckon would never have been established but for a regrettable bout of post-Holocaust remorse, would just make a few concessions regarding land it was never ceded in the first place (conveniently overlooking that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are disputed territories, and were not “Palestinian” when Israel took them in the 1967 war of Arab aggression).

Transnational progressives see Israel as intransigent, notwithstanding its many attempts to trade land for peace. They rationalize Palestinian terrorism as the product of that intransigence, not of ideology. Thus their smug calculation that branding Israel as an “occupier” of “Palestinian land” in gross “violation of international law” is the nudge Israel needs to settle. This will effectively grant the Palestinians their coveted sovereign state. Thus accommodated, Palestinians will surely moderate and co-exist with Israel — if not in peace, then in the same uneasy state in which Parisians coexist with their banlieues and Berliners with their refugees.

It is not just fantasy but willfully blind idiocy. No one who took a few minutes to understand the ideology of radical Islam would contemplate for a moment a resolution such as the one Obama just choreographed.

Under Islamic law, the Palestinians regard all of the territory — not just East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria but all of Israel — as Muslim territory.
Furthermore, they deem the presence of a Jewish-ruled state on that territory as anathema. A Security Council resolution that declares Israeli control of the disputed territory not merely an “obstacle to peace” but illegitimate tells the Islamists that their jihad has succeeded, that non-Muslim powers accede to their sharia-based demands. It can only encourage them to continue their jihad toward their ultimate regional goal of eradicating the Jewish state. After all, Mahmoud Abbas has stated his racist terms: Not a single Israeli will be permitted to reside in the Palestinian state. As Islamists see it (and why shouldn’t they?), Obama’s reaction was not to condemn Abbas; it was to appease Abbas. As Islamists see it, Allah is rewarding their fidelity to Islamic doctrine; of course they will persevere in it.

We are not merely in a shooting war with jihadists. We are in an ideological war with sharia supremacists. Mass murder is not their sole tactic; they attack at the negotiating table, in the councils of government, in the media, on the campus, in the courtroom — at every political and cultural pressure point. To defeat jihadists, it is necessary to discredit the ideology that catalyzes them. You don’t discredit an ideology by ignoring its existence, denying its power, and accommodating it at every turn.

President Obama never got this. Will President Trump?
In his campaign, Trump made a welcome start by naming the enemy. Now it is time to know the enemy — such that it is clear to the enemy that we understand his objectives and his motivation, and that we will deny him because our own principles require it.
The new president should begin by renouncing Obama’s Palestinian power-play: Revoke any state recognition Obama gives the Palestinians; defund them; clarify the disputed (not occupied) status of the territories; move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem; reaffirm the principle that the conflict may only be settled by direct negotiations between the parties; and make clear that the United States will consider the Palestinians pariahs until they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, stop indoctrinating their children in doctrinal Jew-hatred, and convincingly abandon terrorism.
That would tell radical Islam that America rejects its objectives as well as its tactics, that we will fight its ideology as well as its terrorism. This is not just about restoring our reputation as a dependable ally. Our security depends on it.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443440/donald-trump-radical-islam-israel-palestinian-conflict-test-case-new-administration

Title: Why Obama pandered to UN's bigotry
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2017, 09:42:46 AM

As interesting for who wrote it as for what it says

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/30/why-did-obama-pander-to-the-un-s-stunning-anti-israel-bias.html=

Title: Hamas- Fatah to meet in Moscow
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2017, 09:42:08 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/PLO-Official-Russia-to-host-Hamas-Fatah-meeting-477244

Title: Glick: End Whitewash of PLO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 10, 2017, 09:58:08 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Netanyahu-Congress-AIPAC-and-the-PLO-477940

Title: Jared - to save the Middle East?
Post by: ccp on January 16, 2017, 04:41:34 AM

Well if one takes the position with, "what have we got to lose?" and "it couldn't get any worse"  then I suppose this is a great idea:

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Jared-Kushner-will-broker-Middle-East-peace-at-the-White-House-says-Trump-478554

Title: Glick: Time to end the PLO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 17, 2017, 04:08:30 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-world-Trump-the-pistol-and-holy-branch-478650

Title: Volume of Muslim call to prayer may be lowered
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2017, 08:42:26 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/18/israels-muslims-fear-worst-as-netanyahu-eyes-curbs/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTjJObFpEbGlNRFF5TVRsaSIsInQiOiJUVDdVeWpmcWVpdlRNTWdrYzk0cFpkVlB4WFI2OFVBZmlvZjAxK0Y5Y2pBeXQyc01FWWZWQXpGTGdHTjE2SlBjRVwvWlhndm96MUJiWGNleUV2cENnXC9vVDhwWWdkSHY1bEpnT3NxVlwvcjBlTVpcL21oTTVqcWlpQ1l4alJZT1hVXC9sIn0%3D

Title: History of President Jimmy Carter and Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2017, 07:26:00 PM

Jimmy Carter's Lifelong Pursuit of a Palestinian State
by A.J. Caschetta
American Thinker
December 30, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6469/jimmy-carter-pursuit-of-palestinian-state
 
Perhaps sensing that he would soon have to relinquish his position as America's worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter reminded everyone last month how he earned the title with yet another call for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state. Carter's call is a departure from American diplomacy, which insists, per UN Resolution 338, that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement can only be reached through negotiations "between the parties."

Carter's presidency was mired in bad foreign policy decisions, and his post-presidency has been marred with excusing terrorism, attempting to revise history, and meddling in the affairs of every subsequent occupant of the White House – especially where the Middle East, which Carter considers his forte, is concerned. At each stage of his post-presidency, he has advocated on behalf of the Palestinians and against Israel, a nation he considers an apartheid state.
The Carter presidency is notable mostly for its failures: a 21.5% prime interest rate, the aborted April 1980 mission to rescue American hostages held in Iran, and dreary speeches to the nation, like the "crisis of confidence" or "malaise" speech. The only bright spot, and the one achievement upon which he has built his post-presidency reputation, is the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal known as the Camp David Accords. Were it not for that lone foreign policy success during his presidency, few would listen to Jimmy Carter today.

At each stage of his post-presidency, Carter has advocated on behalf of the Palestinians against Israel.

Unfortunately, Carter gets too much credit for Camp David. He almost botched the whole deal with two ill-advised strategies: bringing the USSR into the negotiations and insisting on a comprehensive deal that would create a Palestinian state.

Egypt had been moving out of the Soviet orbit long before Camp David. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat wrote in his autobiography: "I wanted to put the Soviet Union in its place... to tell the Russians that the will of Egypt was entirely Egyptian; I wanted to tell the whole world that we are always our own masters. Whoever wished to talk to us should come over and do it, rather than approach the Soviet Union."

In a secret meeting on September 16, 1977 in Morocco, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister Hassan Tuhami conducted the second round of negotiations, without the assistance or even the knowledge of anyone in the Carter administration. At that meeting, Tuhami told Dayan that Sadat "do[es] not wish to be in touch with the Soviet Union, but only with the U.S."

The other flaw in Carter's plans was his attempt to involve the Arab states in a deal that would create a Palestinian state, even after Sadat made it clear that he was pursuing a bilateral arrangement with Israel. Sadat told the American ambassador in Cairo that the negotiations "are getting lost in the papers," meaning the process Carter was cooking.

A few weeks into his presidency, Carter spoke about the Palestinians in a way that no previous U.S. president had ever spoken. Abandoning the positions of every prior administration since Harry S. Truman's, he said: "There has to be a homeland provided for the Palestinian refugees who have suffered for many, many years."
 
Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the defining moment that made bilateral Israel-Egyptian negotiations possible.

Though contrary to U.S. official policy at the time, Carter even reached out secretly to Yassir Arafat, only to be snubbed by the PLO leader.
Carter's two errors converged when U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko announced a return to the 1973 Geneva Conference in a joint statement. An incensed Sadat rejected the call and soon made his own historic trip to Israel. It was the defining moment that made bilateral negotiations possible, and Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with it.

In the best book on the topic, Heroic Diplomacy, Kenneth W. Stein describes the American reaction to Sadat's trip:

In Washington there was a sense of disarray and surprise, because Carter and Brzezinski were particularly immersed in getting to Geneva. The administration had not been consulted, and the American game plan was thrown out of kilter.

Sadat went to Israel, breaking what Stein calls "the Arab psychological barrier by recognizing the existence and legitimacy of the Jewish state.
Menachem Begin soon made his own historic trip to Egypt and the peace accord they eventually signed in 1979 bowed neither to Carter's comprehensive negotiating formula nor to his demand for a Palestinian state.

It is no accident that Begin and Sadat were co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 -- the year before the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty was signed. The brave actions each man took paved the way for the treaty. Jimmy Carter, whose advocacy for a Palestinian state almost made the treaty impossible, got his Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 -- largely because a politicized Nobel Committee sought to reward him for undercutting George W. Bush's response to 9/11.

Carter left office convinced that he could have brokered a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement.

Carter came into office believing he could personally arrange an Israeli-Arab peace deal. After losing his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan, he left office convinced that he could have finalized a deal in his second term, and has been, in Asaf Romirowsky's words, "practicing foreign affairs without an electoral mandate" ever since.

After Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament in the 2006 election, Carter fretted in the Washington Post that, as Hamas is a terrorist organization, the West would henceforth be unable to distribute aid in the territories and thereby further "alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians." Carter seemed unconcerned that these same "innocents" had just elected a terrorist organization to represent them.
 
Carter receiving a warm reception by Gaza standards, June 2009.

In 2014 Carter wrote in Foreign Policy that the West needs to recognize Hamas' "legitimacy as a political actor" in order to facilitate peace in Gaza. Here he was echoing his former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's November 2007 open letter to President George W. Bush urging him to open "a genuine dialogue with the organization." This is the same Brzezinski who suggested in 2008 that a President Obama might order the downing of Israeli airplanes should they cross into Iraqi airspace on a mission to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

Carter needs to ask himself why the world should accept a Palestinian state comprised of the highest concentration of Muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified when carried out "against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies." Why should the U.S. accept a nation ruled by terrorists who have repeatedly killed Americans, even when we were there to offer scholarships to Palestinian students? And why should Israel to accept a state on its borders that does not recognize its own right to exist?

The world should not confuse admiration for Jimmy Carter's charitable and philanthropic work and joy that he beat brain cancer with the delusion that he was an effective president whose wisdom can see us through troubled times 35 years after he left office.

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Title: A final FU from Baraq
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 23, 2017, 05:38:03 PM

https://www.apnews.com/b8446cbf5b504b1abaf49eb0d646367b

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 25, 2017, 04:30:01 AM

This does anger some Jews but bROCK is out the door so now Jews can go after Trump as they already are.   Forget about any Jews leaving the Democrat party .  It will not happen.  bROCK as always gets away with it:


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444210/obama-palestinian-aid-supports-gaza-anti-semitic-propaganda

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2017, 05:21:05 AM

It will be very interesting to see how Trump handles the US Embassy in Jerusalem issue.

It certainly is the "right" thing to do, but the blow back could be very destructing to the under the radar screen but apparently real development of Israeli-Sunni (e.g. Saudi) alliances based upon fear of Iran.

Title: No sympathy from Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2017, 08:04:55 AM

Despite ISIS Attacks, Little Empathy for Israel in Turkey
by Burak Bekdil
The Gatestone Institute
January 19, 2017
http://www.meforum.org/6496/despite-isis-attacks-little-empathy-for-israel-in-turkey
 
Police arrive at the scene of an explosion in Istanbul on December 10.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a good point when, a day after a terrorist attack in Istanbul killed 38 people on Dec. 10, he said that he condemned all terrorism in Turkey and expected that Turkey did the same when terror targeted Israel. "The fight against terrorism must be mutual,"
Netanyahu said. "It must be mutual in condemnation and in countermeasures, and this is what the State of Israel expects from all countries it is in contact with, including Turkey," Netanyahu said a day before Ankara and Jerusalem formally normalized their frozen diplomatic relations. Netanyahu's expectation was legitimate but not realistic, especially with Turkey.

A few days later, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman issued an order outlawing the Istanbul-based International Kanadil Institute for Humanitarian Aid, a Turkish aid group, accusing it of funneling money to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Kanadil foundation is identified with Hamas and with the Muslim Brotherhood and in recent years had been used as a main pipeline for funding projects by Hamas in Jerusalem," Lieberman's spokesperson said in a statement. Turkey's logistical and political support for its ideological next of kin, Hamas, did not come as a surprise, despite normalization with Israel: for Turkey's rulers, there are terrorists, and terrorists who go with fancy tags.

One would expect such a front-runner ISIS victim as Turkey to have empathy for victims elsewhere.

In a November interview with Israel's Channel 2, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he does not view Hamas as a terrorist organization. He called it instead a "political movement born from [a] national resurrection." He also said he meets with Hamas "all the time."

What Erdogan says about terror and terrorists often makes perfect sense. On June 11, 2016, he said that "for us there is no good terrorist or bad terrorist; all terrorists are bad." On June 15, 2016, Erdogan proposed that "let us oppose terror regardless of the terrorist's identity, rhetoric or faith... Let us disapprove of [terror] whoever it targets." And on Dec. 1, 2016, after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Erdogan said that "terrorism has no religion, nationality or identity ... that we should exhibit a common stance and common solidarity in our fight against all kinds of terror."
 
 
Erdogan warmly greets Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal in Ankara, March 2012.

Turkey, since a near civil-war paralyzed life in the 1970s, has been one of the most notable victims of terror in the world. The street violence along ultra left- and right-wing lines took thousands of lives and led to a military coup on Sept. 12, 1980. After barely three years of relative peace in post-coup Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) burst onto the scene in 1984, launching a violent campaign for a Kurdish homeland. That war has so far taken nearly 40,000 lives. Turkey also is a relatively recent target of the jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (IS). In its latest attack shortly after midnight on the New Year's Eve, an IS militant killed 39 people at an upscale Istanbul nightclub. By a modest estimate, in less than half a century, tens of thousands of Turks must have lost their lives in terror.

Common sense would expect such a front-runner victim at least to have some sense of empathy for terror victims elsewhere. Right? Wrong. Not in Turkey. Unfortunately, Erdogan's ideological attachments visibly defeat his fake rhetoric that there are no good terrorists and bad terrorists.

On Jan. 8, four Israeli officer cadets were killed and a dozen wounded when a Palestinian driving a truck ploughed into them deliberately. Israeli police said the dead, three women and one man, were all in their twenties. Among the wounded three were described as in a serious condition. Hamas, Erdogan's "political movement born from [a] national resurrection," praised the truck attack but did not claim responsibility. In a statement, the group's spokesman Abdul-Latif Qanou called it a "heroic" act and encouraged other Palestinians to do the same and "escalate the resistance."

Ten statements condemning terror. Not a word for the young victims in Jerusalem.

Unsurprisingly, Erdogan who "opposes terror regardless of the terrorist's identity, rhetoric or [religious] faith ... whoever it targets," has not condemned the latest attack in Jerusalem. His mind may have been too busy with victims of terror in his own country. But then Turkey often has a "Protocol B" level of condemnation of acts of terror abroad: Leaders may remain silent but, officially, the Foreign Ministry does the job.

On Jan. 10, the Turkish Foreign Ministry's web page exhibited a list of press releases on various subjects including terror attacks in foreign countries. A simple check would reveal that between Dec. 1, 2016 and Jan. 10, 2017 the Ministry had issued two press releases condemning terror attacks in Egypt, two in Iraq, one at the Mogadishu Airport, one in Berlin, one in Somalia, two in Yemen and one in Jordan. Ten statements in total condemning terror. Not a single word for the young victims of terror in Jerusalem.

Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based political analyst and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Title: not so fast bROCK
Post by: ccp on January 25, 2017, 11:24:08 AM

unless he sent it over in a C 131 with crates of cash:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/25/change-trump-state-department-holds-reviews-obamas-221m-palestinians/

Title: With Obama gone, Israel popular with the Dems again
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2017, 02:54:11 PM

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/netanyahu-dc-meetings/

Title: Re: Israeli TV show hit for both Israelis and Palestinians
Post by: G M on February 15, 2017, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2015, 07:50:29 PM

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/what-if-the-wire-were-set-in-ramallah-israeli-tv-show-fauda/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Editors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2014_EditorsPicksRS5%2F29

Now on Netflix! Very much worth watching!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2017, 09:33:22 PM

On Netflix what is the name of the show?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2017, 09:34:10 PM

Awesome move today by President Trump with PM Bibi!!!   8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on February 15, 2017, 09:50:03 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2017, 09:33:22 PM

On Netflix what is the name of the show?

Fauda

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2017, 10:12:38 PM

TY

Title: Glick: The Trump-Netanyahu alliance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2017, 12:21:16 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-Trump-Netanyahu-alliance-481846

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on February 17, 2017, 05:51:29 PM

Wow.  Dershowitz is defending Trump!  :-o  And poles Fareeeeeeeed zakaria in the eye.  :-D   I don't think I have ever heard Dershowitz defend a Republican like this:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2017/02/16/alan-dershowitz-cnns-fareed-zakaria-calling-president-trumps-appearance-with-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-embarrassing-bizarre-and-irresponsible-is/

Title: Glick: Obama-Kerry supported Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2017, 09:51:19 AM

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0317/glick030317.php3#tsbLKl8KxJrsJ166.01

Title: Palestinian Gun Makers
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 10, 2017, 02:57:28 PM

Israel Targets Palestinian Gun Makers
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
March 10, 2017
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5847/israel-targets-palestinian-gun-makers

 
 At first glance, the bridal gown shop in the Palestinian city of Nablus appeared innocuous. But behind the scenes, Israeli intelligence says, the store served as a front for a major West Bank gun parts distribution center.

"Components for weapons were continuously being sold out of there," a senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) source told The Investigative Project on Terrorism.  The store turned out to be part of a wide network of weapons dealers who had imported their lethal goods by ordering them on the internet, the IDF stated this week.  Nine suspects, including the store owner, are in custody, and additional members of the weapons trafficking ring remain at large. "They came from all walks of life and from varied layers of Palestinian society," the source stated.

Since mid-2016, the IDF has been engaged in an intensive, large-scale campaign to seize as many firearms circulating in the West Bank as possible to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists.  A growing number of such firearms have been used in deadly attacks, such as the Sarona Market shooting in Tel Aviv last June in which two Palestinian gunmen murdered four people in a restaurant. The gunmen used locally produced automatic rifles, dubbed 'Carlos' due to their resemblance to the Carl Gustav Swedish sub-machine gun.

While the latest wave of arrests focused on traders who used the internet to import gun parts, most of those on the IDF's target list manufacture and assemble guns in local workshops. Seven such workshops have been shut down since the start of 2017, and 84 guns have been seized by Israeli security forces, according to figures made available by the IDF.

"The terrorist threat picture has changed. In the past, the main threat was posed by organized, institutional organizations," the senior security source said. "For the most part, these were hierarchical terror cells, with a clear division of labor. There was someone responsible for financing, someone else had the designated job of transporting the suicide bomber or gunman, etc. This threat still exists. Hamas is trying to organize such cells all of the time. But the main challenge these days comes from terrorists that we do not have prior knowledge about."

Lone attackers, or small, localized cells with no organizational affiliation or background of security offenses, are far harder for intelligence services to detect, and these are just the type of terrorists who are likely to use firearms available in their surroundings. These types of attackers, some of whom have suicidal tendencies or personal crises, according to the source, often will attempt simple attacks, using whatever is at their disposal. This can take the form of knife or vehicle attacks, or picking up locally available weapons.

Guns in the West Bank can be purchased by Palestinians for many reasons; whether for personal protection, to defend families and clans, to fire at wedding celebrations, or to reinforce one's sense of ego.  As long as the guns are cheap and affordable, the source warned, "anyone can get [them]. Many of the shootings cells we captured in the West Bank were armed with these types of weapons."

A year ago, a locally produced Carlo rifle cost around 2,300 shekels in the West Bank, meaning that Palestinians could purchase it with a single month's salary, or take the money from family members, before moving ahead with an attack.

"The Sarona Market gunmen had no outside financial support, but still managed to get their hands on their firearms. The suits they wore [to disguise their identities] cost more than their guns," the source said.

"This is why we are in the midst of an intensive campaign targeting the manufacturing and trade of weapons and gun parts. Even if I can't get rid of the illegal weapons phenomenon, I can make them less accessible, and much harder to traffic in them."

The increased Israeli pressure makes it more difficult to obtain guns, and increases the odds of catching people before they can attack. They have to leave
their village or neighborhood and move around with the firearms where they can be caught and intercepted by the IDF. "People will fear more getting caught and moving around with these firearms," the source said.

The Palestinian Authority would also like to see these guns taken off the streets, the source said, since it encourages lawlessness and anarchy in some areas that pose challenges to its rule.

Nablus, Balata Camp (next to Nablus), and Hebron are gun manufacturing focal points, according to IDF assessments. In addition, areas like Ramallah, Kalandia, and Palestinian neighborhoods on the outskirts of Jerusalem have workshops that take air or toy guns and convert them into real firearms using stolen components.

Thefts from IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians, as well as trade with Israeli weapons traffickers who do not care where the guns end up provide other sources of terrorist arms.

Efforts by security forces to stem the tide were beginning to pay dividends, the source said. Today, a Carlo gun costs more than 6,000 shekels, as numbers dwindle.

"With time, we are seeing improvements," he said. "We are seizing more than we did in the past, and our intelligence techniques have improved, so that we can capture guns not only in homes, but also in the manufacturing locations, and when they are moved around. This is a campaign. No single incident will stamp out the problem. So long as the profit from this trade is big enough compared to the fear of arrest or facing raids, many Palestinians will continue to be active in it. "

Ultimately, he said, "over time, we will seek to decrease the number of guns and keep raising the price. This will result in less terrorists getting their hands on them, and resorting to less lethal attack forms, such as knife attacks. Our soldiers' alertness [to knife attacks] means such attacks produce less casualties - meaning that our effort will boost security."

Yaakov Lappin is a military and strategic affairs correspondent. He also conducts research and analysis for defense think tanks, and is the Israel correspondent for IHS Jane's Defense Weekly. His book, The Virtual Caliphate, explores the online jihadist presence.

Title: Killer of 7 Israeli girls hailed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2017, 05:48:33 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/12/20-years-after-shooting-7-israeli-schoolgirls-jordanian-soldier-is-hailed-as-a-hero-upon-release/?utm_term=.9f57b4ec4175&wpisrc=nl_wemost&wpmm=1

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 12, 2017, 05:59:37 PM

Quote from: G M on February 15, 2017, 09:50:03 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2017, 09:33:22 PM

On Netflix what is the name of the show?

Fauda

Anyone watch this besides me? I love it!

Title: Glick: President Trump is folding on PLO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2017, 10:28:33 AM

Uh oh , , , :-P

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Trump-embraces-the-PLO-fantasy-484099

Title: Glick: Instant deport of BDSers
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2017, 12:03:15 PM

Hey guys, thanks for the tip off.
Israel Border Police, I hope you took down the names! No need to arrest them. Just put them on a departing flight.
It's time you American Jewish leftists understand that there is a distinction between freedom of speech and freedom to wage war.
When you got on the BDS train, you joined a movement that is waging political, economic, social, cultural and academic war against Israel in conjunction with Israel's military and terrorist foes.
You are not speaking out. You are taking action. And for your action, you are being barred from entering the country. No country, including Israel should play gracious host to people who actively harm it.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/letters/1.777102

Title: Glick: Know thine enemy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 17, 2017, 09:14:03 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Know-thine-enemy-484430

Looks like Trump has folded already?

Title: Things heating up in skies over Syria
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 21, 2017, 11:00:39 PM

https://news.vice.com/story/israel-warns-it-will-destroy-syrias-air-defense-if-they-dare-to-attack-israeli-jets-again

Title: Glick: A Test for King Abdullah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2017, 08:15:39 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-A-test-for-King-Abdullah-485349

Title: Glick: America and Israel's Silenced Majority
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 31, 2017, 10:00:33 AM

http://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=485718

Title: Tablet: Obama, Israel, Democrats (a fair minded Dem writes)
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 13, 2017, 11:43:09 AM

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/228258/obama-israel-democrats?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist

I.

Michael Oren is an eminent American historian and Zionist who became the Israeli emissary to the United States during Barack Obama’s presidency. An undergraduate at Columbia and a graduate student at Princeton, where he received his doctorate, he later held three distinguished visiting professorships, at Georgetown, Yale, and Harvard. He knows America well— very well. Oren is now a member of the centrist party Kulanu in the Knesset: He has been designated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as deputy premier for diplomacy in a pointed effort to stem the flow of right-wing megadrama from the most disgusting big-mouthed, small-minded members of the cabinet, Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett.

Oren is a diplomat, both politically and psychologically. He veers away from hysteria, Jewish hysteria especially, about anti-Semitism in America or about Israel. But since the publication of his memoir in 2014, and a little before, he has come out as a fierce critic of the record of the most recent Democratic presidential administration on Israel, and, by extension, on the strongest single guarantor of the safety of the world’s Jews. What is most upsetting is that he is not wrong. Alas, I, who am a registered but not sworn Democrat and have been that for more than half a century, certainly cannot vouch that the party will long stand up for one of the few vigorous democracies on Earth.

 

II.

More than 16 years ago, Ehud Barak, an authentic hero including at Entebbe, crafted a peace plan that won the approval of Bill Clinton and should have won, with the usual habits of give-and-take diplomacy, at least the assent of the Palestinians to further talks. Barak ultimately agreed to give up all of Gaza, which Ariel Sharon later did, as well as 95 percent of the rest of the disputed territory, with special geographical, political, and religious arrangements for Jerusalem. Eight years later, Ehud Olmert—now in jail—added another 3 percent to the Israeli offer and allowed for what would now be Arab Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. No takers. Those facts, if you want to look, tell you plenty.

Those facts didn’t tell President Obama much, or he didn’t look. I supported Obama in his first campaign for president … against Hillary Clinton and against George Bush. I even went south to Florida to campaign for him and stayed there a crowded week. My contact with the bigger effort was Dan Shapiro (later to become the candidate’s ambassador to Israel), who first asked me to go. I’d also met with Obama: once before he entered the race and once—this time in a group—at the beginning of the primaries.

Obama seemed at the time, and turned out to be, a reasonable, well-intentioned man. But he was a catastrophe on international affairs. His one triumph was something he didn’t have anything to do with: He won the Nobel Peace Prize, and, actually, maybe this ended up mattering more than anything else. The Peace Prize came less than a year into his first term: In desperate explanation for the choice, the prize committee’s PR fingered Obama’s opening to the Muslim world for special recognition. And so Obama was operating with what he thought was a promise to live up to—a promise no one could live up to against the fractured history of the Middle East. This added to what he’d felt he’d promised before, during that campaign, that he would make amends to the Muslim world. Between the recent history and the Prize, he had to be peacemaker, and damn whatever realities came up in the meantime.

He’d told us this in his speech in Cairo in June 2009, before the Prize was announced. For this speech, his speechwriters scavenged for Islamic allusions in American history and found two or three. Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of America during the Revolutionary War. And, of course, that Jefferson had a Quran in his library. It was nice rhetoric—we all want peace, we all want good will with our Muslim brothers and sisters—but what about the realities of the region: a place where vicious, cynical dictators encourage the worst anti-Western, anti-liberal sentiments and impose unequal social customs on their people to maintain their own power; a place where Sunni and Shia are bitterly opposed?

One hundred years ago this year, James Balfour issued the famous declaration that re-inscribed the Jewish nation again into its ancient political history, but then the big powers went on to literally invent, really out of whole cloth, other states—Lebanon, Syria, Iraq—splitting up tribes and sects and communities and placing the people who lived in them in crazy arrangements under alien, authoritarian governments. Today, reaching out to these states in practice often means not helping their people but rewarding their leaders, and these are not people we want to reward. We heard nothing about that in the Cairo speech. Nor would we. And by December, when Obama went to Oslo, the signs were there that realities were getting ignored when it came to policy, too.

Obama’s first outreach had been to the Sunnis. He had made tight pals with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a bad sign even then, before Erdogan completely abandoned the pretense of secular liberalism. Obama was close to the Saudis—to King Abdullah. He had also delivered his address at Cairo’s Al Azhar, both a Sunni university and a mosque. Over time, he turned away from the Sunnis and toward the Shia, to Iran—the counterweight to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, in the region—a state most of its neighbors saw as an immediate threat. Then there was Syria, where, out of the same mind-changing dynamic, he countenanced a human disaster, grim beyond calculation.

And the victims of the president’s good intentions were not just these populations and the liberal secularists within them, which was bad enough. The victim was also the one state that the Great Powers created right, the fortunate state, but the state that’s lived up to its fortune by staying democratic, sometimes imperfectly democratic but democratic nonetheless, against constant external threat of annihilation: Israel.

 

III.

Maybe we should have known this would happen. One’s spiritual counselors have meaning, and Obama chose over nearly a decade and a half perhaps the most anti-American, anti-Jewish, and viciously anti-Israel minister in Chicago. Being under the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s guidance doesn’t mean Obama shared his views, but this was not a spiritual counselor who would show much sympathetic understanding, or even unsympathetic understanding, toward Israel.

Then in 2009, there was Obama’s selection of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Maybe you remember him: He’d been ambassador to Saudi Arabia and exquisitely faithful to Riyadh, one of the old monarchy’s servants, Riyadh before its tentative but meaningful liberalizing steps. He’d worked with China, and been sympathetic to its autocratic ruling party. He, his son, and the authors of The Israel Lobby, which he first published before the commercial edition was conceived, attacked me and others who’d taken him on. But he was Obama’s choice—again, not someone with much sympathy for Israel’s struggle, or understanding of it. In fact, hostile.

Occasionally, rhetorically, Obama made himself a tough Zionist: aligning himself with Justice Brandeis, who thought “both sides of the Jordan are ours,” and Dayan and Golda. But I’ve always wondered whether at the annual Obama Seder the presidential party actually pronounced the sacred benediction “next year in Jerusalem.” Its sanctity, however, can be measured by a postscript to this ancient prayer, written in Yiddish and mimeographed in occupied France in 1941: Die hagaodeh zol zayn die letzte in Goles. “Let this Haggadah be the last one in Exile.”

To be sure, Obama knew about the Holocaust: In his Cairo address, the president mustered it as the essential—no, the only—rationale for a Jewish state. But the Jewish state is more than that! What about the nearly 1 million ardent and repatriating Jewish exiles who’d lived for two millennia—and some for almost three—in the lands of Islam? And what of the implications to his audience: the implications of assigning Israel’s rationale for existing solely to the Holocaust? Upon hearing this, that the Holocaust is the single reason for the Jewish state, is it any wonder Sunni and Shia say they are the other victims of Naziism?

It isn’t that the president hated Israel. It’s that, to those of us who feel for Israel in our bones and feel its closeness to America as a fellow beacon of liberalism, and who look for that feeling in our presidents, his words never said that he did, too. He had some nice words, sure, but he never gave evidence that he had a sense of the intense struggle it took Israel to become what it is and to maintain its ideals in face of immediate threat. By the end it seemed like Israel to him was Bibi Netanyahu, and it’s not fair to make Bibi or the right wing everything that Israel is, because it’s much, much more. Zionism includes and has always included people of every race, from every corner of the globe, with every belief about God.

The president never gave this its due. And in the pursuit of outreach, to Palestinians and to Iranians especially, he did worse: He created an impossible situation, a situation that would have been untenable on its face for anybody who truly understood Israel’s history and the dynamics of its neighbors.

In 2015 came the Iran nuclear deal, a holding action for which the president ignored piece after piece of evidence of Iran’s meddling in the region—against secular liberals in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran itself where secularists had been murdered by the regime in 2009 while we stood idly by. Even Democrats who were loyal to the president in all else opposed the deal—Nita Lowey, Chuck Schumer! (Do you want a liberal Democratic weasel? Take Rep. Jerry Nadler, the New York congressman from the most Jewish district in the country, who voted for it. Then again, only four Democratic senators voted against it.)

In 2016, John Kerry indulged his obsessive fantasies of 30 years (I’ve known him 40) with a push for peace that ignored every Israeli reality. The secretary’s speech more than implied that Jerusalem’s ancient Jewish Quarter should be up for negotiations… and so maybe up for grabs. That’s because, like everything else in Jerusalem (save the indisputably Israeli “new city”), it was since 1948 in the possession of the king of Jordan who, with Egypt, Syria and, yes, the monarchy of Iraq started the 1967 war which he, they then lost. Tiens! According to Kerry’s agenda, the ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives (itself mentioned a half dozen times in the Hebrew Bible), parts of Mount Scopus, Ammunition Hill, even the Western Wall and myriad other sites are open to negotiations.

When Israel resisted their moves, Kerry and his president, and the portentously sweet Samantha Power, lashed out, rhetorically and then in action, at the United Nations at the tail end of Obama’s term: The Security Council resolution passed because the United States did not veto. (On the morrow, more or less, the Brits apologized; and everyone grasped that the French socialist regime’s excuse was that it could not possibly win the next election without the Muslim vote … but will certainly not win even with it.) Of course, this move would find resonance in all the despot-led Muslim states at the United Nations… even those that were doing security business with Israel and, deeper yet, forming sotto voce alliances with the Jewish state that were operative on a day-to-day basis: Egypt; even Saudi Arabia; and Turkey, by now deep, deep under Erdogan.

Israel received aid from Obama, yes, but aid is worth only so much if legitimacy diminishes, and Israel ended his tenure with its international reputation pulled down by administration rhetoric, and by its inaction when members of the left attacked Israel. Never did we hear a word from our president condemning BDS. I wonder if the president (or Ben Rhodes, who was rewarded for his Jewish animus to Jewish concerns by a White House “midnight” appointment to the Holocaust Museum board), understand the deep betrayal experienced by those of us who don’t like the current Israeli government or its bunker mentality but who see Israel’s existence in the face of states whose leaders have stated their intention to put it in the ground, as the fact, the one that ends all the others.

 

IV.

Maybe this concern seems unnecessary, or overblown, or just myopic. After all, we see before all of our eyes anti-black sentiment; it is ugly, despite enormous social progress. We see anti-Arab, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian sentiment. Next to the immediacy of these, it might seem like carping to talk about a group so well situated in America, and in the Democratic Party, as the Jews. But when you talk about the Jews you can’t forget Israel—at least those of us whose families had, and whose friends and families have, a stake in its existence can’t.

Liberal democratic states were supposed to save the Jews—many people of learning and seriousness saw a cosmopolitan universalist Enlightenment culture as a dream attainable in reality. But those dreams came up against the real realities of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, which were repeats on a bigger, more horrific scale of the persecution, the alienation, that have followed us for two millennia. How can we be safe without a state of our own? Now we have a state, and it’s a state that possesses many precepts of virtue, precepts that it has been able to mostly maintain through a long and bitter history and under fire of missiles and under menace of the ultimate menace. It has always welcomed people of all races. It is Jewish but tolerant, and self-critical when it isn’t. It remains the one state in the region that holds the flame of those normative ideals high and strong. And it is surrounded by states that don’t want it to exist. Sometimes a fact, a reality, is as basic and hard as that.

For those of us who care for Israel, we are in an old, sad, difficult dilemma. Our principles, our people’s experience of the diaspora, our belief in transcending difference, our dismay at Republican tribal politics leads us to the Democrats. But there comes a point at which the urge to transcend difference comes at the expense of hard realities. Michael Oren was right—the last president passed that point with Israel. How much will his successors in the party leadership follow his lead?

***

You can help support Tablet’s unique brand of Jewish journalism. Click here to donate today.

Title: Trump, Abbas, and Palestinian attitudes polled
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 20, 2017, 10:29:44 PM

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/04/20/whats-trump-cooking-up-with-the-palestinians/

Title: Glick: German payments to anti-Israel groups
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2017, 05:26:44 AM

Good for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו for insisting that he will only meet Germany's anti-Israel foreign minister Sigmar "Israel is an apartheid state" Gabriel if Gabriel cancels his meetings with his anti-Israel agents B'tselem and Breaking the Silence.

To get a feel for how invested Germany is in promoting anti-Israel propaganda spewed by these two groups, I tallied up German and EU annual financial transfers to them from NGO Monitor's website.

From 2013-2016 Germany transferred 2,838,321 shekels to B'tselem and from 2012-2016 Germany transferred 1,848,912 shekels to Breaking the Silence.

From 2013-2016 the EU transferred 2,670,150 shekels to B'tselem. From 2012-2015 the EU transferrd 1,660,251 shekels to Breaking the Silence.

This is a major investment and it is clear from the money transfers and from Gabriel's insistence on meeting with the groups despite the Prime Minister's ultimatum, that the Germany government views them as agents.

Israel cannot have normal relations with Germany or any other foreign power when they are actively subverting Israeli democracy by funding organizations whose goal it is to delegitimize Israel internationally and make it impossible for the government to carry out the will of Israeli voters.

Moreover, as the investigations that Ad Kan - For a strong Israel conducted of these groups showed, they may well be being used by their foreign governmental funders to conduct military espionage against the IDF and to plan the murders of Palestinians who wish to exercise their civil rights in a manner that does not align with the Israel-registered, foreign government funded organizations' anti-Israel positions and missions.

Title: Glick: Netanyahu's new strategy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2017, 08:25:11 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Netanyahus-bold-move-against-Europe-489221

Title: WSJ: Russia recognizes Jerusalem. Why can't the US?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2017, 11:04:58 AM

Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital. Why Can’t the U.S.?
Trump must soon decide whether to move the embassy. Doing so would help promote peace.
Photo: Getty Images
By Eugene Kontorovich
May 14, 2017 5:01 p.m. ET
96 COMMENTS

President Trump’s visit to Israel next week is expected to lead to some announcement about his Jerusalem policy. The trip will coincide with celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the city’s reunification after the Six Day War. Only days after the visit, the president will have to decide between waiving an act of Congress or letting it take effect and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv—as he promised last year to do if elected.

Jerusalem is the only world capital whose status is denied by the international community. To change that, in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which mandates moving the U.S. Embassy to a “unified” Jerusalem. The law has been held in abeyance due to semiannual presidential waivers for “national security” reasons. President Obama’s final waiver will expire June 1.

There’s no good reason to maintain the charade that Jerusalem is not Israeli, and every reason for Mr. Trump to honor his campaign promise. The main arguments against moving the embassy—embraced by the foreign-policy establishment—is that it would lead to terrorism against American targets and undermine U.S. diplomacy. But the basis of those warnings has been undermined by the massive changes in the region since 1995.

While the Palestinian issue was once at the forefront of Arab politics, today Israel’s neighbors are preoccupied with a nuclear Iran and radical Islamic groups. For the Sunni Arab states, the Trump administration’s harder line against Iran is far more important than Jerusalem. To be sure, a decision to move the embassy could serve as a pretext for attacks by groups like al Qaeda. But they are already fully motivated against the U.S.

Another oft-heard admonition is that America would be going out on a limb if it “unilaterally” recognized Jerusalem when no other country did. An extraordinary recent development has rendered that warning moot. Last month Russia suddenly announced that it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Note what happened next: No explosions of anger at the Arab world. No end to Russia’s diplomatic role in the Middle East. No terror attacks against Russian targets. Moscow’s dramatic Jerusalem reversal has largely been ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of mayhem.

To be sure, Russia limited its recognition to “western Jerusalem.” Even so, it shifted the parameters of the discussion. Recognizing west Jerusalem as Israeli is now the position of a staunchly pro-Palestinian power. To maintain the distinctive U.S. role in Middle East diplomacy—and to do something historic—Mr. Trump must go further. Does the U.S. want to wind up with a less pro-Israel position than Vladimir Putin’s ?

The American response to real attacks against U.S. embassies has always been to send a clear message of strength. After the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington did not shut down those missions. Instead it invested in heavily fortified new facilities—and in hunting down the perpetrators.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would also improve the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It would end the perverse dynamic that has prevented such negotiations from succeeding: Every time the Palestinians say “no” to an offer, the international community demands a better deal on their behalf. No wonder no resolution has been reached. Only last week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insisted that new negotiations “start” with the generous offer made by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Relocating the embassy would demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that rejectionism has costs.

If Mr. Trump nonetheless signs the waiver, he could do two things to maintain his credibility in the peace process. First, formally recognize Jerusalem—the whole city—as the capital of Israel, and reflect that status in official documents. Second, make clear that unless the Palestinians get serious about peace within six months, his first waiver will be his last. He should set concrete benchmarks for the Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to negotiations. These would include ending their campaign against Israel in international organizations and cutting off payments to terrorists and their relatives.

This is Mr. Trump’s moment to show strength. It cannot be American policy to choose to recognize a capital, or not, based on how terrorists will react—especially when they likely won’t.

Mr. Kontorovich is a department head at the Kohelet Policy Forum and a law professor at Northwestern University.

Title: Jordanian Jihadi knife attack
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2017, 07:15:43 AM

a)   http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/jordanian-stabs-israeli-policeman-in-old-city-of-jerusalem/?omhide=true

Is there more complete footage of this anywhere?


b)  The second clip on this page shows terrible perimeter control e.g. that woman at 01:20 should not be where she is.


====================================

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jordan-calls-killing-of-jerusalem-attacker-a-heinous-crime/

Title: Glick: American Greatness and the PLO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2017, 07:38:15 AM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-American-greatness-and-the-PLO-490819

Title: Glick recommends this by Mark Levin on Trump and Abbas/PLO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2017, 06:34:27 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfGbzwANNKY

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 19, 2017, 04:39:08 PM

Yep.  discretely Trump's policy has shifted away from unconditional support for Israel.  Not sure due to which of his "advisors" but I presume it is due to someone with influence with him.

Dan Bongino covering for Mark today said he will be doing his show from israel next week in celebration of Israel's existential victory over the  7 ARab nations that tried to exterminate them from the Earth.

So Trump can now go there and throw the wall into the pot as negotiable.............. :x

Title: Trump confronted Abbas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2017, 09:09:04 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-to-yell-at-abbas-over-incitement-you-lied-to-me/

Title: Glcik calls that fake news
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2017, 06:30:06 AM

I find the report from US sources that President Trump yelled at Abbas for lying to him about Palestinian incitement to murder and the PA's inculcation of anti-Semitism at all levels of Palestinian society bizarre.

If he said these things, then why did he turn around and announce that Abbas wants peace or that he is INCREASING US aid to the PA?

If he is angry that the PLO is a terrorist group, then why didn't he fulfill his campaign promise and announce that he would not sign the waiver tomorrow and enable US law requiring the US embassy to be moved to Israel's capital Jerusalem?

The answer is that either he didn't say anything to Abbas -- that is, that the report is yet another instance of fake news. Or, conversely that Trump choked and failed to stand up for what he believes in against the anti-Israel establishment at the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and inside of his own White House.

Whatever the case, there is no reason to get excited by the news.

Title: Iran arming PIJ in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2017, 10:29:49 AM

Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Iran's 'Preferred Proxy,' Arming in Gaza
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
June 5, 2017
https://www.investigativeproject.org/6225/palestinian-islamic-jihad-iran-preferred-proxy

Title: The Balfour Declaration
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2017, 09:44:44 AM

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

Title: Netanyahyu undoes UNRWA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2017, 05:42:49 PM

http://www.meforum.org/6760/axing-unrwa?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=a52dc0424e-romirowsky_joffe_2017_06_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-a52dc0424e-33691909&goal=0_086cfd423c-a52dc0424e-33691909

Title: Glick: Burying Saddam's legacy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2017, 12:17:19 PM

http://carolineglick.com/burying-saddams-legacy/

Title: Kushner PO's PLO's Abbas; Israel, American Jewry and Trump’s GOP
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 23, 2017, 04:05:50 PM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-said-enraged-by-kushner-meet-refuses-to-cut-any-prisoner-salaries/

http://carolineglick.com/israel-american-jewry-and-trumps-gop/

Title: Israel retailiates against Syria
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 25, 2017, 11:11:10 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-releases-footage-of-strikes-on-syrian-military-targets/

Title: no surprise gift to Israel from Obama
Post by: ccp on July 01, 2017, 05:35:19 PM

After 8 years of Obama this is expected:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-u-young-black-latino-134228230.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

What I would be curious to know is it Israel or is it Jews?

Title: WSJ: Israel-India; Bibi and Modi
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 06, 2017, 08:44:16 PM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/modi-and-netanyahu-begin-a-beautiful-friendship-1499296575

Title: Israel-PA water deal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2017, 02:32:48 PM

Jul 13, 2017 | 20:33 GMT
Israel, Palestinian Territories: The Glass May Be Half Empty When It Comes to a New Water Agreement
(Stratfor)


Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed a water-sharing agreement under U.S. mediation. Israel agreed to provide 32 million cubic meters (about 8.5 billion gallons) of water annually to the Palestinian territories. Though the agreement is an advancement on a contentious issue, it is relatively little to ask of Israel. The 32 million cubic meters Israel will provide — until the desalination plant in Aqaba, Jordan associated with the Red Sea-Dead Sea Water Conveyance project is completed — is less than 10 percent of total Palestinian consumption.

Given the dire water scarcity situation facing the territories, The Palestinian Authority may divert a third of the water from this latest deal to the Gaza Strip where the scarcity is most acute (annual demand there is four times the natural groundwater supply). With demand outpacing supply, the Palestinian Authority needs a renewable source of affordable water.

Water ownership and control is a tense topic between the two governments. Israel may be a water-scarce nation, but it is also the world's leader in water management, water recycling and desalination technology. Despite scarce natural resources, Israel combined a series of canals and carriers, desalination plants, recycling facilities along with pricing schemes to ensure water security. The Palestinians rely mainly on groundwater resources within their territories to meet demand. Aquifers rarely respect national boundaries, however, and the drilling of water wells both in Israel and Palestinian territories has historically been a point of contention. The current deal provides Israel flexibility in terms of water sourcing until the desalination plant in Aqaba, Jordan is completed. A much more substantial advancement would be an agreement on cross-border groundwater resources and extraction.

From a political standpoint, the small amount of progress on water sharing is the first achievement in mediation by the new U.S. administration, which is desperate to advance the issue of Arab-Israeli peace. But within the complex peace negotiations, water is one issue among countless others that will be harder to resolve. While U.S. envoy and Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt said he hoped the July 13 water-sharing agreement is a "harbinger of things to come," Palestinian officials are less optimistic. The United States aims to use the agreement as a stepping off point for cooperation on more vexing issues, including settlements, Palestinian security, potential embassy moves and refugee resettlement. But the head of the Palestinian Water Authority said that, though the agreement is helpful, it does not touch on other aspects of the negotiations.


=========================================
Summary

Few geographic constraints are more universal than water scarcity. Although every country sees it in different ways and to different degrees, water stress is a problem that even water-rich states such as Canada experience. And with overuse, population growth and changing environments putting more strain on the world's limited fresh water resources, scarcity is becoming an even bigger concern. As global demand rises and supplies fall short, improving water purification methods will become an attractive option for countries looking to close the gap. Materials such as graphene are already paving the way to cheaper, more effective and more energy efficient filtration methods.

Desalination and water recycling can go a long way in making up for scant natural water resources. Israel, for example, has been highly successful in using both to overcome its inherent lack of water. The water reserves in the arid nation are extremely vulnerable both to its neighbors and its environment. These conditions have necessitated a rather unusual response: Israel recycles and desalinates a sizable share of its water. Recycled water, which is essentially reclaimed wastewater, accounts for 55 percent of agricultural water consumption, and Israel's desalination capacity is expected to equal its natural internal resources within the next four years.

Of course, Israel is a rare case whose small size and relative wealth have gone a long way toward making its water management strategy a success. In the short term, most countries will have a hard time replicating its achievements. Though Israel has advanced desalination technology enough to push costs down, there is still room for improvement. If desalination and water recycling are to be used on a broader scale, scientists will have to find a way to reduce the amount of energy consumed in the filtration process to make them more competitive with natural water resources. Even then, the high costs of transporting water over long distances would remain, limiting the effect seawater desalination could have.

Bringing down energy consumption is key, and some progress has recently been made on that front. Desalination by reverse osmosis — currently the industry standard — requires forcing water through cell membranes at high pressures to reduce the salt concentration present in either seawater or brackish water. Achieving those high pressures typically requires a large amount of energy, but graphene filters may soon change that. Graphene is much more permeable than the materials traditionally used to make desalination filters, reducing the amount of energy needed to separate salt from the water passing through it. According to some estimates, graphene filters can lower the monetary cost of producing water through desalination by as much as 20 percent.

 As is often the case with graphene products, though, the filter's limitation lies in the process of manufacturing it. Graphene and the materials derived from it often have fantastic properties, including great strength, high conductivity or increased permeability. However, these properties are lost when production is scaled up because of deformities introduced during fabrication. In light of this problem, graphene filters have been slow to develop, and efforts have been diverted to recycling wastewater for the oil and natural gas industry, which does not require as much uniformity in filters.

But a new manufacturing technique may make it possible to produce graphene filters with the size and standardization needed for large-scale desalination. Australian and U.S. researchers have developed a process that uses a blade to spread a viscous graphene-oxide material into a thin sheet. The sheet can remove virtually anything from water, including chemicals, salts, viruses and bacteria. Eventually, the process could allow for the faster production of large graphene-based desalination filters — a crucial step toward their wide-scale commercial development. While several hurdles still remain, the fact that the research had a commercial backer — Ionic Industries — makes it more likely that the experiment's results will be applied beyond the academic setting.

If they are, graphene-oxide filters could become a formidable tool in combating water scarcity, though they may not be widely used for at least another five to 10 years. As water resources become increasingly strained in some of the biggest cities and most populated countries, improvements in purification technologies will be important for more effectively using the limited water the world has left. 

Title: Tillerson State Dept paper on Israel Palestinians
Post by: ccp on July 21, 2017, 06:14:22 AM

Something tells me Tillerson is like James Baker and George Schultz when it comes to Israel though some of this could be from Obamster's State officials:


https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/state-dept-blames-israel-for-causing-palestinian-violence

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2017, 06:29:59 PM

Uh oh.  Not good.  Given Tilllerson's life in big oil, he probably got used to saying this sort of shit a long time ago.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2017, 08:37:44 PM

Terror Sparks Misguided Rage Against Israel
by Ariel Behar  •  Jul 24, 2017 at 5:23 pm
https://www.investigativeproject.org/6423/terror-sparks-rage-against-israel

 
After a terrorist attack killed two police officers at Jerusalem's Temple Mount July 14, Israel installed metal detectors on the compound, which also includes the Al Aqsa Mosque.  That's not a crazy over-reaction. But this routine safety precaution is being cast as an unprovoked intrusion on Muslims wishing to go to the mosque. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas broke off security cooperation with Israel. Protests turned violent, with three people dying Friday, and three members of an Israeli family being murdered in a West Bank terrorist attack.

Abbas condemned the horrific attack on the Temple Mount, but his Fatah party called for a "day of rage" over the metal detectors. None of these actions considers that, without the terror attack that killed the two police officers, none of this would be happening.

"It's hard to think of a worse debasement of a holy place than for armed gunmen in the middle of a shooting spree to flee to it for sanctuary," Bloomberg's Eli Lake wrote last week. "Add to this the fact the Jerusalem police now say there were guns hidden in the Temple Mount complex at the time."

For those who reflexively blame Israel, even when it suffered the attack, such context doesn't matter.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) issued a statement expressing unease over "the escalating tensions between Palestinians and Israeli police which led to the latter imposing unprecedented restrictions on worship at Masjid al Aqsa."

Similarly, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) claimed Israel's closure of Al Aqsa was "unacceptable." In a statement released Friday, it called the new security measures "proof Israel is using the current situation in Jerusalem as a pretext to divide the mosque and prohibit Muslims from accessing their holy site during certain days and/or periods."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) St. Louis chapter organized a march that cast metal detectors and security cameras as a "siege" of the mosque and featured chants of "free free Al-Aqsa."

"It's just another way to put [Palestinians] on a leash and try to control them," said CAIR intern Neveen Ayesh.

Anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour took to Facebook Saturday to salute protesters and claim that "Palestine will be free, it's not a question of if, its (sic) when."

Friday's West Bank terror attack, meanwhile, was the first in a series. A security officer at the Israeli embassy in Jordan was attacked Saturday evening. And Monday morning, another Palestinian carried out an attack "for al Aqsa" injuring an Arab-Israeli man he mistook for a Jew.

There have been no condemnations from any of the groups who see metal detectors as horrible injustices.

Title: Geopolitical Futures: Israel busy in Eastern Europe
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2017, 01:15:55 PM

•   Israel: Israel seems to be active at the diplomatic level in Eastern Europe. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Budapest last week. On July 25, Israel’s defense minister visited Belgrade and signed a defense deal with his Serbian counterpart. And Bulgaria is reportedly interested in receiving gas from Israel. Let’s look into what Israel hopes to get out of its moves in Eastern Europe.

Title: Pay for Slay
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2017, 12:29:16 PM

http://havokjournal.com/politics/international/three-reasons-palestinian-pay-slay-stay/?utm_source=Havok+Journal&utm_campaign=c3521eb22b-Havok_Journal_Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_566058f87c-c3521eb22b-214571297

Title: McMasters anti Israel posture
Post by: ccp on August 07, 2017, 10:03:47 AM

like the George Schultz and James Baker Barack Obama anti zionist resentful of Israel most likely anti semetic deep down :

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/official-mcmaster-calls-israel-illegitimate-occupying-power

It will not be soon enough when Trump finally gets rid of this guy.

Title: Glcik: Preparing for the post Abbas era
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2017, 05:48:13 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Preparing-for-the-post-Abbas-era-501928

 PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas scored a victory against Israel at the Temple Mount. But it was a Pyrrhic one.

Days after the government bowed to his demand and voted to remove the metal detectors from the Temple Mount, Abbas checked into the hospital for tests. The 82-year-old dictator has heart disease and a series of other serious health issues. And he has refused to appoint a successor.

It is widely assumed that once he exits the stage, the situation in the PA-ruled areas in Judea and Samaria – otherwise known as Areas A and B – will change in fundamental ways.

This week, two prominent Palestinian advocates, Hussein Agha and Ahmad Samih Khalidi, published an article in The New Yorker entitled “The end of this road: The decline of the Palestinian national movement.”

Among other things, they explained that Abbas’s death will mark the dissolution of the Palestinian national identity. That identity has already been supplanted in Judea and Samaria by local, tribal identities. In their words, “The powerful local ties made it impossible for a Hebronite to have a genuine popular base in Ramallah, or for a Gazan to have a credible say in the West Bank.”

It will also be the end of the PLO and its largest faction, Fatah, founded by Yasser Arafat in 1958 and led by Abbas since Arafat’s death in 2004.

Fatah, they explain, has “no new leaders, no convincing evidence of validation, no marked success in government, no progress toward peace, fragile links to its original setting abroad and a local environment buffeted by the crosswinds of petty quarrels and regional antagonisms.”

One of the reasons the Palestinians have lost interest in being Palestinians is because they have lost their traditional political and financial supporters in the Arab world and the developing world. The Sunni Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is now willing to publicly extol Israel as a vital ally in its struggle against Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The so-called Arab street is increasingly incensed at the Palestinians for monopolizing the world’s attention with their never ending list of grievances against Israel even as millions in the Arab world suffer from war, genocide, starvation and other forms of oppression and millions more have been forced to flee their homes.

As for the developing world, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to visit with Abbas during his recent visit to Israel marked the official end of the Third World’s alliance with the PLO.

After Abbas departs, Agha and Khalidi identify three key actors that will seek to fill the military and political void. First and foremost, the Palestinian security services (PSF) will raise its head. The PSF is heavily armed and has been trained by the US military. Agha and Khalidi argue reasonably that as the best armed and best organized group in the area aside from the IDF, the PSF will likely seize power in one form or another.

The Palestinian forces pose a major threat to Israel. It isn’t simply that their members have often participated in murderous terrorist attacks against Israel. With their US military training they are capable of launching large-scale assaults on Israeli civilian communities and on IDF forces.

To understand the nature of the threat, consider that last month, a lone terrorist armed with a knife sufficed to massacre the Salomon family in their home in Halamish before he was stopped by an off-duty soldier. Contemplate what a well-armed and trained platoon of Palestinian soldiers with no clear political constraints could do.

The second force Agha and Khalidi identify as likely to step into the leadership vacuum is the Israeli Arab political leadership. As Agha and Khalidi note, since the PLO-controlled PA was established in 1994, the Israeli Arab community and the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria have become more familiar with one another.

Due in large part to subversion by the PLO and Hamas and lavish funding of radical Israeli Arab groups and politicians by foreign governments and leftist donors, a generation of radical, anti-Israel Arab politicians has risen to power.

At the same time, since the Arab Spring destabilized all of Israel’s neighbors, a cross current of Arab Zionism has captivated the Israeli Arab majority. Recognizing that Israel is their safe port in the storm, Israeli Arabs in increasing numbers are choosing to embrace their Israeli identity, learn Hebrew and join mainstream Israeli society.

Agha and Khalidi signal clearly their hope that the integration of the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab minority will enable them to worth together to take over the Jewish state from within.

Finally, Agha and Khalidi note that as support for the Palestinians has waned in the Arab world and the developing world, the West has emerged in recent years as their most stable and enthusiastic political support base. Ethnic Palestinians in the West are more committed to destroying Israel than Palestinians in Syria and Jordan. Western politicians and political activists who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement are much more committed to the political war against Israel than their counterparts in Asia and Africa.

The Western forces now aligned against Israel in the name of the Palestinians will certainly seek to play a role in shaping events in a post-Abbas world.

This then brings us to Israel and what it must do now and in the immediate aftermath of Abbas’s exit from the scene.

The most important thing that Israel can and must do is send a send a clear message that it will not be walking away from Judea and Samaria. To do so, Israel should end the military government in Area C, where all the Israeli communities and border zones are located, and replace it with its legal code.

Militarily, it is imperative that the IDF be ordered to disarm the PSF as quickly and quietly as possible.

Since 2007, Abbas’s fear of Hamas has exceeded his hatred for Israel. As a consequence, during this time, the Palestinian security forces have cooperated with the IDF in anti-Hamas operations.

There is every likelihood that the forces’ calculations in a post-Abbas world will be quite different.

Israel cannot afford to have a well-armed force, steeped in antisemitic ideology, deployed footsteps from major Israeli population centers.

As for the Israeli Arabs, Israel can empower moderate, integrationist forces to rise to power. To do so, it must enforce its laws against terrorism-sponsoring groups like the Islamic movement and enforce its land and welfare laws toward Arabs with the same vigor it enforces them toward Jews. It must provide support for integrationists to enter the political fray against their anti-Israel rivals.

If Israel fails to take these actions, Agha and Khalidi’s dream that the Palestinian war against Israel is taken over by Israeli Arabs supported by the West will become a realistic prospect.

This then brings us to the West.

Economically, Israel has already begun to limit the capacity of anti-Israel forces in the West to wage economic war against it by deepening its economic ties with Asia.

Politically, Israel must reform its legal system to limit the subversive power of the West in its Arab community and more generally in its political system. Foreign governments must be barred from funding political NGOs. Israel should wage a public campaign in the US to discredit foundations and other non-profits in the US that work through Israeli-registered NGOs to undermine its rule of law.

By applying its laws in full to Area C, and by asserting sole security control throughout the areas, while empowering the Israeli Arab majority that wishes to embrace its Israeli identity, Israel will empower the Palestinians in Areas A and B to govern themselves autonomously in a manner that advances the interests of their constituents.

As Agha and Khalidi note, the Palestinians have been in charge of their own governance since 1994. But under the corrupt authoritarianism of the PLO, their governance has been poor and unaccountable. As local identities have superseded the PLO’s brand of nationalism borne of terrorism and eternal war against Israel, the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria well positioned to embrace an opportunity to govern themselves under a liberal rule of law without fear of the PLO jackboot.

The post-Abbas era will pose new threats and opportunities for Israel. It is up to Israel to ensure that the opportunities are maximized and the threats are neutralized as quickly as possible. Failing that, Israel can expect to contend with military threats in Judea and Samaria several orders of magnitude greater than what it has dealt with in the past. It can similarly expect to find itself under political assault from a combination of radicalized Israeli Arabs and Western governments that will challenge it in ways it has never been challenged before.

Title: The end of the road, the decline of the Palestinian national movement
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2017, 09:33:46 PM

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-end-of-this-road-the-decline-of-the-palestinian-national-movement

As their institutions wither and their leaders fade away, young Palestinians will redefine previous generations’ aspirations and agenda.
Photograph by Simona Ghizzoni / Contrasto / Redux

Hussein Agha and Ahmad Samih Khalidi have been involved in Palestinian peace negotiations for three decades, and are senior associate members of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and co-authors of “A Framework for a Palestinian National Security Doctrine.” Agha most recently carried out backchannel negotiations during the Obama Administration’s failed effort to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

As President Trump prepares for yet another attempt to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the ground is shifting under his feet. While Israel’s willingness to offer an acceptable deal is increasingly open to question, with nothing to suggest that its terms are likely to soften with time, the Palestinians are sliding toward the unknown. With the slow but sure decay of the Palestinian political scene, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), represents the last slender chance for a negotiated settlement: he is the sole remaining national leader of his people with sufficient, if dwindling, authority to sign and ratify a deal. For President Trump and his team, as well as for all those seeking to end this century-plus-old conflict, there should be no doubt about the moment’s urgency. After Abbas, there will be no other truly weighty representative and legitimate Palestinian leadership, and no coherent national movement to sustain it for a long time to come.

Over six days in late November and early December, 2016, Fatah, the Palestinian national liberation movement, convened its seventh congress in Ramallah, the de-facto capital of the Palestinian Authority. Despite the lengthy speeches and festive air, the conference did little to dispel what had become unmistakable: the slow expiry of a once vibrant movement. Long on show and short on substance, the meeting hardly touched on any of the mounting political challenges facing the Palestinian people. The Congress was no more than a confirmation of the current order and a reaffirmation of its total and unprecedented control over Fatah, the P.A., and its ostensible parent, the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The contemporary Palestinian national movement—founded and led by Yasser Arafat and embodied by the P.A., Fatah, and the P.L.O. over the past half century—is reaching its end. As its institutions wither and its leaders fade away, there is no obvious successor to take its place.

Looking back, the 1993 Oslo Accords marked the Palestinian national movement’s highest political accomplishment and the beginning of its slow decline. From then onward, the P.A. has been trapped between its original revolutionary mission as an agent for liberation and its new responsibilities as a proto-state, with its attendant civil, bureaucratic, and security establishments.
ADVERTISEMENT

For a while, with its historic resistance leader at the helm, the national movement sought to reconcile its contradictory missions. But, with Arafat’s death, Fatah lost not only the forefather and leader of its foundational militant phase but its very raison d’être. Without “armed struggle,” the national movement had no clear ideology, no specific discourse, no distinctive experience or character. In the absence of a genuine and independent state, it was unable to transform itself into a ruling party, as, for example, the African National Congress did, in South Africa. It remained incomplete and suspended: a liberation movement not doing much liberating, locked in a fruitless negotiating process, and denied the means of government by a combination of Israeli obduracy and its own inadequacies.

With the passing of Arafat and most of his colleagues, Fatah’s ability to hold its fractured parts together waned. The social and political milieu of the West Bank and Gaza—steeped in clannish and personal influences—highlighted local fiefdoms and deep-rooted tensions. Severed from its history in the lands of exile, and without a rationale to supersede its original liberationist impulse, Fatah became mired in narrow and parochial turf wars. This was, in turn, compounded by its leaders’ failure to attract new blood. Unlike the experience of exile that formed a unifying Palestinian bond, that of the territories never managed to produce viable leaders who could forge a truly national enterprise out of highly localized components. The powerful pull of local ties made it almost impossible for a Hebronite to have a genuine popular base in Ramallah, or for a Gazan to have a credible say in the West Bank.

With no new leaders, no convincing evidence of validation, no marked success in government, no progress toward peace, fragile links to its original setting abroad, and a local environment buffeted by the crosswinds of petty quarrels and regional antagonisms, Fatah fundamentally disappeared as a real political agent.

The national movement was built on representation, activism, and achievement. It faithfully and energetically represented the broadest spectrum of Palestinian national sentiment, from the most visceral to the most rational, and it re-created the forgotten Palestinians as central players in their own drama and as a cause worthy of recognition across the world—epitomized by Arafat’s address to the U.N. General Assembly in 1974.

Today, none of these elements of success are evident. The all-encompassing P.L.O. has lost its representative status; the aging factions that still sit in its councils have little, if any, extensions inside or outside Palestine. The spirit of activism and dynamism has moved outside P.L.O. structures and onto the streets with no clear organization or political direction. And the P.A./P.L.O.’s achievements have been largely formalistic if not fake—a more advanced status as “observer state” at the U.N., but with no tangible improvement to the situation on the ground.

Arafat’s management was an integral element of the dynamism of the Palestinian national movement, and the transition from Arafat to Abbas passed smoothly because it was recognized as a continuation of the founding days of the national movement. Abbas may have needed formal elections to consolidate his position and gain acceptance in the international community, but, without his previous revolutionary credentials and association with Arafat, Abbas’s legitimacy would have been questioned from the start.

Abbas did not want, and could never occupy, Arafat’s place. His standing with his own people was deeply damaged by his persistent and infertile engagement with the peace process, his unwavering opposition to forceful struggle, and his fulsome dedication to security coöperation with Israel. As his tenure extended beyond his initial electoral mandate, the Palestinian political system developed many of the characteristics of a one-man Presidential regime, but without the élan of a popular leader. Later years witnessed a growing tendency toward unmitigated centralization, rule by decree, and the concentration of power. Other instruments of government were muted, and a determined effort was made to control what remains of Fatah’s decaying structures and to silence genuine political dissent. What used to be a vibrant if fractious political debate, nourished, tolerated, and often exploited by the leadership, has turned into a dull and dismal discourse, steered by political directives, and driven by fear of suppression and the loss of position inside an ever-swelling bureaucracy. A distinction between “President” and “leader” has emerged, and not necessarily in a manner that serves either.

Abbas’s years as President have not been without their share of achievements. His peace policy provided the P.A. with a formidable firewall against the kind of international pressure associated with the Palestinian national movement’s past violence, and added to a growing sense of unease at Israel’s occupation. For some, this by itself is a major national achievement. The P.A. has been sustained as a would-be state, and, since 1994, many of the day-to-day governing affairs of municipal, health, education, and other functions have been in Palestinian hands for the first time.

Abbas’s dedication to negotiations, diplomacy, and non-violence has shifted the burden onto the other side. While the current Israeli leadership’s peace credentials are widely disputed, Abbas’s international image as a man of peace remains largely intact. At the same time, he has managed to hold on to the historical and fundamental Palestinian demands; he has not wavered from the P.L.O.’s goals for a state along the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem, and a just resolution to the refugee problem. He put an end to the chaos of the second intifada. He has continued engaging with a broad range of Israeli opinions, and has assiduously sought to cultivate what remains of the Israeli peace camp and to engage with Jewish leaders and communities abroad. Perhaps most important, he has succeeded in insulating the Palestinian people from much of the violence and destruction of the “Arab Spring” and from the growth of Salafi and jihadist movements in the West Bank.

All in all, Abbas’s era has enhanced the Palestinians’ moral standing and lent traction to their cause and narrative. But these achievements are in danger of being overshadowed by new circumstances and challenges. Abbas may have helped to underpin the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause, particularly in the West, but his approach has failed to demonstrate sufficient payoff in peace negotiations, changing the unacceptable status quo, or in attracting popular support to revive the movement’s declining fortunes. The thirteen years of his rule have produced no significant change in Israel’s stance; in fact, Israel’s terms for a final-status resolution on such issues as Jerusalem, security, and the extent of Palestinian sovereignty have notably hardened.

Furthermore, the Palestinians’ readiness to take the negotiating path to its logical conclusions was restrained by a perception that they were winning the moral and psychological high ground. The paradoxical effect was to make it harder to progress toward an agreement with Israel because it seemed that other influential parties might do the job.

The past decade has also witnessed a series of seemingly inconsistent and not well thought-out Palestinian diplomatic moves, including the welcoming of, and then backtracking on, the Goldstone Report, in 2011; on the 2008 Gaza war; the unconvincing threats by senior Palestinian officials to dismantle the P.A.; the overselling of the bid to create international facts by joining various U.N. bodies; the pursuit of desperate and futile initiatives such as the proposals, in 2016, by the former French President François Hollande for an international conference; and the failure to make diplomatic progress even in the shadow of a relatively friendly U.S. Administration. As a result, the entire notion of peace negotiations has been discredited and consigned to outright condemnation, deep disbelief, and profound apathy among Palestinians, further weakening the national movement’s political credibility and standing.

The growing public criticism of security coöperation might best encapsulate the P.A.’s dilemma. Security coöperation is meant to serve the national interest by preventing armed activities that threaten to elicit a disproportionate Israeli response. Yet coöperation ends up serving Israel by sustaining the occupation’s low cost and helping to perpetuate it. The primary function of any authority is to provide security to the people it represents. P.A. security forces can do very little to defend their own people both in the territories and abroad, where at least half of the estimated total of twelve million Palestinians reside, in the face of third-party threats, individual Israeli assaults, settler violence, or the organized actions of the Israel Defense Forces. Palestinians are consequently left vulnerable to overwhelming Israeli power and the hardening fist of their own security forces at the same time. Insofar as security coöperation is seen as an auxiliary function to the occupation, it has added to a sense of helplessness and loss of agency and has focussed popular anger and frustration away from the struggle for freedom and independence. Whether the Palestinians would be better served in raw contact with the occupation without the mediating influence of the P.A. is open to question, but the cumulative corrosive impact of the P.A.’s role as shield and security subcontractor to the occupation is undeniable—especially with no accompanying political returns.

The Palestinian loss of faith in a negotiated settlement reflects a loss of faith in the agencies that have sought to pursue it. To the extent that Fatah, the P.A., and the P.L.O. have been dedicated to a two-state solution, their failures—from liberation to governance to peacemaking—have lessened public support for the desirability or viability of the goal itself. Besides the bloated P.A. bureaucracy, almost all sectors of the Palestinian people have been alienated from the methods and practices of their representative bodies, and have largely lost any real sense of investment in their diplomacy. What was once seen as a national unifying program is now viewed with deep skepticism and indifference.

Of course, not all change has come from within. There is no doubt that the regional and international environment has shifted in unfavorable ways. A “Third World” moment—in which the Palestinian national struggle found a natural home within the liberationist and anti-colonial movements of Algeria and Vietnam, and was embraced by emerging Asian powers as part of their new sense of independence—no longer exists. The recent era has seen a move in the opposite direction; there may be greater understanding for the Palestinian cause in the West, but many of the Palestinians’ former Third World allies have chosen economic self-interest in place of ideological commitment. India’s wavering support for the Palestinians at the U.N. and China’s growing trade and military ties with Israel are examples.

The Arab environment has also clearly changed. Fatah was originally as much an assertion of Palestinian “independence of will” in the face of Arab hegemony as it was a revolt against Israel’s plunder of the homeland. Despite many political conflicts and bloody confrontations with numerous Arab states such as Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, the P.L.O. continued to draw political and financial support from its hinterland, from the Gulf States, and from a popular base that was deeply sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle. Fatah and the P.L.O. may have been largely dependent on Arab aid, but the multiplicity of sources and the constant rivalries among the Arabs themselves accorded the movement a wide margin of freedom. If one source of funding and support was severed, another was more than likely to appear. And, despite a high degree of financial dependency, the movement maintained political freedom of action: the P.L.O.’s dramatic support for a two-state solution in 1988 and the 1993 Oslo Accords were “independent” Palestinian decisions made without wider Arab consent, regardless of their wisdom at the time or since.

In the regional turmoil and violence of recent years, the Palestinians largely lost the skill of maneuvering among the Arab parties and their conflicting interests, and have become more dependent on other external support. As Arab financial aid shrinks, a new bloc of Arab states, comprising Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, has a growing hold over the Arabs’ say on Palestine, further narrowing P.L.O. independence. Equally, the P.A. has become more and more reliant on the flow of funds from the U.S. and the European Union, and on Israel’s good will in dealing with the daily needs of the Palestinian population in the territories. Once a useful tool for maximizing freedom of action, multiple sources of outside support are now a means of leverage to further constrain Palestinian decision-making.

The post-Abbas era will launch an uncharted and unpredictable course. The founding fathers’ historical legacy and imprint of legitimacy is disappearing. The Palestinian refugees and the broader community in exile have no real agency, means of expression, or instruments to reflect their will. Fatah’s ongoing conflict with Hamas, the unrest in Gaza and the West Bank, and the institutional failures of the P.A. all point to an increasingly narrow and more tenuous form of leadership, one that is based more on formal elections, and, consequently and paradoxically, on less solid and genuinely representative grounds.

A leader elected on and by the West Bank, without continuity with the fading national movement, may not be openly rejected by the fractured components of the Palestinian people, but will, in the best of circumstances, have only limited national appeal and authority. Unlike a leader chosen by widespread acclaim, a narrowly elected leader, or one selected as a compromise among the different factions, cannot claim to represent those who lie outside his or her constituency, or to speak on their behalf. It is doubtful that such a leader will be able to rely on majority support or rally it, if and when decisions of national import are at stake. Abbas’s power derives from the fact that those who may otherwise criticize or reject a deal will abide by his terms. His signature not only imparts legitimacy to an agreement but absolves opponents from any responsibility for the concessions it may entail. Despite his limitations, Abbas may be the last Palestinian leader with the moral authority and political legitimacy to speak and act on behalf of the entire nation on vital existential issues such as a final agreement with Israel.

If the incoming Palestinian leadership is likely to be less representative than its predecessors, the degree to which it has a mandate to conclude and sustain a future agreement with Israel may be open to question. This will necessarily affect Israel’s own willingness to agree to a deal—already evident in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated insistence that Israel will “never” cede security control over the West Bank. It will also affect the role and posture of third parties, such as the U.S., in facilitating or pushing for a deal, and its possible content will be less likely to approximate Palestinian terms for a settlement. The recent spate of well-attended popular meetings hosted by Turkey, Egypt, Iran, and even France and Holland may inaugurate a new phase in which the P.L.O. faces growing pressure to defend its credentials as the “sole and legitimate representative” of the Palestinian people, with further limitations on its margin of maneuvers at home and abroad.

Twenty-four years after Oslo, the security establishment is perhaps the most enduring and powerful institution spawned by the P.A. Nourished and fortified by Israel, the U.S., and major European and Arab parties as part of the post-second-intifada reform process and designed to control violence and internal dissent, P.A. security forces have become the most efficient, visible, and functional arm of Palestinian governance. In the absence of countervailing legal and political institutions, organized popular movements, or capable representative bodies, there will be a strong temptation for the security forces to fill the vacuum of a frail national leadership, if only to avoid a comprehensive institutional collapse.

Even as Fatah has fallen apart, its popular base has remained in suspension instead of being pulled or driven toward other alternatives. More nationalist than Islamist in their political inclinations and outlook, the Palestinians have not been significantly drawn to Hamas. Hamas’s initial challenge emerged from its adoption of armed struggle at the moment when Fatah and the other factions had begun to discard it. But Hamas’s militant experiment has been no more successful than Fatah’s. Gaza’s history of resistance may have helped to convince Israel to evacuate the Strip, in 2005, but the subsequent suffering has not served as a model or source of inspiration for the rest of the Palestinians. Similarly, Hamas’s decade-long governance of Gaza has been marred by the same charges of corruption, incompetence, and heavy-handedness as its P.A. counterpart in Ramallah, but with the additional burdens of broad isolation and constant Israeli siege. On matters of armed struggle, diplomacy, and governance, those looking to Hamas as a replacement for Fatah would find it difficult to argue that the former has delivered where the latter has failed.

In its previous incarnation, Fatah succeeded in accommodating those of an Islamist bent by dissipating their influence within a wider national rubric. By incorporating a strong leftist current, it counteracted and neutralized Islamist tendencies. As Fatah took command of the P.L.O., it left a space for others to speak, act, and be heard. At present, a P.L.O. that included both Hamas and Fatah would be neither truly national nor genuinely Islamist but a forced arrangement between contradictory and competing forces pulling in different strategic directions. Besides the vexed question of leadership, it would be hard to sustain such a mixed and conflicted entity.

If the national movement’s initial phase arose from exile, and the second was focussed on the territories occupied in the Six-Day War, a budding third phase seems to be emerging from the combined effect of the diminishing prospects for a negotiated two-state settlement, and the increasingly blurred borders between Arabs and Jews in the territory. Israeli settlements may have all but erased the 1967 borders in one direction, but fifty years of occupation have helped to erase the border in the opposite direction as well. After decades of fraught relations between the Palestinians and Israel’s Palestinian citizens, the past few years have seen growing interaction between the political and intellectual élites across the borders.

The broader Palestinian public has slowly begun to recognize the national role and place of its brethren in Israel, and to seek means by which the tattered fabric of Palestinian identity may be mended. With the expiration of the national movement “outside” the West Bank and Gaza and with little prospect of self-regeneration from “inside,” Israel’s Palestinian citizens have inherited a new share of the struggle. They have proved to be politically resilient and flexible and have demonstrated a vitality and dynamism that may even point to something of a nationalist revival. In light of the sensitive conditions under which they operate, their comparatively small critical mass, their continuing isolation, and their tenuous connections with the other sectors of the Palestinian people, it may be too fanciful to believe that they could supplant the old national movement or assume its broader mantle or its more immediate functions. Yet, despite their personal and political differences, their bold leaders and their growing understanding of Israel’s democratic portico may position them to articulate with increasing confidence the traditional themes of Palestinian national aspirations and struggle. This would be a remarkable transformation.

Israeli right-wing politicians have often argued that the roots of the current conflict far predate 1967. The assertion that the origins of the conflict stretch back considerably further is not controversial or contestable. Oslo sought to trade 1967 against 1948—that is, to obscure the historical roots of the conflict in return for a political settlement that offered a partial redress that focussed solely on post-1967 realities. Current circumstances have begun to undo this suppression. Oslo could not bypass history, and its limitations have only highlighted the difficulty of ignoring the deeper roots of the struggle over Palestine.

This has become manifest in Israel’s gradual shift rightward, as well as in the growing encroachment of the national religious movement upon the levers of power and public discourse, the increasing influence and militancy of settler and fringe movements, and the sharpening tensions between the Jewish and Arab populations as marked by the rhetoric of both leaderships.

A similar process is tangible on the Palestinian side, in the growing backing for the right of return, and in moves to document and memorialize the nakba and the 1948 dispossession. The Israeli demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has solicited countermoves to reassert the Arab character of the land and reinforce the Palestinian historical narrative. Regardless of its distant and scattered parts, the experience of exile has not faded away. The Palestinians in exile may no longer have as confident and recognized a voice as that of the P.L.O. in its heyday, but the younger generation has shown no signs of historical amnesia or disengagement. The growing despair at the ineffectiveness of the peace process has reanimated their disparate parts and captured their imagination. While the near diaspora may be under siege and unprecedented pressure, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, many groups strewn across farther shores call for justice. The growing visibility and international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and the slow erosion of Israel’s political and moral standing, particularly in the West, have created a new, more open and welcoming environment for Palestinian activism, as apparent from the spreading support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement and various activist groups off and on campus.

The historic Palestinian national movement may have shattered and its successor may be neither discernible nor imminent. But the Palestinians will not simply disappear. The region may be engulfed in flames, and for the moment, at least, seemingly otherwise engaged, but Palestinian claims to justice and freedom have embedded themselves in the conscience of much of the world, just as Israel’s practices have eaten away at its avowed values.

The idea of one overarching, comprehensive, negotiated resolution that incorporates all the fundamental elements of the conflict may have slipped out of reach. What used to be called “the Palestine problem” might now be better redefined and restructured as a series of challenges, each requiring its own form of redress: the disappearing prospects for the original national project of self-determination, statehood, and return; the peoples’ alienation from their formal representatives; the realities of the Gaza–West Bank split; the continuing trials and tribulations of the diaspora; and the daily struggle for freedom from occupation and equal rights in Israel.

The future remains deeply uncertain. The two-state solution may win some belated and final reprieve as its prospects dwindle. Palestinian national aspirations may be brought back into the wider Arab fold, as they were before the current movement was established. Yet other possibilities abound. The Palestinians in Israel may be tempted to take the lead. The diaspora may yet explode in some radical and ill-defined manner. The malign energies of jihadism may be redirected toward a Muslim­-Jewish religious war, with Jerusalem as its focus. The conflict may be dragged back to its historical origins as a struggle over and across the entire Holy Land, reopening old wounds, inflicting new ones, and redefining how and if the conflict will be resolved.

The spark of patriotism may still coexist along with loathing of the occupation and a desire for a free and normal life. But a national movement requires genuine mass engagement in a political vision and a working project that cuts across boundaries of region, clan, and class, and a defined and acknowledged leadership with the legitimacy and representative standing that empowers it to act in its people’s name. This no longer holds for Fatah, the P.A., or the P.L.O.

Be that as it may, the Palestinians may need to acknowledge that yesteryear’s conventional nationalism and “national liberation” are no longer the best currency for political mobilization and expression in today’s world, and that they need to adapt their struggle and aspirations to new global realities. The bonds that link the Palestinian people together remain strong and hardy, but old-style nationalism and its worn-out ways may no longer be the vehicle for their empowerment. Because nationalism itself has changed, Palestinians need to search for new means of expressing their political identity and hopes in ways that do not and cannot replicate the past.

Title: Big uh oh. What is Trump's team in Mideast up to?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2017, 05:08:14 PM

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-israel-reject-claims-relationship-strained-deny-closed-door-shouting-match/

Title: In Palestinian Reconciliation, Hamas is the victor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 04, 2017, 08:54:47 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/In-the-Palestinian-reconciliation-Hamas-is-the-true-victor-506674

What do we make of Egypt's role here? 

Title: Hezbollah escalates threats as Syria becomes Iranian base
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2017, 05:09:40 AM

Hizballah's Nasrallah Escalates Threats as Syria Turns Into Iranian Base
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
October 8, 2017
https://www.investigativeproject.org/6758/hizballah-nasrallah-escalates-threats-as-syria
 

Title: The Balfour Declaration 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 02, 2017, 09:07:23 AM

By Peter Boyce AO for the Australian Institute for International Affairs

It is doubtful whether any official letter from a senior government minister to a private citizen harboured so many unintended long-term consequences or conveyed the seeds of such an intractable international dispute as did Arthur Balfour's letter to the wealthy leader of Britain's Jewish community, Baron Walter Rothschild, on 2 November 1917.

In that short but extraordinary communication Lord Balfour, foreign secretary in David Lloyd George's wartime coalition government, committed Britain to provide a homeland to the world's Jewish population in the Ottoman Empire's territory of Palestine. The offer was based on an assumption that upon the collapse or defeat of the Ottomans, Britain would be allowed to preside over a Palestinian protectorate and maintain an imperial presence in the Middle East.

Although the Balfour offer was applauded by the international Zionist movement, especially in Eastern Europe, it was opposed by a large segment of British Jews, including the only Jew in Lloyd George's Cabinet, Edwin Montagu, a future secretary of state for India. He belonged to a sizeable community of affluent, educated Jewish Britons known as 'the Cousinhood'. They felt comfortably assimilated into British society and could see no justification for a new homeland. Indeed, Montagu even doubted that internationally there existed a 'Jewish people'.

Balfour's letter to Rothschild contained no specific plan or timetable, but its most critical promise was that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". This proviso was inserted by British officials and formed no part of the Zionists' own proposal to Balfour.

The most influential British lobbyist for the Zionist cause had been Chaim Weizmann, a talented Russian-born biochemist then occupying a lectureship at Manchester University. Weizmann befriended C.P. Scott, proprietor and editor of the Manchester Guardian, and introductions to Prime Minister Lloyd-George and Foreign Secretary Balfour were arranged. Steeped in Old Testament scripture, the Welsh Baptist prime minister was predisposed to sympathise with Zionism, just as a later US Baptist president, Harry Truman, would confess his sympathies with the cause. At this stage, the case for a Palestinian homeland did not carry any direct commitment to an exclusively Jewish state. It was still assumed officially that Jews and Arabs could co-exist within a unitary state.

The Balfour Declaration was issued at a critical phase of the Great War, but unbeknown to the British public it flatly contradicted a secret agreement negotiated with a family of Arab leaders to help establish a new Arab state in the large swathe of Ottoman territory between Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula. During 1915-16 the British had been anxious to promote an Arab uprising against the Turks, to be led by the grand Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali and his three sons. The British high commissioner in Cairo, Sir Henry McMahon, led the correspondence with the Sharif for a time, but the most critical collaboration arose from meetings between the Sharif and two young diplomats — the Scottish baronet, Sir Mark Sykes, and a French colleague, Francois Georges-Picot.

The Sykes-Picot agreement of May 1916 contained the seeds of a plan to vest Britain and France with post-war spheres of influence in the defeated Ottoman provinces from Syria to Arabia. The Sharif and his sons did later assist the British war effort, principally by disrupting rail traffic on the critical Damascus-Medina route, and the Sharif was proclaimed king of the Hejaz, but it soon became obvious that a Palestinian mandate would not be allowed to fall under Hussein's control.

Britain assumed full control of Palestine in July 1920, two years before formal signature of the League of Nations mandate. As president of the British Zionist Federation and later as head of the Jewish Agency, Chaim Weizmann became heavily involved in the establishment of Jewish institutions of governance in Palestine. Significantly, the wording of the League's mandate instrument incorporated the Balfour Declaration, and once again the Zionists were permitted to propose the draft wording. Moreover, the draftsmen did not identify Arabs as the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.

Arab-Jewish conflict became widespread very early in the mandate period, which in turn bred disillusionment with the British administration, but there were still some Arabists in the British political elite who thought Arab interests could be protected. Member of the Lloyd-George coalition government Lord Curzon had opposed the Balfour Declaration and gravely warned of "trouble ahead". A succession of British administrators in Palestine soon concluded that they could not satisfy the interests of both Jews and Arabs, with one newly arrived high commissioner, Sir John Chancellor, describing the Balfour Declaration in 1928 as a "colossal blunder".

Frustrated British attempts to regulate the influx of Jewish immigrants and to impose restrictions on the disposal of Arab land provoked serious violence centred on Jerusalem's sacred sites in 1929, and the 1930s witnessed a series of British commissions of inquiry into the viability of an Arab-Jewish state. The Peel Commission concluded in 1937 that the mandate had become unworkable and that partition of Palestine should be the objective. It stated "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small nation. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible".

Further inquiries produced contradictory or inconsistent recommendations, but a May 1939 white paper aimed for a bi-national Arab-Jewish state within 10 years. By now, however, the British had become regular targets of violence from both Jews and Arabs, including Jewish terrorist organisations Irgun and the Stern Gang. By the end of the World War II, the Jewish Agency's militia, Haganah, had also turned against the British, and it was not surprising that the Attlee government decided in February 1947 to abandon the mandate. In November of that year the United Nations endorsed boundaries for a bi-national sovereign state, and the British announced that their withdrawal would take effect on 14 May 1948.

The Jewish national leader, David Ben-Gurion, was unable to persuade the British to remain to assist with the implementation of the UN resolution. The high commissioner — with the last of Britain's 100,000 troops — departed Palestine on 14 May, and the Jewish leadership proclaimed Israeli independence later that day. US President Harry Truman accorded diplomatic recognition to Israel within minutes of the independence proclamation but the British government withheld it. The Jewish academic who had persuaded the Lloyd George Cabinet into the Balfour Declaration 31 years earlier, Chaim Weizmann, was invited to serve as president of the new republic.

The painful sequence of events following the May 1948 declaration of Israeli independence is all too familiar, leaving the world with the longest unresolved international dispute in United Nations history. Perhaps Lord Balfour's remarks in a 1922 House of Lords debate offer a clue as to why he and his colleagues allowed the Zionist cause to receive so much endorsement: "Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".

Peter Boyce AO is an adjunct professor with the University of Tasmania's Politics and International Relations Program and president of AIIA Tasmania Branch.

Title: US Congress passes Taylor Act
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2017, 08:55:03 AM

The Important Symbolism, but Probable Futility, of the Taylor Force Act
by A.J. Caschetta
The New English Review
November 17, 2017
http://www.meforum.org/7023/important-symbolism-of-taylor-force-act

 
Taylor Force likely won't be the last American killed as a result of Palestinian terror incitement.

The Taylor Force Act (TFA) passed the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously on Wednesday and is expected to pass the full house with wide bipartisan support. The Taylor Force Act marks a noble and long overdue departure from the "anything goes" attitude toward Palestinian terror incitement of previous administrations, but it's unlikely to have a decisive impact on how the PA operates.

The bill is named for US Army veteran Taylor Force, who was murdered while studying in Israel by Palestinian terrorist Bashar Massalh in March 2016. As it does with all other Palestinian terrorists who die carrying out their attacks, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been making monthly payments to Massalh's family ever since. These funds, from the PA's "Martyr's Fund," are directed through the PLO, which Abbas also controls.

U.S. congressional leaders responded to Force's murder with rare unanimity and determination to put an end to the so-called "pay-to-slay" program and other forms of PA incitement. Sort of.

The Taylor Force Act is designed to trigger a cutoff of US aid to the Palestinians unless the PA takes steps to end terrorism by "individuals under its jurisdictional control," publically condemns and investigates terror attacks, and stops paying monthly stipends to the families of terrorists.

Authority to certify PA compliance with the law's criteria is vested solely in the State Department.

First, authority to certify PA compliance with these three criteria is vested solely in the State Department (in both House and Senate versions), which for years had refused to budge from its traditional depiction of the PA as a force of moderation and peace partner. Fear of the alternatives to PA President Mahmoud Abbas (now in the 12th year of his 4-year term) has led the department to engage in absurd defenses of his regime in the past, and there is no sign of that changing. Indeed, State has already all but certified PA compliance with the first two of the three criteria in its 2016 Country Reports on Terrorism, which commends Abbas's counter-terrorism efforts.

Moreover, the legislation has been watered down to allow some public entities and projects in Palestinian areas to continue receiving US funding on humanitarian grounds regardless of whether the PA is in compliance. Palestinian water projects, childhood vaccination programs and East Jerusalem hospitals are untouchable. "What good is there in punishing women and children for something they did not do?" explained Senate co-sponsor Lindsay Graham in August.

The legislation has been watered down to exempt some public entities and projects from an aid cutoff.

While no one wants Palestinian women and children to go without medical care, vaccinations, or clean water, the history of terrorism funding teaches us that all aid is fungible. With a little imagination, most aid dollars can be construed as benefiting innocent Palestinians somehow or another. The real peril for ordinary Palestinians is a governing apparatus so indifferent to their welfare that it spends over $190 million annually encouraging them to sacrifice their lives.

Like most autocracies, the PA isn't likely to change its ways until its grip on power becomes unsustainable. Nothing short of a total cessation of US funding has much chance of instigating such change.

Palestinian leaders aren't impressed by what they've seen so far. Shortly after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved TFA in August, the Abbas-led PLO Executive Committee issued a blistering statement pledging to continue providing "aid to the families of the martyrs and prisoners," which it called a "national, moral, and humanitarian responsibility towards the occupation's victims."

The TFA is an important first step in divesting from nearly a half-century of failed PLO leadership.

Others will surely step in to make up for any shortfall of funding in the "pay-to-slay" program. During the Second Intifada, Saddam Hussein sent $10,000 checks (later raised to $25,000) to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and the King of Saudi Arabia held telethons to raise money for them. Perhaps this time around, as Daniel Pipes succinctly tweeted: "#Qatar will pay."

But at least it won't be us subsidizing terrorist blood money. If nothing else, the Taylor Force Act marks an important first step in divesting America from nearly a half-century of failed PLO leadership. That alone makes its passage worth celebrating.

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology

Title: thinking outside the box ; from JPost
Post by: ccp on December 06, 2017, 04:28:21 PM

ANALYSIS: UPENDING THE APPLECART

> Trump announces US moving embassy to Jerusalem
> Netanyahu: There is no peace that doesn’t include J'lem as Israel’s capital
BY HERB KEINON   DECEMBER 7, 2017 01:31 
Along comes Trump, the most untraditional and nonconformist of all US presidents, and says “enough is enough.” What has been tried didn’t work, so it’s time to try something new.

2 minute read.

In a brief speech of 1,240 words, US President Donald Trump did more on Wednesday than “just” recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and begin the process of moving the embassy there from Tel Aviv. He also upended the orthodoxy that has dominated the approach to Middle East peacemaking for a quarter century.

 Over the last 24 years, since the beginning of the Oslo peace process, certain tenets have come to be accepted as truths: that the only solution is a two-state solution; that there can be no long-term interim agreements; that dozens of settlements will have to be removed; that a future Palestinian state must be free of Jews; and that Washington cannot recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital until there is a final peace deal.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

On and off over this period, a lot of intelligent people have devoted a great deal of time and energy towards trying to bridge the chasm between the most Israel would offer and the minimum the Palestinians were willing to accept. And despite their best efforts, they couldn’t bridge the gap.

Along comes Trump, the most untraditional and nonconformist of all US presidents, and says “enough is enough.” What has been tried didn’t work, so it’s time to try something new.

“When I came into office, I promised to look at the world’s challenges with open eyes and very fresh thinking,” Trump said. “We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. Old challenges demand new approaches.”

Every US president for the last 20 years has signed the presidential waiver keeping the embassy out of Jerusalem, but it did nothing to promote peace, he said. “It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.”

Title: 2 nd post
Post by: ccp on December 06, 2017, 05:17:44 PM

Prof Dershowitz points out is was OBAMA who broke with tradition when dealing with Israel among Presidents - not Trump:

https://www.newsmax.com/alandershowitz/trump-jerusalem-israel-obama/2017/12/06/id/830325/

Title: Spengler: Humiliation necessary for peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 07, 2017, 12:37:16 PM

http://www.atimes.com/article/humiliation-path-peace-middle-east/

Title: Stratfor on Jerusalem
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 08, 2017, 03:58:52 AM

    Washington's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will give jihadist groups a rallying cry to galvanize supporters and recruit new members.
    By dimming the prospects for a two-state solution, the move will push Israelis and Palestinians alike toward a one-state model, however reluctantly.
    Though the change in Jerusalem's status will present a challenge for most countries in the region, Iran and Turkey could turn it to their advantage.

Jerusalem is a place where deep belief and international politics collide. As a result of this powerful convergence, it's easy to overestimate the city's influence on regional relations. U.S. President Donald Trump's recent announcement that his administration would recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital met with praise, scorn and warnings of impending catastrophe from various corners of the world. Many of the proposal's critics argue that moving the U.S. Embassy to the city from Tel Aviv would cause violence and unrest, while dashing any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But fears that war and widespread violence would follow the announcement are overblown. Nevertheless, the move will not be free of consequences. Beyond the manifold security implications it entails, the decision will produce unwelcome disruptions for many and opportunities for a few, even if its repercussions fall short of apocalyptic.
Where Interests Collide

Since the U.S. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, a hard-line pro-Israel faction in the United States has pushed to recognize the holy city as the Israeli capital in keeping with the legislation's provisions. (Successive presidential administrations had continually delayed the law's implementation through waivers issued every six months.) But the United States' spiritual ties to Jerusalem reach back nearly 200 years. In the early 1800s, Boston missionary Levi Parsons urged Americans to settle Palestine to compel Jesus' return. A group of Chicagoans fleeing the Great Fire founded the American Colony of Jerusalem several decades later in 1881 as a Christian utopia; today, the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem is a historical landmark. Though the city has little strategic importance to the United States, and though Americans never constituted a major contingent of its diverse population, Jerusalem's enduring mark on the popular imagination has given it a unique place in U.S. foreign policy.

Regardless of the United States' spiritual imperatives, however, the fact remains that Jerusalem is also Islam's third-holiest city. Its symbolic loss will resonate throughout the Muslim world. The Palestinian Islamic party Hamas has called for a day of rage to protest the U.S. decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And even after all the demonstrators have gone home, activists will keep the furor alive on social media. The city is a prime military objective for extremist groups as it is. Its change in status will offer various jihadist outfits, including the nearby Islamic State franchise Wilayat Sinai (formerly known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, or "Defenders of Jerusalem"), a propaganda opportunity and rallying cry to galvanize disaffected Muslims. On the heels of the Islamic State's defeat in Iraq and Syria, moreover, the U.S. administration's decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem will boost the extremist group's recruitment.
Disturbing the Peace Process

The decision will also jeopardize the United States' position as a neutral broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as some have warned. By acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Washington will undermine its role in the peace process and, in turn, dim the prospects for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No other country or institution, after all, is ready to step up in the United States' place. Then again, the peace process has been moribund since long before Trump announced his intentions for Jerusalem on the campaign trail in 2016. Discord between Hamas and rival party Fatah has stalled negotiations and enabled Israel to forge ahead with its settlements in the West Bank. Furthermore, Hamas, as well as states such as Iran, have long doubted the United States' intentions as a mediator. At most, Washington's revised stance on Jerusalem will only expedite the inevitable collapse of the peace process.

As the odds of realizing a two-state solution become more remote, Palestinians may start pushing for a single state instead. But rather than achieving this goal through conquest — the solution Hamas has always espoused — Palestinians would accept annexation by Israel with full citizenship. The plan so far has support only among liberal Palestinians, and no major Palestinian leaders endorse it. Without the possibility of a two-state solution, however, the single-state alternative will become the only option for Palestinians going forward.

Israel, meanwhile, will also move toward a one-state solution. Giving recognition for Jerusalem as its capital city has for decades been a valuable bargaining chip for the United States. Now that the United States has satisfied that demand without asking for any further concessions, Israel will feel even less pressure to address the Palestinian issue. Its settlement process will continue apace, bringing Israel closer, if inadvertently, to a single-state model. The one-state solution has its drawbacks for Israel, though: Adding millions of Palestinians to the voter rolls will doom the country's Jewish majority, but denying them suffrage would spell the end of Israel as a democracy. So though the current situation may appear to be a political victory for Israel today, it will bring difficult decisions down the line.

For most states in the region, a change in Jerusalem's status in Jerusalem is an unwelcome distraction from more pressing problems.

A Decision of Regional Consequence

In addition, the change in Jerusalem's status will complicate the budding partnership between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The United States' decision will spur majority-Muslim countries around the world to band together in outrage against Israel and prompt the kingdom, as the custodian of Islam's holiest sites, to distance itself from its would-be public ally. Otherwise, Riyadh's deepening security ties to Israel would highlight the extent to which concerns over Iran's power in the region have overshadowed the question of Palestinian statehood in Saudi policy. The kingdom still will try to mitigate popular outrage against Israel, but to retain its religious legitimacy, it will have to halt or delay trade deals, official visits and changes to state curriculum, which currently depicts Israel as an invader of Muslim lands.

Jordan, where Palestinians make up nearly half the population, will also have to deal with the fallout from Jerusalem's new designation. Just five months after a security guard at the Israeli Embassy in Amman killed two Jordanians, one of them by accident, the United States' announcement will further fuel outrage in Jordan against Israel. Jordanians will take to the streets to try to force their king to justify the existence of the country's 1994 peace treaty with Israel. At the same time, the powerful Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood will capitalize on the incident to gather strength in the country's parliament while eroding the monarchy's legitimacy. Attacks on the monarchy, in turn, could slow, if not reverse, Jordan's efforts at structural economic reform.

Similarly, the threat of unrest will compel Egypt to downgrade its relations with Israel and with the United States. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will face scrutiny over his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, over Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and over his efforts to prevent arms from flowing over the Gaza border to Hamas. With elections slated for the spring, al-Sisi can't afford to put his security credentials — the foundation of his platform — at risk.

Though the United States' revised position on Jerusalem will complicate matters for many countries in the region, others may turn the situation to their favor. Washington's recent announcement, for instance, will seem to vindicate Iran's staunch anti-Israeli, anti-American stance in the coming weeks. And in Turkey, it will give President Recep Tayyip Erdogan an opportunity to boost his image as a pan-Islamic leader by reducing or altogether severing relations with Israel, which he recently accused of undermining Jerusalem's Islamic character. Turkey, of course, has an underlying geopolitical incentive to restore diplomatic ties with Israel eventually, but in the meantime, suspending them will help Erdogan as he confronts his country's wobbly economy.

But Turkey and Iran are the outliers. For most states in the region, a change in Jerusalem's status is an unwelcome distraction from more pressing problems. The decision, in fact, will have undesirable side effects even for the countries that it ostensibly stands to benefit the most — the United States and Israel. Whether the repercussions live up to worst-case scenarios swirling around in the public discourse is another story.

Title: Bloomberg: Trump teaches Palestinians a lesson
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 08, 2017, 04:27:17 AM

second post

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-06/trump-teaches-palestinians-about-the-new-middle-east

Title: Glick: Trump's great gift to Israel and to America
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 08, 2017, 06:11:31 AM

third post

http://carolineglick.com/trumps-great-gifts-to-israel-and-america/

Title: Daniel Greenfield: Trump Makes Clear U.S. Won't Be Bullied...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 10, 2017, 04:32:39 PM

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268625/president-trumps-jerusalem-move-deals-blow-terror-daniel-greenfield

Title: Surpise!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 21, 2017, 12:13:51 PM

http://israelvideoupdates.com/undercover-idf-soldiers-stun-rioting-arabs-watch-closely/?omhide=true

Title: Glick: Israel's learning disabled Right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2017, 02:49:55 PM

http://carolineglick.com/israels-learning-disabled-right/

Title: Glick: Trump kicks the Palestinian habit
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2018, 11:50:17 AM

http://carolineglick.com/trump-kicks-the-palestinian-habit/

Title: Behind the masks Arab govts say something different
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2018, 12:35:25 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/world/middleeast/egypt-jerusalem-talk-shows.html?_r=0

Title: Glick: Time to cut the cord
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2018, 09:20:24 AM

http://carolineglick.com/time-for-trump-to-cut-the-cord-on-the-palestinians/

Title: MEF offers $1M to UNRWA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2018, 11:47:49 AM

MEF Offers One Million Dollars to UNRWA
News from the Middle East Forum
January 18, 2018
http://www.meforum.org/7168/mef-offers-one-million-dollars-to-unrwa
Share:   

A few minutes ago, we sent out a press release offering one million dollars to UNRWA provided it meets one simple condition (see below), adding that the "offer is valid until June 30, 2017." No, this wasn't a punch line; it was a regrettable first-of-the-year typo. The deadline is June 30, 2018, and the offer is serious. To the many subscribers who pointed this error out to us, our sincere thanks.

The Middle East Forum
 
PHILADELPHIA – January 18, 2018 – The Middle East Forum announces a donation of one million dollars to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

After the U.S. Government partially withheld funding, UNRWA's head called on "people of good will in every corner of the globe where solidarity and partnerships exist for Palestine Refugees" to "join us in responding to this crisis and #FundUNRWA."

The Middle East Forum has responded: "Despite UNRWA's long record of misbehavior: incitement against Israel, supporting violent attacks on Jews, and corruption, we are prepared to help UNRWA, conditional on it making some reforms," said Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum. "We are delighted to contribute in solidarity if UNRWA takes steps to end the Palestine refugee problem.

"The Forum's contribution requires UNRWA to end the automatic registering in perpetuity of (1) the descendants of refugees, (2) those who hold a nationality, and (3) those who live in their purported homeland, the West Bank and Gaza. Making these technical changes puts it in line with all other refugee agencies and reduces the number of Palestine refugees from 5.3 million to around 20,000. Our one-million-dollar donation will go a long way to meet the humanitarian considerations of this small and diminishing number."

The Middle East Forum has long pressed for a tightening of requirements for the "Palestine refugee" status, seeing this as both improving Palestinian lives and diminishing the threat to Israel.

"The current UNRWA definition breeds a victimhood mentality that perpetuates Palestinian-Israeli conflict," notes Gregg Roman, director of the Middle East Forum. "We hope our funding can inspire improvements in the lives of those in need while bringing the conflict closer to resolution."

On its own, UNRWA can adjust the definition of a refugee and has done so. In 1950, UNRWA defined a refugee as "a needy person, who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home, and his means of livelihood." There was no reference to descendants. In 1965 and 1982, UNRWA unilaterally decided to extend refugee status to all descendants, which meant the number of "Palestine refugees" now expands without limit.

The Middle East Forum is ready to help UNRWA out of this predicament. The offer is valid until June 30, 2018. MEF's management alone will decide when the conditions for payment have been fulfilled.

Title: Hizballah helping Hamas develop infrastructure to attack Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2018, 12:03:56 PM

Hizballah Helps Hamas Enhance Terrorist Infrastructure on Israel's Northern Border
IPT News
January 25, 2018
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7289/hizballah-helps-hamas-enhance-terrorist

Title: Glick: How Israel needs to see American politics
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 26, 2018, 10:11:54 AM

http://carolineglick.com/3622-2/

Title: How David conquered Jerusalem
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2018, 12:51:55 PM

https://www.israelvideonetwork.com/the-fascinating-story-behind-king-david-conquest-of-jerusalem/?omhide=true

Title: Allah works in mysterious ways hahaha
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2018, 07:50:50 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-co-founder-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself-in-face-militant-group-says/ar-BBIvqeW?li=BBnbfcL

Title: Re: Allah works in mysterious ways hahaha
Post by: G M on February 01, 2018, 07:53:24 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2018, 07:50:50 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-co-founder-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself-in-face-militant-group-says/ar-BBIvqeW?li=BBnbfcL

Heh.

Title: If you don't see it coming there's not much you can do.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 05, 2018, 11:15:06 AM

https://www.israelvideonetwork.com/muslim-terrorist-stabs-jew-to-death-in-samaria/?omhide=true

Title: Israel hits Syria in response to Iranian Drone
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 10, 2018, 09:33:34 AM

Iran begins to probe from its coalescing landbridge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-carries-out-large-scale-attack-in-syria-after-israeli-jet-crashes-under-anti-aircraft-fire/2018/02/10/89e0ca2c-0e33-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.d97a2f840fdc&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Title: POTH: Hamas-- Life is tougher when you are stupid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2018, 10:59:12 AM

With Gaza in Financial Crisis, Fears That ‘an Explosion’s Coming’
By DAVID M. HALBFINGERFEB. 11, 2018

GAZA CITY — The payday line at a downtown A.T.M. here in Gaza City was dozens deep with government clerks and pensioners, waiting to get what cash they could.

Muhammad Abu Shaaban, 45, forced into retirement two months ago, stood six hours to withdraw a $285 monthly check — a steep reduction from his $1,320 salary as a member of the Palestinian Authority’s presidential guard.

“Life has become completely different,” Mr. Abu Shaaban said, his eyes welling up. He has stopped paying a son’s college tuition. He buys his wife vegetables to cook for their six children, not meat.

And the pay he had just collected was almost entirely spoken for to pay off last month’s grocery bills. “At most, I’ll have no money left in five days,” he said.

Across Gaza, the densely populated enclave of two million Palestinians sandwiched between Israel and Egypt, daily life, long a struggle, is unraveling before people’s eyes.


At the heart of the crisis — and its most immediate cause — is a crushing financial squeeze, the result of a tense standoff between Hamas, the militant Islamist group that rules Gaza, and Fatah, the secular party entrenched on the West Bank. Fatah controls the Palestinian Authority but was driven out of Gaza by Hamas in 2007.


At grocery stores, beggars jostle with middle-class shoppers, who sheepishly ask to put their purchases on credit. The newly destitute scrounge for spoiled produce they can get for little or nothing.

“We are dead, but we have breath,” said Zakia Abu Ajwa, 57, who now cooks greens normally fed to donkeys for her three small grandchildren.

The jails are filling with shopkeepers arrested for unpaid debts; the talk on the streets is of homes being burglarized. The boys who skip school to hawk fresh mint or wipe car windshields face brutal competition. At open-air markets, shelves remain mostly full, but vendors sit around reading the Quran.

There are no buyers, the sellers say. There is no money.

United Nations officials warn that Gaza is nearing total collapse, with medical supplies dwindling, clinics closing and 12-hour power failures threatening hospitals. The water is almost entirely undrinkable, and raw sewage is befouling beaches and fishing grounds. Israeli officials and aid workers are bracing for a cholera outbreak any day.

A Palestinian cancer patient at a hospital in Gaza City. United Nations officials warn that Gaza is nearing total collapse, with medical supplies dwindling, clinics closing and 12-hour power failures threatening hospitals. Credit Wissam Nassar for The New York Times

Israel has blockaded Gaza for more than a decade, with severe restrictions on the flow of goods into the territory and people out of it, hoping to contain Hamas and also, perhaps, to pressure Gazans to eventually oust the group from power.

For years, Hamas sidestepped the Israeli siege and generated revenue by taxing goods smuggled in through tunnels from Sinai. But President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, after taking power in 2013, choked off Hamas — an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Mr. Sisi sees as a threat — by shutting the main border crossing at Rafah for long stretches. Egypt, which has no interest in becoming Gaza’s de facto administrator, used that pressure to force Hamas to close the Sinai tunnels.

For Hamas, the deteriorating situation is leaving it with few options. The one it has resorted to three times — going to war with Israel, in hopes of generating international sympathy and relief in the aftermath — suddenly seems least attractive.

Hamas can count on little aid now from the Arab world, let alone beyond. And Israel, in an underground-barrier project with a nearly $1 billion price tag, is steadily sealing its border to the attack tunnels into Israel that Gaza militants spent years digging.

The collapsing tunnel enterprise, in a way, neatly captures where Hamas finds itself: with no good way out.


Last year, the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, ratcheted up the pressure on Hamas, stopping its payments for fuel for Gaza’s power station and to Israel for electrical transmission into the Gaza Strip. It slashed the salaries of thousands of its workers who remained on its payroll in Gaza, even though they no longer had jobs to do after Hamas took power. Those measures forced Hamas into reconciliation talks that kindled new hopes, reaching their peak in a much-heralded October agreement in Cairo.

Hamas, eager to rid itself of the burdens of governing — though unwilling to disarm its military wing — showed flexibility at the talks, quickly ceding control over border crossings like the one with Israel at Kerem Shalom, and the tax collections there that had provided it with some $20 million a month.

But a series of missed deadlines for handing over governance to the Palestinian Authority, and the removal last month of the Egyptian intelligence chief who had brokered the reconciliation talks, have dashed hopes and left the two factions squabbling, the rapprochement slowly bleeding out.

Hamas now refuses to relinquish its collection of taxes inside Gaza until the Palestinian Authority starts paying the salaries of public employees. But the authority is refusing to do that until Hamas hands over the internal revenue stream.

“The most hard-line people in the P.A. believe they need full capitulation from Hamas, including the dismantling of its military,” said Nathan Thrall, an analyst for International Crisis Group who closely monitors Gaza. “The vast majority of Palestinians see that as wholly unrealistic. But the P.A. thinks that strategy is working. So they think the pressure should continue, and they’ll get even more.”

The longer the stalemate lasts, the more Hamas hemorrhages funds and Gaza’s economy suffocates. While thousands of Palestinian Authority workers in Gaza like Mr. Abu Shaaban were forced into early retirement, and those who remained saw their pay cut 40 percent, some 40,000 Hamas workers — many of them police officers — have not been paid in months, officials say.

As Gaza’s buying power plummets, imports through Kerem Shalom are falling — from a monthly average of 9,720 truckloads last year to just 7,855 in January — which will only cut Hamas’s revenue more.

“Abu Mazen has punished all of us, not only Hamas,” Fawzi Barhoum, the chief Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said in an interview, using Mr. Abbas’s nickname.

From Israel, a Conflicted View

A debate raged in Israel this past week, which sees the possibility of war both to its north and south, between military leaders warning about the looming crisis in Gaza and politicians questioning just how much and how soon the situation there would threaten national security.

Such a conflicted view has characterized Israeli policy ever since the blockade was imposed, analysts say, as the country sought to protect itself by cordoning off the strip.


But that meant keeping an enormous degree of control over the flow of people, cargo, energy and international aid across the border — and as it clamps down, the resulting social harm in Gaza can blow back against Israel.

Nowhere is that more palpable than just across the border in Israel, where soldiers patrol close enough to wave at the Hamas militants eyeing them from watchtowers, and commanders talk of Gaza’s unemployment and poverty rates as fluently as of their battle preparations.

Brig. Gen. Yehuda Fox, who leads the army’s Gaza division, recently showed Hamas and Islamic Jihad tunnels discovered and destroyed in the past few months. The tunnels were supplied with air, electricity and water, and dug by an estimated 100 men working in shifts.

The showpiece of the army tour, though, was not the tunnels, but the construction of a concrete-and-electronic barrier, dug deep into the earth, that General Fox said will eventually detect other tunnels and stop more from being built.


About three miles of the barrier is finished, with about 38 miles to go. It is an impressive display of ingenuity, but comes at an enormous cost: Five concrete plants have been set up, supplying 20 digging sites, at a cost of nearly $1 billion. Enough concrete is being poured into the desert sand, the general said, to “build Manhattan.”

But he also acknowledged that the underground-barrier project had increased the pressure on Hamas to use its existing tunnels soon, or risk losing them forever — heightening their dangers to Israel.

As moribund as the reconciliation process has become, General Fox said, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were keeping it alive because “no one wants to be blamed for destroying it.” If it does fail, Hamas will likely deflect Gazans’ anger: “They’ll say Israel is the problem — ‘Let’s go to jihad and start a war.’”

Climbing back into an armored vehicle, the general drove past an Iron Dome antimissile battery to a park where hundreds of picnickers and mountain bikers — Jews and Arabs alike — had flocked to see meadows blooming with scarlet anemones. Israel calls this February festival “Red South.”

Photo
An Israeli Arab woman sitting in a park where hundreds of picnickers and mountain bikers — Jews and Arabs alike — had flocked to see meadows blooming with scarlet anemones. Credit Uriel Sinai for The New York Times

It was well within mortar range of the border.

“It’s their decision what to do,” the general said of Hamas. “Three times in the past 10 years they’ve chosen war. They wasted many lives and a lot of money and destroyed Gaza. And they can try to do it a fourth time.”

Then again, he said, “Everybody learns.”

Photo
Israel, in an underground-barrier project with a nearly $1 billion price tag, is steadily sealing its border to the attack tunnels that Gaza militants spent years digging. Credit Uriel Sinai for The New York Times


Israel recently called on donor countries to fund some $1 billion in water and energy improvements in Gaza, measures that would take time. But there is more it could do to alleviate the crisis quickly, according to the Israeli advocacy group Gisha — like easing the way for cancer patients to travel for treatment, or renewing exit permits for traders, which Israel slashed to just 551 at the end of 2017 from about 3,600 two years earlier.

The United States has done the opposite, withholding $65 million from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugees, including some 1.2 million in Gaza, many of whom rely on its regular handouts of flour, cooking oil and other staples.

Hamas itself has few ways to alleviate the crisis, according to Mr. Thrall and other Gaza experts.

It could retake control of Kerem Shalom, regaining vital revenue but inviting blame, and retribution, for the demise of reconciliation. It could seek intervention by Muhammad Dahlan, a Fatah leader exiled and reviled by Mr. Abbas, in hopes that Mr. Dahlan’s patron, the United Arab Emirates, might pour money into Gaza. Or it could muddle along, perhaps hoping that an expected American peace initiative might entail quieting Gaza with aid.

For the moment, those with money in Gaza are trying to help those without. A few merchants have forgiven customers’ debts. The Gaza Chamber of Commerce paid $35,000 to get 107 indebted merchants temporarily released from jail. A donor gave 1,000 liters of fuel to a hospital for its generator.

Photo
The Gaza Chamber of Commerce paid $35,000 to get 107 indebted merchants temporarily released from jail. Credit Wissam Nassar for The New York Times

But the fuel quickly ran out. Gestures only help so much. And Gaza residents invariably say that war is coming.

Hamas is under no illusions that it would fare better in the next fight than it did after its 2014 battle with Israel, Mr. Thrall said.

“Hamas sees how isolated they are in the region, and how isolated the Palestinians are at large,” he said. “Before, in wars, they could hope to light up the Arab street and pressure Arab leaders. But in 2014, there was barely a peep, and now it’s even more so.”

Still, whether out of bluster or desperation, Gazans both in and out of power have begun talking openly about confronting Israel over its blockade in the kind of mass action that could easily lead to casualties and escalation.

A social-media activist, Ahmed Abu Artema, is promoting the idea of a “Great Return,” a peaceable encampment of 100,000 protesters along the Israel-Gaza border. Mr. Barhoum, the Hamas spokesman, envisioned a million or more Gazans taking part, though perhaps not so peacefully.

One way or the other, “an explosion’s coming,” said Mr. Abu Shaaban, the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority pensioner. “We have only Israel to explode against. Should we explode against each other?”

Title: stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2018, 07:32:31 PM

With its enemies distracted, Israel is seizing the opportunity to act. Early Feb. 10, the Israeli military detected an Iranian drone encroaching on Israeli airspace and shot it down. Taking things a step further, the Israeli air force then targeted the base in Syria that the drone operated out of. In the process, its aircraft came under heavy fire and an Israeli jet was shot down. The Israelis then launched another strike against 12 Syrian and Iranian sites in Syria, focusing primarily on infrastructure for air defense.

The large number of targets struck by Israeli forces in such a short period of time and the downing of an Israeli aircraft are both uncommon events. However, Israel routinely sends planes into Lebanese and Syrian airspace, and the country regularly carries out strikes on potential threats such as Syria's chemical weapons program or what Israel believes to be shipments of weapons to Hezbollah.

It's not clear what the Iranians were seeking to gain from a drone flight over Israeli positions beyond intelligence, but Iran, Syria and Hezbollah all have a strong incentive to once again deter Israeli actions. Even if all three want to avoid becoming embroiled in a major war with Israel at a time when their forces are already heavily committed to the Syrian battlefield, regional dynamics require that Israel be reminded it cannot simply continue to strike targets in Syria with impunity. If Iran, Syria or Hezbollah refuse to fight back, Israel will only be incentivized to carry out more airstrikes against them.

On the other hand, this latest flurry of strikes was highly indicative of Israel's continued restraint. Though recent events have demonstrated Israel's willingness to increase airstrikes while its adversaries are overstretched in the Syrian civil war, they have also highlighted the country's willingness to de-escalate attacks. Shortly after conducting airstrikes in response to the downing of its jet, Israel announced that it did not want the situation to escalate further and called on Russia to intervene to prevent further Iranian action.

Israel's restraint is likely caused largely by the considerable damage that a war with Hezbollah, Iran and the Syrian government would bring, but Russia's presence in Syria is likely also a factor. Because Russia is heavily invested in Syria and has personnel on the ground in the country, Israel will need to be very careful in its campaign against Syrian targets to avoid escalating animosity beyond the tiny country's control.

Title: Glick: Israeli Deep State goes after Netanyahu
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 14, 2018, 09:22:06 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/02/13/caroline-glick-israel-deep-state-targets-netanyahu-bogus-charges/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2018, 08:19:50 AM

An Israeli friend with strong IDF experience in his background comments on the Glick article:

"As for the article you sent..
It’s all biased depending on which political views you hold.
Personally I think BiBi is corrupt to the core, and the claim of his supporters that it is a conspiracy to overthrow him is ridiculous..

"He appointed the chief of police, he appointed the attorney General, and he appointed the state comptroller.
Now he cries they are all out to get him..?
Gimme a fucken break..

"The asshole got cought and I really hope they put his ass in Jail."

Title: Israel, Turkey: Hamas up to no good in Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2018, 10:49:45 AM

Shin Bet Investigation Exposes Depth of Turkey's Hamas Support
February 15, 2018
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7349/shin-bet-investigation-exposes-depth-of-turkey

Title: AEI: Israel, and the coming war with Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

    Danielle Pletka @dpletka

February 15, 2018 12:16 pm | AEIdeas
What’s new in foreign and defense policy

Give ‘maximum pressure’ a chance

The coming conflict between Iran and Israel


Last Friday night, the Iranian military crossed into Israel using a drone launched from a Syrian base. It’s not clear whether the UAV was armed or not, but it was likely a Saeqeh model based on designs reverse engineered from a downed US model.

Fragments of a Syrian anti-aircraft missile found in Alonei Abba, about 2 miles (3.2 km) from where the remains of a crashed F-16 Israeli war plane were found, at the village of Alonei Abba, Israel February 10, 2018. REUTERS/ Ronen Zvulun

Israel retaliated by striking the Tiyas air base from which the UAV was being controlled, prompting the launch of several volleys of anti-aircraft missiles which brought down an Israeli F-16I craft over Israeli territory. (The two pilots ejected.) Israel returned fire with a major air incursion into Syria, striking Iranian and Syrian targets.

This is a significant escalation on the part of the Iranians, and comes on the heels of the visit to Lebanon and Syria of a senior Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Sayyed Ibrahim Raisi, to the border with Israel. (Raisi is among those in contention to take over as Supreme Leader when Khamenei dies.) And for the Israelis, it sharpens the challenge they face with not just Hezbollah, the Iranian controlled terrorist group on its borders in Lebanon, but now a substantial Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) presence in Syria as well.

Israel has not been idly watching as Iran builds up its proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The IDF has hit Syria repeatedly, taking out shipments from Iran designed to up Iran’s proxy capabilities. But plenty has also happened without Israeli action, including new missile factories on Lebanese soil and a continued major build-up that will mean that when the next confrontation happens, it will be large, ugly, and with substantial collateral damage.

The steady escalation by Iran on Israel’s border belies the notion that Tehran is feeling any heat from the departure of the more pro-Iran Barack Obama and the arrival of Donald Trump, with his pledge to take the Iranian threat more seriously. Rather, Iran has continued to cut a wide swath throughout the Middle East, destabilizing the Iraqi government, continuing to cooperate with Russia in their campaign to restore Bashar al Assad to power in Syria, marching apace through Yemen via their proxy Houthi government, and, of course, consolidating their growing dominion over Lebanon.

I’ve written about Iran’s tightening grip on Beirut, only helped by the recent bizarre detention of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri in Riyadh. But the US government appears determined to ignore the Lebanese Armed Forces’ increasingly obvious cooperation with Hezbollah, as well as Hezbollah’s swelling arsenal throughout Lebanese territory.

Somehow, both Centcom and the State Department have persuaded themselves, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that Lebanon is somehow independent despite massive Iranian infiltration through Hezbollah. And even though Treasury officials have cottoned on to Hezbollah/Iran’s financial shenanigans ongoing in the Lebanese banking system, a stealthily passed add on to Lebanese election law now insulates all targeted parties from the effects of sanctions, anteing up Lebanese government cash to rescue any political party subject to financial action.

How does this all end? Simple. The United States has not availed itself of sufficient soft or hard power options vis a vis Iran in Syria, Yemen, or anywhere else in the region. Iran is rising inexorably, and inevitably, at least for Israel, there will be no choice but conflict.

Title: Defense Treaty with US?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2018, 07:18:15 AM

https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2018/02/a-defense-treaty-between-the-united-states-and-israel-just-say-no/

Title: Hamas stealing from Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2018, 11:08:03 PM

Hamas Continues to Steal Energy From Gaza's Residents
by IPT News  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 2:07 pm
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7361/hamas-continues-to-steal-energy-from-gaza

Title: Re: Israel, Caroline Glick, Bibi isn't going anywhere
Post by: DougMacG on March 06, 2018, 05:26:33 AM

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0318/glick030518.php3

Title: Glick: No US policy for Iran in Lebanon, more
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2018, 02:18:03 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/06/caroline-glick-trumps-urgent-lebanon-problem/

Title: Glick: War coming with Lebanon?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2018, 05:39:20 AM

http://carolineglick.com/trumps-urgent-lebanon-problem/

Title: Glick: Firing Tillerson removed an obstacle to peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2018, 07:29:41 AM

This very good piece is about quite a bit more than Tillerson/

http://carolineglick.com/firing-tillerson-removed-an-obstacle-to-peace/

Title: Pipes: Peace through Victory
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2018, 09:50:26 PM

Why Palestinians Need an Israel Victory
by Daniel Pipes
The Australian
March 24, 2018
meforum.org/articles/2018/why-palestinians-need-an-israel-victory

Title: JPost: Israel flies over Syria, Iraq, and Iran undetected
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2018, 02:13:50 PM

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israeli-stealth-fighters-fly-over-Iran-547421

Title: Glick: Demographic Fear Mongering
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2018, 07:22:49 PM

http://carolineglick.com/time-to-end-demographic-fear-mongering/

Title: GPF: George Friedman: The Strategic Implications of the Gaza Deaths
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2018, 08:08:54 AM

Gaza Deaths and Strategic Possibilities
Apr 2, 2018
By George Friedman

Israeli troops killed 17 Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza on March 30. Israel claimed that the demonstrators were armed with Molotov cocktails and other weapons and that the majority of those killed were terrorists. The Palestinians claimed that they were unarmed demonstrators demanding their human rights. Which side is right is academic. The hard fact is that the Israel-Gaza frontier, after an extended period of relative quiet, has become more active in recent months, and the Israelis have devoted substantial military assets to control the border.

The events in Gaza have to be viewed in a broader strategic context. There were unconfirmed reports last weekend that the Israeli air force bombed Hezbollah forces operating on the Lebanon-Syria border. Surveillance of Lebanon and attacks on Hezbollah forces near or in Syria are not new, but a pattern is emerging. All of Israel’s frontiers have become, or threaten to become, active. In Syria, Iran has substantial power and deep influence over the Assad regime and its actions. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, an Iranian-dominated force, is a serious power. Hezbollah has also played a major role in the Syrian civil war. The group has suffered losses in Syria, but as the Assad regime becomes more secure, Hezbollah’s losses are being replaced. Its ability to launch rockets and missiles at Israel remains intact, while its ground forces, which fought Israel to a standstill in 2006, are being restored.

Since Israel’s founding, the Arabs and Israelis have faced fundamental strategic problems. The Arabs have never been able to create a unified command around the Israeli periphery to wage extended, coordinated warfare, taking advantage of their superior numbers. The Israelis are incapable of absorbing extensive casualties (in the tens of thousands) given the country’s small population and relatively small effective fighting force. Israel’s strategy has always been to either take advantage of divisions in the Arab world or encourage them. In addition, Israel’s war-fighting strategy has been to impose a rapid end to fighting, even if this means an inconclusive war, to minimize casualties.

The ideal strategy for the Arabs has been forcing Israel into a war along its entire periphery, from Lebanon and Syria, down the Jordan River line to Eilat, and in the southwest from Egypt, in the Sinai-Negev area. The Arabs would use larger numbers, accepting much higher casualties to neutralize the effect of Israel’s technology and superior forces, and impose a war of attrition on Israel, in due course breaking Israeli forces.

Something of this sort was attempted in 1948 with insufficient coordination to succeed. In 1970, the Egyptians and Israelis fought a war of attrition, but that was along only one sector of the Israeli frontier. In 1973, the Syrians and Egyptians opened a two-front war that had major initial successes for them, but they were eventually blocked by the Israelis. In none of these conflicts were the Arabs able to impose a full peripheral war, forcing Israel to defend the long Jordan Rive line and disperse its forces in defensive positions for an indeterminate time. Israel’s political strategy allowed its forces to concentrate and defeat the enemy.

Gaza’s Role

And so the Gaza events are important. Unlike previous episodes when the Iranians provided Hamas with material support from far away, the Iranians are now in Syria and Lebanon. A full peripheral war is still impossible, since the Sinai-Negev line is manned by Israeli and Egyptian troops coordinating against jihadists, and the Jordan River line is held by the Jordanians, who have far greater worries than Israel. Still, the possibilities of active fronts in Lebanon and Syria, coupled with another threat from Gaza, including rockets that cannot be rapidly suppressed by Israel, pose a threat to Israel. From the Arab (and now Iranian) point of view, a sudden victory is not the goal. Rather, the goal is to impose casualties on Israel’s military and civilian population for an extended period to undermine Israel’s ability and will to fight. Before the Iranian presence, this was difficult to achieve. It remains difficult but not impossible.

This is why the Israelis are extremely sensitive to anything happening in Gaza, and why the Palestinians in Gaza are carefully testing the Israelis. Hamas was on the ropes a short while ago, but now with Iran (Sunni and Shiite cooperation), opportunities emerge. For Israel, the key at the moment is political. It must do what it can to assure that President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi remains in control of Egypt and that the Hashemites remain in control of Jordan. The Iranian strategy must be to destabilize both, particularly Jordan. Given Iran’s power in Iraq and the expansion of Iranian logistics, it could place a substantial force on the Jordan River line, vastly thinning out Israeli troops and undermining Israel’s strategy of massed force.

For all the talk of Iranian nuclear weapons, this is an early stage of the real Iranian threat – a war of attrition against Israel. Of course, Turkey, a major power and neighbor of Iran, is not interested in seeing Iran control the Arab world, nor are the other Arab states. The divisions in the Arab world might finally coalesce not against Israel, but against Iran.

All of this, of course, is quite premature. But given recent events in Gaza and Iranian power in Syria and Lebanon, it is not premature to consider the potential shape of a conflict. Hezbollah rockets from the north, Hamas rockets from the south, and Israeli forces dispersed on multiple fronts in ground operations would likely not break Israel, but they would strain it and would be a step in reshaping the balance of power in the region, which is the goal for Iran. This would be less about destroying Israel than about dominating the Arab world, the most interesting outcome for Iran.

 

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 02, 2018, 08:44:22 AM

one can only imagine what this would look like if Iran starts producing nuclear bombs

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2018, 07:37:30 AM

Looks like they are thinking about getting them off the shelf from Pakistan

https://gellerreport.com/2018/04/iran-pakistan-axis-evil.html/

Title: GPF
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 18, 2018, 01:09:16 PM

Israel: The Israeli army has canceled its participation in U.S.-led international air force exercises. Israeli officials said the country remains on high alert as it anticipates a response from Iran to alleged Israeli strikes on an Iranian base in Syria. That it has pulled out of the exercises indicates its high level of concern about an attack. Now is a good time to take stock of Israel’s air force. How large is the force, and what type of planes does it have? Has Israel ever canceled participation in exercises due to security concerns at home?

Title: The Kite as Weapon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2018, 08:35:05 AM

The Palestinians’ Kite Jihad
by A.J. Caschetta
The Algemeiner
April 24, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/the-palestinians’-kite-jihad

In the history of weaponizing the mundane, no one beats the Palestinians.  When they have been unable to acquire conventional weapons, they have resorted to the unconventional — such as kitchen knives and screwdrivers.  When unable to acquire conventional vehicles of war, they have resorted to the unconventional — such as cars, truck, and even bulldozers.

In the latest round of attacks against Israel — the “March of Return” — they have yet again demonstrated ingenuity by weaponizing the simplest of children’s toys: the kite.

Their method involves fashioning a wire tail onto  a kite, with an explosive attached to it. The kite is then flown from the relative safety of the Gaza side of the border into Israel. Once it has reached far enough into Israeli territory, the string is cut and the kite — explosive attached — falls into Israeli territory.  Some of the kites have been used to deliver incendiary devices, while others have used explosives. Some of the weaponized kites are made to resemble the Palestinian flag, while others more ominously feature swastikas.

Reporters from the Agence France Presse (AFP) found Palestinian children boasting of their new “means of struggle,” one of whom enthused: “They [the IDF] are firing explosives bullets and tear gas, we are flying kites to burn the farmland.”

On Tuesday, April 17, one such weaponized kite — with a Molotov cocktail attached — started a fire in a field outside Kibbutz Be’eri, several miles into Israeli territory. According to The Times of Israel, it took four teams of firefighters to put out the fire, which had spread over nearly 25 acres.

Using toys as weapons recalls the tactic that the Soviet Union used against the children of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The idea was to maim, but not kill, Afghan children in order to fill hospital beds that therefore couldn’t be used to treat mujahideen fighters attacking Soviet troops. So the ingenious minds of Soviet scientists designed bombs disguised as toys.  In 1985, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights — which was inquiry conducted by an Felix Ermacora — asserted that many Afghan “children had been very seriously wounded, having their hands or feet blown off, either by handling booby-trap toys they had picked up along the roadway, or by stepping on them … booby-trap toys encountered include those resembling pens, harmonicas, radios or matchboxes, and little bombs shaped like a bird. This type of bomb, consisting of two wings, one flexible and the other rigid, in the shape and colors of a bird, explodes when the flexible wing is touched.”

After the Russians were expelled from Afghanistan, the Taliban infamously forbade Afghan children from playing with kites which they deemed “un-Islamic.” Yet they too came up with ingenious ways to disguise weapons, especially bombs — for instance, in turbans. Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of the Afghan High Peace Council, was assassinated by a Taliban bomber who defeated security measures by hiding explosives in his turban.

Al Qaeda has used the human body to disguise their bombs, either as suicide vests (which they learned from the Tamil Tigers) or by shoving bombs in their rectums. In Iraq, bombs were disguised as the pregnant abdomens of women, packing a larger payload that the slim vests.

The ingenuity displayed by jihad warriors to disguise their weapons shows just how adaptable they are, always a step or two ahead of Western thinkers in their deviousness. It also shows that the Palestinians are willing to sacrifice their children.

AFP reporters in Gaza not only found children willing to talk, but also adults, who had put the children up to their treachery. One said that the aim was “to destabilize, creating confusion,” and to “burn … crops.” A man named Jamal al-Fadi, identified as a professor of political science in Gaza, said that,  “The Palestinian people, frustrated and desperate due to the Israeli siege … have had their hope renewed” by the new “means of struggle.”

If the Palestinians devoted a fraction of the ingenuity they have shown in devising and hiding weapons to diplomacy, compromise, and to building in the territory that Israel abandoned in 2005, they would be far closer to achieving the state they crave. Unfortunately, they prefer killing over negotiating, protesting over compromising, and burning over building.

A.J. Caschetta is a Ginsburg-Ingerman fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Title: Bin Salman on the Palestinians
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 30, 2018, 01:02:04 PM

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30015/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-frank-camp

Title: Re: Bin Salman on the Palestinians
Post by: G M on April 30, 2018, 01:09:43 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 30, 2018, 01:02:04 PM

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30015/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-frank-camp

I really am starting to like this guy.

Title: Abbas: Jews caused the holocaust
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 02, 2018, 08:34:52 AM

Palestinian President Claims Jews' Behavior Caused the Holocaust
by IPT News  •  May 1, 2018 at 12:09 pm
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7428/palestinian-president-claims-jews-behavior-caused

In yet another long and disoriented rant, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday took his anti-Semitic sentiment to a new level.

Abbas told a Palestinian National Council session that the Jewish people – not anti-Semitism or the Nazis – caused the Holocaust through their "social behavior," the Times of Israel reported.

According to Abbas, the mass genocide of more than 6 million Jews was a result of the Jews "social behavior, [charging] interest, and financial matters."
Abbas also claimed that Israel is a European colonial project, that European Jews have "no historical ties" to Israel, and that "those who sought a Jewish state weren't Jews."

Denying Jewish identity and Jewish rights to any part of Israel are other forms of anti-Semitism that Abbas frequently embraces.  He also repeated his stubborn rejection of any peace plan proposal led by the Trump administration, even before it has been formally presented.

In a series of public statements since Trump's announcement to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, Abbas has propagated claims that are outlandish even by his own, often radical, standards.  In a Jan. 14 address to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Central Council, Abbas spent more than two hours ranting about the history of Zionism in a conspiratorial fashion. He claimed that Jews moved to Israel solely for ideological and colonial reasons, not because of persecution "even during the Holocaust."
In the same speech, he went off on a blatantly anti-Semitic tirade that attempted to de-legitimize any Jewish presence in the state of Israel: "The significance of Israel's functional character is that colonialism created it in order to fill a specific role; it is a colonialist project that is not connected to Judaism, but made use of the Jews so they would serve as pawns..."

These anti-Semitic comments are reminiscent of his Holocaust denying doctoral thesis, which grossly underestimates the number of Jews killed in the genocide and focuses on an unsubstantiated relationship between Zionists and Nazis.

While trying to present a moderate face for years, recent developments show that the Palestinian president has become a hostile and outwardly racist leader that continues to alienate the Palestinian people.

Title: GPF: Iran prepares in Syria for war with Israel 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2018, 09:28:06 AM

By Jacob L. Shapiro

Another war between Israel and Hezbollah may well be approaching. Iran, Hezbollah’s primary patron, continues to ship weapons to the Lebanese militia despite Israel’s insistence that doing so is something it cannot allow. Israel has conducted airstrikes on Iranian and Syrian targets in the past month accordingly, but to no avail. The more aggressively Israel behaves, the sooner a direct fight with Iran will come.

Of course, the two have been engaged in a war of words for some time, but this contest has been confined to the battlefield of rhetoric for a simple if overlooked geographic reason: The two countries are too far away from each other to wage war. Now, though, Iranian bases are coming under attack, and casualties are beginning to mount, but Iran has yet to respond. Eventually it will have to, and when it does it will come in the form of Hezbollah.

That’s because Iran itself can’t do much right now. It can try to take away Israel’s advantage in the air by lobbying Russia to provide the Syrian government with S-300 missile defense systems. And indeed there are reports that Syria may soon be so equipped. According to the Russian media agency Kommersant, Moscow has already decided to offer the S-300s to Damascus, though Russia’s official position is still that it is undecided. S-300s can certainly make it more difficult for Israel to stage attacks in Syria, but they cannot stop Israel completely. And the fact that Iran has not offered its own capabilities in this regard speaks volumes.

Otherwise, Iran could, in theory, attack Israel with missiles of its own. But here, too, there are consequences. Even if all its munitions penetrated Israel’s impressive missile defense system – such systems have their drawbacks, but they would at least blunt the attack – the act would only invite a counterattack. If Iran unleashed its missiles on Israel, the United States would very likely stand with its traditional ally.


(click to enlarge)

This is why Iran tends to avoid direct conflict against enemies in the region. (The last time Iran engaged directly was the Iran-Iraq War, which ended in a bloody stalemate.) Its preferred method of fighting is through the empowerment of proxy groups. Iran provides weapons, money and political cover. In return, it gets plausible deniability. The disadvantage of proxies is that their allegiance has limits. In Iraq, for example, Iran-backed Shiite militias played a crucial role in weakening the Islamic State, and though they now give Iran notable leverage inside Iraq, they can’t change the fact that Iraq is largely populated by Arab Iraqis who have no desire to become subjects of a Persian vassal state.


(click to enlarge)

Iran, then, has only two options in responding to Israeli attacks: Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas can be deployed to distract Israel, but it cannot seriously threaten it. The Gaza Strip is a densely populated and isolated piece of land that Israel has proved capable of containing. Giving Hamas money and encouraging it to protest at the Israeli border may annoy Israel, but it is hardly a viable deterrent to Israeli attacks. Hezbollah is the far more likely Iranian pawn in this scenario. It is a highly capable albeit small fighting force located right on Israel’s northern border, and, having acquitted itself well in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, it has been the chief concern of the Israel Defense Forces.

But Hezbollah has its limitations too. It has been bogged down in Syria fighting for Bashar Assad since 2012, a move that provoked Lebanese Shiite protests and, if some reports are to be believed, dissension within Hezbollah itself. Hezbollah has gained tactical experience in Syria, but with experience comes exhaustion. The government in Damascus has yet to suppress the rebellion, and for all the years it has spent fighting, Hezbollah has not had the time to rest, regroup and take stock of what it has learned. The group, moreover, has lost some of its best fighters in the Syrian war and has had to ease its recruiting standards to refill its ranks. Asking Hezbollah to start a major conflict with Israel on the heels of its campaign in Syria may be asking too much. The Israeli attack that would surely follow could degrade not just Hezbollah’s numbers but its legitimacy in Lebanon as well, reducing its value as a proxy group in the first place.

Iran, then, is in a bit of a quandary. It has few good options for reprisal, but every day it fails to strike back makes it look weaker. It’s unclear how many Iranians died in Israeli strikes in Syria on April 29 – the lowest figure, reported by The New York Times, was 11. Castigating Israel and then failing to respond when it attacks Iranian citizens is not a good look for an administration struggling to maintain its grip at home.

Israel, for its part, appears to be making all the necessary preparations. According to NBC News, three U.S. officials said Israeli F-15s were responsible for last weekend’s attack against Syrian government targets in Hama and Aleppo. Haaretz reported that the officials also suggested that Israel “seems to be preparing for open warfare with Iran.” Meanwhile, reports in The New York Times and other Western news agencies cite a new law that grants the Israeli prime minister and defense minister the authority in “extreme circumstances” to declare war without consulting the security Cabinet as evidence that the Israeli government is readying for hostilities. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent presentation, in which he accused Iran of lying to the United States to get favorable terms in the Iran nuclear deal, could be interpreted as much as a battle cry as a plea for U.S. President Donald Trump to scrap the deal.

These reports make it sound like an Israeli-Iranian war is imminent, but by simple dint of geography, Iran and Israel cannot wage a conventional war against each other. Even so, the greater a foothold Iran establishes in Syria, the greater the threat it poses to Israel. For now, Israel is content to pick off Iranian weapons convoys intended for Hezbollah from the sky. The more Iranian targets it hits, though, the more it backs Iran into a corner, and the more pressure Iran will put on Hezbollah to fulfill its end of the proxy bargain. If Iran decides a military response to Israel is necessary, the hammer will fall in northern Israel, and if Israel learned anything from its 2006 fight with Hezbollah, it will know that this is not the type of enemy that can be defeated from the air – or one that will go down without causing some casualties of its own. Every Israeli strike in Syria against Iranian targets brings a second Israel-Hezbollah war that much closer.

Title: Ehud Barak's memories
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2018, 10:32:39 AM

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/261768/ehud-barak-obama?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=5dd2997aaf-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-5dd2997aaf-207194629

Title: Hamas gets ready to provoke Israel big time
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2018, 04:40:33 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-yehya-sinwar.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=world/middleeast&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&pgtype=article

Title: MEF: The Privileged Palestinian "Refugees"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2018, 12:50:11 PM

The Privileged Palestinian "Refugees"
by Efraim Karsh
Middle East Quarterly
May 14, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/the-privileged-palestinian-refugees

Title: Stratfor: Gaza looks out on a changing Middle East
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2018, 10:19:48 AM

    For Turkey, Iran and Qatar, this new Gaza crisis is an opportunity to shore up their roles as patrons of the Palestinians and leaders within the Muslim world.
    Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, on the other hand, consider the Iran threat much more pressing than the Palestinian question.
    This is a view shared by Israel, which eyes its northern border, where Iran's military buildup is taking place in Syria, with greater concern than it does the Gazan frontier.

Another round of protests in Gaza — triggered by the May 14 opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and the 70th anniversary of the nakba, or "catastrophe," the Palestinian term for their displacement during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war that followed Israel's creation — highlights how much has changed and how much, in many ways, has not. No one expects borders to change, alliances to shift quickly or the peace process to suddenly gain speed. In the background of this all-too-familiar round of unrest and violence, new opportunities — and new risks — await the old players.

On its broadest level, the Palestinian question has long represented a way for regional rulers to win or buttress their legitimacy at home and claim leadership in the Muslim world. But over the past decade, slow-moving forces have reshaped how legitimacy is derived from the Palestinian issue, and how much value different states see in seeking to be the leader of the region's Muslims.

The Big Picture

The Palestinian issue is a means for regional states to gain influence and appease domestic audiences. But how states do so has changed over time, with some, like Iran, gaining more with each new Palestinian crisis, while others, like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, have to navigate between the traditions of condemnation and a very real desire to get closer to Israel.


The proximate cause of this latest Gazan crisis is economic and political. Gaza's economy is in free fall. Foreign powers have substantially cut aid to the impoverished territory, power outages often last most of the day, leaving hospitals unable to guarantee electricity, and there's a shortage of schools. In addition, a much-hyped unity deal between Hamas, which rules Gaza, and Fatah, which governs the West Bank, has failed to bring about a working government. Outside the Palestinian territories, states look to take advantage of the crisis, or insulate themselves from it, even as they offer few workable solutions.

For Iran, this Gazan crisis offers greater opportunities than past crises. The Palestinians feel abandoned by much of the world, even by their own government, the Palestinian Authority. There seem to be few who will stand up to Israel. But Iran just fought an open battle with Israel, even if it came out battered, in the first state-to-state clash between the two countries. Accused by domestic critics of wasting money on overseas adventures, Iran's leaders find political value in showing that their foreign deployments put the Islamic Republic's missiles where its mouth is. The crisis also undermines Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president who has helped tamp down Iranian influence in the West Bank in cooperation with Israel. To weaken Abbas is to open a door for Hamas — and behind Hamas, Iran.

In this sense, Iran rivals Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is using the Gazan crisis to bolster his own Muslim credentials. An election called by Erdogan is coming in June, and the president is not quite certain he will win. To nudge the needle in his direction, he must convince pious Turks that his religious rhetoric has meaning. By offering aid to Gaza and by cutting diplomatic ties with Israel, Erdogan can score political points at home. Longer term, Turkey, with or without Erdogan, may yet find justification in the Palestinian question to play spoiler to Israel's hopes of exploiting the eastern Mediterranean's abundant hydrocarbon fields, should Ankara's relationship with Israel become negative enough.

For Qatar, the blockaded country has an opportunity to regain some of its lost influence. It was once Gaza's biggest patron, giving billions, but in the austerity of the blockade led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and stung by Saudi and Emirati accusations that it was supporting Hamas' terrorism, Qatar has held back. Now the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the pan-Islamic condemnation of Israel's use of force that killed at least 59 Palestinian protesters on the Gaza border on May 14, can nudge the door open for Qatar to restore some of that support and return some shine to its reputation as a little power punching above its geopolitical weight.

For Saudi Arabia and many of the Arab Gulf states, the Palestinian issue is an unwelcome distraction from a budding alliance with Israel that is coalescing around a mutual fear of Iran. Few Gulf rulers get much domestic legitimacy from pandering to the anti-Israel lobby anymore; those Gulf citizens who are ardently against Israel are also increasingly against their monarchies as well, like members of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. For Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, Israel represents trade and defense opportunities — particularly against Iran — which are of greater value than the sheen of resistance to Israel.

Finally, for Israel itself, a Gazan crisis is no longer the preeminent defense challenge. The greater concern is Iran, and what it might do as it builds its influence in Syria and endangers Israel's northern border. As of now, there is little risk that Israel's use of force on the Gaza border will result in meaningful diplomatic or economic blowback, not with the United States standing solidly behind it. Even the risk of another intifada won't upend Israel, should protests spread to the West Bank. Having spent years preparing for this scenario, Israel is better positioned than ever to fend off such a challenge.

The core conflict — of Israelis against Palestinians, of two peoples in a crowded land, unable to agree on their roles within it — ensure that this latest round of protest and violence will hardly be the last. But while the conflict may recur with familiar patterns, the geopolitical currency that regional powers may gain — or risk — in the struggle will shift in response to their own needs.

Title: Gaza Arabs with Machetes get through fence
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2018, 03:05:16 PM

https://israelunwired.com/gaza-arabs-destroy-border-fence-and-infiltrate-into-israel/

Title: Stratfor: Serious Read: Now or Never
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2018, 06:46:39 AM

Now or Never: Israel Makes Its Move Against Iran
By Reva Goujon
VP of Global Analysis, Stratfor
In this photograph, Russian military police guard a road outside Damascus, Syria, after it reopened May 15, 2018.
(LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/Getty Images)



    An unusual set of circumstances is enabling Israel to scale up attacks against Iran in Syria and risk a broader confrontation in the process.
    As Israel raises the stakes in its conflict with Iran, it will look to lock in U.S. security commitments in the region for the long haul.
    The White House's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal is a long-shot bet on regime change at odds with U.S. attempts to reduce its military burden in the region.
    Russia's bark is often worse than its bite, but it will retain the clout to narrow the scope of U.S. and Israeli ambitions against Iran.

"Better now than never." These were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a recent tweet affirming his country's resolve to block Iranian aggression at any cost. Perhaps no statement could better encapsulate the current Israeli mindset and resolve to block Iranian aggression at any cost. When else will Israel have the ear of a U.S. president willing to tear up a diplomatic deal and double down on Iran, the freedom to strike with impunity against targets in a state already ravaged by civil war, and a young Saudi prince willing to openly collaborate with the Jewish state against the Islamic republic?

Israel cannot escape the fact that it is a tiny state in a hostile geopolitical environment that depends on a great power patron. Historical tragedy has a way of molding a state to rapidly seize opportunities that come along ever so rarely and are always laden with risk.

The Big Picture

Stratfor forecast that Israel would take advantage of a window of opportunity to escalate its confrontation with Iran in Syria. That window widened with the insertion of Iran hawks in the White House over the past quarter, leading to the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. As the United States tries to reduce its security commitments in the region, Iran will remain the big hindrance to those plans, giving Russia an opportunity to deepen its leverage in the Middle East.
See Middle East and North Africa section of the 2018 Annual Forecast

Israel's strategic goals in Syria are threefold: to prevent advanced weaponry from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon, to prevent the Syrian civil war from spilling into the Golan Heights and to prevent Iran from militarily entrenching itself on its northern frontier. In this carpe diem moment, Israeli airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria have picked up. Three major attacks have occurred in the past two weeks alone, and at least 150 strikes have taken place since the civil war began in 2011. By accelerating and widening the scope of the strikes, Israel is deliberately entering a cycle of attacks and counterattacks that could spiral beyond its control.

Its war rhetoric is also on the rise. Israeli ministers in recent weeks have threatened not only to topple Syrian President Bashar al Assad if he "lets Iran turn Syria into a military base against us" but also to take the fight to the Islamic republic if it dares to attack their country. The move is a notable departure from Israel's usual modus operandi of selectively and discreetly carrying out strikes from the shadows when targets of opportunity arise. If Israel is going to risk a broader confrontation with Iran spanning from the Levant to the Persian Gulf, then it needs to beat its war drums hard enough for both Washington and Moscow to hear.

Baiting Uncle Sam

Israel knows that in this age of emerging great power conflict, it cannot take for granted the United States' long-term commitment to the Middle East. On the one hand, the U.S. administration has been vocal about trying to reduce its overseas commitments, demanding that regional players step up to the plate so it can remove its own forces. The last thing the White House wants is to get pulled into a confrontation with a major power such as Russia over a minor power such as Syria. On the other hand, the White House under President Donald Trump is bent on recasting Iran as an international pariah and is evidently willing to risk confrontation with Tehran, even if doing so ends up prolonging the United States' presence in the region.

Israel's objective is to steer the United States toward the latter course. If Israel is to seize its opportunity to weaken Iran, which also entails taking on more risk, then it needs to do so in a way that keeps the United States engaged. The heightened pace of strikes in Syria recently was the crescendo building to the dramatic U.S. decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As Iran works to avoid retaliatory actions that could drive Europe closer to the U.S. position on sanctions, Israel is taking advantage of Tehran's relative restraint to scale up its attacks.

And who could forget Netanyahu's prime-time PowerPoint performance in the lead-up to Trump's pivotal decision? The Israeli prime minister didn't pull out the 2,000-point text in Times New Roman to declare "Iran lied" about its nuclear intentions for analysts like me who would quickly conclude that there was nothing particularly revelatory or incriminating about the statement. The simple and blunt message was meant to galvanize the U.S. president and his supporters against Iran to justify bigger and bolder action under the shelter of an American-made security umbrella.

Who could forget Netanyahu's prime-time PowerPoint performance in the lead-up to Trump's pivotal decision to withdraw from the JCPOA?

The Russian Factor

But Netanyahu and Trump must first get around their Russia problem. Moscow may not carry as much clout as it claims, but it has the power to at least narrow the scope of U.S. and Israeli ambitions against Iran.

The presence of Russian forces dispersed across Syria's main conflict zones is a vexing issue for military planners trying to target Syrian and Iranian assets without creating an international incident with Moscow. Russia's presence does not preclude military action, but it does require careful diplomatic attention to deconflict with Moscow, giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an opportunity to make demands in return.

Russia also has a penchant for playing spoiler with air defenses. Before the JCPOA materialized, when Israel was trying to goad a reluctant United States into a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Russia often used the threat of supplying the Islamic republic with advanced surface-to-air missile systems to raise the cost of a military strike. (Russia finally ended up delivering the S-300 system to Iran in 2016.) Moscow dusted off the old tactic recently when it claimed in the wake of a U.S.-led strike on Syria in April that it would put the S-300 system directly in Syrian hands.

Russia has since walked back the threat, and it was probably bluffing all along. Its leverage in Syria rests on its ability to dial the pressure up and down as it maneuvers in negotiations with its chief adversary, the United States. Frequent cease-fire violations and major transgressions like the latest Syrian chemical attack in Douma only expose the limits of Russia's influence over Iranian, Syrian and Lebanese forces in Syria. Moscow doesn't necessarily want to further dilute its clout by improving Damascus' chances of shooting down Israeli, U.S. or other coalition aircraft and risk drawing it into a bigger conflict. Nor does Russia want to suffer an even bigger hit to its credibility if Israel promptly blows up the S-300s.

Still, the threat itself was enough to compel Netanyahu to show up as Putin's special guest for a military parade May 9 (Russia's Victory Day), donning the politically loaded ribbon of St. George — a symbol of Russian irredentism — as the latest models of surface-to-air missiles rolled past in Red Square. Netanyahu's best hope for persuading Putin to stay out of his way in Syria is to make abundantly clear that Israel is on a relentless drive to rout Iran there and that it has U.S. backing to help mitigate any fallout from its plans. Israel is also signaling to Russia that it may even consider targeting the Syrian president should Iran entrench itself too deeply under Moscow's watch.

But just as Russia was bluffing with the S-300 threat, Israel is likely bluffing about its willingness to risk the all-consuming consequences of attempting regime change in a war zone that has become a breeding ground for radical Islamists. The question that neither country can reliably answer, however, is how far the Trump White House is willing to go in its building confrontation with Iran.

No Room for Nuance With Iran

The U.S. decision to unilaterally pull out of the JCPOA and to increase sanctions to the "highest level" possible is another exercise in "maximum pressure" tactics against an adversary, but to what end? By opting for full withdrawal right off the bat, the Trump administration is deliberately cutting diplomacy out of the process. Neither Trump nor Netanyahu realistically expects a drastic change in behavior from Iran as a result of their pressure tactics. Instead, the move is designed to strip the nuance from the U.S. containment strategy. It doesn't matter that the JCPOA was negotiated to focus exclusively on Iran's nuclear program; if it doesn't address Iran's destabilizing actions in the region or ballistic missile program, then it's null and void in the eyes of the White House. Along the same line of thought, trying to parse out the various pragmatists and principlists among Iran's moderates and conservatives to steer the country toward cooperation is a waste of time. Unlike Barack Obama's administration, which saw the JCPOA as a tool to boost Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's moderate camp, the Trump administration sees shades of radicalism across the whole Iranian political spectrum.

Iran can only assume then that the U.S. move on the JCPOA was designed in part to get the ball rolling on regime change in Tehran. Ditching the agreement already has destroyed any sense of a guarantee that the Iranian government thought it had secured from the previous U.S. administration. By ratcheting up economic pressure while social stress is mounting in the Islamic republic, the United States is compounding the frustration of Iran's numerous aspirant youth who had put their hopes in an opening with the West after years of economic isolation. That frustration can be harnessed to create a post-Islamic Iran, at least according to some in the White House.

Iran can only assume that the U.S. move on the JCPOA was designed in part to get the ball rolling on regime change in Tehran.

That's a big bet. The last time Iran underwent a revolution, it ended up as a theocracy founded in opposition to the United States. Another heavy dose of the "axis of evil" treatment from Washington could drive Iranian politics down a more radical course and create a more intractable U.S.-Iran relationship down the line. Unlike many of its peers in the Gulf region, Iran's political system allows for a degree of competition among factions to air dissent. And though it faces significant pressure from large segments of the population who are in economic and social anguish, the country's powerful security apparatus has been effective — at least so far — in quashing unrest early on. Iran also is no stranger to the resourcefulness and strain that come with running a resistance economy.

The Moscow-Tehran Axis Deepens

Furthermore, Iran knows that in its more vulnerable state it will have little choice but to turn to Russia, the only other global power invested in the Middle East that shares a need to push back against the United States, as well as an extreme aversion to regime change. Iran is in the throes of a debate over the risks of returning to a nuclear path. Since the U.S. sanctions are designed to whittle down Iranian exports over time, Tehran will have less and less incentive to stay in the JCPOA. At the same time, however, Iran isn't necessarily looking to hand the United States and Israel a casus belli, especially when there's a distinct possibility Trump's successor could take a more moderate approach.

Either way, Iran will be looking to Russia for ways to build up its defenses and complicate any U.S.-Israeli military contingencies in this murky interim. Russia already has been trying to use its heavy involvement in Syria over the past year to secure basing rights in Iran. A naturally wary Iran has rebuffed that request, but it may not be able to do so in the future. Russia will also likely float sales of advanced air defense systems, including the S-300, the Pantsir-S1 and possibly the S-400, to Iran while reserving the right to veto U.S. attempts to sanction such transactions through the United Nations. The U.N. arms embargo against Iran — which exempts air defense weaponry — is set to expire in July 2020, and then Russia could sell an even wider array of weapons to the Islamic republic.

The United States' instinct may be to reduce its security commitments in the Middle East so it can focus on the emerging great power competition after 15 years of costly wars in the region. But Iran, for now, will remain the spoiler to those plans. Israel has an opening to tie down its American ally while Russia widens the playing field with its U.S. adversary. It's better now than never for both countries to raise the stakes in their relationship with the United States.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 18, 2018, 08:11:10 AM

"Iran can only assume that the U.S. move on the JCPOA was designed in part to get the ball rolling on regime change in Tehran."

I don't know about that.  As far as i can tell it is all about them giving up their nucs and terrorist funding activities - period .

Title: Soviet KGB created Yasser Arafat
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2018, 09:41:25 AM

Fascinating!!!

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9090/soviet-union-palestinians

Title: Glick: Heeding Democratic warnings
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 26, 2018, 12:09:23 PM

http://carolineglick.com/heeding-democratic-warnings/

Title: Arab Israeli speaks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2018, 03:03:45 PM

https://israelunwired.com/you-wont-believe-what-this-arab-has-to-say-about-israel-as-an-apartheid-state/

Title: Saudi attitude towards Israel continue to change
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2018, 11:10:43 PM

https://www.memri.org/reports/shift-saudi-medias-attitude-israel-%E2%80%93-part-i-saudi-writers-intellectuals-iran-more-dangerous

https://www.memri.org/reports/shift-saudi-medias-attitude-israel-%E2%80%93-part-ii-saudi-writer-who-visited-israel-we-want-israeli

Title: Priest stabbed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2018, 12:26:04 PM

https://israelunwired.com/priest-stabbed-by-muslim-in-bethlehem-caught-on-security-camera/

Title: Stratfor: Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2018, 02:55:38 AM

    Lebanon's new electoral law, which allocates parliamentary seats according to the proportion of the vote a party receives, cost Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri's Future Movement party about one-third of its seats in the latest elections, as projected.
    Nevertheless, al-Hariri launched an investigation and a subsequent purge in his party, ostensibly in response to its dismal performance in the vote.
    Contrary to the prime minister's stated reasons for the reorganization, al-Hariri probably undertook the shake-up to ease Saudi Arabia's concerns over his party's ties with Hezbollah.

Lebanon's recent parliamentary elections did not go as Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri had hoped. His party, the Future Movement — which his father founded in 1992 — lost 12 of its seats, including five in Beirut, one of its traditional strongholds. President Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, on the other hand, picked up eight additional seats to become the biggest bloc in parliament. The Shiite coalition made up of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement also gained a couple of seats, while its allies clinched important victories.

Less than a week after the May 6 polls, al-Hariri launched a purge to get his party back on track. He fired officials and dissolved Future Movement's parliamentary affairs department and elections machinery. At the same time, al-Hariri's cousin, Nader al-Hariri, the architect of Future Movement's alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement, resigned as his chief of staff. Al-Hariri undertook the reshuffle ostensibly because of the party's dismal performance in the parliamentary elections. But that's only part of the story. The reorganization was also an attempt by the prime minister to get back in Saudi Arabia's good graces.
A Clear Cause and Effect

Future Movement's losses in the elections hardly came as a surprise. For months leading up to the vote, Lebanese media reported how ill-prepared the party appeared for the race. Observers, in fact, pegged Future Movement as the contest's biggest loser thanks to a new electoral law that allocates parliamentary seats based on the proportion of votes a party receives. Al-Hariri endorsed the measure — a departure from the previous majoritarian system — at his chief of staff's urging as part of a political deal with Aoun, despite the fact that it would inevitably weaken his party. (In the process, he also lost the support of other Sunni leaders who, like al-Hariri, stood to lose seats for their parties in predominantly Sunni urban centers such as Beirut.) And sure enough, Future Movement lost about one-third of its seats in the elections.

With such a clear explanation to point to for the party's performance, al-Hariri's call for an investigation into the matter, culminating in the dismissal of so many party officials, sounded disingenuous. Enter Saudi Arabia. Evidence suggests the kingdom demanded Nader al-Hariri's firing for his push to improve Future Movement's relationship with Hezbollah, an ally and frequent proxy of Iran.
Unfulfilled Promises

In 2016, al-Hariri assured Riyadh that if it gave Aoun's presidency its blessing, he would be able to stop Hezbollah from meddling in the affairs of other countries in the region, such as Syria. The Saudis agreed, but rather than dialing back its regional activities, Hezbollah increased them. Riyadh made no secret of its frustration with al-Hariri's failure to follow through on his unrealistic promise. The kingdom's minister for the Gulf issued a statement in fall 2017 expressing outrage at the Lebanese government's silence over "the war on Saudi Arabia (by the) terrorist militia party (Hezbollah)." Al-Hariri responded that Saudi Arabia should not "hold us responsible for something that is beyond my control or that of Lebanon." A few days later, Saudi officials summoned him to Riyadh and then held him there, reportedly to coerce him to resign his post.

What pushed Saudi Arabia to try to force al-Hariri from office was the Lebanese prime minister's earlier meeting in Beirut with Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader. Worried about the collapse of his Saudi-based construction company, Oger, and about his shrinking wealth, al-Hariri hosted Velayati seemingly in an effort to secure his office by appeasing Iran and, by extension, Hezbollah. In his fixation on maintaining his power, however, the prime minister failed to consider how Saudi Arabia would take news of the meeting. French President Emmanuel Macron eventually stepped in to negotiate al-Hariri's release from Saudi custody and his return to office in Beirut.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman set as a condition for al-Hariri's release that he distance himself from Hezbollah and from Aoun. By dismissing his cousin as chief of staff, the prime minister may have been trying to do just that. Hezbollah, in turn, probably will announce that it is shifting its focus from regional issues to domestic affairs. That way, the prime minister will have room to reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia that will ensure Riyadh a place at the table in his next Cabinet.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2018, 08:03:58 AM

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ambassador-david-friedman-republicans-support-israel-more-than-democrats/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on June 04, 2018, 08:45:54 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2018, 08:03:58 AM

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ambassador-david-friedman-republicans-support-israel-more-than-democrats/

Isn't it strange how true that is.  I thought it used to be either agreement of both parties or a contest of who supported our ally Israel more.  All my Jewish friends off the board are either still liberal Democrats or frustrated Democrats.  If they had their way politically, Palestinians and Muslim extremists would be empowered everywhere, and Israel would be alone to defend itself in very hostile world - as, I guess, an unintended consequence.

In America, majorities of Jews, Muslims, gays and blacks like Sharpton, Farrakhan, Ellison are all politically in one party.  What could possibly go wrong?

Title: Gaza fuct; Israel and Egypt mull options
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2018, 03:11:23 PM

Gaza's Economy is Hostage to PA-Hamas Rift as Israel, Egypt Weigh Easing Restrictions
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
June 4, 2018
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7472/gaza-economy-is-hostage-to-pa-hamas-rift-as
 
 In 2007, Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip in a violent coup, overthrowing the Palestinian Authority (PA) and creating a rift between the two main Palestinian movements that lasts to this day.  In the years that followed, Hamas turned its enclave into an Iranian-backed armed base and used it to terrorize southern Israel for years.

In response, Israel placed the Gaza Strip under a security blockade, which has changed in form throughout the years, but which is still guided by one central goal: To prevent Hamas from being able to conduct a massive military build-up program.  Since taking over Gaza, Hamas's armed aggression against Israel has led to three armed conflicts, which have only increased the suffering and misery of Gaza's estimated 2 million people. Throughout this time, Hamas's relations with other regional players, namely, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, hit rock bottom.

While international attention often focuses on Israel's security blockade, as well as attempts by Gaza's factions to break through it, less notice is given to the way Egypt and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have isolated Gaza throughout the years.

Gaza's near total regional isolation and economic distress continue to worsen, to the point where Hamas today fears that the Gazan economy could simply collapse, sparking a revolt and threatening its rule. In such a scenario, Hamas would likely choose war against Israel as a last ditch effort to distract attention from its failings as a government.
Throughout this complex and explosive situation, Israel's defense establishment has been taking steps to try and keep Gaza's economy from collapsing.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officers who deal with Gaza actively encourage the Strip's business community to grow, increasing the number of permits for them to leave Gaza, and fostering Gazan exports.  They also keep a close watch over the state of Gaza's vital civilian infrastructure, in a bid to keep it running. Israel keeps a daily supply of a variety of goods, fuel, gas, medical equipment, food, and construction material flowing into the Strip. But these steps are not enough to defuse the time bomb that is Gaza.

Now, Israel's defense establishment appears to be open to the idea of further improving Gaza's civilian economy, but only if this can be done without allowing Hamas to step up its dangerous military build-up programs.

As Israel weighs up how much it can relax the blockade without risking its security, the Palestinian Authority – driven by a desire to punish Hamas for splitting off from it, and for maintaining its own, separate armed force – continues to place its own sanctions on Gaza. The PA has cut salaries to its personnel in Gaza, sought to reduce the electricity flow (and was pressured by Israel to reinstate electricity payments last month), reduced medical assistance, and generally put the squeeze on the whole of Gaza.
Israel's dilemma here is complex. If it sends generators into Gaza to help with the energy crisis, past experience shows that many will end up in Hamas combat tunnels, which are dug in the direction of Israeli communities for the purpose of attacking them.

Still, Israel's defense establishment recognizes the need to do what is possible to develop Gaza economically.

The PA, on the other hand, is unwilling to contemplate such a course of action until Hamas surrenders to its demand of disbanding the military wing.  PA President Mahmoud Abbas is determined to keep Gaza in economic lockdown as long as Hamas continues to 'rebel' against him. In recent months, an attempt by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar to break out of isolation by holding reconciliation talks with the PA, came to nothing, because Hamas is unwilling to hear of disarming.

From the PA's perspective, that means it will continue to try and choke Gaza. Abbas refuses to accept any deal that would leave Hamas operating much like Hizballah does in Lebanon. That means that Abbas rejects the idea of Hamas monopolizing military power, while allocating some symbolic political power to a wider government.

The real hatred in place between the PA and Hamas is too deep to bridge, and Abbas is activating his main weapon against Hamas as a result: Withholding money from the Gaza Strip. It is Abbas's main available maneuver, and he is using it on a daily basis.

For its part, Egypt has kept its border with Gaza shut most of the time. The border is opened so rarely that when Egypt does open it, it makes news.

Egypt has now opened its Rafah crossing with Gaza for the month of Ramadan, representing the longest period that Gazans have had to pass through in years. The move might signal the start of a more lenient Egyptian policy, which until now has seen the Rafah Crossing sealed shut.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi's administration views Gaza's militant Islamist rulers as a direct threat to Egyptian national security.

This situation threatens Hamas's ability to pay for its armed wing and challenges the Hamas government's future. It also leaves the people of Gaza feeling hopeless.
When it established a government in 2007, Hamas became the first sovereign Muslim Brotherhood regime that controls a territory. To endure, it must find a way to break out of its isolation and allow the money to start flowing into Gaza.

With the PA so far ruling out any cooperation on this front, that leaves Egypt and Israel as parties that could potentially ease the blockade. That can only happen, however, if Hamas agrees to roll back its guerilla-terrorist army build-up.

If Hamas is able to convince Egypt and Israel that it is willing to do this, a situation might arise in which the Israeli and Egyptian blockades on Gaza might be eased.
Egyptian, PA, and Jordanian foreign ministers and chiefs of intelligence met in Cairo last week to look at ways of dealing with the unfolding Gaza crisis.

The meeting follows the biggest security flare up since 2014. In recent days, Palestinian Islamic Jihad – the second largest armed Gazan terror faction, and the closest Palestinian organization to Iran – together with Hamas fired more than 150 mortar shells and rockets at southern Israel, and the Israeli Air Force responded by striking more than 65 high value enemy targets.

In this flammable, complex Middle Eastern maze, Gaza's civilians continue to pay the price. The near future will indicate whether this chronically unstable situation will collapse into another conflict or whether Gaza's economy can be pulled back from the brink, thereby preventing war.

Yaakov Lappin is a military and strategic affairs correspondent. He also conducts research and analysis for defense think tanks, and is the Israel correspondent for IHS Jane's Defense Weekly. His book, The Virtual Caliphate, explores the online jihadist presence.

Title: Re: Soviet KGB created Yasser Arafat
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2018, 09:34:25 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2018, 09:41:25 AM

Fascinating!!!

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9090/soviet-union-palestinians

I don't want this to slip by without notice.  This is perhaps the post of most international significance ever posted on the forum.  The quotes below are from the original link and from several sources that were linked in the original story.

At first glance, I thought, says whom?  How do we know this is true?  In closer reading and source checking below, WSJ and NYT, the sourcing looks to be rock-solid. A lot of this is long known but not widely told.

This is still extremely relevant today.  Putin is still a product of and leader of the KGB no matter what that agency or power is called today.  The terminology and arguments used to support the 'plight of the Palestinians today is still in place.  It is still amazing how many countries that constitute the rest of the world as opposed to the parties to this conflict still side against Israel and the US and side with what I would call - with some bias - far more sinister forces.  The "Russians" are still trying to meddle and intervene in the US, the Middle East and many other places, and that is far easier today in the age of the internet.

Yasser Arafat, father of modern terrorism, was not born in Jerusalem, he was manufactured by the KGB and taught terrorism and all the other tactics and rhetoric through them.
-------------------------------
The Atlantic in 2002: Yasir Arafat claims that he was born in Jerusalem, but he was actually born in Cairo. He claims to belong to the prominent Jerusalem family of Husseini, but he is at best only distantly related to it. He claims that he turned down a chance to go to the University of Texas, but according to one biographer, the Palestinian-born writer Saïd K. Aburish, it is highly unlikely that he was ever accepted. He claims to have disabled ten Israeli armored personnel carriers in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but Israel didn't even have ten APCs in the sector he was in. He claims to have made millions as a businessman in Kuwait, but this, too, is almost certainly untrue.  Obviously, Arafat is a congenital liar. But there's more to it than that: his lies are all designed to create an aura of romance around himself and the Palestinian people.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/a-brief-history-of-yasir-arafat/302532/
[Doug:  No mention of the Soviet Union or KGB]

The article posted by Crafty:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9090/soviet-union-palestinians

"The Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep... We had only to keep repeating our themes -- that the United States and Israel were 'fascist, imperial-Zionist countries' bankrolled by rich Jews." — Yuri Andropov, former KGB chairman.

[Doug: May you reap what you sow.]

Soviet Document Suggests Mahmoud Abbas Was a K.G.B. Spy in the 1980s
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/world/middleeast/mahmoud-abbas-israel-palestine-kgb.html?_r=0
 [And Putin was KGB in the 80s]

The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for "liberation" organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto "Che" Guevara ... the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks... In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter -- a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman

[Arafat] He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-operations school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, and replaced them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.  - WSJ, The KGB Man
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106419296113226300

Robert S. Wistrich wrote in A Lethal Obsession, the Six-Day War unleashed a protracted, intensive campaign on the part of the Soviet Union to delegitimize Israel and the movement for Jewish self-determination, known as Zionism. This was done in order to rectify the damage to the Soviet Union's prestige after Israel defeated its Arab allies:

After 1967, the USSR began to flood the world with a constant flow of anti-Zionist propaganda... Only the Nazis in their twelve years of power had ever succeeded in producing such a sustained flow of fabricated libels as an instrument of their domestic and foreign policy[1].

For this the USSR employed a host of Nazi trigger words to describe the Israeli defeat of the Arab 1967 aggression, several of which are still employed on the Western left today when it comes to Israel, such as "practitioners of genocide", "racists", "concentration camps", and "Herrenvolk."

Furthermore, the USSR engaged in an international smearing campaign in the Arab world. In 1972, the Soviet Union, launched operation "SIG" (Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, or "Zionist Governments"), with the purpose of portraying the United States as an "arrogant and haughty Jewish fiefdom financed by Jewish money and run by Jewish politicians, whose aim was to subordinate the entire Islamic world". Some 4,000 agents were sent from the Soviet Bloc into the Islamic world, armed with thousands of copies of the old czarist Russian forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

As early as 1965, the USSR had formally proposed in the UN a resolution that would condemn Zionism as colonialism and racism. Although the Soviets did not succeed in their first attempt, the UN turned out to be an overwhelmingly grateful recipient of Soviet bigotry and propaganda; in November 1975, Resolution 3379 condemning Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination' was finally passed. This followed nearly a decade of diligent Soviet propaganda directed at the Third World, depicting Israel as a Trojan Horse for Western imperialism and racism. This campaign was designed to build support for Soviet foreign policy in Africa and the Middle East.[2] Another tactic was constantly to draw visual and verbal comparisons in the Soviet media between Israel and South Africa (this is the origin of the canard of "Israeli apartheid").

Not only the Third World, but also the Western Left ate all this Soviet propaganda raw. The latter continues to disseminate large parts of it to this day. In fact, slandering someone, whoever they are, as racist, became one of the Left's primary weapons against those with whom it disagrees.

In March 1978, I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him [Arafat]... Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch.

... Ceausescu failed to get his Nobel Peace Prize. But in 1994 Arafat got his -- all because he continued to play the role we had given him to perfection. He had transformed his terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority), always pretending to call a halt to Palestinian terrorism while letting it continue unabated. Two years after signing the Oslo Accords, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists had risen by 73%.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106419296113226300

In his book, Red Horizons, Pacepa related what Arafat said at a meeting he had with him at PLO headquarters in Beirut around the time that Ceausescu was trying to make the PLO "respectable":

I am a revolutionary. I have dedicated my whole life to the Palestinian cause and the destruction of Israel. I will not change or compromise. I will not agree with anything that recognizes Israel as a state. Never... But I am always willing to make the West think that I want what Brother Ceausescu wants me to do.[3]

The propaganda neatly paved the way for terrorism, Pacepa explained in National Review.

General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who created Communist Romania's intelligence structure and then rose to head up all of Soviet Russia's foreign intelligence, often lectured me: "In today's world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."

The Soviet general was not joking. In 1969 alone, there were 82 hijackings of planes worldwide. According to Pacepa, most of those hijackings were committed by the PLO or affiliated groups, all supported by the KGB. In 1971, when Pacepa visited Sakharovsky at his Lubyanka (KGB headquarters) office, the general boasted: "Airplane hijacking is my own invention". Al Qaeda used airplane hijackings on September 11, when they used planes to blow up buildings.

So where does Mahmoud Abbas fit into all this? In 1982, Mahmoud Abbas studied in Moscow at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. (In 1983 he went on to become a KGB spy). There he wrote his thesis, published in Arabic as The Other Side: The Secret Relations between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement. In it, he denied the existence of gas chambers in the concentration camps, and questioned the number of Holocaust victims by calling the six million Jews who had been killed "a fantastic lie," while simultaneously blaming the Holocaust on the Jews themselves. His thesis supervisor was Yevgeny Primakov, who later went on to become foreign minister of Russia. Even after he had finished his thesis, Abbas maintained close ties with the Soviet leadership, the military and members of security services. In January 1989, he was appointed co-chairman of the Palestinian-Soviet (and then Russian-Palestinian) Working Committee on the Middle East.

When the current leader of the Palestinian Arabs used to be an acolyte of the KGB -- whose machinations have claimed the lives of thousands of people in the Middle East alone -- this cannot be discarded as a "historical curiosity," even if contemporary opinion-makers would prefer to ignore it by viewing it as such.

Although Pacepa and Mitrokhin sounded their warnings many years ago, few people bothered to listen to them. They should.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9090/soviet-union-palestinians

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2018, 08:31:56 AM

Outstanding work there Doug!

Title: Israel and its neighbors, Netanyahu offers people of Iran water technology
Post by: DougMacG on June 13, 2018, 07:16:43 AM

This is a great story.  Let's see where it leads.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-offers-israeli-water-tech-to-solve-irans-growing-environmental-crisis/

“It relates to water,” Netanyahu says in the video, after pouring himself a glass of water and drinking it. “The Iranian people are victims of a cruel and tyrannical regime that denies them vital water. Israel stands with the people of Iran.”

Netanyahu stressed a commitment to help the Iranians. “And that is why I want to help save countless Iranian lives,” he said in the video clip. “Here’s how: Iran’s meteorological organization says that nearly 96% of Iran suffers from some levels of drought.

“Issa Kalantari, a former Iranian agriculture minister, said that 50 million Iranians could be forced out of their homes due to environmental damage. 50 million!

“Millions of Iranian children are suffering due to mismanagement, to incompetence, and the theft of vital resources by the Iranian regime,” he said.

“Now, Israel also has water challenges. We’ve developed cutting edge technologies to address them,” he explained in the video. “Israel recycles nearly 90% of its waste water. That’s far more than any other country on earth. We invented drip irrigation. Our technology targets individual plants with exactly the nutrients they need for the plant.”

He then said that Israeli technology can help the Iranians.

“Israel has the know-how to prevent environmental catastrophe in Iran. I want to share this information with the people of Iran,” he said.

However, the prime minister said there was a catch — Israelis were unable to visit Iran to share their solutions.

“Sadly, Iran bans Israelis from visiting, so we’ll have to get creative,” he said in the video. “We will launch a Farsi website with detailed plans on how Iranians can recycle their waste water. We will show how Iranian farmers can save their crops and feed their families.”

He pointed out the contrast between the Israeli mentality and that of the Iranians.

“The Iranian regime shouts, ‘Death to Israel!'” he said. “In response, Israel shouts, “Life to the Iranian people!

“The people of Iran are good and decent. They shouldn’t have to face such a cruel regime alone,” Netanyahu said in the video. “We are with you. We will help so that millions of Iranians don’t have to suffer. The hatred of Iran’s regime will not stop the respect and friendship between our two peoples.”

“Over 90 percent of the country’s population and economic production are located in areas of high or very high water stress,” Claudia Sadoff, director general of the International Water Management Institute, has told Al-Monitor. This “represents more people and more production at risk than any other country in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2018, 08:31:50 AM

Fg awesome on so many levels!

Title: GPF: Israel, Russia, Syria
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 23, 2018, 06:31:44 AM

Russia, Israel: After Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke by phone last week, the Jerusalem Post reported that the head of Russia’s military police visited Israel to discuss the withdrawal of all Iranian troops and Shiite militias from areas near the Israel-Syria border. Meanwhile, Israel’s domestic security service said it foiled a plot by 20 Hamas members in the West Bank to carry out bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These issues are perhaps geopolitically separate, but they are linked for Israel. Our first task is finding out whether Hezbollah and Iran are really pulling back from the border. Next is examining the intricacies of the Hamas bombing plot and whether we should expect more like it.

•   Finding: What looked like an Israeli-Russian understanding that Iranian and Hezbollah fighters would pull back from the Israeli border seems to be collapsing. Israel’s most recent airstrike in eastern Syria is a sign that Israel means business. It is unclear whether Russia has the leverage to do what Israel wants, or even if Russia was ever willing to go that far. Syrian leader Bashar Assad has made aggressive statements but also said there was still a chance for a diplomatic settlement in southern Syria. Regarding Hamas, Israeli pressure is taking a heavy financial toll on the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is trying to increase its influence in the West Bank with both protests and attacks against Israel. Hamas faces an uphill battle here, but Israeli pressure may be opening up some popular sentiments that Hamas can capitalize on.

Title: US stops aid to PA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 25, 2018, 06:03:53 PM

Report: U.S. Stops Palestinian Aid Payments
by IPT News  •  Jun 25, 2018 at 3:01 pm
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7501/report-us-stops-palestinian-aid-payments

Title: Settling the Israel Palestinian conflict will be Trump's next accomplishment?
Post by: DougMacG on June 27, 2018, 07:45:07 AM

Turns out it is all simpler when the US takes sides.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-26/mideast-peace-trump-tells-palestinians-to-go-for-greed

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 08, 2018, 05:46:11 PM

Israel Victory Gains Strength
by Daniel Pipes
Israel Hayom
July 03, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/israel-victory-gains-strength

TEL AVIV - What do Israelis think of the idea of Israel winning and the Palestinians losing?

It's a radical idea, very different from the 50-year-and-counting win-win assumption of "land for peace" that has transfixed governments and monopolized their attention. That old idea holds that putting Palestinians and Israelis in a room together will prompt them to settle their differences. On the cusp of the Oslo Accords' 25thanniversary, we know precisely how well that worked out: Israelis gave real land, Palestinians rewarded them with false promises of peace.

Indeed, according to a poll commissioned by the Middle East Forum and carried out by Rafi Smith of Smith Consulting, only 33 percent of Jewish Israelis (and about half that number among those who voted for the current government) still believe in land-for-peace and about the same small number still believe in Oslo. So, the old ways not only failed but are deeply unpopular. What takes their place?

One alternative is the Middle East Forum's Israel Victory initiative, and it polls well. When asked, "Do you agree or disagree with the proposition that "it will only be possible to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians when they recognize they have lost their war against Israel?" Fifty-eight percent agreed. This has the makings of a revolution.

Drilling down deeper, an identical 58 percent also agree that "despite Israel's many victories over the Palestinians, most Palestinians continue to think they can eliminate the Jewish state of Israel." Fully 65 percent agree that "None of the military conflicts to date with the Palestinians have produced an Israeli victory or a decisive result, and therefore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict perseveres." An even larger number, 70 percent, hold that "is it necessary for the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel as the Jewish state before Israel agrees to continue negotiations with it."

And 77 percent are ready, the next time Hamas attacks from Gaza or Hezbollah from Lebanon, to "Let the IDF win," meaning they want Israeli military operations to continue until the other side recognizes it has lost. (That is very much not current Israel Defense Forces policy, which is to halt military operations as soon as the other side agrees to a ceasefire).

After a quarter-century of lopsided negotiations in which the Israelis gave up tangible benefits ("land") in return for false promises ("peace"), these poll numbers confirm a hunger in Israel for truth and courage. Roughly two-thirds of the population has concluded that the conflict can only be ended by abandoning failed negotiations and instead showing the Palestinians that their case is hopeless.

But Israeli leaders are shy to assert this proposition because every American president from Carter to Obama has discouraged them from taking bold steps, insisting on the discredited but pleasantly neutral-sounding land-for-peace formulation. Enter Donald Trump. The Middle East Forum poll asked about him and 59 percent of Smith's Jewish Israeli sample calls him "certainly the most pro-Israel U.S. president to date."

As readers may be aware, I have my doubts about this judgment, seeing Trump as driven by an anti-Tehran project of which Israel is but a small part. But Israel Victory offers the president an unequaled opportunity to prove his Zionist credibility; if he lets Israel achieve the victory that both it and the Palestinians need to move forward, leaving a tedious and harmful conflict behind, he will have made a huge and constructive change for which all sides eventually will profusely thank him.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org,@DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2018 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Title: Oslo is obsolete, time for a victory mindset
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2018, 05:10:01 PM

Oslo is Obsolete: Time for a Victory Mindset
by Gideon Saar
Jerusalem Post
July 06, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/oslo-is-obsolete-time-for-a-victory-mindset

Title: Re: Oslo is obsolete, time for a victory mindset
Post by: G M on July 14, 2018, 05:24:19 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2018, 05:10:01 PM

Oslo is Obsolete: Time for a Victory Mindset
by Gideon Saar
Jerusalem Post
July 06, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/oslo-is-obsolete-time-for-a-victory-mindset

Sadly, only China is willing to deal with muslims as they need to be dealt with.

Title: Glick: Let Gaza fail
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 17, 2018, 03:38:04 PM

https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/07/17/caroline-glick-time-to-let-gaza-fail/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on July 18, 2018, 02:50:32 PM

another point that is I believe a part of Trump Putin is that the Russians would agree to protect Israel's northern border

I am not sure how much they could be trusted but anyone have trust the Obama would have helped Israel?

I understand Netenyahu meets with Vlad.

Title: The terrorist semi-states of Hamas and Hizballah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2018, 08:22:05 PM

The Terrorist Semi-States of Hamas and Hizballah
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
July 18, 2018
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7535/the-terrorist-semi-states-of-hamas-and-hizballah

Title: Israel was the winner in Helsinki
Post by: DougMacG on July 19, 2018, 05:57:29 AM

 Some things are more important than a press conference or late show material.  If we made a reasonable agreement with Russia on Iran in Syria that protects Israel, we probably just avoided the next war. No big deal?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/syria-trump-and-putin-help-israel-limit-iran-s-military-presence

Title: Yet another fg amazing Israeli operation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 19, 2018, 09:49:56 AM

Exactly!

===================
Great story here!
https://outline.com/N5Atq7

Title: Knesset takes West Bank jurisdiction from Israeli Supreme Court
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2018, 07:31:15 PM

http://www.jordantimes.com/news/region/knesset-okays-law-limiting-palestinian-access-courts

Title: Amidror
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2018, 08:45:04 PM

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/middle-east/268149/yaakov-amidror-israel-top-military-strategist

Title: The Truth about Palestinian "refugees" from a Palestinian
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 02, 2018, 05:40:38 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=170&v=RkGTNM-2FTE

Title: PA rushes payment to terrorist killer's family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2018, 10:04:49 AM

Palestinian Authority Rushes Payment to Terrorist's Family Hours After Attack Kills Father of Four
by IPT News  •  Sep 17, 2018 at 4:38 pm
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7625/palestinian-authority-rushes-payment-to-terrorist

Title: Heabollah's growing partnership with the Lebanese Army
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 20, 2018, 08:18:33 AM

Hizballah's Growing Partnership with Lebanon's Army Provides Operational Cover
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
September 20, 2018
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7627/hizballah-growing-partnership-with-lebanon-army

Title: Stratfor: Israel-China
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 26, 2018, 12:35:40 PM

China's relationship with Israel is unlike any other Beijing is pursuing in the Middle East. Israel is the closest U.S. ally in the region and dependent upon American military aid to keep its armed forces on the cutting edge. Yet China is trying to use the heft of its financial investing to make inroads into Israel and the region. On Oct. 25, Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan completed a three-day trip to Israel, where he sought to expand the Belt and Road Initiative and undermine U.S. influence. The visit produced few new developments in their relations — only promises of future free trade and cooperation — but it did serve to heighten U.S. concern about Beijing's influence there.

In the short term, China is trying to get access to Israeli technology and the know-how behind its vibrant startup environment. In the long term, it is trying to build up a greater partnership to open doors for future strategic development in the Middle East. To do so, it must contend with Israel's close ties to the United States and any obstacles Washington could throw in its way.

To get around these barriers, Beijing is dangling the prospect of investment. Israel wants the financial backing to build up its infrastructure, including ports at Haifa and Ashdod, the Carmel road tunnels in Haifa and light-rail transit in Tel Aviv. For Israel, the need is pressing: Projections indicate its population will double in 30 years. Also, the price tag for these projects is an estimated $200 billion — a substantial sum for a country whose gross domestic product is $350 billion a year. U.S. investment in Israel's infrastructure is currently negligible, on the other hand, and is primarily in the country's manufacturing sector. On Oct. 21, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated that the United States wants to increase its financial support for Israeli infrastructure. But if and when it does, Beijing could already have a head start.

In exchange for Chinese investment, Israel is offering access to some of its high-performing universities, which would help Beijing boost its tech sector — especially beneficial as the trade war with the United States heats up. Israel has also expanded opportunities for tourism by signing a 10-year, multiple-entry visa agreement with China in 2016. That deal also benefits businesspeople traveling back and forth between the two countries.

Yet substantial differences remain between the two. Israel is aggressively pursuing an anti-Iran strategy, which is undermining the regional stability that China's Belt and Road Initiative needs to thrive. In turn, China has been a major buyer of Iranian oil, and a prominent backer of the nuclear deal with Tehran that Israel strongly opposed. China also has decades of votes against Israel in the United Nations, including most recently its condemnation of the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. Beijing has wanted to remain neutral in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and Israel increasingly expects its partners to overlook the problem. But China also wants access to Arab energy, so it may find itself navigating the thorny issue more often than it likes. To its advantage, Beijing has so little influence with either side or the peace process that it can largely sidestep the conflict.

China's record on industrial espionage and intellectual property theft also worries innovation-heavy Israel. Its government is considering creating an oversight committee to assess the risks of foreign investment and to head off any Chinese financing that could be a strategic threat.

In addition, there are no cultural and social connections between China and Israel like there are between Israel and the United States. China has no influential Jewish or evangelical community to serve as advocates, and the government keeps close watch on China's 67 million Christians. The Communist Party's official atheism renders the question of holy sites and religion moot — even though China has traditionally had friendly relations with Judaism. But while Israel has no cultural or religious ties in China, its connections to the United States have allowed it to maintain its influence and ties there through successive presidential administrations.

For now, economic transactions remain the primary means for China to gain ground in Israel. But such business deals are already attracting the attention of the United States and hindering relations — as was highlighted recently when the U.S. Navy warned it could no longer use a port in Haifa that was managed by a Chinese company. Those close U.S.-Israeli ties will continue to hamper Chinese efforts, and Washington's anti-Iran policy could further interfere with Beijing's moves in the region. Still, the United States does not meet all of Israel's economic needs, so Beijing will continue to find deals it can sign with Israel.

Title: Israel, and its below the surface relations
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2018, 11:30:39 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/israeli-arab-cooperation-without-israeli-palestinian-peace/574564/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_term=2018-11-01T11%3A00%3A22&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0PkJcChD0tlkceVsih3mmPdMzDUzG-OeAru2PeVBQY90LhgoDDn8h_bas

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 03, 2018, 12:16:59 PM

"Progress Without Peace in the Middle East
The Arab street may still oppose Israel, but Arab governments are coming around."

Overall this is much more in US interests then the Kashoggi murder which IS horrendous no doubt.

But he fake news media is more interested in denying  anything positive from the shifting alliances and Trump's important role (and the "genius???"  Jared's role  :-o) just because they won't acknowledge him any praise.

The refusal of the Left wing media to grant any nod to the Trump administration
coupled with  the fact that Kashoggi was a part time fake news media "jurnalist" (spelled this way on purpose) and viola - we have this turned into more Trump bashing which is always the MSM's end game, and remarkably  even by (Leftist) Jews who are now more recognized as have converted to the religion of Progressivism and are "JINOs".

 This new religion is being taught all over academia .  With the professors being the new missionaries.  Ironically once the domain of Christian missionaries the new missionaries discourage Christianity and encourage one world socialist government with the mirage of equality and sameness and demote the notion of nationalism and Americanism.

Title: Israel wans Lebanon about Heabollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2018, 12:18:46 PM

Israel has warned Lebanon that it is considering military action against Hezbollah. According to Israel’s Channel 2 news, the Israeli deputy national security adviser delivered the message to an adviser to French President Emmanuel Macron, whose country has close ties with Lebanon. Israel reportedly said that if Hezbollah’s production of rockets and missiles in Lebanese factories isn’t stopped through diplomatic means, then “Israel will act on its own.” Israel also reportedly indicated it would give Lebanon a chance to curb the construction of these factories, in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed Hezbollah is making precision-guided missiles with Iran’s help. The slow, steady drumbeat of war continues. Though conflict does not appear to be imminent, Lebanon won’t be able to stop Hezbollah and Iran from making the missiles, and Israel won’t tolerate their existence

Title: WSJ: Israel and its neighbors talking and getting along
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 05, 2018, 09:56:56 AM

Israel Is Making Arab Friends
‘Hatikva’ plays in Abu Dhabi, Netanyahu visits Oman, and the ‘cold peace’ with Egypt gets warmer.
40 Comments
By Joshua S. Block
Nov. 4, 2018 3:04 p.m. ET
Israeli sports and culture minister Miri Regev visits Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi, Oct. 28.
Israeli sports and culture minister Miri Regev visits Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi, Oct. 28. Photo: israeli ministery of sports and//Shutterstock

The Middle East is changing. On Oct. 28 Israel’s culture and sports minister, Miri Regev, toured the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi. She was in the United Arab Emirates for the International Judo Federation’s Abu Dhabi Grand Slam, where Israeli athletes were allowed to compete under their flag for the first time. The Israeli team took the gold, and its national anthem, “Hatikva,” was played in a country that does not formally recognize Israel.

Although Israel and the Arab Gulf states have long had clandestine diplomatic ties, recent public gestures of normalization have taken the relationship to a new level. Hours before Ms. Regev arrived in Abu Dhabi, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned from a historic visit to Oman, where he met with Sultan Sayyid Qaboos bin Said al Said.

The same weekend, Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, Oman’s foreign minister, told a security forum in Bahrain: “Israel is a state present in the region, and we all understand this. The world is also aware of this, and maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same [as other states] and to also bear the same obligations.” He added: “Our priority is to put an end to the conflict and move to a new world.” The foreign ministers of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa and Adel al-Jubeir respectively, also called for rapprochement with Israel.

The list goes on. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the Atlantic in March: “I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land.” At the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had an amicable meeting with Mr. Netanyahu. Israel and Egypt have had diplomatic relations since 1979, but it has often been characterized as a “cold peace.” Mr. Netanyahu, in his address to the General Assembly, said that Israel and the Arab world are “closer together than ever before, in an intimacy and friendship that I’ve not seen in my lifetime and would have been unimaginable a few years ago.”

Weeks later, the Emirati ambassador to Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba, shared a table with his Israeli counterpart, Ron Dermer, at a public pro-Israel event. And following Mr. Netanyahu’s visit to Oman, it emerged that Transport Minister Yisrael Katz had been invited by the sultanate to participate in the upcoming World Congress of the International Road Transport Union to discuss plans for a railway linking Israel to the Persian Gulf.

The growing alliance between Israel and the Sunni Arab world is driven in part by economics. Israel’s entrepreneurship benefits all nations in the region. But an even more pressing concern is the common threat from Iran. Tehran’s hegemonic ambitions are being felt from the battlefields of Syria to the Gulf of Aden. In May, Bahrain went so far as to back Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian aggression.

“We are not saying that the road is now easy and paved with flowers,” Oman’s foreign minister said last week. But the rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world will change the region for the better.

Mr. Block is CEO of the Israel Project.

Title: GPF: IDF and Hamas dialing up for a fight
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 12, 2018, 09:49:58 PM

Nov. 12, 2018
By Jacob L. Shapiro
Israel and Gaza, Preparing for a Bigger Fight


Egypt’s peace talks have failed, and both sides are escalating attacks.


Gaza and Israel may be bracing for their most serious fight in years as security continues to deteriorate. A brief lull in hostilities this morning gave way to a barrage of rocket fire and mortar rounds by Hamas into Israel throughout the afternoon. Having already deployed additional infantrymen and Iron Dome systems to the border with Gaza, Israel Defense Forces are sending more armor. The armed forces have been given the go-ahead to strike Hamas targets in Gaza, according to the Times of Israel.

Not that that has stopped Israel from retaliating already. Since this morning, it has attacked tunnels, houses of senior Hamas officials, and the headquarters of the Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa television station in Gaza city. A statement from the IDF said it will continue to attack rocket sites throughout the Gaza Strip – and promised more was on the way. Hamas has responded with threats of its own. Its spokesman said the group may expand its range of fire, saying that Ashkelon, the closest large city to Gaza, is “just the beginning.”


 

(click to enlarge)


Notably, nothing Hamas has done so far – not even the reported strike on an Israeli military bus with an anti-tank missile – has demonstrated new capabilities. Every munition the group has used has been used before and so falls within the “normal” bounds of retaliatory attacks. Even so, the situation has worsened markedly in that past 12 hours, and if it continues to do so, Hamas may resort to using more serious weapons such as precision-guided missiles and long-range munitions. That will only lead to still more aggressive Israeli reprisals, potentially including a land invasion.

More striking than the type of attacks is the timing. Egypt has been working hard to broker a long-term Israel-Hamas truce, and it seemed as though progress was being made. Last Thursday, Israel allowed $15 million of Qatari money into Gaza – denominated in U.S. dollars and conveyed in three large suitcases, according to local reports – so that Hamas could pay civil servants. Israel has been eager to pacify Gaza so it can deal with bigger threats to the north – namely, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran proxies in Syria. It’s possible that the sudden rash of violence was engineered by those eager to scuttle the plans. It’s just as likely that Israel wanted to strike a quick blow before turning to its enemies to the north.

Whatever the case may be, it’s clear that Egypt’s peace talks have failed. Israel appears to be preparing for an increased tempo of operations in Gaza, and potentially for a limited ground incursion. Hamas seems ready for a fight. The only questions that remain are how quickly the violence will escalate and whether Egypt can pull both sides back from the brink. Judging by current Israeli deployments and continued Hamas rocket fire, Cairo will have a hard time restoring calm soon. This most recent round of Hamas-Israel violence may be just beginning.

Title: Glick: The War with Iran begins?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2018, 07:44:28 PM

I've been pounding the table about this since Obama threw Iraq away.

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2018/11/14/caroline-glick-iran-opens-a-war-against-israel-from-gaza/

Title: Col. Allen West intro to Caroline Glick, major talk by Glick
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 15, 2018, 04:48:36 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=FxH28yNvF2M

Title: Re: Glick: The War with Iran begins?
Post by: DougMacG on November 16, 2018, 06:40:18 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2018, 07:44:28 PM

I've been pounding the table about this since Obama threw Iraq away.

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2018/11/14/caroline-glick-iran-opens-a-war-against-israel-from-gaza/

Caroline Glick 2 days later:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1118/glick111618.php3

Netanyahu should appoint Glick to replace Liberman.

Title: How Hamas brought Israel to the brink of Election Chaos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2018, 07:20:29 PM

How Hamas Brought Israel to the Brink of Election Chaos
by Seth J. Frantzman
The National Interest
November 16, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/how-hamas-brought-israel-to-the-brink-of-election

Title: Israel, Iran, and the Gathering Storm: Iranian weapons to Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2018, 08:46:28 PM

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-intercepts-major-iranian-weapons-shipment-to-gaza/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3o6B3t1jqC9NaAnu08-FefvQUad2vEE5Rq9V1blLiQrTU3VgCIJcwDusc

Title: A new phase in Israel-Gulf Relations
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 28, 2018, 11:57:50 AM

 



A New Phase in Israel-Gulf Relations
by Seth Frantzman
The Jerusalem Post
November 26, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/a-new-phase-in-israel-gulf-relations

Intelligence and Transportation Minister Israel Katz pushed for cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states in a speech in Oman on November 7. “In my view, cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states can and should be expanded,” he said. “Israel also has a lot to offer when it comes to water desalination and irrigation, agriculture and medicine.”

The trip bookended several high profile visits to the Gulf by Israeli officials. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Oman in late October. Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev and Communications Minister Ayoub Kara also traveled to the United Arab Emirates, one to attend a sporting event and another for a conference.

The visits represent a significant breakthrough in connections between Israel the Gulf states. Since the 1990s, when Israel signed the Oslo Accords and made peace with Jordan, there were increasing ties to several Gulf countries. This included the opening of trade offices. However, relations became frozen during the Second Intifada (2000-2005).

In the last decade, a thaw has taken place. Katz said during his visit that his trip and others were “part of a wider trend of strengthening ties between Israel and the Gulf countries based on common interests and a mutual recognition of the potential benefits for both sides, both in terms of contending with common challenges and threats, as well as opportunities.”

The transportation minister’s visit to Oman coincided with his discussions about a rail link or “tracks of regional peace” that could one day foresee linking Israel with the rest of the Arab region. He discussed the plan at the IRU Congress that met in Muscat from November 6 to 8.

Currently, Israel has relations with Jordan and Egypt. Jordan has been seeking to expand its very limited rail network; the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are all laying plans for major infrastructure projects involving rail and transportation. In the United Arab Emirates, Etihad Rail is planning a 1,200-km. line that will eventually reach the Saudi Arabian border and Oman. A 2,400-km. line would link Riyadh to Al-Haditha on the Jordanian border. It would give Saudi Arabia around 3,900 km. of track.

OMAN, where Katz traveled, has been increasing its rail network in recent years. In 2015, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said signed off on two more phases of a multi-phase rail network. The first phase links Al Buraimi on the UAE border with the port of Sohar. A second phase would stretch down to Ibri and another phase would go down to the port of Al Duqm. Eventually, it could be 2,135 km. long. With Jordan as a regional transportation hub, Israel could be hooked up to a powerful network of regional states. This would also aid the Palestinian economy. “It will create an additional trade route in the region, which is shorter, faster and cheaper,” Katz said.

With Saudi Arabia pioneering major economic reforms, called Vision 2030, the region is on the verge of an economic revolution after years of stagnation. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest economies in the region, but it wants to diversify and is laying plans for nuclear energy, investments in desalination and other projects. Israel and the UAE are perfectly positioned, with roughly the same GDP, to benefit and contribute to this regional awakening.

Eight years since the Arab Spring began at the end of 2010, the Middle East is still recovering from the instability and terrorism that became the dark side of the spring. Out of the chaos and instability came the extremism of Islamic State. The defeat of ISIS has now led to a new struggle by Iran and its adversaries for regional hegemony. All of this has overshadowed Israel’s important role in regional security and relationships. Katz’s visit shows that attitudes are changing.

 “This is the first time an Israeli minister has been formally invited to participate in an international conference in Oman,” his office noted. He described Qaboos as an experienced and impressive leader.

“I was moved to receive such a warm welcome in Oman as an Israeli minister and take part in Oman’s traditional sword dance.”

It is a sign of Israel’s growing strength.

Katz’s vision of a network of rail links may take decades to come to fruition, but it is an important symbol of the way the region may trend towards stability. A stable Middle East, as has been illustrated by the last decades of conflict, is essential for global stability.

Seth J. Frantzman spent three years in Iraq and other countries in the region researching the war on terror and Islamic State. He is executive director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis. A former assistant professor of American Studies at Al-Quds University, he covers the Middle East for The Jerusalem Post and is a writing fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is writing a book on the state of the region after ISIS.
Related Topics:   |  Seth Frantzman

Title: Glick: Lebanon & Hamas, Israel & US
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2018, 08:56:15 PM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2018/12/16/caroline-glick-the-u-s-government-still-thinks-lebanon-and-hezbollah-are-different/?fbclid=IwAR2bA52VLLnEuCrOaj6a_nowem4X73HIeKfrTD9efNjNAvnZBQh2_mMqX28

Title: WSJ: Jews and Muslims unite to save lives
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2018, 05:07:18 PM

second post

Jews and Muslims Unite to Save Lives
How an entrepreneur got EMTs around Israel’s heavy traffic and won Miss Iraq’s support.
1 Comments
WSJ
Dec. 17, 2018 7:17 p.m. ET
Miss Iraq Sarah Idan (right) and Miss Israel Adar Gandelsman in Las Vegas, Nov. 14, 2017. Photo: Sarah Idan/Associated Press

London

The first Miss Iraq, Renée Dangoor, was a Baghdadi Jew. She was crowned in 1947. Last year Sarah Idan became the first Iraqi in 45 years to compete in the Miss Universe pageant, held in Las Vegas. There Ms. Idan took a selfie with Miss Israel, Adar Gandelsman, and posted it on Instagram.

“Saddam’s regime taught us that Israel and the U.S. are our enemies, and so we need to be at war with them,” Ms. Idan tells me at an Iraqi restaurant near Regent Park. Ms. Gandelsman sits to her left. The two have reunited to host a fundraiser supporting United Hatzalah of Israel.

Volunteers of United Hatzalah, a network of volunteer medics across Israel, pose in Jerusalem, June 14, 2016.


The Jerusalem-based organization is the Uber of emergency medicine. It trains, equips and deploys 5,000 volunteers to medical emergencies through a smartphone app. When Israel’s 911 receives a call, a GPS-enabled app dispatches the closest and best-suited volunteer before an ambulance arrives, reducing average response time to 90 seconds.

Volunteers wear orange vests and carry medical bags. They sometimes board motorized “ambucycles,” which can traverse heavy traffic more swiftly than a conventional ambulance. The volunteers are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Druze: “I have people who pray five times a day and people who might be afraid of them,” says founder Eli Beer, 45. The people whose calls they answer are similarly diverse: a fish vendor in Jerusalem’s Mahane Yehuda Market, a man praying in a mosque in the Arab town of Kfar Qara, a rabbi teaching Torah.

“I’m also working to rebuild the relationship between Jews and Muslims,” Ms. Idan says. “So when I learned how so many Muslims who volunteer with Jews in Israel have started to see the Jews in a completely different light, I had to help.”

The organization’s independence helps it bridge sectarian divides, Mr. Beer says: “I am able to get Arabs and Jews to work together because they all understand that this isn’t the government of Israel—this is the people of Israel.” Muslim volunteers strap on the United Hatzalah jacket adorned with a Star of David, and all distinctions dissipate.

Independence from government is also essential to generating the right incentives. “In a more socialist government like France, you think everything is the government’s responsibility,” Mr. Beer says. “You see your neighbor choking and think, ‘Oh that’s the government’s concern.’ ” He answers that attitude with a barnyard vulgarity, adding: “That’s your responsibility.”

Mr. Beer came up with the idea as a teenage volunteer for Magen David Adom, Israel’s national emergency service. When he was sent to save a boy choking on a hot dog, his team crawled through traffic for 21 minutes, arriving to find the boy had already died. A doctor living down the street heard the ambulance and futilely rushed to help.

Mr. Beer offered his idea to Magen David Adom but was turned down. “So I used Israel’s best invention—chutzpah.” He bought police scanners, and he and some friends listened to emergency calls and responded on their own. “We didn’t care if it was legal,” he says. “We just wanted to do the right thing.”

Could United Hatzalah serve as a model for reconciliation across the Middle East? Israel’s relations with Arab states have warmed in recent years because they have a common enemy in Tehran. But ordinary citizens have been fed anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment for decades. After her selfie with Ms. Gandelsman, Ms. Idan faced a backlash, including death threats. She and her family now live in Los Angeles.

Ms. Katz is a former Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal.

Title: Glick: In wake of Kashoggi, pressure for Israeli-Palestinian peace is dangerous
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2018, 09:06:39 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/12/21/caroline-glick-in-wake-of-khashoggi-pressure-for-israeli-palestinian-peace-is-dangerous/?fbclid=IwAR1qsXDlIG8O72QMMLJZj0UWtCAknAQ2thfGptM0H2OpLL03eMA5MKg0j4Q

Title: Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia join force against Iran in Syria
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2018, 09:53:03 AM

https://www.jns.org/israel-jordan-saudi-arabia-join-forces-against-iran-in-syria/?fbclid=IwAR3mWiRzvlc_qyXddcCG_MuY6mDWKvqaLHpDf3jpVIgBwJuFBmNKmYpUX0k

Title: Partner in Peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2018, 12:24:38 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=HNuSUowPwg0

Title: Tectonic shifts in attitudes toward Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2018, 08:05:22 PM

second post

Tectonic Shifts in Attitudes toward Israel
by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
December 27, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/tectonic-shifts-in-attitudes-toward-israel

Title: Arab Muslim woman running on Likud ticket
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2019, 06:19:15 PM

https://israelunwired.com/arab-muslim-woman-decides-to-run-on-election-ticket-with-pm-netanyahu/

Title: Glick: the limits of Arab-Israeli cooperation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2019, 11:43:15 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/02/06/caroline-glick-the-limits-of-arab-israeli-cooperation/?fbclid=IwAR0lMd_nKr5o8D7QR7sBz35iR-MCo62qVDAVEutVNveTqxCwbXTntdLbEBI

Title: Glick: Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 10, 2019, 08:09:49 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/02/09/caroline-glick-end-aid-to-lebanon/?fbclid=IwAR1rorurEqRvIim1vzVSUxuDinmZjtsfGF_GeVJrnnGmGilcLDShG-2UGtk

Title: Partner in Peace 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 10, 2019, 08:50:17 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=XVrHBanah5Q

Title: Jews who become like Arabs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 01, 2019, 07:50:25 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/opinion/politics/israel-spies-founding-fathers.html

Israel’s Secret Founding Fathers

Everyone knows the name David Ben-Gurion. Why don’t we know about the spy Jamil Cohen?

Jamil (Gamliel) Cohen and Shimon Horesh in Beirut in 1948.CreditCreditPalmach Museum, Tel Aviv
Matti Friedman

By Matti Friedman

Mr. Friedman is the author of “Spies of No Country: Secret Lives at the Birth of Israel.”

    March 1, 2019

JERUSALEM — Late on the night of Nov. 11, Hamas soldiers in southern Gaza stopped a van near the town of Khan Yunis. Inside were a group of Arabic-speaking men and women who said they were aid workers. The soldiers were suspicious. When the passengers understood that they couldn’t talk their way out, they dropped the pretense and drew guns. In the ensuing firefight, seven Hamas men and one of the passengers died before the intruders were extracted by an Israeli rescue force.

The van’s passengers were undercover agents, but in Hebrew their profession has a unique name: They were mista’arvim, which translates as “ones who become like Arabs.” The work of the mista’arvim, who serve in Israel’s Army and police and are meant to move around Palestinian areas undetected, has gained some international renown recently thanks to the success of the TV series “Fauda,” a fictionalized version of their exploits.

But the odd term has roots older than Israel — and deeper than the world of spies. Its origins have much to tell us, not just about the history of covert operations here, but also about the complicated identity of this country.

Advertisement

Israel tends to tell a European story about itself — Theodor Herzl, socialism, the Holocaust — and many Israelis and many of our enemies like to imagine that this country doesn’t quite belong where it exists. But even if we set aside the one-fifth of Israel’s citizens who are Arab Muslims, half of the Jewish population here has roots in the Islamic world. They’re the children and grandchildren of people like Jamil Cohen.


Who is Jamil Cohen? He isn’t famous, and his name was new to me when I began researching a book about Israel’s first spies. But his story is a window onto some crucial and forgotten Israeli history.

Cohen was born in 1922 in Damascus, Syria, and grew up in the alleys of that city’s ancient Jewish Quarter. The existence of such a quarter seems unimaginable today, with the Arab world’s old ethnic mosaic largely destroyed by state persecution, religious violence and civil war. But when Cohen was growing up, there were about one million Jews native to Islamic countries, most of them Arabic speakers. Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, was one-third Jewish in those days.

At 21, facing an uncertain future amid the Muslim majority, Cohen decided to run away to join the Zionist pioneers forging a new Jewish future in the country next door: British Mandate for Palestine. He crossed the border on foot and joined a group of idealistic young people working the land at a kibbutz. It was the beginning of 1944, with World War II still raging and the creation of the state of Israel still four years away.

In oral testimony recorded in the 1990s, Cohen remembered what the experience was like. He was exhilarated by the comradeship and ideology of pioneer life. On the other hand, he was different from the others and found the difference hard to escape. Although Palestine had an old community of Jews who spoke Arabic, the native tongue of most Jews in the country at the time was Yiddish: They had come to the Middle East fleeing abject poverty and oppression in Poland and Russia.

To the kibbutz pioneers, Jamil Cohen was mystifying. He seemed Arab — in his appearance, in his Hebrew accent, in the music he loved, like that of the Egyptian diva Oum Kalthoum. He stopped using the Arabic name of his childhood, Jamil, and instead used his Hebrew name, Gamliel, but that didn’t resolve the problem. Cohen made friends but didn’t talk about his old life in Damascus; they weren’t interested. “Because I was the one who wanted to join them, and not the other way around,” he remembered much later on, “I was the one who was worn down, who had to round his edges to fit the machine that spins around, sparing no one.” The ability to “round your edges” is useful for a spy, as he’d soon find out.

The course of his life was changed the following year when someone came looking for him. Not for Gamliel, but for his earlier incarnation — Jamil. It turned out that the Arab identity he was trying to escape was precisely what the Zionist movement needed.


Understanding that the Jews in Palestine would shortly face a war for survival against the combined might of the Arab world, a few officers in the Jewish military underground were running an ad hoc intelligence unit called the “Arab Section.” Its members were tasked with collecting information in Arab areas: How big was the local militia? What were the imams saying in the mosques? They needed people who could pass.

The people who could do this did not want to be called “spies” or “agents,” names which were seen as dishonorable. Another term was needed to describe their service, and one was found in the long history of the Jews of the Arab world. In Aleppo, Syria, for example, there had always been two Jewish communities: One was the Sephardim, who had been expelled from Spain after 1492, and the second consisted of people who had been in the metropolis since before Christianity or Islam, and who had adopted Arabic after the arrival of Arab conquerors in the seventh century A.D. Those Jews called themselves, in Arabic, musta’arabin — “ones who become like Arabs.” The word in Hebrew is nearly identical.

The mastermind of the mista’arvim endeavor in the embryonic Israeli intelligence services was an educated Jew from Baghdad who went by the Arabic name Saman. (His Hebrew name was Shimon Somech, but no one used it.) The ideal recruit to the Arab section, he once explained, “isn’t just a young man with dark skin and a mustache who knows how to speak Arabic.” A successful candidate, he wrote, “must be a talented actor playing the part twenty-four hours a day, a role that comes at a cost of constant mental tension, and which is nerve-racking to the point of insanity.”

With that in mind, Saman set off at the end of the war to recruit young arrivals from the Arab world. One of the recruits was Cohen, who would operate as a Palestinian Muslim with the name Yussef el-Hamed.
Sign up for Frank Bruni's newsletter

Get a more personal, less conventional take on political developments, newsmakers, cultural milestones and more with Frank Bruni’s exclusive commentary every week.
Jamil Cohen (left) with two other spies, Beirut, summer 1949.CreditPalmach Museum, Tel Aviv
Image
Jamil Cohen (left) with two other spies, Beirut, summer 1949.CreditPalmach Museum, Tel Aviv

The scope of their adventures has preoccupied me for much of the last seven years: their dramatic, overlooked role in the 1948 war; their creation of Israel’s first foreign intelligence station in Beirut; how some evaded capture and lived, and how others were exposed and killed; how those Jewish refugees from Arab countries experienced Israel’s birth while pretending to be Arab refugees from a Jewish country; how they witnessed the violent collapse of their world, the Jewish world in Arab lands; and then the flood of those newcomers into the new state, which wasn’t expecting them, and which was transformed by them into a place different than its founders had planned.

The members of the Arab section were one part of what later became the Mossad. When Cohen died in 2002, having spent much of his life under an assumed identity, he was described by a military historian as one of Israel’s most successful agents: “We never heard of him because he was never caught.” Saman, the mastermind, eventually ran Eli Cohen, Israel’s most famous spy, who penetrated the Syrian regime as the businessman Kamal Amin Thabet before he was exposed and hanged in 1965. But the point I’d like to make here is not about what they did, but instead about who they were and what it says about the country they helped create.

Advertisement

Were they the “ones who become like Arabs”? Or was that identity real?

This is an important question beyond the particular case of these spies. The divide between Jews from Christian countries (known as Ashkenazim) and from Muslim countries (generally called Mizrahim) has always been the key fault line in Israeli society, with the former clearly on top. But in recent years it has become more acceptable to admit or even celebrate the Middle Eastern component of Israel’s Jewish identity. The Hebrew pop style known as Mizrahi, long scorned, now rules the airwaves. The dominance of the political right in recent years comes far less from the settler movement, as foreign observers tend to think, than from the collective memory of Israelis who remember how vulnerable they were as a minority among Muslims and grasp what this part of the world does to the weak. In the country’s official view of itself, it might still seem as if the Jews of the Islamic world, by coming to Israel after the founding of the state, joined the story of the Jews of Europe. But in 2019 it’s quite clear that what happened was closer to the opposite.
Jamil in Beirut in the spring of 1950.CreditPalmach Museum, Tel Aviv
Image
Jamil in Beirut in the spring of 1950.CreditPalmach Museum, Tel Aviv

As the young Jamil Cohen found when he was recruited in the 1940s, the world of military intelligence is, ironically, one corner of Israeli society where Arab identity has always been respected. The Israeli scholar Yehouda Shenhav opens his 2006 book “The Arab Jews” with an anecdote about his father, who came to Israel from Iraq and found his way into the secret services. Looking at a photograph of his young father on a beach with friends from those early days, the author is forced to consider his father’s tenuous position in Israeli society and his utility as a spy: His appearance, Mr. Shenhav wrote, “confronted me with my complex location within what is often represented as an ancient, insurmountable conflict between Arabs (who are not Jews) and Jews (who are not Arabs).”

To an Israeli viewer, that ethnic blurriness runs clearly beneath the surface of “Fauda,” the popular Netflix thriller. In the second season it’s embodied in the character of Amos Kabilio, who confuses us when he first appears on screen — he’s speaking Arabic and it’s not clear which side he’s from, until we realize that he’s the father of Doron, the Israeli agent who’s the main character. Amos is a Jew from Iraq, and when he speaks to his son, the Israeli spy, it’s partly in his mother tongue, Arabic. We’re meant to grasp that when Doron “becomes like an Arab” as part of his mission, it’s not entirely artificial.

“Espionage,” John le Carré once observed, “is the secret theater of our society.” Countries also have cover stories and hidden selves. The identity of Israel’s spies teaches us who Israel has to spy on, of course. But it also has much to say about what Israel is — and how that country differs from the country we know from stories.

Matti Friedman (@MattiFriedman), a contributing opinion writer, is the author of the forthcoming “Spies of No Country: Secret Lives at the Birth of Israel,” from which this essay is adapted.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Title: GPF: US deploying THAAD
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2019, 09:47:45 AM

Missile defense in Israel. Israel Defense Forces announced today that the U.S. is deploying Terminal High Altitude Area Defense in Israel as part of an “exercise deployment.” THAAD boasts larger missiles that can travel greater distances than Israel’s Iron Dome system. The only threat that justifies this kind of hardware is Iran, so in that sense the “exercise deployment” is a dry run for defending Israel from Iranian missiles. It’s unclear how well they fared – and how long the system will remain in Israel.

Title: What do Palestinians want?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2019, 06:52:40 AM

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/11/what-do-palestinians-want/

Title: Re: What do Palestinians want?
Post by: G M on March 12, 2019, 07:15:38 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2019, 06:52:40 AM

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/11/what-do-palestinians-want/

They want death.

Title: Re: What do Palestinians want?
Post by: DougMacG on March 12, 2019, 11:43:32 AM

Quote from: G M on March 12, 2019, 07:15:38 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2019, 06:52:40 AM

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/11/what-do-palestinians-want/

They want death.

Death to Israel.  And death to countries who support Israel, wasn't this a core principle of Osama bin Laden.

Taught to children as early as the Arabic alphabet.

" a PSR survey that appeared after the August 2014 ceasefire ending the latest war between Israel and Hamas. It reported, among other findings, that fully 79 percent of Palestinians believed Hamas had won the war and only 3 percent saw Israel as the victor. So convinced were respondents of their side’s strength that nine in ten favored continued rocket fire at Israel’s cities unless the blockade of Gaza were lifted, 64 percent declared their support for “armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel” (meaning, among other things, suicide bombings in Israeli population centers), and 54 percent applauded the event that in large measure had precipitated the 50-day war: the abduction and murder by Hamas operatives of three Israeli teenage boys hitchhiking home from school."

Good news is that we have to go no farther than Minneapolis, Detroit, Queens and the House of Representatives in Washington to find out the demands of their most ardent supporters.

[Note the piece is dated 2015.]

Title: Hamas crushing internal dissent
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2019, 04:04:39 PM

https://www.investigativeproject.org/7864/a-tale-of-two-protests-hamas-crushes-internal

Title: How US benefits from Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2019, 02:37:05 PM

Haven't watched this yet.

https://israelunwired.com/youll-never-again-question-how-the-us-benefits-from-israel/

Title: GPF: Hezbollah missile factory
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2019, 09:38:50 AM

More precision-guided missiles for Hezbollah. According to Israel’s Channel 13, intelligence reports indicate Iran helped Hezbollah construct a new missile facility in Beirut. The report said the factory could include the capability to produce precision-guided missiles. It also claimed that Israeli intelligence shared the information with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who then warned Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri about the facility’s location. Hezbollah is believed to have precision-guided missile storage sites in Beirut near major civilian infrastructure, including an airport and a football stadium

Title: GPF: Russia kibbitzing on Israel-Palestinian process
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2019, 09:51:02 AM

Russia’s vision for Middle East peace. It seems Moscow is interested in playing a role in Israeli-Palestinian peace. Russia’s Sputnik News is reporting that Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyah Maliki said PA leader Mahmoud Abbas is ready to sit down with newly re-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – if Russian President Vladimir Putin hosts. (Maliki’s remarks have not been confirmed by other outlets.) In addition, Moscow is currently hosting the fifth Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum, where the Israel-Palestine question tops the agenda. The forum gives Moscow an opportunity to reply to the Arab League’s recent call for an international response to Netanyahu’s campaign promise that he will annex Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It’s also a chance for Moscow to offer an alternative vision to the peace plan that Washington plans to release in coming weeks – a plan the Palestinian Authority has already rejected.



Also see

https://foreignbrief.com/daily-news/russia-hosts-arab-league-in-moscow-to-discuss-latest-israeli-sovereignty-moves/?utm_source=GPF+-+Paid+Newsletter&utm_campaign=aded94d2ab-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_16_03_37&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_72b76c0285-aded94d2ab-247660329

Title: Rumint on the Trump peace plan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2019, 12:08:37 PM

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/23/trump-asks-saudi-arabia-pay-middle-east-peace-deal/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=20171227&utm_term=newsletter&utm_content=morning&bt_ee=aCyjatRbU%2BsH3u9dDrVHKw2BMS2YZxTbT4yD6KLUIE5%2B78a%2Bg7rLOcqwdABjcKgk&bt_ts=1556107699609

Title: Fascinating interview with Palestinian negotiator
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2019, 06:50:40 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MJVJ4jyCQs&fbclid=IwAR2EMcHqhsURS3PFYqq67J3PQjTuYNUG8uECXLwTaErtv70Daq1RC_bLO6c

Title: Glick: Israel must prepare for war with Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2019, 05:03:44 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/05/07/caroline-glick-israel-must-prepare-for-next-war-with-hamas/?fbclid=IwAR18Ap6aOI-UvJrG8nLNEhpLU82LNpF4u7d_sAslOgveW12Nm8V88_BY7Z8

Title: American Jews and Israel
Post by: ccp on June 03, 2019, 08:28:50 AM

wonder how many of these 25 % jews are democrats or Trump haters:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/american-jews-isreal-westbank-settlements-peace/2019/06/02/id/918576/

Title: Pressures against Hamas corruption growing in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2019, 09:49:17 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14713/palestinians-gaza-hamas-revolt

Title: Israel prepares for multifront war
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 14, 2019, 03:53:04 PM

https://www.meforum.org/59127/israel-gets-ready-to-fight-a-multifront-war?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=1822b5f5c0-Frantzman_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_13_01_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-1822b5f5c0-33691909&goal=0_086cfd423c-1822b5f5c0-33691909

Title: PM Netanyahu on denying Tlaib and Omar
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2019, 12:47:47 PM

https://www.facebook.com/IsraeliPM/?hc_ref=ARR28Rr2kIkoyQTsLfwHOXX7r35wuGhDsNIpXC8E6PEKrHfxPLEwLPQ1KBVSqkKqnkA&fref=nf&__tn__=kC-R

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

No country in the world respects America and the American Congress more than the State of Israel.

As a free and vibrant democracy, Israel is open to critics and criticism, with one exception: Israeli law prohibits the entry into Israel of those who call for and work to impose boycotts on Israel, as do other democracies that prohibit the entry of people who seek to harm the country. In fact, in the past the US did this to an Israeli member of Knesset, as well as to other public figures from around the world.

Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress. Only a few days ago, we received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For instance: they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel, and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress who have visited Israel, they did not request to meet any Israeli officials, either from the government or the opposition.

A week ago, Israel warmly welcomed some 70 Democratic and Republican members of Congress, who expressed broad bipartisan support for Israel, which was also demonstrated a month ago in a resounding bipartisan vote against BDS in Congress.

However, the itinerary of the two Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it.

In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.

Therefore, the minister of interior has decided not to allow their visit, and I, as prime minister, support his decision.

Nonetheless, if Congresswoman Tlaib submits a humanitarian request to visit her relatives, the minister of interior has announced that he will consider her request on the condition that she pledges not to act to promote boycotts against Israel during her visit.

Title: Re: PM Netanyahu on denying Tlaib and Omar
Post by: G M on August 15, 2019, 07:19:15 PM

They shouldn't be allowed in the US or Israel.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2019, 12:47:47 PM

https://www.facebook.com/IsraeliPM/?hc_ref=ARR28Rr2kIkoyQTsLfwHOXX7r35wuGhDsNIpXC8E6PEKrHfxPLEwLPQ1KBVSqkKqnkA&fref=nf&__tn__=kC-R

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

No country in the world respects America and the American Congress more than the State of Israel.

As a free and vibrant democracy, Israel is open to critics and criticism, with one exception: Israeli law prohibits the entry into Israel of those who call for and work to impose boycotts on Israel, as do other democracies that prohibit the entry of people who seek to harm the country. In fact, in the past the US did this to an Israeli member of Knesset, as well as to other public figures from around the world.

Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress. Only a few days ago, we received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For instance: they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel, and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress who have visited Israel, they did not request to meet any Israeli officials, either from the government or the opposition.

A week ago, Israel warmly welcomed some 70 Democratic and Republican members of Congress, who expressed broad bipartisan support for Israel, which was also demonstrated a month ago in a resounding bipartisan vote against BDS in Congress.

However, the itinerary of the two Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it.

In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.

Therefore, the minister of interior has decided not to allow their visit, and I, as prime minister, support his decision.

Nonetheless, if Congresswoman Tlaib submits a humanitarian request to visit her relatives, the minister of interior has announced that he will consider her request on the condition that she pledges not to act to promote boycotts against Israel during her visit.

Title: Up from the memory hole on denial of entry
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2019, 10:46:11 PM

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/48073/outrage-obama-denies-visa-to-israel-parliament-member-israeli-legislative-trip-to-us-canceled/?fbclid=IwAR0Cw_4HpuSDWMf6CFzXIB4rVgnL_ByRevHijEUIlFxlVhOrn3ivTzqx_6o

Title: 1956: Most Palestinians are of jewish descent?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 18, 2019, 01:11:30 PM

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/most-palestinians-are-descendants-of-jews/?fbclid=IwAR0fz6olyeGiaCCb7MaCFR_qW4EEX5diOWtnaI5qe0AoQK_OhnpHLR3h2Kk

Title: The world retains its ability to surprise: Bill Maher 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 18, 2019, 01:30:05 PM

Second post

https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=post;topic=962.2450;last_msg=119003

Title: Glick
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2019, 12:33:08 PM

https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/netanyahus-earth-shattering-announcement/?fbclid=IwAR0Cx7FG2ZGXjciXa5TQRsgcIgcQ7_nA24GLgkt9BVLfOWa1pUjJojAntgI

Title: rumors of spying device outside WH
Post by: ccp on September 14, 2019, 02:15:03 PM

 a hit job against Bibi?


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/was-israel-spying-or-was-the-stingray-story-an-anti-bibi-sting

So now two questions?
  who did plant it?  (Obmam?)
  who made the false (?) rumor?

Title: Re: rumors of spying device outside WH
Post by: G M on September 14, 2019, 07:08:48 PM

Israel spies on us. We spy on Israel. Every country does, both friends and enemies. Mystery Stingray sites popup all over, and it could be various state and non-state actors.

Quote from: ccp on September 14, 2019, 02:15:03 PM

a hit job against Bibi?


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/was-israel-spying-or-was-the-stingray-story-an-anti-bibi-sting

So now two questions?
  who did plant it?  (Obmam?)
  who made the false (?) rumor?

Title: Israel-China
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 15, 2019, 11:12:22 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/757290503/theres-a-growing-sore-spot-in-israeli-u-s-relations-china?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&fbclid=IwAR0AeOpxj16tAQ8jJ6LoifcAlQaH7Jk5VjRA-vFKAr9wtqYhZYJ4fG2wEsM

Title: Israel nuclear test Jimmy Earl Carter
Post by: ccp on September 22, 2019, 08:53:23 AM

40 yrs since :

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Carter-administration-knew-of-Israeli-nuclear-test-turned-a-blind-eye-602485

Title: 1948 Brit Intel goaded Arabs into war on Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 22, 2019, 02:49:36 PM

https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-u-k-intel-goaded-arabs-into-48-war-papers-show-1.5300880?fbclid=IwAR05WAGxopma_w4NEIAlciIxbelG_ap-qXM-eIhErJhax-27ZCtZQkvuXUM

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2019, 07:38:56 AM

Israel reaches out. Israeli is working on developing non-aggression treaties with several Arab countries in the Gulf, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has confirmed. Katz added that he laid out his plan to several Arab countries on the sidelines of the recent United Nations General Assembly meeting. The draft of the proposed agreement reportedly calls on signatories to prevent hostilities against each other, abstain from entering security alliances with other parties that could harm each other, cooperate in the fight against terror, and advance economic interests. Katz acknowledged talking to U.S. officials about the project but did not specify which Arab countries he spoke with at the UNGA (though he has recently held meetings with officials from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman). The initiative is part of Israel’s diplomatic efforts to form an anti-Iran coalition in the region.

Title: Stratfor: For Israel, it is open skies over Syria and Iraq
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2019, 06:42:16 AM

For Israel, It's Open Skies Over Syria and Iraq
7 MINS READOct 14, 2019 | 10:00 GMT
This picture taken on Aug. 25, 2019, from a tourist lookout point at an Israeli army outpost on Mount Bental in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights shows a directional sign for Damascus.
(JALAA MAREY/AFP/Getty Images)

Syria and Iraq, struggling to cope with Israel's aerial might, want to bolster their air deterrent, but that could come with some unintended consequences.
Highlights

    Syria and Iraq's inability to secure their airspaces from Israeli airstrikes will lead them to try and acquire better air defense systems.
    New equipment, particularly from Russia, could increase the deterrent against Israeli strikes, but it won't provide a foolproof solution.
    But even if Syria and Iraq gain more control over their airspace, their ability to shoot down Israeli aircraft could ignite new conflicts.

Syria and Iraq are facing a common conundrum in their respective skies: a persistent Israeli air campaign that has targeted Iranian and Iran-linked assets. Because of both countries' limited air defense capabilities, Israel has had free range to conduct its campaign. Now, however, the pair may be trying to rectify this disadvantage amid recent reports that Russia is considering the sale of high-end radar systems to unidentified Middle Eastern countries. If they made such a purchase, however, it could cause unexpected problems for Damascus and Baghdad: The systems won't be enough to completely halt the Israeli campaign, but they would pose a significant enough challenge to Israel's jets that their use could touch off a new round of conflict in the area.
The Big Picture

Throughout the Syrian civil war and the battle against the Islamic State, Iran has expanded the presence of its asymmetrical capabilities across the region. In response, Israel has launched an air campaign in Syria that has recently expanded into Iraq and Lebanon as well.
See Israel's Survival Strategy
A Weak Defense

Israel has been conducting a daring air campaign in Syria since 2013. Initially, its warplanes targeted specific Iranian arms shipments bound for Hezbollah, but over time, it has expanded the offensive to include Iranian assets in Syria that could support attacks against Israel or sustain the logistical supply line to, and cooperation with, the Lebanese militant group. The overall intent of the campaign goes beyond the tactical interdiction of arms transfers, as Israeli leaders seek to stop Iran from permanently embedding itself in a territory so close to Israel itself.

In July and August, Israel expanded this campaign into Iraq and Lebanon. In Iraq, Israel has largely targeted stockpiles of weapons belonging to Iran-linked Popular Mobilization Units (PMU). In Lebanon, it took aim at the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command, a group that has fought alongside Hezbollah and Syrian government forces in Syria. The intensity of the strikes in Iraq and Lebanon has by no means reached the levels of Syria, but Israel's ability to easily conduct attacks there highlights just how accessible regional airspace is to Israeli operations.
This map shows the location of Israeli airstrikes in Syria and Iraq since January 2017.

Israel's impunity stems primarily from Syria and Iraq's limited air defense capabilities. Their weak defenses not only allow Israel to conduct air operations over these countries with virtually no losses (so far, Syria has managed to down only one Israeli F-16 aircraft, in February 2018), they also allow the country to maintain plausible deniability. Both Syria and Iraq operate mostly outdated, Cold War-era air defense systems that have deteriorated even further over the course of previous conflicts.

With Russia's support, Syria has tried to rebuild its air defense capabilities during the civil war, acquiring a number of Russian systems such as the Pantsir-S1 point-defense systems, Buk-M2 midrange air defense systems and a limited number of wider-ranging S-300 batteries. While these systems constitute the components of a somewhat layered air defense, the number of systems in operation in Syria is ultimately insufficient to provide coverage beyond isolated, hardened bubbles. On top of that, the crews manning these more advanced systems have performed poorly, as demonstrated by their accidental downing of a Russian aircraft in September 2018 as they sought to fire on Israeli jets. In other cases, Syrian crews have fired missiles at Israeli planes long after the latter have made their strikes. In short, Syria's attempts to upgrade its system have fallen short of posing a real deterrent to Israel.

Iraq, meanwhile, has entertained more ambitious plans, including a U.S. offer of an integrated air defense system. The delivery of such systems has been on indefinite hold, however, due to Baghdad's battle against the Islamic State. Iraq, however, has merely received eight Avenger systems (a U.S. system based on a Humvee platform that fires Stinger missiles and a .50-caliber gun for point defense), yet they can protect only individual military units rather than guard a wider area. More important elements of the package, such as surveillance radars and command-and-control systems, never arrived. What's more, even the F-16s that Iraq received can fire only air-to-air missiles with a relatively short range, limiting their capabilities in aerial combat. As a result of these weaknesses, Iraq has acquired Pantsir-S1 air defense systems from Russia, but their coverage is spotty at best.
The Paradox of Better Protection

Clearly, even the most modern elements of these limited air defense capabilities have failed to deter the Israeli air campaign. Both Syria and Iraq continue to look toward Russia for additional capabilities in their struggle to regain control of their airspace. Rumors abound of additional deliveries of S-300 and even S-400 systems, but none have appeared yet. More recently, Russia did announce that several Middle Eastern countries had signed contracts for the delivery of Resonance-NE radar systems; Syria and Iraq would be prime candidates to receive such systems due to their current shortcomings and their past purchases from Moscow. The Resonance-NE is essentially a large static radar, but it offers great range (up to 1,100 kilometers, or around 688 miles) and even some ability to detect more difficult targets like stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. Such a radar could help Syria and Iraq monitor their airspace more effectively — but that's not the same as actually giving the countries the ability to shoot down what's coming. For such a radar to be most effective, Syria and Iraq would still require more integrated air defense systems, as well as modern surface-to-air missile systems.

Even if Damascus and Baghdad managed to acquire top-of-the-line Russian defense systems, both would still face many challenges in truly interdicting Israeli airstrikes.

Of course, the acquisition of such systems from Russia would come at a cost, particularly for Iraq, which has maintained a close security relationship with the United States since 2003. The United States has actively tried to dissuade countries from buying Russian military equipment through the threat of sanctions (such as the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act - CAATSA), and through the existing secondary effects of sanctions imposed on Rosoboronexport (Russia's state-owned arms sales enterprise). Washington has previously leveraged these threats against countries like Turkey and India, suggesting that such a course of action could upset the cooperative nature of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship.

But even if Damascus and Baghdad managed to acquire top-of-the-line Russian defense systems, both would still face many challenges in truly interdicting Israeli airstrikes. For one, Syria and Iraq could struggle to distinguish between Israeli and U.S. aircraft given that the latter two fly a number of similar platforms. Any doubt could lead either to inaction, and thus exposure to Israeli strikes, or a dangerous miscalculation. Moreover, Israel can effectively jam enemy radar systems and air defenses. At the same time, it also boasts a significant standoff capability, which allows it to strike targets far beyond the limits imposed by air defenses through the use of air-launched cruise missiles or other long-range munitions. Israel has frequently resorted to such methods in its strikes in Syria, occasionally even launching munitions from aircraft flying over the Mediterranean Sea, west of Lebanon.

Beyond that, there's also a paradox facing Syria and Iraq: Significantly improving their respective air defense capabilities might not be entirely desirable. If Damascus or Baghdad were able to shoot down Israeli fighter aircraft, this could rapidly escalate hostilities, prompting Israel to retaliate directly against Syria or Iraq rather than the Iranian-linked assets they host. That's why Syria and Iraq are likely to proceed carefully as they weigh whether acquiring a lot more deterrence will actually make them more of a target in the long run.

Title: Stratfor: The Israeli dilemma
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2019, 05:49:01 AM

Israel's Pursuit of National Purity Risks Alienating Everyone Else
8 MINS READOct 24, 2019 | 09:30 GMT
Palestinians gather during a demonstration at the Israel-Gaza border on Oct. 4, 2019.

Palestinian protesters wave flags near the Israel-Gaza border on Oct. 4. Israel’s push to annex the West Bank could leave many Palestinians under Israeli control without political rights.

Highlights

    Israeli foreign policy is increasingly dominated by centrist and right-wing nationalists who want to take formal control of the West Bank.
    These same nationalists will not want to risk Israel's Jewish character by giving citizenship to the Palestinians living in the West Bank, and will also be hard-pressed to find homes for them elsewhere.
    Israel is thus most likely to leave Palestinians in annexed territory without political rights, which risks isolating its regional relationships and empowering anti-Israel forces in the West.

Israel's two latest elections have left it without a government and, for the first time, any major party committed to a two-state solution with the Palestinians. For Israel's remaining right-wing and nationalist factions, the path has never been clearer to accomplish their long-sought goal of steadily annexing territory in the West Bank. But doing so will require a permanent policy for the millions of Palestinians who live there.

Growing nationalist sentiment at home indicates Israel won't make them citizens. And the state of global migration means it won't find new homes for them elsewhere either. Instead, Israel will most likely opt to relegate Palestinians to a second-class existence. Seizing control of the West Bank without giving its Arab residents political rights, however, will risk not only irking its key allies but emboldening the political and social forces around the world that seek to isolate Israel from the international community.
The Big Picture

While Israel's right-wing political leaders disagree sharply on domestic issues, they seem to be coalescing around the idea that Israel, sooner or later, will annex much of the West Bank. Such a significant strategic shift in Israel's foreign policy, however, will invite challenges to its national identity, ideological character and, subsequently, its diplomatic relations.
See Israel's Survival Strategy
A New Nationalist Context

Israel's venerable left-wing Labor Party is one of the few major Israeli parties still committed to a formal two-state solution, which would offer Palestinians territory in exchange for peace. But the party has largely collapsed since the Sept. 17 election, as have most of Israel's smaller leftist factions. In their place have emerged more centrist parties, including the Resilience Party, which supports maintaining some kind of dominance in the West Bank to deter the creation of a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, the right-wing parties that favor annexation, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud, have grown stronger as well. With this political shift at home, Israel will be increasingly pressured to move toward taking further control of the West Bank. But in doing so, its leaders won't be able to rely on its old strategies of migration, expulsion and immigration.

Varying tactics have been used over the decades to maintain Israel's Jewish character. In the early years, Jewish immigration brought people in, while Palestinian migration and expulsion, especially after the 1948 war, sent non-Jewish people out. High Jewish birthrates in Israel initially kept the population growing as well. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took military control of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Arabs. But to preserve Israel's Jewish character and limit the influence of remaining Arabs in the country, the Israeli government committed to the principle of "land for peace" — that is, surrendering conquered territory in exchange for regional acceptance and peace treaties from otherwise hostile nations.
This map shows population changes in the Palestinian Territories From 2007 to 2017.

But the demographic factors that once justified this strategy are waning. The last great wave of Jewish immigration was in the 1990s, which brought 1 million people from the collapsed Soviet Union to Israel. And Jewish immigration to the country has since dramatically slowed, as have secular Jewish birthrates.
Stuck in the West Bank

Meanwhile, today's more nationalistic global communities have left Israel with fewer historically friendly places to encourage Palestinians to migrate to. Neighboring states like Lebanon and Jordan already have large Palestinian refugee populations dating back to the 1948 war. And their cash-strapped governments are unwilling to take more migrants for fear of upsetting their own delicate demographic balances. Syria — still in the midst of civil war — remains an unattractive destination, while Egypt struggles to provide enough jobs for its own people let alone more Palestinian youth. Despite its political support of the Palestinian cause, Turkey is also grappling with its own economic woes, as well as anti-Arab sentiment caused in large part by its Syrian refugee burden.

Gulf Arab states have traditionally served as sponges for Palestinian labor, but are also often quick to target and expel foreign workers to create jobs for their own people. In preparing their traditionally oil-dependent economies for a post-hydrocarbon world, countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are in the midst of structural economic reforms, including policies designed to encourage their own citizens to go to work. And as a result, the demand for expatriate labor in the region, including for Palestinians, is shrinking.

Further abroad, Europe (and in particular, Western Europe) has historically been a common destination for Palestinians. But after the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015-16, few European states have the political ability (or will) to embrace new migrants, while the eurozone's wider economic slowdown dims the Continent's allure as well.

In the past, many Palestinians have also found refuge in Latin American countries such as Honduras, Mexico and Brazil. But these countries are facing economic and security problems in addition to their own rising tides of anti-migrant sentiment, which will make them wary to add to their already large Palesentian diaspora populations. North America provides little solace either as the United States tightens its requirements for both asylum and immigration.

Other, more far-off Asian countries such as Japan and India have traditionally weak relationships with the Palestinians. Some, like China, are building up ties with Israel to access the country's vibrant tech and educational sectors. Those ties could theoretically become strong enough for Israel to broach the subject of increased Palestinian migration to their countries, but likely not anytime soon.
Three charts showing population changes, net migration and birthrates for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
A De Facto Solution?

Without any willing volunteers to welcome Palestinians, Israel can attempt forced expulsion. But the high political, diplomatic and military risks of such a move will make it highly unpalatable and thus unlikely, at least in the near term. This leaves the Palestinians largely stuck where they are, even as Israel steadily takes more control away from the Palestinian Authority. Israel thus must decide whether it will nationalize these citizens or simply leave them under Israeli control without the rights granted to Israelis living in the pre-1967 borders.

Given voters' increasingly nationalist sentiment, however, it is unlikely an Israeli government will last long if it attempts to nationalize any number of Palestinians. Right-wing parties are already alarmed by the increasingly organized Arab electorate in Israel, with the Arab-dominated Joint List party now having the third-largest number of seats in the Knesset after its unexpectedly strong performance in the Sept. 17 ballot. Israel's left-wing parties have never had the political will to nationalize Palestinians in Israel either; the Labor Party has always argued that Israel's Jewish majority is paramount, too. Therefore, there's a strong possibility that Palestinians in the West Bank will increasingly end up living under a de facto permanent occupation without political rights.
The Price of Purity

Leaving Palestinians in this diplomatic limbo, however, is not without consequences, as it risks alarming many otherwise friendly states. In recent years, Gulf Arab states have sought to strengthen their ties with Israel to fend off their common foe of Iran. But with the prospect of a Palestinian state ever more distant, these countries will be forced to recalibrate their warming relations. Even those that have publicly stated their desire for closer ties with Israel, such as Oman and Bahrain, will be unable to risk the domestic backlash of cozying up to a government that refuses to give political rights to the Palestinians.

Neighboring states like Egypt and Jordan, both of whom have peace treaties with Israel, will also feel intense domestic pressure to take action against this more right-wing Israel. This could include cutting cooperation or more overtly joining international condemnation and isolation campaigns against Israel.

The more liberal governments in Europe and the Americas, meanwhile, will be granted more ammunition for their criticism of Israel. Left-wing activists and organizations in these countries will also gain political capital and greater public backing as the situation on the ground in Israel and the West Bank confirms their more strident accusations against Israeli policy. This includes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which will be even more empowered to target companies and governments still doing business with Israeli entities in its effort to isolate the country and change its policies.

Mounting nationalist sentiment will press Israel to steadily annex more Palestinian territory, even if it means jeopardizing the diplomatic relationships critical to its peace and prosperity.

Friendly governments in the United States and the United Kingdom will stick with Israel in the short term. But when current U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson inevitably move from power, these emboldened anti-Israel forces may have substantial say in future arms transfer and aid deals between Israel and its Western partners.

By annexing more of the West Bank and relegating the Palestinians living there to second-class citizens, Israel's right-wing may finally achieve its goal of protecting the country's cherished Jewish character. But doing so will come at the cost of its good standing with much of the international community, and could stymie Israel's ability to carry out more overt economic, political and diplomatic activities with the rest of the world for decades to come.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2019, 05:40:16 AM

Conclusion:  Israel needs to keep investing and modernizing too.  Hard to do that with no government.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Is-Israel-equipped-to-win-a-war-against-Iran-606182
A comparison between Iran and Israel shows that while Iran had significantly larger naval assets than Israel (398 versus 65), while Israel had far greater tank strength (2,760 versus 1,634) and has some 6,541 armored fighting vehicles, compared to Iran’s 2,345. According to the site, the total amount of aircraft between the two countries is close, with Israel having 595 versus Iran’s 509.

Title: GPF: Lebanese AA missiles, Iran planning attack from Yemen?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 31, 2019, 10:49:11 AM

Israel on alert. The Israel Defense Forces said Thursday that an anti-aircraft missile was fired from southern Lebanon at an Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle. Israel claimed the missile missed its target, while Lebanese media claimed that the drone was indeed downed. Either way, the incident is likely to shed light on speculation that Hezbollah has recently obtained more sophisticated anti-aircraft systems. This comes a day after Israel’s air force chief said all of the country’s air defense systems have been put on alert – the latest of several hints in recent weeks that Israel is expecting some sort of response from Iran or its proxies to a surge in Israeli airstrikes over the past year. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran intended to attack Israel from Yemen. This would pose a challenge to Israel’s multitiered air defense network, which is geared primarily toward intercepting projectiles fired from Lebanon or Syria, as well as rockets fired from Gaza.

Title: Re: Israel, Netanyahu indictment, fraud?
Post by: DougMacG on November 23, 2019, 08:03:42 AM

I've been looking for coverage on Netanyahu's side of this.  Comments?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/netanyahus-indictment-is-a-fraud.php

https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/israel-zionism/2019/10/the-real-threat-to-israels-democracy-comes-from-the-office-of-its-attorney-general/

Caroline Glick:  The Israeli establishment has long sought to destroy Netanyahu, the only political leader in Israeli history who was never a member of their club and never sought their approval. They haven’t been able to defeat him at the ballot box and now they have placed their hopes in the politicized state prosecution. If Mandelblit chooses to make their dream a reality, he will not merely get rid of Netanyahu. He will criminalize routine politics and so end Israeli democracy while replacing our political leaders with unelected prosecutors who have richly demonstrated their lack of objectivity and contempt for the public.
http://carolineglick.com/netanyahu-the-media-and-the-fate-of-israeli-democracy/

Netanyahu:  “I deeply respect the justice system in Israel. But you have to be blind not to see that something bad is happening to police investigators and the prosecution. We’re seeing an attempted coup by the police with false accusations” against him, he accused.
***
Netanyahu listed a litany of complaints about the conduct of the investigation, charging: “These facts emphasize how much this process is tainted. It’s meant to topple a right-wing prime minister, me. I, who unlike the left and the slanted media, want to institute a free market, not only in the economy but also a free market of ideas, who wants to see a strong country, not a weak, shrunken, bowed country.”

The “tainted investigation process, including inventing new crimes, has reached its apex today. It horrifies not only me, but masses of citizens in Israel, and not only on the right… This tainted process raises questions among the public about the police’s investigations and the prosecution. The public has lost trust in these institutions. It’s a process that’s taken place over many years. This is selective enforcement on steroids. It’s enforcement just for me.”

He called to establish an independent commission to investigate the conduct of investigators in his cases.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/an-impassioned-netanyahu-rails-at-attempted-coup-by-police-prosecutors/

Title: George Friedman: Israel and the emerging crisis of the secular and the religious
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 29, 2019, 11:51:56 AM

Israel and the Emerging Crisis of the Secular and the Religious
By George Friedman
Nov. 26, 2019
Open as PDF

Elections normally don’t interest us at Geopolitical Futures. The passage of personalities who preside over the realities of a nation does not usually affect our work. But there are times when electoral politics reveals something of the underlying reality of a nation. That is the case in Israel now. It is at a juncture where the nation is so divided on issues so fundamental to the nature of Israel that the normal political process has frozen and a crisis that can affect the entire region is being revealed.

The crisis revolves around two questions: What does it mean to live in Israel, and what does it mean to be an Israeli? Such questions are common in nations, particularly invented ones, like the United States or Israel. The American regime was invented by the founders, and inevitably, it failed to answer crucial questions, particularly around the issue of whether the states were governed by the federal government or were self-governing. This was tied to the question of whether the principles of the Declaration of Independence, particularly the claim that all men are created equal, are fundamental to American life. Even this was a flawed settlement that haunts the United States to this day. The debate was settled at Gettysburg and other small towns during the Civil War, which left over 600,000 dead.

In Israel’s case, it could claim continuity for 2,000 years, and it could claim that Israel was at the center of Jewish life. But the Israel that was created by its founders was invented. Between ancient Israel and the state that was created in 1948, vast swathes of history took place, and the Jews, scattered among many nations, were part of that sweep. The Israel that was founded in the 20th century was a republic, not a kingdom ruled by the line of David. It was a Jewish republic, but that in itself was an invention.

A Nation Like Any Other?

The question of what Israel was and what it meant to be an Israeli has never been settled. Even the question of who can claim to be a Jew is in dispute. Whether someone can become a Jew and then claim the right of return and the right to be an Israeli citizen is a battlefield in Israeli politics. One faction, the Orthodox, claim the sole authority to conversion – but there are several schools of Judaism, so the Orthodox claim creates inevitable friction with other groups.

The Orthodox argue that Israel should not be an ordinary liberal democracy built around secularism, and that it must draw its laws from traditional sources: the Torah, Talmud, Midrash and others. These books are not only complex but subject to controversy, even among the Orthodox, who have had several millennia in which to debate the issues. But the Orthodox argue that Israel today is the Israel that fell to the Romans, resurrected. That Israel was governed by the laws of the book and the learned who interpreted its meaning.

Israel’s founders, however, were not Orthodox; they were deeply secular, and their political debates revolved around the issues of their time: socialism, liberalism and so on. Their dream was to be a nation like any other, to be the Jewish incarnation of the French Revolution. Vladimir Jabotinsky, the intellectual father of Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu, once said that he dreamt of a day when Jewish criminals were arrested by Jewish policemen. It is a banal statement, but it reveals the heart of the Zionist project. Unlike the Orthodox, who saw themselves as a light unto the nations, the Zionists, David Ben-Gurion and Begin saw something that was far more precious to them than the Orthodox vision. They wanted a place where Jews could be safe and govern themselves, to be criminals or policemen as they willed, one nation among many. For them, modern Jewishness was forged by the oppression of the diaspora, and redemption was a place they could simply be men and women.

These were two radically different visions of Israel. Initially, the most extreme of the Orthodox Jews opposed the creation of Israel, claiming that it could be resurrected only by the coming of the Messiah and that any attempt to do so by ordinary men and women was apostasy. This was of course an extreme view and did not represent a broad spectrum, but the idea that Orthodoxy ought to define what Israel was became an ever-present theme. For example, whereas all Israelis are subject to military service, students at yeshivas are exempted because of the Orthodox claim that the study of the sacred texts is a duty essential to the state of Israel. But the Orthodox made more claims – including, for example, that certain activities should be limited on the Sabbath – as the faithful in all religions do, dictating what was proper and improper behavior and attempting to make it a matter of law.

Benjamin Netanyahu comes from the tendency in Zionism that was as secular as the socialists but that was inclined to support relatively free markets and, above all, a vigorous and, if necessary, aggressive treatment of Israel’s enemies. The difference was that the left assumed that there could be a political settlement with neighboring states, while the right assumed that this was unlikely and could be attained only through a crushing defeat. Both shared the idea of Israel as a state at or near war, but one thought this condition permanent, and the other was trying to craft a solution.
 
(click to enlarge)

The Orthodox had political power. The Israeli political system encouraged the formation of small and idiosyncratic parties, which meant that no one party could win a majority in parliament and all governments were formed through negotiation. The result was that the religious parties, of which there were several, were uniquely positioned when it was time to form a government. They always had some role in coalitions, but with Netanyahu becoming more assertive and alienating other parties, the religious became a majority.

The Wild Card

All of this was complicated by the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, a trickle of Jews arriving in Israel from Russia turned into a torrent. The Russian Jews were almost completely secular. They were Jews because the Soviet regime treated them as a separate nationality. They became the wild card in the Israeli system. For a long time, they did not settle in, but they were a massive force and they took two positions. First, they readily accepted that the Arabs posed a danger and supported an aggressive policy against them. At the same time, they were by nature secular and had little respect for the Orthodox Jews.

The Russians and the Orthodox became over time the foundation of Netanyahu’s coalition. But the tension between the Orthodox parties and parties dominated by the Russians grew intense. The Orthodox were far more interested in their issues than in a range of other issues confronting Israel. They felt, of course, unease with the Palestinian presence in Israel, as well as the secular presence. But what they prioritized most was extending Jewish traditional law to all aspects of society. The Russians were also hostile to the Palestinians, but they wanted to be left alone by the Orthodox.

This led to a second identity crisis. The Israeli parliament had Palestinian members. Israel had from the beginning considered itself the Jewish homeland, but Netanyahu hoped to appease the Russians and the Orthodox by formalizing this concept and effectively making Judaism the official religion. That raised a question: What would then be the status of Israeli Palestinians, some of whom were Muslim and some of whom were Christian? Secularism meant accepting the idea of religious diversity, even though Israel was regarded as a Jewish homeland. This problem had been finessed by arguing that Israel was a place where all Jews and people of other faiths were welcomed. The proposal to formally render non-Jews outsiders was in a way logical, but subtly changed the meaning of Israel.

Two intense cross-currents, always present but contained, tore through the system. The question of the relationship between secularism and Orthodoxy was brought to a head by the Russians, who were not the only opponents of Orthodox Jews’ power, but gave these opponents electoral weight. At the same time, the logic of Orthodoxy and the exclusion of non-Jews from full membership in the country compounded a problem that had been evaded at Israel’s founding. What precisely was Israel? Was it simply another liberal democracy that happened to have a large number of Jews living there? Or was it the homeland of the Jews, inherently religious and therefore something that ought to be governed by Jewish religious law. This long-simmering identity crisis has now led to an urgent political crisis in which the electorate is so fragmented that forming a government after two elections has proved impossible.

Religion as a Private Matter?

It is easy to dismiss this as an idiosyncratic Israeli problem, but it is one that faces all countries. Europe is filled with Christian Democratic parties, including one governing Germany. What exactly does that term mean? In some parts of the United States, there is a serious argument that the country derived its principles from Protestantism, and that the separation of church and state falsifies American history and runs counter to the American intent.

The secularism that arose in Euro-American civilization made religion a private matter. It also made national self-determination a fundamental principle. What happens when the cross-currents of religion as a private matter and the right of citizens to determine the nation’s fate collide? Constitutions are meant to be bulwarks against this but constitutions can be interpreted in many ways.

In the Islamic world, the claims of the religious over the secular are powerful, as they are in some parts of the United States. In other parts, the power of secularism is overwhelming. The case of Israel is worth noting because both the secular and religious are powerful, and when the modern Israeli state was invented, they left the question ambiguous. The matter has not been settled, and it is in different ways the fault line of the Euro-American and Islamic worlds. Israel as a new state, one that left open what it meant to be a Jewish state, is experiencing this new wave of tensions.   

Title: Israel arming groups in Syria
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2019, 03:59:41 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXzuHDiKH8&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR15pTUUTR29aOAwMRMPO7HjazWBY_TqP9muIzXl9Xuni-vPbqiT8mXha5k

Title: Excellent review of Robert Spencer's latest book...
Post by: objectivist1 on December 15, 2019, 03:46:00 AM

The Palestinian Delusion - The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process
get it today at Amazon.com

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/12/the-palestinian-delusion-refutes-the-myth-that-todays-palestinians-descend-from-indigenous-inhabitants-of-israel

Title: My recent post at Jihadwatch.org
Post by: objectivist1 on December 15, 2019, 06:46:42 AM

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/12/foxnation-documentary-on-bethlehem-avoids-obvious-conclusions

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on December 28, 2019, 04:12:00 AM

Robert Spencer's latest book - must-read:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/12/the-palestinian-delusion-teaches-you-how-to-answer-virtually-every-propaganda-lie-about-israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 28, 2019, 08:25:10 AM

Good to have you with us again Objectivist  8-)

https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/12/01/israel-is-what-the-arab-world-can-be-but-is-unable-to-be/

Title: Stratfor: Israel lets US take the lead against Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2020, 05:21:16 PM

Israel Lets the U.S. Take the Lead Against Iran
Ryan Bohl
Ryan Bohl
Middle East and North Africa Analyst, Stratfor
6 MINS READ
Jan 14, 2020 | 10:30 GMT

HIGHLIGHTS

The increased threat of a potential U.S.-Iran war has prompted Israel to temporarily step back from being the region's most aggressive anti-Iran state.

But that state of affairs depends on the United States continuing to address Israel's main areas of concern with Iran: its proxy militia networks and developing nuclear program.

The fear of starting an unpopular war ahead of the 2020 U.S. election, however, will make Washington less willing
to gamble strong retaliation against further Iranian provocations.

In the coming months, Israel will thus be prepared to rapidly escalate and potentially even strike Iran at the first sign of enduring U.S. hesitance.

A more aggressive U.S. strategy is letting Israel dial back its own threats against Iran. Typically willing to tie U.S. and Israeli regional efforts together, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to distance his country from the recent U.S. assassination of the Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, reportedly saying that Israel was "not involved" in the event and "should not be dragged into it." And in response to Tehran's declaration that it would no longer adhere to the stipulations on uranium enrichment in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, Israel's energy minister said it was still "too early to say" if the move meant Iran was actually chasing a weapon, marking a notable break from Israel's often alarmist rhetoric on Tehran's nuclear program.

For Israel, this unusually subdued response represents a temporary tactical shift: For now, it will allow current U.S.-Iran tensions to play out while letting Washington take the brunt of the risk of regional conflict. But there's a limit to how long Israel will stand idly by. If a lack of U.S. action allows Iran to close in on building a nuclear weapon, or if it looks as if U.S. President Donald Trump may lose his reelection bid to a successor less willing to stridently back an anti-Iran strategy, Israel will quickly retake its place at the driver's seat with even more fervor to strike its regional archnemesis. As 2020 unfolds, the risk of Israel-induced regional conflict will thus largely depend on how U.S. politics shape up ahead of November's presidential election.

The Big Picture

Israel cannot tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon or an entrenched network of Iranian influence in the Middle East. But its reaction to recent events has shown that it can temporarily move away from escalation and allow the United States to take the lead against Iran. But if Washington doesn't continue to incidentally address its security concerns, Israel will be forced to again bear the burden of fending off Iran's nearby proxies and attacking the nuclear program.

America's Pain, Israel's Gain?

Israel's attempt to distance itself from the recent events between the United States and Iran is partially a product of current domestic politics. Israel has an election on March 2, and Netanyahu does not want to stir up a conflict before then as he yet again faces a narrow path to victory. Fanning the flames of U.S.-Iranian tensions right now would also risk opening a northern front in Lebanon against Iran's capable proxy Hezbollah, which has threatened to attack Israel should Washington further escalate against Tehran.

But perhaps most important is the fact that the Trump administration's heightened focus on Tehran has created an opportunity for Israel to fulfill its anti-Iran strategy without exposing itself to as much risk as it would by doing it alone. One of Israel's primary objectives is deterring Iran's regional proxy forces and the Iranian leaders who support them. And by striking Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah and killing Solemani, one of Iran's most powerful proxy force organizers, the United States, has helped do just that. Washington's apparent willingness to take the lead against these proxy forces and leaders means that Israel can, for now, refrain from attacking Iran's proxies in Iraq as it did over the summer.

The United States' current, hard-line stance on Iran has also allowed Israel to temporarily ease off its attempts to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb. In this, Israel's primary strategy has been to get Washington, and by extension the international community, to bring back the crushing sanctions regime that would isolate Iran enough to abandon its nuclear program. And that strategy is increasingly being achieved thanks to the Trump administration, whose push to keep the U.S. sanctions regime intact has prompted Iran to continuously step away from the JCPOA, alarming Europe in the process. As a back-up plan, Israel has also long threatened to strike Iran's nuclear program itself. In addition to a direct military threat, this approach is also a diplomatic pressure strategy meant to signal that Israel is willing to trigger a regional conflict with Iran if the international community does not take strong enough action against Tehran. But with Washington now telegraphing its own intent to strike Iran, there's far less need for Israel to echo the same sentiment.

Bringing Israel Back to Escalation

The conditions allowing Israel to temporarily stand down from Iran, however, are all dependent on U.S. behavior, which will likely change ahead of the 2020 election. And for that reason, Israel will no doubt be watching closely for how the election season unfolds in the coming months, as it could not only make the United States more risk-averse but may result in a more permanent shift in U.S. policy on Iran. Given Netanyahu's close ties with the White House, Israel can expect U.S. pressure on Iran to remain strong for as long as Trump remains in office. But should Trump fail to secure a second term in November, a less hawkish successor may attempt to revert to prior U.S. policies on Iran and undermine the current isolation campaign.

However, Washington's commitment to the anti-Iran front will start to waver long before Americans head to the polls. The 2020 election is likely to be a close one, and a sudden war — especially one that involves casualties — will be a risky bet for the Trump administration. As the election season unfolds, the United States may, therefore, grow more conservative in the face of Iranian provocations, whether that's new harassment or further developments in its nuclear program. The Trump administration's preoccupation with campaign season, meanwhile, could give Iran breathing room to develop both its nuclear program and regional proxies. And to ensure such build-ups don't become permanent, Israel will be strongly incentivized to once again consider strikes in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere — even if it means sparking a wider regional conflict.

It's only a matter of time until a less hawkish U.S. strategy reinstates Israel as the most likely actor to strike Tehran's regional proxies and nuclear program.

Finally, just how far Iran progresses its nuclear program will also dictate how Israel behaves, with a more advanced program more likely to incur a strike. In the past, Israel has strongly hinted that 20 percent uranium enrichment would trigger an attack. But Iran's recent announcement that it would no longer adhere to the JCPOA restriction on uranium enrichment may lower that threshold, especially if the United States seems unwilling to take action.

In gauging whether Iran is an atomic threat, it is not entirely certain whether Israel will also take other factors into account, such as dual-use technologies or the development of future missiles. But what is certain is Israel's shift back to a more aggressive anti-Iran strategy, should it detect U.S. hesitance or conclude that Iran is on its way to making a bomb. Thus, it's likely only a matter of time before Israel jumps back into the fore as the most likely actor to strike Iran's nuclear program and spur a regional conflict with the potential to rope in — however begrudgingly — the United States.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2020, 03:45:02 PM

https://israelunwired.com/president-trump-invites-netanyahu-to-white-house-in-shocking-turn-of-events/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2020, 09:51:15 PM

Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan Charts Two-State Course for Israelis, Palestinians
President says a future Palestinian state depends on a ‘firm rejection of terrorism’; Palestinian Authority repudiates the plan

President Trump’s Middle East peace plan charts a two-state course for Israelis and Palestinians. WSJ’s Gerald F. Seib highlights three pressures that could bring Palestinians to the negotiating table. Photo: Michael Reynolds/Shutterstock
By Felicia Schwartz and Michael R. Gordon
Updated Jan. 28, 2020 7:54 pm ET

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration unveiled its long-delayed Middle East peace plan, giving Israelis much of what they have long sought, including allowing for immediate expansion of territory, while providing Palestinians a path to nationhood but under conditions they instantly rejected.

“Today Israel is taking a giant step toward peace,” President Trump said Tuesday at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at his side.

Some Israeli goals, such as annexing the Jordan River Valley and permanently setting its eastern border, may advance as soon as this weekend, when Mr. Netanyahu plans to ask his cabinet for approval to move ahead.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the plan. “We say a thousand times, no, no, no to the deal of the century,” Mr. Abbas said, referring to the plan. “We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct.”

The Trump proposal requires many more concessions from the Palestinians than from the Israelis. Israel has agreed to a four-year freeze on expanding settlements in areas that might make up the core of a Palestinian state, while the Palestinians consider whether to accept terms set by the plan, including demilitarization and Israeli control of all security arrangements from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

Trump administration officials cast the design as the best the Palestinians could expect given Israel security requirements. U.S. officials are calculating that Arab pressure could eventually prompt the Palestinians to go along.

Ambassadors from the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain attended the rollout, and Egypt and the U.A.E. issued statements in support. “Egypt calls on the two relevant parties to undertake a careful and thorough consideration of the U.S. vision to achieve peace and open channels of dialogue, under U.S. auspices,” the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

In a cautious statement on Twitter, the Saudi Foreign Ministry said the kingdom “encourages the start of direct peace negotiation between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the auspices of the United States…”

Jordan, however, took aim at one of the principle elements of the Trump plan by warning against “unilateral Israeli measures such as the annexation of Palestinian lands.”

The Trump administration unveiled a plan Tuesday for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. The plan included ‘conceptual’ maps that set aside more land for a Palestinian state, but allows Israel to immediately begin annexing Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley.



Notes: Palestinian areas in Trump’s proposal are approximate. The Green Line is the demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Sources: White House (Trump’s plan); United Nations (Oslo agreement)
Qatar hadn’t issued any statement as of Tuesday evening. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamin bin Hamad al-Thani on Tuesday.

Important elements of the plan have now been set in motion in a way that ensures substantial Israeli territorial gains regardless of what the Palestinians say or whether the plan is approved by other world powers or the United Nations.

The Palestinian Authority cut ties with the Trump administration after the U.S. in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but Mr. Trump called on it to engage now that the blueprint has been unveiled.

“There’s nothing tougher than this one,” Mr. Trump said, referring to brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr. Trump has said he wants to help Palestinians economically, and the plan vows to help marshal $50 billion in economic investment over 10 years if the Palestinians agree to its terms.

The incentives, part of an economic portion of the Mideast plan released last year, aim to double the Palestinian gross domestic product, slash Palestinian unemployment rates now at almost 18% in the West Bank and 52% in Gaza, and cut the Palestinian poverty rate in half, U.S. officials assert.

The plan was criticized by some Middle East experts as a ploy to boost Messrs. Netanyahu and Trump domestically while failing to narrow the deep-seated differences between Palestinians and the Israelis. Mr. Trump faces an impeachment trial while Mr. Netanyahu has been charged with bribery.

The blueprint outlines an Israeli-U.S. consensus on the most sensitive issues of the conflict—Jerusalem, borders, security, and refugees—that had until now been left for so-called final-status negotiations.

The plan grants Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem—a move the Palestinians have long rejected—with Palestinians gaining a capital in areas east and north of a barrier that Israel constructed along the outskirts of the city during the second intifada.

Arab residents of Jerusalem could choose to become citizens of Israel or of the new Palestinian state. Alternatively, they could remain permanent residents of Israel without becoming citizens of either state.

Regarding borders, the Palestinian footprint would more than double, to include about 80% of the West Bank, U.S. officials said. Land swaps between Israel and Palestinians would be used to enlarge Gaza, which also would be connected to the West Bank by high-speed rail. The “Triangle Communities”—Arab towns inside of Israel southeast of Haifa—could become part of the future Palestinian state under the plan.

Israel would get about 30% of the West Bank, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said, including the Jordan Valley and the Jewish settlements there.

Mr. Netanyahu pledged to act immediately to expand Israel’s borders, telling reporters Tuesday that he seek a cabinet vote on annexation Sunday.

On refugees, the plan rejects the right of return to land for Palestinians who left their homes after Israel’s creation in 1948. It says refugees can be absorbed into the Palestinian state, integrate into host countries or be resettled in regional countries who agree to take them. The plan also supports the creation of a fund to compensate some refugees.

The Palestinians must meet strict political and security conditions set by the plan to satisfy requirements for forming a state.

Most of those requirements have been rejected by Palestinians in the past. For instance, during the four-year negotiation period, the plan requires that they refrain from taking action against Israel in the International Criminal Court and dismiss their current claims.

They also must halt payments to families of Palestinians imprisoned in Israeli jails and to families of Palestinians killed while attacking Israelis or resisting Israel’s control of the Palestinian territories. Palestinian officials have argued that such funding is a social benefit that compensates for Israeli oppression and helps prevent families from radicalizing further.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How do you think relations between the U.S. and Israel will change, if at all? Join the conversation below.

The demands made of the Palestinians are all the more difficult given the divisions in their ranks. Hamas, considered by Israel and the U.S. to be a terrorist organization, controls the Gaza Strip after multiple failed reconciliation efforts with the Palestinian Authority, which controls the Palestinian parts of the West Bank. To satisfy the terms of Mr. Trump’s blueprint, Hamas would need to yield control of Gaza, which then would be demilitarized.

In recent years, Hamas’s leadership has said it would accept the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders—even though individual Hamas members continue to call for Israel’s destruction.

Mr. Friedman described the arrangements as a huge advancement and a “realistic two-state solution”—one that “mitigates many of the risks that were never solved in past negotiations.”

Tamara Cofman Wittes, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, said the proposals fail to provide a foundation for lasting peace. “They are structured as a diktat,” she said. “The administration has made it clear that it plans to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all the land indicated for the Israelis in Trump’s map, whether the Palestinians accept it or not.”

Title: War by other means- boycotts of Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2020, 07:45:36 AM

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2020/1/20/war-by-other-means

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors, Key points of the Peace Plan
Post by: DougMacG on January 29, 2020, 08:22:21 AM

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/The-Deal-of-the-Century-What-are-its-key-points-615680

Borders: Trump’s plan features a map of what Israel’s new borders will be, should it enact the plan fully. Israel will retain 20% of the West Bank and will lose a small amount of land in the Negev near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Palestinians will have a pathway to a state in the vast majority of territory in the West Bank, while Israel will maintain control of all borders. This is the first time a US president has provided a detailed map of this kind.
Jerusalem: The Palestinians will have a capital in east Jerusalem based on northern and eastern neighborhoods that are outside the Israeli security barrier – Kafr Akab, Abu Dis and half of Shuafat. Otherwise, Trump said Jerusalem will remain undivided as Israel’s capital.

Settlements: Israel will retain the Jordan Valley and all Israeli settlements in the West Bank in the broadest definition possible, meaning not the municipal borders of each settlement but their security perimeters. This also includes 15 isolated settlements, which will be enclaves within an eventual Palestinian state. Within those settlements Israel will not be able to build for the next four years. The IDF will have access to the isolated settlements. For the settlement part of the plan to go into effect, Israel will have to take action to apply sovereignty to the settlements, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he plans to do at the upcoming cabinet meeting on Sunday.

Security: Israel will be in control of security from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The IDF will not have to leave the West Bank. No change to Israel’s approach to Judea and Samaria would be needed.
Palestinian state: The plan does not include immediate recognition of a Palestinian state; rather, it expects a willingness on Israel’s part to create a pathway toward Palestinian statehood based on specific territory, which is about 70% of Judea and Samaria, including areas A and B and parts of Area C. The state will only come into existence in four years if the Palestinians accept the plan, if the Palestinian Authority stops paying terrorists and inciting terrorism and if Hamas and Islamic Jihad put down their weapons. In addition, the American plan calls on the Palestinians to give up corruption, respect human rights, freedom of religion and a free press, so that they don’t have a failed state. If those conditions are met, the US will recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan to assist it.

Refugees: A limited number of Palestinian refugees and their descendants will be allowed into the Palestinian state. None will enter Israel.

Triangle: The plan leaves open the possibility that Israel will swap the area known as the “Triangle” – consisting of Kafr Kara, Arara, Baka al-Gharbiya, Umm el-Fahm and more – into the future Palestinian state. According to the plan, “the Vision contemplates the possibility, subject to agreement of the parties, that the borders of Israel will be redrawn such that the Triangle Communities become part of the State of Palestine.”

Title: SA, Egypt, Qatar, and UAE welcome Trump peace plan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2020, 08:35:57 AM

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Saudi-Arabia-Egypt-Qatar-UAE-welcome-Trump-peace-plan-615752

Title: SA more pro Israel than Dem candidates
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2020, 03:25:40 PM

https://jewishjournal.com/columnist/310128/saudi-arabia-is-more-pro-israel-than-the-democratic-party/

Title: Re: SA more pro Israel than Dem candidates
Post by: G M on February 01, 2020, 04:57:19 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2020, 03:25:40 PM

https://jewishjournal.com/columnist/310128/saudi-arabia-is-more-pro-israel-than-the-democratic-party/

These days, that's a pretty low bar.

Title: Arab Isrealis do not want to be Palestinian
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2020, 11:54:51 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15516/arab-israelis-peace-plan

Title: Israel, and Africa
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 14, 2020, 12:54:05 PM

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8298/new-realities-in-africa-open-diplomatic

Title: Remember the Kuwaiti lesson
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2020, 11:14:01 PM

https://www.jerusalem-herald.com/single-post/2020/03/03/Beware-Of-A-Palestinian-State-The-Kuwaiti-Lesson

Title: Glick: Israel and the Demise of the Global Village
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2020, 07:39:38 AM

http://carolineglick.com/israel-and-the-demise-of-the-global-village/

Title: Israel, and Iran's new satellite
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 06, 2020, 06:49:09 PM

   Could Iran's New Spy Satellite Trigger an Israel-Iran War?
by Michael Peck
Uncommon Defense
May 5, 2020
https://www.meforum.org/60839/could-irans-new-satellite-trigger-an-israel-iran-war

Title: Chinese Embassador found dead
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2020, 07:42:49 AM

https://israelunwired.com/chinese-ambassador-found-dead/

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/05/chinas-ambassador-to-israel-found-dead-in-tel-aviv-home/?utm_campaign=DailyEmails&utm_source=AM_Email&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=b0ae89d831

Title: Sovereignty important step to Palestinian Defeat
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2020, 08:37:13 AM

Sovereignty Is an Important Step towards Palestinian Defeat
by Nave Dromi
JNS
May 27, 2020
https://www.meforum.org/61005/sovereignty-important-step-towards-palestinian-defeat

Title: Stratfor: Israel's annexation policy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2020, 05:19:55 PM

Israel's Annexation Plans Will Leave It in Need of New Allies
5 MINS READ
Jun 26, 2020 | 10:00 GMT
A picture shows the Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Kramim in the West Bank on June 18, 2020.
A picture shows the Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Kramim in the West Bank on June 18, 2020.

(MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP via Getty Images)

Israel's impending annexations in the West Bank will not spark immediate international backlash, but growing pro-Palestine sentiment in the United States and Europe will ultimately leave it politically and economically isolated in the long term. This will lead Israel to seek increased partnerships with countries whose citizens and politicians are less invested in the prospect of a Palestinian state, such as Russia and China, though doing so will come at the risk of further stoking U.S. ire.

Israel will most likely annex some major settlements in the West Bank on July 1, which the United States will acquiesce. 

Israel's emergency unity government, which was formed in April in light of the COVID-19 crisis, hinges on a pledge made by the country's major political factions to begin the annexation process outlined in the White House's Middle East peace plan. The plan, which was unveiled in January, envisions a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Territories in which large parts of the current West Bank remain under permanent Israeli control, including the strategic Jordan River Valley. And since then, the United States and Israel have been cooperating on a mapping project to implement that vision.

The United States has signaled some displeasure with the annexation strategy's pace and scope, but not with annexation itself. This has manifested in mild U.S. pressure to adjust how much West Bank territory Israel will seize starting July 1, though Washington has yet to threaten any significant diplomatic, economic or military action.

Europe, for its part, will voice its diplomatic opposition to annexation, but the bloc's consensus-based policy-making process will make sanctions and other major penalties difficult to pass.

The European Union and the United Kingdom are both diplomatically opposed to annexation but have not signaled interest in a major isolation or punitive sanctions campaign.

But while the veto power held by pro-Israel EU states such as Czechia and Hungary will limit the European Union's ability to impose significant bloc-wide sanctions against Israel, Brussels may move to suspend its research and trade agreements with Israel that don't require consensus votes, as well as block future deals. 

Demographic trends in the United States and Europe, however, favor increased opposition to annexation in the long term, which will eventually entrench a Palestinian state as a political goal in these Western societies. 

Changing political forces in Europe and the United Kingdom have made it clear major parts of the continent oppose annexation. On June 24, for example, over 1,000 European lawmakers signed a petition advocating against annexation. 

In the United States, the Democratic Party will also feel pressure from the progressive side of its base to penalize Israel for blocking Palestinian statehood if Democrats take control of additional branches of the U.S. government. Such a shift in U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could come as early as January 2021, should former Vice President and Democratic candidate Joe Biden — who has criticized Israel's current annexation process as a “huge mistake" — win the November presidential election.

As political opposition to annexation builds in the West, Israel will pivot toward China, India and Russia for economic and political partnerships.

China, Russia and India have less historical interest in a Palestinian state and weak domestic political opposition to annexations. As a result, they will be free to continue to build up relations with Israel even after annexation and the weakening prospect of a Palestinian state.   

Because of their economic and military importance, Israel will seek enhanced partnerships with these three countries, including new technology and trade deals, to offset losses from the declining relationships with Europe and the United States,
But pivots to China and Russia will likely produce even more pushback from the United States, which will especially hinder Israel's ability to grow its more lucrative relationship with Beijing.


Washington will likely view Israeli attempts to build up economic relations with China as a potential national security threat, and will thus likely pressure Israel to reduce or even eliminate such ties with Beijing.

Israeli moves to cozy up with Russia will also result in increased scrutiny if they appear to contravene American interests. Russia and Israel's sometimes conflicting interests in Syria and Iran, however, will limit the scope of any new ties between them.

As political opposition to annexation builds in the U.S. and Europe, Israel will seek to expand its ties with countries less invested in Palestinian statehood, such as China and Russia.

Israel will still be able to continue to improve relations with nearby Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, but at a slower pace, as their Arab populations adjust to the reality of annexation.

GCC states have all signaled diplomatic opposition to annexation. But some states, such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman, have small enough populations with a receding interest in a Palestinian state that their governments will be able to largely keep their outreaches to Israel on track, if not always public.

Saudi Arabia has a larger population with a strong interest in a Palestinian state, and will thus need to allow its citizens more time to adjust to the reality of annexation, slowing the pace of enhanced Saudi-Israeli relations. Cooperation not in the public eye, however, will still be possible thanks to Riyadh's control of local media and its ability to frame Saudi-Israeli ties in a manner that does not engender major domestic blowback.

As they shift focus to Palestinians' status post-annexation, citizens across the Arab Gulf will increasingly call for GCC-Israeli relations to be hinged on the political rights of Palestinians under Israeli control, rather than for Palestinian statehood. 

Title: Amid Wuhan spikes, Israel slows annexation push
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 02, 2020, 12:39:49 PM

Amid Spiking COVID-19 Cases, Israel Slows Its Annexation Push
2 MINS READ
Jul 2, 2020 | 15:49 GMT
Israel is slowing, but not yet stopping, its annexation plans in the face of a COVID-19 resurgence and possible future changes to its relationship with the United States, forestalling Palestinian unrest and international backlash. The acceleration of these two trends — further COVID-19 infections and U.S. President Donald Trump's sliding approval ratings — could upend the annexation process by convincing Israel to shrink its scope or even commit to a long-term delay.

After signing a unity government deal in April, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to begin annexing large parts of the West Bank on July 1.
But on June 28, Israel's defense minister and future prime minister, Benny Gantz, said that the July 1 annexation date was "not sacred," suggesting he would oppose immediate border changes. Gantz also cited the country's COVID-19 outbreak as the government's current priority, with new waves of infections appearing across the country.
As July 1 came, Israel announced no annexations, and sources close to Netanyahu indicated that the government would wait for further negotiations with the United States to make territorial changes.
Israel's government appears to be delaying the annexations until it at least has a new round of COVID-19 lockdowns under control, the enforcement of which will require significant investments in political capital and security forces. Since annexation is likely to incur backlash from Palestinians, it seems the government has decided that COVID-19 is currently a better use of its legitimacy and resources.

Israel is also increasingly uncertain it will have the long-term backing of the United States, and is looking for avenues to minimize the annexation's potential damage to its U.S. relationship should President Trump lose power in November's election. Amid a surge of social unrest, job losses, and COVID-19 cases in the United States, Trump's approval ratings have continued to fall in recent weeks, and his main challenger, Joe Biden, is strongly opposed to annexation. In light of this threat, the Israelis are emphasizing the joint mapping process that the two countries are working on for the future borders, which is designed to create obstacles for policy changes under a post-Trump presidency by attaching the legitimacy of border changes to the United States.

Title: MEF: Israel vs. Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2020, 08:36:27 PM

https://www.meforum.org/61345/hezbollah-complicated-strategic-calculus

Title: GPF: The Ups and Downs of Turkey-Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 09, 2020, 08:50:54 AM

   
    The Ups and Downs of Turkish-Israeli Relations
By: Hilal Khashan
Sept. 9, 2020

In 1949, Turkey recognized the state of Israel, becoming the first Muslim country to exchange diplomatic missions with it. Since then, their relations have gone through many highs and lows. In 2004, the American Jewish Congress gave then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan its Profile of Courage award because of his positive attitude toward Israel and the world’s Jewry. Ten years later, it asked him to return it because of his virulent criticism of Israel – which he “gladly” did. Turkish-Israeli relations are once again at a low point, following clashes over the Palestinian issue among other things. But it’s unlikely they will stay that way; both countries are in need of regional allies, and their economic and security interests will outweigh any diplomatic disputes or gestures of disapproval.

The Honeymoon Phase

The relationship between the state of Israel and Turkey extends back decades. In 1957, the two countries established secret intelligence and security relations in response to the Soviet Union’s penetration into the Middle East to supply Egypt and Syria with military hardware and technical assistance. A year later, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion met secretly with his Turkish counterpart and formed the Peripheral Pact, an alliance devoted to military and intelligence cooperation and containing communism.

However, they have also been at odds at various points throughout their relationship. In 1956, Turkey downgraded its diplomatic mission to Israel after Israel participated in the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt. Ankara did so again in 1980 when the Israeli parliament voted to annex the Golan Heights. Turkey voted in favor of U.N. Resolution 3379 that equated Zionism with racism in 1975 and allowed the Palestine Liberation Organization to open an office in Ankara in 1979. Indeed, though the Turks never questioned Israel’s right to exist, the Palestinian issue has been a persistent roadblock to improving ties between the two countries.

But after the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Washington in 1993, Turkey and Israel went through a diplomatic honeymoon phase. The Palestinian Authority was formed shortly thereafter, in 1994, and Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, who led the secular True Path Party, visited Gaza and promised to support the Palestinians in any way she could, including by helping to build an airport, a harbor, housing and other infrastructure projects.

The honeymoon lasted a decade and in addition to improved economic and tourism ties included security partnership and technology transfers that helped strengthen the Turkish military. Contrary to expectations, Turkish-Israeli relations actually strengthened after Necmettin Erbakan, who led the Islamist Refah Party, became prime minister in 1996. During his brief time in office, Turkey agreed to allow Israeli air force pilots to train in Turkish air space.

Deteriorating Relations

Their relationship began to change in 2003 when Recep Tayyip Erdogan became prime minister. After Israel assassinated Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Erdogan described his killing as state terrorism. And in September 2007, the Israeli air force flew over Turkish air space during a mission to destroy an illicit Syrian nuclear reactor northeast of Damascus, thwarting Turkey’s efforts to make peace between Syria and Israel.

In 2008, Erdogan walked out of a World Economic Forum summit in Davos to protest Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement. And in 2009, he blocked the Israeli air force from participating in the Anatolian Eagle exercises because of Israel’s offensive in Gaza that year, causing the drills to be canceled.

Relations bottomed out in 2010, when Israeli commandoes killed 10 Turkish activists aboard the Mavi Marmara as the ship tried to break the blockade against Gaza. After Israel refused to apologize for the incident, Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador to Ankara.

Still, the two countries continued to cooperate on several fronts. In 2012, Israel repaired five Israeli-built Heron unmanned aerial vehicles and returned them to Turkey. Turkey used them to manufacture its own Bayraktar drones, which were used in Libya and Syria. That same year, Erdogan dispatched a high-level representative to meet with Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an effort to revive diplomatic relations. In 2013, Israel’s Elta Systems agreed, after U.S. prodding, to deliver to the Turkish air force airborne electronic systems to fit on four Boeing-737s as a confidence-building measure to lay to rest the Mavi Marmara flotilla affair. Then, in 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama helped broker a rapprochement as the two countries restored diplomatic relations and returned their ambassadors to their posts.

But the warming of relations did not last long. Turkey again expelled the Israeli ambassador in response to Israel’s killing of 290 Palestinian demonstrators demanding an end to the blockade of Gaza in 2018. After openly admitting to intelligence sharing for 24 years, Turkey refused to publicize its intelligence meetings with Israel. It has continued to wield influence among dozens of Palestinian groups inside Israel’s green line, including Jerusalem, through financial aid and other types of support.

Every time Israel attacks Gaza and inflicts significant casualties, Erdogan labels it state terrorism. He has repeatedly warned that he will not allow Israel to annex parts of the West Bank. But his threats ring hollow. It would be militarily unwise and politically impossible for Turkey to stop Israel from moving into the Palestinian territories. Indeed, his threats are mostly rhetorical and don’t extend much beyond recalling ambassadors and decreasing diplomatic missions. The two countries continue to share economic interests that have always risen above their political disagreements. In fact, despite their frayed relationship, the value of their trade increased from $4.7 billion in 2015 to $6.1 billion in 2019.

The two countries also continue to coordinate on security matters, as adversarial countries often do to prevent further deterioration of relations. The last known meeting between the Turkish and Israeli intelligence chiefs occurred in Washington in January. Both countries share concerns over the presence of Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, in Syria. In fact, Israel Defense Forces followed with great interest the Turkish army’s defeat of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan unit in Idlib last February.

Rebuilding the Relationship

Following the Arab uprisings, Erdogan believed that political change would sweep the region and bolster Turkey’s regional position. But the counterrevolutions dashed his hopes for regional supremacy and turned many Arab states against Ankara. Israel, however, is still eager to restore close ties with Turkey, which it believes can help counter the Iranian threat. Ankara’s growing ties in Central Asia and its promotion of pan-Turkism complicate Tehran’s ability to expand into these former Soviet republics where Russian, Chinese and American influences are paramount.

Erdogan was highly critical of the recent Israeli-Emirati peace agreement, but he’s unlikely to make any retaliatory moves. The deal includes a powerful component on the structure of the region’s future economy, and Turkey does not want to be excluded. Its chances of joining the European Union are slim, and its exclusion from the unfolding economy of the Middle East would ruin its prospects for economic development. Although a 2020 Israeli intelligence report included Turkey in the list of countries and organizations that pose a threat to Israel’s national security, Israeli decision-makers tend to view Erdogan’s fiery rhetoric as strategically insignificant, more of an aggravation than a real threat. Israel is keen on maintaining an open channel of communication with Turkey, irrespective of what Erdogan says.

Among Turkey’s biggest concerns over Israel is its cooperation with Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean. The exclusive economic zone that Turkey recently declared in the Eastern Mediterranean technically overlaps with shipping routes used for 99 percent of Israel’s foreign trade. But there is potential for cooperation between the two countries in this area. Israel isn’t opposed to signing a maritime agreement with Turkey to ease tensions in the region; it actually declined to endorse a joint declaration in May signed by the foreign ministers of France, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the UAE denouncing Turkish provocation in the Eastern Mediterranean. And considering its dire economic state and need for natural resources, Turkey would likely also be open to maintaining good working relations with Israel (and, by extension, Washington).
 
(click to enlarge)

The litmus test of improving Turkish-Israeli relations is the resumption of their diplomatic relations at the ambassador level. Turkey, which is now isolated from much of the Middle East and Europe, has a compelling reason to restore ties. Israel, which has forged strong relations with all of Ankara’s adversaries, likewise is looking for more allies in the region. In reference to Necmettin Erbakan’s ascension to the role of prime minister in the 1990s, Israeli President Shimon Peres said, “Governments may change, but basic interests remain.” These two countries don’t need to agree on everything, but what they have in common exceeds what separates them.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 29, 2020, 10:19:15 AM

For Israel, a New U.S. President Could Mean a Renewed Anti-Iran Push
6 MINS READ
Sep 29, 2020 | 10:00 GMT
An illustration shows the flags of Israel and Iran painted on a cracked wall.
An illustration shows the flags of Israel and Iran painted on a cracked wall.
(icedmocha/Shutterstock.com)
A victory by U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden in November could prompt Israel to escalate its attacks against Iran in both current and new theaters across the Middle East in order to derail a potential U.S. return to diplomacy with Israel’s regional archnemesis. Before the U.S. election, Israel is unlikely to significantly alter its current strategy of recurrent, opportunistic strikes against Iranian forces in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, since Tehran’s nuclear program is not yet showing signs of the imminent development of a nuclear weapon. Increased attacks against Iran in the coming weeks would also risk jeopardizing the electoral prospects of Israel’s close U.S. ally, President Donald Trump, who is trying to use his reputation as a regional peace broker to bolster his chances of reelection in November. Moreover, Israel’s current “shadow war” with Iran, fought through proxy theaters and covertly within Iran itself, can continue to allow Israel to degrade Iranian regional capabilities without increasing the risk of regional conflict. The potential for a Biden win in November, however, could change this calculus by opening the door for a less hawkish U.S. posture toward Iran.

Iran’s nuclear program is progressing, but not quickly enough to alarm Israel. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have said that Iran is enriching uranium only to 4.5 percent. While the level of these stocks has increased, the enrichment level is lower than the 20 percent enrichment level that triggered Israel to seriously consider a direct strike on Iran in 2012. It is unclear how fast Iran could develop a nuclear weapon, but it would likely require sustained enrichment at 90 percent, which international inspectors (and potentially Western and Israeli intelligence agencies) would detect.
Israel does not want to undercut Trump’s campaign strategy of using normalization deals, such as Israel’s new U.S.-brokered agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, to promote himself as a regional peacemaker to war-weary American voters. Trump has also been drawing down forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of this political strategy.
Under its current anti-Iran campaign, Israel has continued to carry out strikes, both covert and overt, on Iranian targets regionally. On Sept. 10, Israeli warplanes struck an alleged Iranian missile facility outside of the Syrian city of Aleppo. Israeli agents were also widely believed to be behind the July 2 sabotage attack against Iran’s Natanz enrichment site, which potentially set back Iran’s nuclear program by damaging a centrifuge assembly workshop.
Biden’s statements on Iran suggest his administration would scale back Trump’s aggressive anti-Iran strategy, raising the potential for reduced sanctions, resumed humanitarian aid and, most importantly for Israel, the beginning of negotiations for a new nuclear deal. As president, Biden could readily reverse the tough sanctions Trump has imposed, including the most recent ones passed on Sept. 21, in an attempt to restart negotiations with Tehran. A Biden administration would also be less likely to tolerate regionwide Israeli strikes that could jeopardize such negotiations, particularly in sensitive countries such as Iraq where the United States is directly competing for influence with Iran.

In a CNN op-ed published on September 13, Biden wrote that as president, he would use the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a starting point to renew negotiations with Iran, as well as would loosen sanctions on humanitarian aid to Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Sept. 21, the Trump administration signaled its intent to continue to unilaterally enforce the U.N. arms embargo by sanctioning over two dozen people and entities associated with Iran’s arms industry. Biden’s campaign, by contrast, has stated they would move away from this unilateral method to pressure Iran’s regional behavior, and would instead begin to reengage international partners that have opposed Trump’s maximum pressure sanctions strategy.
The Trump administration has not criticized Israeli military actions against Iran, including even the controversial Israeli strikes on Iraq in July 2019. Under Biden, the White House is not guaranteed to give such diplomatic and military leeway for Israeli strikes.
Israeli Military Action
Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz opposed a 2012 proposition to directly attack Iran, in part because of opposition from the then-administration of President Barack Obama. Israeli law requires the agreement of senior ministers in the country’s security cabinet to carry out military action, granting Gantz significant leverage over a direct strike on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Past policy suggests that Israel would position itself to undermine any potential diplomatic progress between a future Biden administration and Iran. This could include a more hawkish airstrike strategy and intense lobbying in the United States, as well as an escalated covert campaign that could renew assassinations or attacks on vital infrastructure in Iran.

Israel could increase the overall pace of attacks against Iranian forces, as well as go after targets previously avoided for fear of escalation (particularly in Syria and Lebanon). Israel could also potentially add new theaters, such as the Red Sea or Yemen, to its airstrike campaign, in addition to increasing activity in its current theaters of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

Israel may escalate its covert campaign both inside Iran and in regional proxy theaters. This could include a repeat of its 2010-2012 assassination campaign against Iranian scientists, and/or an expansion of covert operations in other proxy theaters such as Yemen, where the Iran-aligned Houthis remain entrenched.

Despite changing political and demographic conditions weakening its relationship with the U.S. Democratic Party, Israel still has notable bipartisan support in Congress, and its lobbying efforts could thus slow negotiations or create legislative obstacles to another new Iranian nuclear deal. In 2015, Israeli lobbying in Washington helped create a bipartisan U.S. coalition against the JCPOA brokered by former President Barack Obama’s administration. As a result, the Senate never ratified the nuclear deal as a formal treaty, which later allowed Trump to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement without Congressional oversight.

In addition to degrading Iranian forces across the region, this more hawkish Israeli strategy could help undercut a Washington-Tehran rapprochement by provoking Iranian retaliation. Israeli military action against Iran could spark an Iranian nationalist backlash, increasing support for hardliners in Iran’s presidential election coming in June 2021. These hardliners are less likely to renegotiate a new deal with the United States without a substantial change in America’s Iran policy, potentially creating greater diplomatic daylight between the two before negotiations could seriously begin.

Such actions, however, are not guaranteed to provoke Iran, and would risk undermining Israel’s relationship with a new Biden administration. Escalated military action against Tehran could be seen negatively by a potential Biden administration trying to negotiate a reduction in hostilities, risking backlash from Israel’s key American allies.

Title: Stratfor: Hamas, Fatah, and Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2020, 07:10:00 AM

Abandoned by Old Allies, Palestinian Leaders Turn to Turkey -- and Each Other
4 MINS READ
Oct 1, 2020 | 10:00 GMT

A masked Hamas militant mans a machine gun in the back of a pickup truck in the Palestinian city of Rafah, located in the southern Gaza Strip, on Oct. 17, 2019. The yellow flags of the Palestinian party Fatah can also be seen in the background.
A masked Hamas militant mans a machine gun in the back of a pickup truck in the Palestinian city of Rafah, located in the southern Gaza Strip, on Oct. 17, 2019. The yellow flags of the Palestinian party Fatah can also be seen in the background.

(SAID KHATIB/AFP via Getty Images)

What Happened

A Turkey-brokered agreement to hold the first Palestinian elections in 15 years suggests a new appetite for cooperation between the territories’ staunch political rivals, along with a new mediating role for Ankara, in light of warming Israeli-Arab Gulf relations. On Sept. 23-24, high-level representatives from Palestinian parties Fatah and Hamas met in Istanbul for a two-day discussion hosted by Turkey’s foreign ministry. After the meeting, a Hamas spokesperson announced that the two parties — which have been engaged in more than a decade of infighting — had agreed to begin planning elections within six months.

Hamas’s surprise electoral victory in 2006 risked jeopardizing the political dominance Fatah had carefully built over years. Since then, the two sides have been locked in a fierce political battle, with controversy over when and how to hold the territories’ next round of elections at the core.

Why It Matters

Israel’s new peace deals with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have augmented both Hamas and Fatah’s shared sense of abandonment by the traditional patrons of Palestinian statehood. Despite their intense political rivalry, both parties are deeply concerned about the territories’ dwindling diplomatic and financial support from neighboring Arab Gulf states who have traditionally been important Palestinian allies. This has created a rare space for a compromise between Hamas and Fatah to avoid further isolation from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and potentially others, as they normalize their ties with Israel.

The Palestinian finance ministry says it has not received financial aid from any Arab Gulf country since March 2020.
The level of overall foreign aid the Palestinian Authority has received has also decreased by 50 percent since the beginning of 2020, due in part to the United States’ move to cut off all aid to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip beginning in February 2019.

Turkey, meanwhile, is capitalizing on the shifting regional dynamics created by the normalization deals to bolster its own credentials as a champion of the Palestinian cause. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates once played a strong role in mediating between Hamas and Fatah, but in recent years, these have reduced their involvement in Palestinian political affairs. This has, in turn, left a vacuum of influence that Ankara is now seeking to fill, as evidenced by its role in hosting the recent talks that yielded an election agreement. The Turkish government will continue seeking to host future rounds of reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas as it tries to increase its political leverage with the Palestinians and popularity in the broader Muslim world, in which Palestinian statehood has long been a galvanizing cause.

What to Watch For

Long-awaited elections. Elections are not guaranteed, as Hamas has said the two parties still need to finalize a concrete deal. But the fact that the Istanbul meeting has started the conversation — breaking one of the most stagnant impasses between the two parties — has opened the door for the territories’ first ballot in more than a decade.

Additional breakthroughs between Fatah and Hamas. Both parties remain divided on a strategic roadmap to a Palestinian state, but the tentative agreement on elections has proven that compromise is possible. With Turkey’s help, improved goodwill between Fatah and Hamas may pave the way for more progress on other difficult decisions regarding leadership and policy.
The next generation of Palestinian leaders. Ongoing negotiations on elections between Fatah and Hamas will yield clues about who from each party is best positioned for long-term leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

Continued clashes over Israel. Hamas’ greater embrace of violence as a tool to retaliate against Israel and build popular legitimacy remains its largest differentiator from Fatah, who instead prefers peaceful negotiations with Israel to establish Palestinian statehood. Hamas and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority have expressed similar fears about Israel’s annexation push in the West Bank and apparent disregard of Palestinian concerns. But the two parties will continue to clash over how to best respond to such Israeli threats.

===============================

Arrest Sheds New Light on Joint Hizballah/Quds Force Terror Unit
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
October 1, 2020
https://www.investigativeproject.org/8574/arrest-sheds-new-light-on-joint-hizballah-quds
 

Title: Saudis fed up with Palestinians
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2020, 07:20:25 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16622/saudi-arabia-fed-up-palestinians

Title: Stratfor: Youth headed to the right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2020, 04:54:50 AM

Where Will Israel’s Increasingly Right-Wing Youth Take Its Foreign Policy?
Ryan Bohl
Ryan Bohl
Middle East and North Africa Analyst, Stratfor
6 MINS READ
Dec 4, 2020 | 21:38 GMT


(MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP via Getty Images)
HIGHLIGHTS

Israel's youth population is pushing the country decidedly to the political right. As the transition to this age cohort unfolds, the question of which Israeli nationalist party will be in charge comes to the fore. Will they be incrementally expansionist, security-minded, economically-focused types of parties like Likud? Or will they be more ideologically committed to the cause of annexing settlements types of parties like Yamina? Or will they be religiously-focused, culturally conservative, increasingly demographically muscular types of parties like the ultra-Orthodox party Shas? The predominance of one of these three types will have consequences for Israel's regional security posture, on occasion bringing it in line with some new allies in the Gulf while reaffirming enmity with Iran and Turkey....

Israel's youth population is pushing the country decidedly to the political right. As the transition to this age cohort unfolds, the question of which Israeli nationalist party will be in charge comes to the fore. Will they be incrementally expansionist, security-minded, economically-focused types of parties like Likud? Or will they be more ideologically committed to the cause of annexing settlements types of parties like Yamina? Or will they be religiously-focused, culturally conservative, increasingly demographically muscular types of parties like the ultra-Orthodox party Shas? The predominance of one of these three types will have consequences for Israel's regional security posture, on occasion bringing it in line with some new allies in the Gulf while reaffirming enmity with Iran and Turkey.

Who Are Israel's Young Nationalists?

Unlike many other democracies, Israel's youth vote is nationalist, comprising the base of right-wing nationalist parties like Likud and of settler-friendly parties like Yamina and the ultra-Orthodox parties like Shas. During Israel's interminable series of elections in 2019-20, the country's largely nationalist youth cohort gave an advantage to Netanyahu versus the centrism of his opponent, Benny Gantz. These Israeli Millennials and Gen Zers, born mostly after 1980, came of age in an era of intractable conflict, where peace was often restored through military deterrence rather than diplomacy and where economic pressures and rising religious feeling made West Bank settlements seem proper despite an unending chorus of international condemnation.


Some of them are the grandchildren of the country's original, often center-left, founders. But many are also the descendants of post-Soviet Jewish immigrants who infused Israel with new right-wing political and social traditions. They represent the fruit of a baby boom of the ultra-Orthodox, a group that has gone from 5% of Israeli's population in 1990 to around 12% today. They agree on broad aspects of Israel, like its Jewish identity, its need for peace through strength, a desire for close cooperation with the United States, and a willingness to brush past international norms when seen as in Israel's interest.

Natural Israeli Regional Allies, and Enemies

Many states are experiencing nationalist surges, increasing the role of traditional culture in everyday life, seeking greater defense independence and capability, and shedding their adherence to the post-World War II order when it suits them. For Israel in particular, it has also meant a drift toward militarily hawkish policies against rivals like Iran and its proxies, expansion and territorial annexation at home, and a desire to find ways to lessen Israel's exposure to international institutions and pressures that might try to shift its behavior.


It has regional allies in its pursuit of some of those goals, namely, pushing back Iranian power and deemphasizing the global human rights, legal institutions and international traditions that can constrain a state's policies. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to differing extents have similar goals, and it is that commonality that is helping drive the present normalization of Arab ties with Israel. As Israel drifts further to the right, these relationships seem likely to solidify, with economic and social ties growing between these countries cementing their bonds. As they reinterpret their national interests, these newfound allies will also see less of a threat from Israel's drift toward a one-state solution as the Palestinian issue — once an ideological mainstay of Arab states — is demoted below new national imperatives like Iran, economic diversification and defense independence.

But Iran and, to a lesser extent, Turkey will remain rivals. While they are swinging toward nationalism, too, their nationalist ideology includes an anti-Israel component. Iran has shown no sign it will move away from its virulently anti-Israeli platform. Though it has a treaty with Israel, Turkey is also drifting toward a Turkish-Islamist nationalism that views Israel with hostility, and which provides quick political points when invoked by the ruling party.
 
Closer to home, however, are the Palestinians. Israeli nationalists tacitly are moving toward a one-state solution to the Palestinian issue. As Israeli settlements grow, and annexations — whether de jure or de facto — carve up the West Bank, questions over what will become of Palestinians living in rump enclaves will grow. There are various solutions, ranging from wholesale annexations and nationalization of Palestinians that might upend Israel's internal demographics and politics to potential autonomous zones that would assuage Israeli security fears while preventing Palestinians from entering Israel's voter rolls.
 
The impact on Israel's rightward drift in its relationships with Europe and the United States is less certain. In these Western allies, rising tides of largely left-wing youth voters do show some demographic muscle and political interest in reinforcing the postwar global norms and human rights concerns Israel's right-wing sometimes butts up against. Even now, this left-wing cohort is seeking to shape the incoming Biden Cabinet, where human rights will likely take a higher priority than under U.S. President Donald Trump. But at the same time, Europe and the United States have less and less interest in micromanaging the Middle East; recurrent attempts to find a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians have befuddled president after president, and the matter does not appear to be a high priority for the incoming White House.
 
And unlike in the 1990s and 2000s, when the United States was able to implement unilateral strategies in the Middle East, Israel has ways to counteract some of that pressure. It can expand its economic and security relationships with its new Gulf Arab allies, themselves concerned they might feel U.S. pressure to change policies. But it can also go farther afield, to Russia and China, which after decades of military and economic growth can increasingly offer real offsets to America's still considerable economic and defense influence in Israel. The mere threat of that pivot, whether to Moscow or Beijing or both, might be enough to thwart some U.S. attempts to reshape Israeli policies.

Meanwhile, there is much Israeli's three right-wing strands disagree on. For example, the ultra-Orthodox show little sign they are willing to abandon cherished principles and join Israel Defense Forces, even as their youth numbers swell. This alarms the other factions, which worry such principles will undermine the effectiveness of Israel's military over time. Meanwhile, more ideological settlers wish not merely to bend international norms but to break them and to move for formal annexation, while more center-right parties don't want to risk ties with the outside world with such sudden brash behavior.


With the right-wing likely to be a more and more dominant force in Israel, right-wing coalitions and their prime ministers will give form to how these ideologies impact Israel's regional behavior. Some prime ministers will be elected on hawkish but essentially conservative platforms, taking risks in pursuit of principle when it suits them politically and diplomatically, like Netanyahu has made a political career of. Others might be more like Naftali Bennett of Yamina, who has signaled he would pursue expanded settlements and annexations in spite of the diplomatic and potential security backlash. What therefore may end up defining Israeli behavior the most as it turns to the right is not so much the external pressure of allies, but rather the dynamic among right-wing factions.

Title: Stratfor: Election a battle of hawkish policies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2020, 02:36:16 PM

Israel’s Next Election Will Be a Battle of Hawkish Policies
4 MINS READ
Dec 9, 2020 | 22:07 GMT
HIGHLIGHTS

The imminent end of Israel’s unity government will prompt more pledges of aggressive West Bank annexations and hawkish foreign policies by pinning the country’s right-wing factions against each other in what will be a highly contentious election season. The unity government between the Blue and White party and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party will not last much longer, with the latter now pushing through a bill that would dissolve the Knesset and call new elections. On Dec. 9, the second-in-command of Netanyahu’s party, Gideon Sa’ar, also announced he would be leaving Lukid to run for prime minister under a new party he had formed called New Hope. Sa’ar’s move to directly challenge Netanyahu has further shaken up Israel’s right-wing political scene ahead of what’s likely to be a highly contentious election season, where Netanyahu’s right-wing rivals will have all the more incentive to capitalize on popular discontent with his...

The imminent end of Israel’s unity government will prompt more pledges of aggressive West Bank annexations and hawkish foreign policies by pinning the country’s right-wing factions against each other in what will be a highly contentious election season. The unity government between the Blue and White party and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party will not last much longer, with the latter now pushing through a bill that would dissolve the Knesset and call new elections. On Dec. 9, the second-in-command of Netanyahu’s party, Gideon Sa’ar, also announced he would be leaving Lukid to run for prime minister under a new party he had formed called New Hope. Sa’ar’s move to directly challenge Netanyahu has further shaken up Israel’s right-wing political scene ahead of what’s likely to be a highly contentious election season, where Netanyahu’s right-wing rivals will have all the more incentive to capitalize on popular discontent with his management of the COVID-19 pandemic and corruption charges, as well as his foreign policy weaknesses when it comes to Iran and the Gaza Strip.

Beyond the COVID-19 crisis, there is little else keeping Israel’s unity government from falling apart. The government was formed in April 2020 just as the first wave of COVID-19 infections reached Israel. The government’s mandate included a national lockdown to curb the spread of the virus, along with a power-sharing deal to end the country’s political paralysis. Under that deal, Gantz was slated to replace Netanyahu as prime minister in November 2021. But to avoid that transfer of power, Netanyahu and his Likud party have since been attempting to undermine confidence in the unity government through various means. This most recently included sparking a heated debate over the timeline of the country’s next budget, which eventually compelled Gantz and his Blue and White party to push to dissolve the Knesset.

Netanyahu is concerned that losing the premiership would expose him to the criminal charges he faces in at least three corruption cases. He is also concerned that turning power over to Gantz will mean the end of Netanyahu’s political career, some Israeli prime ministers never returned to power after leaving the post.

Israel’s budget debate is centered on whether it should encompass one or two years of expenses. A two-year budget would make it more difficult for Netanyahu to dissolve the Knesset to prevent Gantz from taking over in 2021, which is why Gantz has pushed for a one-year budget.

Sa’ar’s entry into the field will propel right-wing promises that could affect Israel’s foreign policies in the West Bank, Iran and Gaza. Sa’ar is a nationalist who has favored settlements and annexations in the past, and his path to unseating Netanyahu runs through Likud nationalists disenchanted with the prime minister’s leadership. To ensure those former votes don’t go to Sa’ar’s New Hope party, Likud will be tempted to ramp up its annexation promises, as well as adopt more hawkish foreign policies to boost Netanyahu’s national security credentials. This could signal future shifts in Israel’s regional behavior by increasing the political influence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, as well as Iran and Gaza hawks, in foreign policy discussions.

In the run-up to the April 2020 election, Netanyahu promised to begin annexing more territory on July 1. But he has since held off on fulfilling that pledge in order to pave the way for normalization with the United Arab Emirates. This delay has angered Netanyahu’s settler supporters, prompting some to shift their allegiance to Likud’s rival right-wing party, Yamina.

Right-wing Israelis have largely hailed Netanyahu’s aggressive anti-Iran strategy, which it has been able to conduct without fear of U.S. pushback over the past four years thanks to President Donald Trump’s similarly hawkish approach to Tehran. But Netanyahu’s right-wing rivals are now arguing he will be unable no to deliver the same level of strategic security coordination with the United States after Trump leaves office in January, given Netanyahu’s much less friendly relationship with U.S. President-elect Joe Biden.
Nationalists are also critical of Netanyahu’s record of unstable aid-for-peace truces with Hamas, pushing instead for a strategy that relies more on military deterrence to secure the Gaza Strip.

Title: Stratfor: Next for the Palestinian cause?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2020, 11:00:01 AM

As the Road to Statehood Narrows, What’s Next for the Palestinian Cause?
6 MINS READ
Dec 22, 2020 | 10:00 GMT

HIGHLIGHTS

The Palestinians are facing the increasingly likely prospect of Israel imposing a one-state solution at a time when the world is preoccupied with other regional priorities. Iran’s threatening behavior, as well as the growing trend of Israeli-Arab normalization, has placed Palestinian statehood on the backburner over the past year, creating space for an ever-more nationalistic Israel to enact policies with a freer hand. As the next decade unfolds, the Palestinians will be forced to choose between either shifting focus to their nationalization inside Israel, or adopting a wait-and-see approach in the hopes that their cause regains its former importance. Settling for anything less than statehood, however, will risk spurring another surge of militancy and unrest. But depending on the stabilization of the region’s geopolitical climate will also risk leaving the Palestinians’ political future to fate. ...

The Palestinians are facing the increasingly likely prospect of Israel imposing a one-state solution at a time when the world is preoccupied with other regional priorities. Iran’s threatening behavior, as well as the growing trend of Israeli-Arab normalization, has placed Palestinian statehood on the backburner over the past year, creating space for an ever-more nationalistic Israel to enact policies with a freer hand. As the next decade unfolds, the Palestinians will be forced to choose between either shifting focus to their nationalization inside Israel, or adopting a wait-and-see approach in the hopes that their cause regains its former importance. Settling for anything less than statehood, however, will risk spurring another surge of militancy and unrest. But depending on the stabilization of the region’s geopolitical climate will also risk leaving the Palestinians’ political future to fate.

A Year of Setbacks

The tumultuous past year has caused the Palestinian cause to slide down to the bottom of regional priorities. In January, a near-miss regional war between the United States and Iran highlighted how the Middle East’s geopolitics now hinged on Tehran, not Ramallah. That same month, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump also unveiled its “vision for peace” plan, which enabled Israeli expansionism. Then, in the latter half of the year, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan all inked normalization pacts with Israel without requiring the promise of Palestinian statehood as a precondition. Even the election of a less overtly Israel-friendly U.S. administration in November has offered little solace for Palestinians, as U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has yet to signal he’ll pressure Israel to reverse its Trump-era territorial gains.

And there is little sign the trends that have usurped the Palestinian cause will change. Public opinion polls show that Arab Gulf citizens are losing interest in the issue. The Europeans, meanwhile, have proven unwilling to go beyond symbolic pushback against Israeli strategies. And no other great power — including Turkey, Russia and China — appears ready to step up on against Israeli encroachment in the Palestinian territories.

Reckoning With the One-State Trend

Given this dwindling support for statehood, the Palestinians will be less able to rely on outside powers to pressure Israeli policies. As it stands, Israel is pursuing a strategy likely to produce a one-state solution. Successive right-wing Israeli governments will continue to expand settlements via further formal or informal annexations. And these deepening networks of Israeli-controlled highways and settlements will, in turn, increasingly leave Palestinian towns and cities cut off from one another.

The question, then, is how Palestinians will react. Young Palestinians might be more open to a one-state solution, particularly as it appears a more viable option that would allow them to access Israel’s economy and travel opportunities. Some of them are more secular-minded and internationalist than their parents and grandparents, and therefore less attached to the Islamist and nationalist ideals that helped fuel the generations of struggle against the Israelis. Others will have grown up against the backdrop of multiple failed uprisings and decades of protests and unrest that have failed to reverse Israel’s control.

As the years go on and as the national project seems less viable, the next generation of Palestinians might be more willing to push for nationalization as one of their last remaining options. Yet they will come up against hard blocks among both Palestinian leaders and right-wing Israeli political parties. Palestinian factions such as Hamas will not readily abandon their principles or the privileges that come with leading the Palestinian cause. Regardless of how popular the one-state solution becomes with the Palestinian public, these factions are likely to dig in their heels against nationalization, as it would also likely also mean the end of their existence as independent political and militant forces. Moreover, Israel’s right-wing, buttressed by its own nationalist youth, will not readily accept the nationalization of the Palestinian territories either for fear of damaging their political and economic influence. Indeed, if Palestinians were fully nationalized, Israel would immediately lose its Jewish majority. And declining birthrates among secular Jewish Israelis suggest that in such a binational state, Arabs would only become an increasingly larger percentage of the Israeli population, threatening Israel’s future Jewish character.

Facing pushback to nationalization both at home and in Israel, Palestinians will become increasingly frustrated, which could raise the risk for more uprisings. But unlike the intifadas of the 1980s and 2000s, which came with a sense of heightened international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, future violent uprisings will have less international backing, particularly in the Arab world. They will also come up against an Israeli military and security apparatus that has built walls, installed widespread surveillance and upgraded their anti-insurgency tactics since the last intifada in 2000. Any new uprising is thus unlikely to move the needle on Palestinian statehood.

Waiting for a Better Day

With no viable way to push for nationalization, and with unrest unlikely to shift Israel away from further expansion, Palestinians may be relegated to the position of bystanders — watching as conditions are imposed on them by the Israelis, and awaiting for international and regional conditions to improve so that their cause may one day regain its prior global prominence.

If the region’s geopolitical climate begins to stabilize amid, for example, another nuclear deal or other comprehensive agreement with Iran, the Palestinians may again have allies to pressure Israel to resolve the conflict. Arab Gulf states, for one, could leverage their newly normalized economic and security relations with Israel to lobby on behalf of the Palestinians in the future. The United States, with its own liberal demographic drift slowly pulling it ideologically away from Israel, might also prioritize the Palestinian issue again. By helping quell the European Union’s concerns about refugees and terrorism, a more stable Middle East may also make Brussels more willing to risk its security ties with Israel to push for change in the Palestinian territories. Indeed, the Palestinians may someday be able to once again use diplomacy to settle their final status. But with so much in the region and world uncertain, so too will remain the territories’ political future.

Title: How Israel is adapting to the growing threat of terror armies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2021, 02:21:04 AM

How Israel is Adapting to the Growing Threat of Terror Armies
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
January 5, 2021

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8690/how-israel-is-adapting-to-the-growing-threat

Title: Stratfor: Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2021, 05:27:27 AM

second

HIGHLIGHTS

After a year of severe economic and political instability, Lebanon is edging closer toward a full-blown crisis that could overwhelm even the most entrenched members of its ruling elite, raising the specter of widespread unrest or another civil war. Little about Lebanon is tenable, with its economy in shambles, its national budget unsustainable, its infrastructure in disrepair, and its security at constant threat from extremists, regional conflicts and internal unrest. But with no checks on their power, Lebanon’s various political factions are still finding ways to ritualize this dysfunction, scrambling to stay one step ahead of a disaster that upends their place in power -- and with it, the remaining threads keeping the country from coming apart at the seams. ...

After a year of severe economic and political instability, Lebanon is edging closer toward a full-blown crisis that could overwhelm even the most entrenched members of its ruling elite, raising the specter of widespread unrest or another civil war. Little about Lebanon is tenable, with its economy in shambles, its national budget unsustainable, its infrastructure in disrepair, and its security at constant threat from extremists, regional conflicts and internal unrest. But with no checks on their power, Lebanon’s various political factions are still finding ways to ritualize this dysfunction, scrambling to stay one step ahead of a disaster that upends their place in power — and with it, the remaining threads keeping the country from coming apart at the seams.

Unchecked Corruption Breeds Dysfunction

At the core of Lebanon’s woes is the fact that there remain little checks on government corruption. The judiciary, executive and legislature are all held by establishment factions and leaders who have little incentive to change the system. Despite years of international demands and advice, they have budged very little on the necessary spending and governance reforms needed to earn international aid. Even the investigation into the disastrous Beirut port explosion in August 2020, as well as the Dec. 10 indictment of former Prime Minister Hassan Diab for his government’s involvement in the gross negligence that led to the blast, appear unlikely to upend Lebanon’s political system.

A System Born Of Civil War

Lebanon’s system of governance is geared toward solving the security dilemma created by its sectarian past, with its constitution, security forces and legal system organized around preventing another civil war. In exchange for laying aside their arms, Lebanon’s political parties and factions — both sectarian and ideological — agree that the state is a machine to dole out jobs, services and funds for supporters. A faction that controls a ministry can influence the way it spends its budget. The Iran-backed militant group and political party, Hezbollah, for example, has used its control of Lebanon’s health ministry to provide preferential services for its supporters. Even lower down in government, factions that hold mayoral posts or municipal positions can influence spending to reward allies and punish enemies.

Even abroad, the country’s key allies are uninterested in applying the kind of pressure that might force a real shift in sectarian behavior. After the Beirut port blast, France postured as if it might take a more notable role in addressing Lebanon’s internal disorder. But Paris has since instead deferred to its traditional strategic approach that prioritizes Lebanon’s stability via negotiated, incremental change. French goals continue to prize holding onto its former influence over the country, which still runs through sectarian parties like the Sunni-dominated Future Movement party.

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has lumped Lebanon into its anti-Iran campaign, sanctioning Hezbollah-linked banks and institutions. But instead of forcing positive change, this increased financial pressure from Washington has only accelerated Lebanon’s economic deterioration, with the country’s political system still intact.

The other traditional foreign influences in Lebanon have also, for different reasons, given up on using the country as a direct proxy theater for their regional advantage. Saudi Arabia and Iran have both taken their proxy conflicts elsewhere in the region — namely Iraq and Yemen. And Syria, consumed by its civil war, has few resources left over to interfere in Lebanon’s internal dynamics. Having fought the stalemated 2006 war with Hezbollah, Israel has little interest in repeating that expensive history. For Israel, rocking the boat in Lebanon could also jeopardize its ongoing negotiations with Beirut over a maritime border that could stabilize Israel’s access to sizable energy reserves in the Mediterranean. Iran, for its part, has little reason to upend the sectarian system that has allowed it to entrench Hezbollah as a proxy against Israel. Tehran, however, may start to intervene if Lebanon’s economic and social instability begins to directly threaten Hezbollah’s influence. But for now, Lebanon’s dysfunction remains largely an internal matter.

Potential Avenues for Change

With the international community unwilling to help, the most likely drivers to break Lebanon’s political impasse appear to be domestic. This could include grassroots outrage that is able to break the sects by producing new parties and leaders through avenues like university elections, local and municipal elections, and even potentially splits within existing factions sitting in parliament. New factions within sects could counterbalance some of the existing establishment, forcing them into positions of compromise. However, such grassroots political challenges would likely require a high turnout from opposition voters in a national election, which isn’t scheduled to happen until at least 2022. And while there are clear signs of high anger with establishment parties, Lebanon has historically struggled to introduce viable new factions within its sectarian system. In 2016, for example, the Beirut Madinati, a new political movement, won a sizable turnout in Beirut’s municipal election but still failed to secure any council seats.

Another potential vector of change could come from the establishment itself. But Lebanon’s political elite is unlikely to change their ways until their physical and economic security is directly threatened. If Lebanon remains on its current path, the trickle of Lebonese refugees now making their way for Europe may become more of a surge, as Lebanon’s humanitarian and social situation degrades further and produces even deeper anger. Such a refugee wave could spur European countries — in particular, France — to take action against Lebanon’s government that forces its leaders on a path to reform. Decaying economic prospects could also radicalize Lebanese youth who might engage in more sustained and violent protests, raising the risk of clashes with security forces and political authorities that could spiral into a security crisis. If severe, such a security crisis could compel establishment figures to seek reform as a means to restore stability — but it could also upend the balance of power between Lebanon’s myriad of political and religious groups that has kept the country from tipping into another civil war.

Title: Palestinians-- victims of Arabs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 21, 2021, 07:11:37 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16948/palestinians-victims-syria

Title: Stratfor: Israel-Arab relations and Biden
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 22, 2021, 02:31:41 PM

The Fate of Israeli-Arab Normalization Under Biden
4 MINS READ
Jan 21, 2021 | 21:59 GMT
 
 
 
Highlights

The Biden administration is not signaling a strong interest in normalization, nor is it philosophically as likely to utilize the transactional means that helped its predecessor facilitate deals with countries like Sudan and Morocco. Trump’s uniquely close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to largely drive U.S. decisions made on Israel's behalf over the past four years. Biden, however, is unlikely to continue Trump’s strong pro-Israel policies. Biden has also shown more interest in other regional affairs that will limit his administration’s bandwidth to address Israel’s normalization status.  ...

Without former U.S. President Donald Trump’s avid support for Israel’s diplomatic recognition in the Muslim world, the onus of new normalization deals will likely fall to Israel itself, which will either slow the normalization process down or shift its focus to more covert or specific relations. On Jan. 20, U.S. President Joe Biden assumed power, bringing with him numerous personnel and policy shifts, including in U.S.-Israeli relations. 

In recent months, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have all signed U.S.-brokered normalization agreements with Isreal, which the United States calls “the Abraham Accords.”

Biden’s new Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, has expressed support for the overall Abraham Accords. But during his confirmation hearings on Jan. 19, he also suggested that other regional issues would take priority over normalization.

No clear appointments from the Biden administration appear ready to replace the team led by former President Trump’s son-in-law and special advisor, Jared Kushner, that spearheaded normalization efforts.

The Biden administration is not signaling a strong interest in normalization, nor is it philosophically as likely to utilize the transactional means that helped its predecessor facilitate deals with countries like Sudan and Morocco. Trump’s uniquely close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to largely drive U.S. decisions made on Israel's behalf over the past four years. Biden, however, is unlikely to continue Trump’s strong pro-Israel policies. Biden has also shown more interest in other regional affairs that will limit his administration’s bandwidth to address Israel’s normalization status. 

Normalization is not mentioned in Biden’s official foreign policy agenda. Nuclear negotiations with Iran, however, are. The Biden administration’s Middle East priorities also include reframing relations with Turkey to address behavior Washington sees as controversial, as well as addressing broader human rights concerns in the region.

During his 2020 campaign, Biden pledged to oppose further Israeli annexations of Palestinian territory in the West Bank. He also promised to restore diplomatic and aid ties with the Palestinian Authority that the Trump administration had restricted.

In exchange for normalization, the Trump administration helped remove Sudan’s U.S. designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, which had limited the Northeast African country’s ability to receive aid and attract foreign investment for the past 27 years. The White House also recognized Morocco’s control of the disputed Western Sahara territory in exchange for Rabat formalizing its ties with Israel.

With Biden unlikely to strongly advocate for the Abraham Accords, the normalization process will change to localized considerations, driven more by incentives Israel can offer as well as mutual strategic interests. Israel will retain influence over U.S. arms sales to Arab countries. This means Israel could offer countries like Saudi Arabia the prospect of Israel lobbying on Riyadh’s behalf for future U.S. arms sales to the kingdom in exchange for normalization. Israel's technology sector, higher education faculties, intelligence capabilities and defense equipment will also continue to pull countries toward normalization, especially those with mutual economic challenges and/or defense threats. Now that there is weaker U.S. pressure to join the Abraham Accords, Muslim countries where domestic opinion remains opposed to diplomatic ties with Israel will likely focus on siloing their Israeli relations into specific trade, technology, defense or intelligence transactions.

The United Arab Emirates was able to ink a last-minute arms purchase on Jan. 20 for American F-35 combat aircraft and Reaper drones. This was largely made possible by Israel’s move to drop its so-called Qualitative Military Edge (QME) policy, which opposes advanced arms sales to even friendly Arab Gulf states for fear of the arms falling into the wrong hands, as part of its normalization deal with Abu Dhabi.

With Saudi King Salman’s opposition to normalization without a Palestinian state, Saudi Arabia has chosen to engage in covert intelligence ties as a substitute for overt diplomatic and defense ties. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has also reportedly held covert meetings with Netanyahu. Without U.S. pressure, this is unlikely to change.

Before Trump’s term ended, Indonesia was also reportedly nearing a U.S.-brokered normalization deal that involved up to $2 billion in U.S. aid to Jakarta. But future progress on that deal is now uncertain under Biden. Indonesia purchased Israeli defense equipment in the 1970s, but substantial opposition among Indonesian Islamists has proved to be an obstacle to further deepening the country’s relations with Isreal.

Title: Israel embassy in United Arab Emirates
Post by: ccp on January 25, 2021, 08:32:13 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2021/01/25/israel-opens-embassy-in-uae/

 :-D

From what we read it does sound like Jared deserves major credit for this

instead the Left will try to destroy his life going forward

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2021, 09:27:57 AM

I confess to a visceral dislike of his aura, and think he often gave President Trump bad advice on domestic matters, but I must confess he pleasantly surprised me with his Middle East work.

Title: Kurd commentator lets rip in favor of normalizing with Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 05, 2021, 06:25:08 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1eOrumBkCs

Title: The World retains its ability to surprise: Ultras and Islamist mulling alliance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2021, 10:41:55 AM

Amid Political Chaos, Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Parties Mull Uniting With Islamists

undefined and Middle East and North Africa Analyst
Ryan Bohl
Middle East and North Africa Analyst, Stratfor
6 MIN READApr 13, 2021 | 20:41 GMT




Israel’s chaotic political climate is making an alliance between the Jewish and Islamic right, which seemed impossible only a few years ago, increasingly plausible — so long as pragmatic heads prevail. Dominated by the ultra-Orthodox, Israel’s religious right is murmuring that perhaps it’s time to make common cause with the Islamist factions that make up the country’s other major religious movement, in the hopes that a united front could help both sides keep their long-held special privileges and fend off challenges from Israel’s secular community. On April 2, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, the spiritual leader of the United Torah Judaism party, released a statement saying that “cooperation with those who respect religion and Jewish tradition is better than those who persecute religion.” This was in reference to a potential government deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s religious-dominated coalition and Ra’am, the Muslim Brotherhood-derived Israeli Islamist party, with secular parties as “those who persecute religion.” If this alliance materializes, it would heighten tensions between secular and religious sectors of Israel’s society, undermine the prospects of a Palestinian state and impact how Israel normalizes relations with its Arab Gulf neighbors.

A Once-Unthinkable Alliance

For the ultra-Orthodox, the long-term political direction of the country presents a challenge. Though they are increasing their share of Israel’s population, this very success has alienated them from other parts of society, which are concerned about how their exemptions from service in the Israeli Defense Forces might affect the country’s military readiness. There are also growing fears ultra-Orthodox schools are not preparing an ever-larger share of Israel’s citizenry for working and living in the 21st century, a criticism sharpened by the level of state spending allotted for such religious schools. For the past decade, ultra-Orthodox parties have been able to protect these exemptions through a coalition under  Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s rule is unraveling, and secularists like Avigdor Lieberman have made it clear they won’t serve in future right-wing governments that protect the ultra-Orthodox. Adding to this tension has been the behavior of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Haredi community during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many Haredi towns and neighborhoods flouted restrictions and subsequently became hotspots for the virus.

As the ultra-Orthodox’s ranks of allies grow thin, Israel’s Islamists in the Ra’am party are embracing pragmatism after decades of intransigence. While Ra’am is taking advantage of the moment of uncertainty caused by Netanyahu’s determination to stay in power, this is unlikely to be the last time it is able to play a kingmaking role, as Israel’s growing political fragmentation could increasingly favor small swing parties like Ra’am while deep splits form between secular right-wingers and religious ones.


But this alliance would be underpinned by more than just pragmatic politics, as Ra’am and the ultra-Orthodox do have some common interests. As religious parties, both are threatened by the secularists who have traditionally dominated Israel, and who use their influence in schools, courts and media to undermine the religious scruples they both hold sacred. Israel’s Islamist and ultra-Orthodox communities also agree on some big ideas, like trying to diminish LGBTQ roles in Israel and preserving traditional roles for women, while both want to maintain their exemption from the IDF (like Haredis, Arab Israelis are also not required to serve).

There are still obstacles to such an alliance, but they are not insurmountable. The most important one is that Islamism and Zionism contain contradictions that would need to be ignored or resolved for a political relationship to function. In addition, Ra’am still believes in a Palestinian state while the ultra-Orthodox generally do not, though this disagreement is steadily becoming moot as Israel expands settlements and the international community loses interest in shepherding a Palestinian state into existence. Israel’s other right-wing parties will try to win back the ultra-Orthodox to rebuild the government, especially if the Netanyahu era ends. But those efforts will face the same problems that have plagued Netanyahu, as the ultra-Orthodox’s exemptions are simply not sustainable for many Israelis, even right-leaning ones.

A United Religious Right?

If such an alliance can form, it would have notable implications for Israel’s politics, domestic stability and international relations. An Islamist-Haredi alliance would create a new political bloc that could swing coalitions in its favor and win concessions for their communities. That could leave their exemptions from the IDF and education in place, with the national security and economic impacts of those exemptions to be reckoned with another day. They could also press to undercut LGBTQ rights in Israel, or at the very least slow the expansion of those rights (which could create friction with the United States and European Union). It would also heighten tensions between secular and religious Israelis, sparking protests, clashes and unrest. That tension could help cement the relationship between the Islamists and the ultra-Orthodox as it drives them together in the face of mutual domestic rivals.

A more united religious right would also help cement Israel’s expansionism into the West Bank, as Israeli Islamists weaken Israeli Arab opposition to settlements and provide an alternative political path for Palestinian rights. This would take Israel in the direction of a single state that would expand political and social roles for Arabs and would not predicate itself on an increasingly untenable Palestinian state. Coalition governments could be made with fewer concessions to what remains to the Israeli left, which still favors a Palestinian state. Opposition to Israeli expansionism could even weaken among Palestinians, particularly if they see Israeli Islamists gain concessions within Israel. This would make it apparent that Palestinian rights are better secured through Israel’s democracy than with a two-state solution, especially given the long-standing corruption and political paralysis of the Palestinian Authority that has undermined the national project’s legitimacy.

Finally, a more united religious right could change Israel’s relations with Arab Gulf states and its normalization push, chilling ties with some countries while encouraging growth with others. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have made it point to limit the growth of Islamists in places like Egypt, concerned that Islamist revolutionary sentiment could spread to their countries. Indeed, Qatar’s closeness with the Muslim Brotherhood was a major driving force behind Abu Dhabi and Riyadh’s 2017-2021 blockade. Should Israeli Islamists work their way into Israeli governments, these Arab Gulf states will have to either limit the growth of their relationships with Israel or learn to more pragmatically accept Islamism as a cost of doing business. Other countries, like Qatar and Kuwait, might actually be encouraged to explore deeper relations with Israel, given their existing closeness to political Islam.

Title: Things going bad in Jerusalem
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2021, 10:13:36 AM

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/watch-chaos-explodes-jerusalem-after-jewish-settler-groups-chant-death-arabs-during?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

Title: George Friedman: The State of the Israeli-Gaza Conflict
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 12, 2021, 09:48:59 PM

   
The State of the Israeli-Gaza Conflict
Gaza is militarily isolated, and the rhetorical support it used to get from the Arab world is no longer a given.
By: George Friedman

The origins of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict are pretty well known. Gaza, the narrow strip of land running to the Sinai Peninsula, was originally part of the Palestinian mandate, a British-administered area. After the establishment of Israel, a war broke out with neighboring Arab countries. Egypt mounted an assault into the Negev Desert that was defeated by the Israelis, save for the thrust up the coast toward Tel Aviv. This was ultimately blocked by Israel, but the Egyptians were not routed. That became Gaza.

Gaza became a rallying cry for Arabs in the Middle East, who, along with the Soviet Union, supported the Palestinian cause. But after the Soviet Union fell, Moscow lost interest, and support for the Palestinian cause declined as Gaza became a unique Palestinian entity, holding and administering a Palestinian territory.

Today, Gaza is a heavily populated and extremely poor area. It is dominated by two political factions, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, that work together. From Gaza’s point of view, it is the last organized, territorial resistance to Israel.

It does not have a conventional military capable of engaging Israeli troops on the ground, but it does have facilities for storing lots of short-range rockets able to strike a limited area around its borders. It also has a number of longer-range missiles able to reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. These missiles, along with the know-how to make rockets, were provided by Iran. As Arab support for the Palestinians declined, Iran filled the void. Relatedly, Iran controls a large number of rockets and missiles in Syria, as well as a very large establishment in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon – all of which constitutes part of Iran’s arc of influence into the Mediterranean.

Israel is engaged in a battle to eliminate the Iranian threat in Syria but has not tried to eliminate the threat in Lebanon; the size and distance and possible retaliatory force poses too much of a challenge. It has also refused to act decisively against Gaza, which should not be regarded simply as an Iranian puppet but as an independent actor.

And so, Iran aside, Israel is concerned about Gaza for two reasons. The first is the possibility of it waging an extended missile campaign against Israel’s heartland: the triangle of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. Second, it is concerned about guerrilla attacks potentially launched from Gaza. Israel therefore periodically launches attacks against Gaza that are meant to disrupt its military capabilities rather than to occupy the strip itself.

Gaza, the final redoubt of the Palestinians, is concerned primarily with survival. Only then can it force Israel to reach some sort of accommodation with the Palestinians and with Hamas. One way to force Israel into accommodation is to pose a significant threat. Hence the missiles. This creates a political-military conundrum for Gaza. It must survive, but merely surviving does not give it any kind of leverage.

Israel has no interest in accommodating Gaza, since accommodation would leave Gaza capable of acquiring missiles and thus threaten Israel's heartland. Israel is therefore content with the status quo, but if it had its druthers, it would prefer to occupy Gaza and disperse its citizens.

Undertaking such a broad attack is a military challenge. From the standpoint of an armored/infantry operation, Gaza is not small. It is extremely urban and densely packed. Enemy forces can be widely placed in buildings and, being familiar with the area, can engage, withdraw and redeploy relatively easily. Gazans have sophisticated anti-tank weapons, putting tanks and armored personnel at risk, along with the infantry. All the while, Gazans may elect to fire missiles at the Israeli heartland. While Israel would likely defeat the Gazans, the price could be far greater than Israel is willing to pay. Therefore, Gazans tend to attack with relatively short-range rockets, and Israel with rockets launched from aircraft, coupled with small-scale special operations targeted at specific targets – leadership, weapons, factories – with fast entrance and exit by the troops.

There’s a notable difference in this week’s fighting. Normally, other Arab countries issue hostile statements against Israel, but so far they have been relatively quiet. To the contrary, the Saudi ambassador to the U.N. condemned Gaza’s missile barrage against Israeli citizens. Elsewhere, a well-known preacher in the United Arab Emirates named Waseem Yousef tweeted outright support of Israel’s actions. Plenty in the Arab world took issue with both statements, of course, but the fact that they were allowed to be made by their respective governments indicates a significant shift in Arab sentiment toward events in Gaza.

At the moment, Gaza is militarily isolated, and the rhetorical support it used to get from the Arab world is no longer a given. This creates psychological questions, and psychology is essential to warfare. The Israelis are threatening to destroy Gaza’s leadership and to change the reality of Gaza. Ultimately, this requires occupation to work. The Israeli response must appear disproportionate, and the lack of automatic support disheartening. It did not expect, I think, that the Abraham Accords would somehow lead to a break in the pro forma gestures of support. Israel's threatening to launch a major ground offensive is likely forcing Arab governments to reassess their positions.

If the psychological shock doesn’t change the military approach, then nothing changes. Gazans have nowhere to go. Israel is afraid of settlement that leaves Gaza autonomous, and Gaza still has support from Iran, which is itself under pressure. The Israelis are casualty adverse, and urban fighting generates casualties. An extended air attack with the most precise missiles available will still yield massive civilian casualties. Gaza is worth some bad press to Israel, but not that much.

As the conflict evolves, there are two things to watch for: missiles targeting Tel Aviv, and Israeli infantry and armor penetrating into Gaza. Protecting Tel Aviv gives Israel, with more military capability, more urgency. Hamas knows as much.

Title: Hamas and Iran's missile threat to Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2021, 07:03:55 AM

Hamas's Missile Threat to Israel
by Guermantes Lailari
IPT News
May 13, 2021

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8854/hamas-missile-threat-to-israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on May 14, 2021, 07:33:12 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/13/faq-hamas-missiles/

Title: hamas terrorists whose families all got lifelong pensions yesterday
Post by: ccp on May 14, 2021, 09:56:37 AM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/05/14/idf-launches-brilliant-and-devastating-attack-on-huddled-hamas-terrorists-n2589448

Title: Turning point in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2021, 02:27:33 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17372/turning-point-in-gaza

Title: Israel and its neighbors, Middle East War based on a lie
Post by: DougMacG on May 17, 2021, 03:05:18 PM

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/05/15/the-hamas-rocket-attacks-are-based-on-a-lie-n1447193

Title: Hamas ruins Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2021, 04:49:10 AM

"Hamas Achieved Nothing but Ruining Gaza"
by Yaakov Lappin
IPT News
May 18, 2021

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8857/hamas-achieved-nothing-but-ruining-gaza

Title: Egypt brokered the cease fire
Post by: ccp on May 21, 2021, 05:41:40 AM

but Biden and of course takes credit
and the media happy to assist

even Sec of S tate Blinken gives away the truth:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/05/21/did-biden-just-try-to-take-credit-for-ceasefire-n2589811

I suppose he will get a Nobel prize given to Democrats de jour

I am trying to think back to the last time we had a Democrat President that was not a serial liar and BS non artist
Don't remember Johnson or Kennedy well enough.....

Title: How Hamas got its arsenal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2021, 12:02:08 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/world/how-has-hamas-created-a-rocket-arsenal-israel?fbclid=IwAR1MrCO5lYIku_Y9BPVRlTQrj-s6olMi_XFXZ4-bnBi1gqsFsfT99JVOvz4

Title: Partners in Peace?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2021, 02:19:40 PM

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.Gad.Saad/videos/1157954008050189/

Title: GPF: Deep read on Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 17, 2021, 05:14:05 AM

June 17, 2021
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Curse of Sectarianism in Lebanon
The country’s economic and political problems are rooted in its sectarian divides.
By: Hilal Khashan
In October 2019, a spate of protests erupted over the Lebanese government’s plan to impose a daily 20-cent charge on calls made through WhatsApp. The demonstrations abated a few months later when the COVID-19 pandemic began, but sporadic and low-key outbursts have flared up ever since.

The anger over the proposed tax was intertwined with long-standing frustration over government corruption and misconduct. Indeed, in Lebanon, these problems are as old as the state itself, but the level of corruption hasn’t always been this bad. After gaining independence in 1943, the country’s sectarian leaders established an oligarchical political system that granted the people freedom of expression, though it concentrated power in the elite. Despite its inherent limitations, the system was effective enough to give Lebanon the pretense of democracy and established it as the only democratic country in the Arab world. But in the 1990s, a new oligarchical class comprising people from lower socio-economic backgrounds rose to power and in the process exploited public funds to expand their own wealth. They established an uneasy power troika between Sunni, Shiite and Maronite leaders and disbanded Lebanon’s historical concept of national accommodation. They also resorted to excessive borrowing to cover deficit spending and fraudulent public works.

By the end of 2019, Lebanon was bankrupt. People lost their life savings after banks lent their deposits to the central bank, which transferred its profits to foreign bank accounts. It’s a steep fall from grace for a country once celebrated as the Switzerland of the east and whose capital, Beirut, was the Paris of the Arab world.

Ineffective Civil Society

To understand the reasons behind Lebanon’s downfall, one needs to understand its sectarian political system. This system has allowed sectarian leaders to escape accountability in order to protect the country’s fragile unity. Civil society, including Lebanon’s 1,300 nongovernmental organizations as well as other interest groups, was supposed to be a moderating force, but it has failed to limit the destructive influence of sectarianism. These groups, which include labor unions, journalist organizations and medical associations, specialize in a wide range of social issues. But instead of holding those in power accountable, they have been co-opted by them.

Lebanon's Political Structure

(click to enlarge)

Most voluntary associations owe their existence to foreign financial support. They evade government monetary controls, lack transparency and suffer from the same corruption that plagues Lebanon’s political system. After last year’s massive port explosion in Beirut, foreign aid poured into Lebanon. Many donors, especially from Western countries, channeled donations to local NGOs, lacking faith in the government’s ability to dispense the assistance to people in need. But much of the aid ended up for sale at market prices in supermarkets, drug stores and elsewhere.

Local NGOs that spearheaded the ensuing protests demanded the ouster of political leaders but took no issue with Lebanon’s sectarian system. The NGOs attributed Lebanon’s economic and political woes to corrupt politicians, not an unworkable political system. They paid little attention to the self-serving sectarian political cartel that dominates all three branches of government.

Lebanon’s civil society has therefore been unable to effect any real change. Though civil society groups increasingly attract members and audiences from a wide spectrum of society, they have failed to pressure the government to adopt, let alone implement, policies to address critical social issues that affect people’s daily lives. (For example, sanitation and garbage disposal are increasingly areas of concern. Existing landfills are overburdened, and garbage is often disposed of in open spaces or dumped in rivers or the sea.) In the 2018 general election, a candidate with a background in civil society won a seat in parliament but resigned two years later after realizing that she could not deliver on her campaign promises.

Sectarian Divide

The Lebanese see themselves as unique among the Arabs. They pride themselves on their strong business and service skills and on the success they have achieved as immigrants in foreign countries. But despite this sense of Lebanese exceptionalism, the Lebanese have failed to foster a sense of national solidarity and a political community that cuts across religious and sectarian lines.

Most Lebanese people discover their national identity when communicating with foreigners, but they often view their fellow Lebanese from other sects as outsiders. In the 20th century, economic development was concentrated in Beirut, a predominantly Sunni city on the coast, and Mount Lebanon, which is mainly Maronite Christian. But the people of the coast and the mountains shared little in common ideologically despite their proximity, and the rest of the country remained on the fringes, increasingly isolated and dominated by medieval-style feudal leaders. The sectarian division fueled a sense of alienation and susceptibility to violence and radicalism.

Lebanon's Distribution of Religious Groups

(click to enlarge)

Another problem related to the sectarian divide is clientelism, a legacy of the feudal system. It’s a form of political control whereby members of the ruling elite preside over a sectarian constituency and provide it with essential services, such as education, medical care and employment. The relationship between client and patron is uneven, as the former owes complete and unquestioned loyalty to the latter. This practice is common among political parties. The late Kamal Jumblatt, the scion of a feudal Druze family, established the Progressive Socialist Party in 1949 to expand his base of popular support. In 1974, the Shiite-dominated Amal Movement was formed as the Movement of the Dispossessed to unseat the sect’s feudal leaders who treated the peasants like serfs.

When parliamentary elections resumed in 1992 after Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, Amal and another Shiite-dominated party, Hezbollah, formed a joint electoral list. They maintained their close cooperation in the five subsequent legislative elections, carrying all Shiite seats without a single loss. In turn, Shiites depend almost entirely on the Amal-Hezbollah coalition to provide them with a range of services including food, health care and education. Some Shiites joined the protests in 2019, but Amal and Hezbollah quickly clamped down on the demonstrations and, simultaneously, expanded their material provisions to discourage further revolt.

Other sects use similar tactics to keep their bases loyal. Cash payments, food rations and jobs, especially in the public sector, are standard incentives in exchange for political loyalty and votes. Several politicians, including Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, have bribed voters with COVID-19 vaccines ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections. The Lebanese Forces party, a Maronite rival of President Michel Aoun’s party, has appealed for donations from its wealthy supporters abroad. The government, meanwhile, remains idle, unable to address the economic crisis that has put more than 80 percent of people below the poverty line. Clientelism has contributed to the crisis. Lebanon’s public sector employs 320,000 people – twice the number of employees needed for a country its size – and cost the treasury $8 billion in 2019.

Elusive Citizenship

The European student movement of the 1960s had a tremendous impact on Lebanese college students and rising secular trends. New social movements sought to break loose from the tight grip of sectarian leaders, who saw the mere emergence of these movements during a period of regional and domestic turmoil as a threat. The elite’s apprehension soared as demands for secularism grew especially among the youth.

The civil war that began in 1975 derailed the rise of secularism and reignited primordial allegiances. More than 120,000 people perished in the war. Thousands more went missing and hundreds of thousands left the country or were internally displaced. To prevent another war from breaking out, many Lebanese people wanted to unite the country’s myriad sects. But Syria’s 29-year hegemony over Lebanon (1976-2005) gave Hezbollah ultimate control over the state under the pretense of preventing Israeli occupation. Thus, the Lebanese missed the opportunity to reform their political system after 15 years of bloody civil war. The country is currently facing its worst economic crisis ever. It would be unfortunate if it doesn’t learn the lessons from this situation to construct a new political system.

Title: Those nasty Israelis at it again, this time in Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 06, 2021, 08:14:59 PM

Hezbollah Will Likely Block Israeli Aid, Deepening Lebanon’s Woes
3 MIN READJul 6, 2021 | 19:30 GMT





Demonstrators burn tires in Lebanon's capital of Beirut on June 26, 2021, in protest of the country’s ongoing economical and political crisis.
Demonstrators burn tires in Lebanon's capital of Beirut on June 26, 2021, in protest of the country’s ongoing economical and political crisis.

(ANWAR AMRO/AFP via Getty Images)

Hezbollah will block Israel’s recent offer of humanitarian aid for fear of weakening its domestic support, as well as promoting favor toward further Israeli normalization — a policy shift that neither the Shiite militant group nor its backer Iran can ideologically accept. On July 6, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Israel formally offered Lebanon humanitarian aid through the U.N. peacekeeping force based in Lebanon. While it wasn’t clear what specific type of aid would be included in the offer, Lebanon is grappling with an economic crisis that has made gas, food, medicine and other basic necessities increasingly scarce. The offer came as Lebanon’s caretaker prime minister, Hassan Diab, called for urgent humanitarian aid from the international community, warning that the country could suffer a “social explosion” without new support.

Hezbollah, however, also has no other viable options for new sources of aid to supplement its traditional patronage system, which the militant group relies on to maintain loyalty in Lebanon’s Shiite community. Hezbollah has traditionally used a combination of arms and patronage to maintain its position in Lebanon. But patronage is drying up amid spending cuts and a lack of new international aid, as well as demands for sweeping structural reforms from Lebanon’s foreign donors. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has called for Lebanon to accept oil shipments from Iran to ease its energy shortage, though doing so would violate U.S. sanctions and potentially economically isolate Beirut further. Israeli forces could also readily sabotage Iranian vessels going to Lebanon as part of Israel’s ongoing shadow war with Iran across the region. Moreover, international aid from the United States, Europe and Arab Gulf states remains contingent on deeper structural reforms of the sectarian system that would weaken Hezbollah’s domestic position.

As Lebanon’s economic crisis worsens, Hezbollah will thus increasingly have to rely on force to retain influence, weakening the country’s already frail security situation. As the fallout from Lebanon’s financial collapse, Hezbollah will be less able to provide its Shiite community — which was already one of the poorest sects in the country before the current crisis began in late 2019 — with economic and humanitarian support. As a result, some Shiite may grow more emboldened to criticize Hezbollah's role in the sectarian system that has left Lebanon economically isolated. But with a secure land route to Iran through Syria and Iraq, Hezbollah’s arsenals remain well-supplied, leaving the militant group able to project power domestically against such dissidents.

Title: Iran attacks Israeli ship
Post by: ccp on August 03, 2021, 10:40:42 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/politics/andrew-cuomo-new-york-report/index.html

sure as day turns to night
Israel will respond

watch for the BDS crowd to make a stink when they do

Title: Stratfor: Israel-Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2021, 04:47:16 PM

For Israel, Attacking Lebanon Risks Triggering a Multi-Front Conflict
Aug 5, 2021 | 21:27 GMT





Smoke billows above towns in southern Lebanon on Aug. 4, 2021, after being hit by Israeli airstrikes.
Smoke billows above towns in southern Lebanon on Aug. 4, 2021, after being hit by Israeli airstrikes.

(MAHMOUD ZAYYAT/AFP via Getty Images)

Israel’s attempt to deter rocket fire from Lebanon risks triggering a greater conflict with Beruit and Hezbollah on its northern border, while also inspiring Gaza militants to resume attacks on its southern border. Israel launched airstrikes on southern Lebanon on the night of Aug. 4, targeting the launch sites from which rockets had been fired at northern Israel the day prior. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said the attack was “meant to send a message” to a Palestinian faction in Lebanon that he believed launched the recent rocket strikes against Israel. Gantz also cautioned that Israel “could do much more,” but hoped it wouldn’t come to that. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) warned Lebanon to avoid “further attempts to harm Israeli civilians” as well. ...

Title: Lebanon fuct. Collapse coming?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2021, 06:15:16 AM

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/lebanons-economy-quickly-collapsing-amid-hyperinflation-power-outages_3939156.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-08-09&mktids=3ca0ebf0d7581c4e571985b5d8f82de1&est=Z%2FNWj5TszVSlxdtrZxhdL0Uwol2l9kGTLoiO1Z%2FJOpZG17YIIwxBEmTiNn%2F70EKNOtm5

Title: GPF: Hezbollah's moment of truth in Lebanon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2021, 04:42:05 PM

August 12, 2021
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Hezbollah’s Moment of Truth
As the country’s economic crisis worsens, anger toward the group is mounting.
By: Hilal Khashan

Lebanon is facing its worst economic crisis since its founding. The Lebanese pound has collapsed, the central bank’s dollar reserves are depleted, and inflation is soaring. With more than 80 percent of the population now living in poverty, the country will need decades to recover.

For Hezbollah, one of Lebanon’s biggest Shiite political parties, the economic crisis also presents a political dilemma. The rate of poverty among Shiites exceeds that of the country as a whole. In addition, Hezbollah’s own resources have been severely depleted due to U.S. sanctions and the financial constraints of its main foreign backer, Iran. This has all but erased its ability to sustain poor Shiites as the crisis unfolds.

Thus, Hezbollah is at a crossroads. The group’s traditional base of supporters is growing wary of its loyalty to Tehran, especially considering its inability to resolve the economic crisis. Its followers also question its alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), a party many have accused of deliberately blocking an end to the country’s political stalemate. As the social tension in the country rises, Shiites have begun to voice their opposition to the group and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Unnatural Alliance

In 2006, Hezbollah signed a memorandum of understanding with the FPM, a Christian political party led by Michel Aoun. Aoun wanted Hezbollah’s support in achieving his aspiration of becoming president and, in exchange, would help usher the group into the political mainstream. A decade later, Aoun became president, while Hezbollah emerged as Lebanon’s predominant political actor. In 2020, however, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Gebran Bassil, Aoun’s son-in-law and leader of the FPM, under the Global Magnitsky Act on corruption grounds. But Bassil, who has presidential aspirations of his own, believes that the sanctions were actually a result of his alliance with Hezbollah.

Sharing little in common with the group – Aoun and Bassil are staunch proponents of Lebanese Christian nationalism, while Nasrallah supports Iran’s Islamic revolution ideals and its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – Bassil’s pact with Hezbollah was merely transactional. He rejects the presence of weapons outside the Lebanese army and believes that Hezbollah’s military wing will eventually have to be dismantled. He lacks trust in the group, which is also allied with the Amal Movement, a Shiite rival of the FPM.

The sanctions, and their impact on his political career, prompted Bassil to publicly criticize Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the Lebanese public is also growing increasingly frustrated with the group’s actions. Hezbollah stores its military hardware throughout the country, even in residential areas. It has even stockpiled some munitions among the civilian population in a region of southern Lebanon monitored by the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon – an area in which Hezbollah is not supposed to be present. Its violation of the 2006 cease-fire agreement occasionally triggers skirmishes with the U.N. peacekeepers.

Last week, Hezbollah fired a dozen Katyusha rockets from a Druze village on the disputed Shebaa Farms area, which straddles the borders of Lebanon, Israel and Syria. When the villagers seized the rocket launcher and apprehended its crew, the Lebanese army returned the launcher to Hezbollah and set the men free, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodged a complaint with the U.N. against Israel. Nasrallah justified the attack, saying Katyushas don't have the range to reach Shebaa Farms from Shiite villages. The unprecedented incident has broken the fear of challenging Hezbollah’s use of civilians as human shields and is likely to elicit a backlash from Shiite villagers wary of the consequences of provoking Israel. Had the Druze villagers not apprehended Hezbollah’s men who fired the rockets, the group would likely have blamed the incident on Palestinian militants or a clandestine organization, as it has on many previous occasions.

Lebanon's Distribution of Religious Groups
(click to enlarge)

In 2006, Hezbollah fired a salvo of rockets into northern Israel from a Sunni village, inviting an Israeli reprisal strike that killed 23 villagers. After the hostilities, Hezbollah activists hung posters of Nasrallah on the village’s walls, sparking clashes among the residents. Hezbollah has also been blamed for last year’s devastating Beirut port explosion, which killed 217 people, damaged a large swath of the city and displaced 300,000 residents. It unsafely stored thousands of tons of ammonium nitrate for use by the Syrian regime in a warehouse near densely populated residential quarters. But one year into the investigation, the case has gone nowhere because Hezbollah has prevented a judge overseeing the case from revoking immunity for politicians, Cabinet members and parliamentary deputies who knew about the explosive shipment at the port. Nasrallah even suggested that Israel might be behind the explosion, asserting that the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel always try to blame Hezbollah for anything that goes wrong in Lebanon.

Nasrallah is making increasingly outlandish statements. In a speech five years ago, he described Sunnis as foreign lackeys and Gulf rulers as inept and lazy, before retracting his comments. In 2017, after former U.S. President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Nasrallah said the decision would lead to Israel’s demise. On Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian war, he said that whoever defeated the Islamic State and al-Nusra could easily beat the Israel Defense Forces.

Hezbollah’s military intervention in Syria, in support of Bashar Assad’s fight against Sunni insurgents, soured Lebanese Shiites’ relations with Gulf countries. It led to the imposition of travel restrictions on Lebanese Shiites, many of whom lost jobs or opportunities to seek employment in the Gulf’s lucrative labor market. Hezbollah says it has lost 2,000 fighters in the Syrian war, but observers believe the actual number is much higher. Hezbollah officials argue that the intervention prevented radical Sunni groups from infiltrating Lebanon, a rationalization that worked until the country’s financial crisis erupted in 2019.

Looking Ahead

Hezbollah is desperately trying to contain the anger and frustration of its Shiite base by, for example, issuing digital food ration cards, which offer needy Lebanese a 40 percent discount from market prices. But considering the soaring cost of staple goods, the cards have limited value. It’s also stockpiling medicine imported from Iran and modest fuel supplies to keep vital facilities running. (Contrary to Nasrallah’s claims, Hezbollah can’t procure fuel from Iran due to Israel’s warning that it would prevent the fuel from reaching Lebanon by ship or truck via Iraq and Syria.)

Despite its claims otherwise, Hezbollah isn’t interested in fighting corruption. It wants to avoid compromising its strategic alliance with the Amal Movement, whose leader is a primary beneficiary of Lebanon’s confessional political system, in which top political offices are assigned to certain sectarian groups. But Shiites are growing frustrated with Hezbollah’s empty rhetoric on corruption, as well as its claim to being at the forefront of resisting Israeli occupation.

Any criticism directed its way won’t be tolerated. Its militants have arrested and tortured many Shiite youths who participated in protests and coerced them into rescinding their criticism of Hezbollah and Nasrallah. By 2020, they subdued the protests for the most part, though anger over the economic situation persists.

Lebanon’s economic collapse is rapidly eroding Hezbollah’s popular legitimacy. Nasrallah is unwilling to help resolve the political stalemate, fearing it might raise issues about Hezbollah’s military wing and ideological affinity with Iran. As the level of poverty increases with no end in sight, the likelihood of civil strife also rises, and its early manifestations are becoming clear. Nasrallah’s anti-Israel statements ceased to impress impoverished Shiites who, like other Lebanese, are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, Hezbollah is too ideologically rigid to transform into a genuine political party and accept the concept of a civil state.

A referral is the best compliment.
Feel free to forward this email to friends and colleague

Title: GPF: Israel, Cyprus, Greece alliance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 23, 2021, 08:59:14 AM

Solid partnership. The foreign ministers of Cyprus, Greece and Israel met in Jerusalem on Friday to reaffirm their alliance, which began as a counter to Turkish claims to exploration rights in the eastern Mediterranean. The three ministers expressed concern over several regional developments, including the rise in extremism stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan and, in a veiled reference to Turkey, attempts to revive old empires.

Title: Gatestone: Biden Admin vs. Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 12, 2021, 06:02:12 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18010/biden-administration-israel

Title: GPF: What Hezbollah really wants
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2022, 05:07:53 AM

January 6, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
What Hezbollah Really Wants
The group’s focus has evolved since its early days.
By: Hilal Khashan

Last week, Hezbollah repatriated an Israeli Bedouin who had defected to Lebanon and said he wanted to become a Hezbollah fighter. The group’s decision to return the man, who Lebanese investigators determined was not an Israeli spy, to Israel might sound baffling. But to understand the move, we need to look at Hezbollah’s history and evolution from a religiously motivated institution to a serious but destabilizing and opportunistic political actor.

What Is Hezbollah?

Hezbollah describes itself as a faith-based, Islamic jihadist movement. It says its key objectives include defending Lebanon against “probable Israeli aggression” and establishing an Islamic republic similar to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic state in Iran. Hezbollah’s 1985 Open Letter – essentially, the group’s manifesto – unambiguously stated that if the people freely chose the form of governance they hoped to see in Lebanon, they would find no alternative to Iran’s Islamic model. But in 1987, it launched jihad against the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon instead of pursuing the more difficult task of creating a utopian state.

Whereas Sunnis perceive jihad as waging war against the infidel to expand Islam’s domain, Shiites understand it as a means of fighting injustice within Islam. For them, injustice began in the early years of Islam when the Prophet Muhammad’s close companions, viewed by Shiites as hypocrites, barred his cousin Imam Ali’s succession to the leadership of the Islamic community. The crisis split Muslims, eventually leading to the rise of the Sunni-Shiite divide, warranting jihad against the Sunni hypocrites.

Distribution of Shiite and Sunni Muslims
(click to enlarge)

Khomeini introduced the concept of political jihad when he called for war against the forces of global arrogance – i.e., the U.S. and Israel. The 1953 CIA-planned Iranian coup to reinstate the shah was a blow to Iranians’ national pride and led to widespread anti-Americanism. Khomeini also chose to fight against Zionism because he wanted to export his revolution throughout the Middle East and believed that taking an anti-Israeli stance would appeal to Arabs. Unlike jihad against hypocrites that assumed a permanent religious dimension, political jihad is transient, potentially leading to cooperation between Shiites and the West.

Hezbollah mobilized Lebanese Shiite society through a comprehensive socialization system encompassing culture, education, health care, media, economic activity, and care for wounded fighters and families of the fallen. Hezbollah encourages its followers to enroll in military training in Lebanon and Iran – which helped the group bond with its constituency. Becoming a Hezbollah member, however, is a rigorous process requiring the fulfillment of stringent prerequisites. Hezbollah members must come from Twelver Imami Shiite families, not proselytism, and must subscribe to Khomeini’s religious doctrine. They must believe that Iran’s supreme leader will decide whether to grant them entrance into heaven. The group rejects applicants who are independent-minded and critical thinkers.

But since 2000, when Israel withdrew from south Lebanon, Hezbollah has shifted its focus. It has shown little interest in fighting the Israel Defense Forces and is instead focused on Lebanon itself, where it has a clear advantage against local militias and unmotivated Lebanese army forces. It has also spent much time and resources doing Iran’s bidding, though Hezbollah fighters did not perform well against Syrian rebels until the Russians joined the battle in 2015. Their guerrilla warfare tactics in south Lebanon – namely, planting roadside bombs and firing rockets – were unsuccessful in Syria. They did not know how to maneuver on the battlefield and feared close-range combat with al-Nusra and Islamic State fighters.

Hezbollah ultimately sustained heavy casualties in Syria. Two years ago, the group’s elite al-Radwan units were pummeled by the Turkish army in the Syrian province of Idlib. The Israeli command followed the battle and was impressed with how easily the Turks defeated Hezbollah, which is now in no position to engage in another conflict with the IDF.

New Role

Even before Israel left Lebanon, Hezbollah began to search for local allies to prepare for its growing role in domestic affairs. Membership in Hezbollah requires compliance with a strict set of preconditions that can be met only by religious Shiites, but in 1997, the group formed its Resistance Brigades unit, whose membership is open to all young Lebanese men without regard to their political or religious affiliation. The idea was inspired by a group of young Christians who offered their condolences after the death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s son in a battle with the Israelis and expressed interest in becoming Hezbollah fighters.

But the group has been much less interested in recruiting Christians than Sunnis or even Druze in the Resistance Brigades. In fact, the salaries offered to Sunnis are 50 percent higher than those given to members of other sects. Sunnis are the most critical sect to Hezbollah because of the high number of intermarriages. Sunnis also live primarily in urban areas and constitute the largest religious group in Beirut. No political movement can influence national politics without establishing itself in the capital. Sidon, a port city that Hezbollah must go through to reach Beirut, the southern suburbs and the Beqaa Valley (its link to Syria), is also predominantly Sunni.

Lebanon's Distribution of Religious Groups
(click to enlarge)

According to estimates, there are 50,000 militiamen in the brigades. Their primary duties include preventing the rise of anti-Hezbollah armed groups, preventing obstruction of highway traffic and doing Hezbollah’s dirty work. Most Sunnis, Druze and Shiites in Hezbollah’s allied Amal Movement view the Resistance Brigades – which usually attract the uneducated, unemployed, ex-convicts and fugitives – as intruders lacking political legitimacy and social acceptance.

When Lebanon held its first post-civil war parliamentary elections in 1992, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement ran joint candidates, winning most seats allocated to Shiites under the confessional political system. But Hezbollah’s reputation as a terrorist organization blocked its active political involvement. The international community had not forgotten its attacks on U.S. Marines and French military headquarters in Beirut in 1983, or its capture of several Western hostages and killing of others. Hezbollah released the last remaining U.S. hostage only a few months before the 1992 election.

Hezbollah’s focus on domestic affairs transcended sectarian rivalries. The group tried to rehabilitate its image as a national liberation movement. It even showed leniency toward Christian collaborators with Israel. But it failed to convince many Western countries that it had transformed into a peaceful movement. Its role in assassinating former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 confirmed the widespread belief that Hezbollah was incapable of reform. In 2008, its forces invaded west Beirut and subdued the Sunni community. It justified its actions by claiming they were necessary to safeguard the “Islamic resistance” against local agents of the “Saudi-U.S. conspiracy.”

Hezbollah has also obstructed an investigation into the 2020 Beirut port explosion, asserting that the judge in the case is politicized and biased. The group succeeded in ousting the previous judge, claiming he had no authority to interrogate Cabinet members and parliamentary deputies. Nasrallah understands that if the judge decided to indict them, they would confess that the explosives belonged to Hezbollah and were meant to be used in Syria. Its position on the port explosion, which caused incalculable destruction in Beirut and killed more than 200 people, including many Shiite port laborers, negates one of its core founding principles: to champion social justice and defend the disadvantaged and oppressed.

Hezbollah has evolved from its modest beginnings in the early 1980s to become Lebanon’s dominant political actor and destabilizing force. It ruined the country’s relations with its Arab neighbors, the preferred destination for Lebanese workers. The Lebanese political system has collapsed, and the people have grown impoverished amid skyrocketing inflation. The Gulf countries, infuriated by Hezbollah’s meddling in their affairs, have abandoned Lebanon. Yet, Nasrallah still feels he has moved forward in meeting his objective of creating an Islamic state in Lebanon

Title: WT: Israel and Turkey reconnecting?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 10, 2022, 01:56:57 AM

Herzog’s visit to Ankara eases deep freeze in Israeli-Turkish relationship

BY BURHAN OZBILICI AND SUZAN FRASER ASSOCIATED PRESS ANKARA, TURKEY | In a meeting that could shake up the pecking order across the Middle East, Turkey and Israel agreed on Wednesday to rebuild their relationship despite their differences, as Israel’s President Isaac Herzog became the first Israeli leader to visit Turkey in 14 years.

Appearing before cameras following talks with Mr. Herzog, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Israeli president’s visit as “historic” and “a turning point” in Turkish-Israeli relations. He said Turkey was ready to cooperate with Israel in the energy sector, adding that the Turkish foreign and energy ministers would soon visit Israel for more talks on increased cooperation.

“Our common goal is to revitalize political dialogue between our countries based on common interests and respect for mutual sensitivities,” Mr. Erdogan said.

Mr. Herzog said his visit constitutes a “very important moment” in relations, allowing the countries to “build bridges essential to us all.”

Both leaders conceded however, that differences remain — not least on the issue of the Palestinians.

“We expressed the importance we attach to reducing tensions in the region and preserving the vision of a two-state solution,” Mr. Erdogan said. “I underlined the importance we attach to the historical status of Jerusalem and the preservation of the religious identity and sanctity of Masjid Aqsa,” the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s historic Old City.

Israel captured east Jerusalem with its Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy sites — the emotional ground zero of the more than century-long conflict — in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it in a move unrecognized by most of the international community. The Palestinians seek east Jerusalem as capital of a future state along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis and Palestinians have not held substantive peace negotiations to reach a two-state solution to the confl ict in over a decade.

Mr. Herzog said: “We must agree in advance that we will not agree on everything, that is the nature of relations with a past as rich as ours. But the disagreements we will aspire to resolve with mutual respect and openness, through the proper mechanisms and systems, with a view to a shared future.”

Turkey and Israel once were close allies, but the relationship frayed under Mr. Erdogan, who is an outspoken critic of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. Israel also has been angered by Mr. Erdogan’s embrace of Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. Israel considers Hamas a terrorist group.

The countries withdrew their respective ambassadors in 2010 after Israeli forces stormed a Gaza-bound flotilla carrying humanitarian aid for Palestinians that broke an Israeli blockade. The incident resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish activists.

Relations deteriorated further in 2018 when Turkey, angered by the U.S. moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, once more recalled its ambassador, prompting Israel to respond in kind. The two countries have not reappointed their ambassadors.

The steps toward a rapprochement with Israel come as Turkey, beset by economic troubles, has been trying to end its international isolation by normalizing ties with several countries in the Mideast, including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Earlier, Mr. Herzog arrived at the Turkish presidential palace in the capital, Ankara, escorted by a Turkish mounted color guard. Mr. Erdogan and a military honor guard greeted him as a band played the Israeli anthem for the first time since 2008.

In Istanbul, a group of about 150 people, mostly members of pro-Islamist groups, protested the Israeli president’s visit, chanting anti-Israeli slogans and holding banners calling him a “killer.” The protesters included members of the Turkish Islamic relief group IHH, which organized the Gaza-bound flotilla that broke the Israeli blockade in 2010

Title: Stratfor: Israel enters another political crisis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2022, 06:50:08 PM

What to Watch For as Israel Enters Another Political Crisis
Following a key defection from the ruling coalition, Israel's right-wing opposition will use Jewish identity politics to peel off the final vote needed to force new elections, which could spur violence by emboldening radical groups. On April 6, Idit Silman — a lawmaker from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's right-wing pro-settler Yamina party — defected to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition Likud party after she was reportedly promised the position of health minister if Netanyahu returns to power. Silman's departure has left Bennett's coalition without a legislative majority in the 120-seat Knesset, which is now split 60-60 between the government and the opposition. Bennett has held meetings with other Yamina lawmakers and coalition leaders to try to prevent any additional defections, which would collapse his government and trigger new elections in Israel for the fifth time in four years. But unless Bennett finds support from opposition lawmakers, his coalition will remain unable to pass legislation, portending further political paralysis.

The political crisis caused by Silman's defection could last until Dec. 31, which is the deadline for the Knesset to pass the 2023 budget. According to Israeli law, if the Knesset fails to pass the budget before then (which requires a simple majority of at least 61 votes), early elections must take place. Bennett's coalition had originally aimed to vote on the 2023 budget next month, but Silman's recent defection now makes this very difficult.
Bennett's so-called ''change government'' was formed in June 2021 and brings together settlers, nationalists, Islamists, leftists and centrists. This ideological diversity has since severely handicapped the coalition's cohesion and ability to pass legislation. Members from Bennett's own Yamina party have proven especially troublesome, with Yamina legislator Amichai Chikli refusing to vote to form the coalition last year because he opposed the inclusion of centrists and left-wing parties.
The opposition only needs to secure one more defection to dissolve the Knesset and trigger fresh elections. Several members of Israel's coalition government could defect in the coming days, including disaffected Yamina members, as well as members of the right-wing New Hope party and the centrist Blue and White party. Some right-wing members of Bennett's coalition dislike having to work with left-wing Meretz and the Islamist Ra'am party, but have supported the coalition because of mutual disdain for Netanyahu, who repeatedly broke promises and made political enemies among his own right-wing partners during his 12-year tenure as prime minister. But Netanyahu might be able to convince one or more lawmakers from parties in the ruling coalition to join the opposition by offering lucrative ministry posts in his prospective next government, which seemed to do the trick in winning over Silman. Anger over their policies not being passed, or simply the belief that an evenly split government is unsustainable and the country would be better served with fresh elections, could also prompt a member of the government to go rogue and defect on their own accord.

Wholesale defections of the right-wing parties like Yisrael Beitenu and New Hope are possible but less likely. Their leaders have strong rivalries with Netanyahu and would be unlikely to be rewarded with the top posts they currently hold in another Netanyahu-led government.
Bennett may be able to find support on a case-by-case basis among lawmakers hesitant about Netanyahu's return to politics, which would enable the current Israeli government to remain in power — albeit in a constantly fragile position. There remains some discontent within the opposition for Netanyahu's leadership that could complicate his return to power. Netanyahu is currently on trial for corruption charges; a conviction might bar him from politics or drive down his popularity and politically affect Likud. He also promised to annex portions of the West Bank in 2020 but then failed to follow through, angering settlers and nationalists. One of these disgruntled settler or nationalist lawmakers might join with the Bennett government on certain items; rogue Yamina lawmaker Amichai Chikli might do the same. However, this would probably mean that the Bennett government would need to make concessions to the right that could alienate Meretz and Ra'am, like expanding settlements in the West Bank or promising Jewish identity policies.

The Netanyahu-led opposition will heavily emphasize Jewish identity politics to peel off another lawmaker, but in doing so, could embolden nationalist far-right groups to carry out violence against Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, and government officials. Part of Silman's rationale for leaving the coalition was that she felt the government did not emphasize Jewish identity well enough compared with Netanyahu's Likud party, which has long positioned itself as a champion of Israel's Jewish nationalism. Similar perceptions may lure other Yamina or New Hope Knesset members to join Likud. But as the opposition attempts to discredit the government as failing to uphold Jewish nationalist values, it could cause fringe radicals — like the Khanists of Otzma Yehudi — to carry out provocative marches, demonstrations and even riots against Palestinians, Arabs and members of the government. This would raise the specter of a wider security crisis as Bennett's coalition is already under public pressure to halt a surge of terror attacks inside Israel, and radical far-right groups might conclude that more violence would be enough to cause defections among wavering right-wingers in the Knesset.

Title: Jewish Space Laser
Post by: G M on April 14, 2022, 10:54:49 PM

https://twitter.com/naftalibennett/status/1514661060011245571?cxt=HHwWhoCy0bCNlIUqAAAA

I saw them open for Nine Inch Nails at Red Rocks in 96'.

Title: Al Jazeera praises attacks. Jordan and Turkey condemn.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2022, 07:43:22 AM

Al Jazeera Anchors Continue Tradition of Praising Terrorist Attacks
by Hany Ghoraba
IPT News
April 26, 2022

https://www.investigativeproject.org/9166/al-jazeera-anchors-continue-tradition-of-praising

Title: An apparent grad student writes for Stratfor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 03, 2022, 01:36:46 PM

Cyclical Violence Is Laying the Groundwork for an Israeli-Palestinian Unity State
undefined and Stratfor Middle East and North Africa Analyst at RANE
Ryan Bohl
Stratfor Middle East and North Africa Analyst at RANE, Stratfor
9 MIN READMay 3, 2022 | 18:37 GMT





Palestinians run for cover during clashes with Israeli security forces near the Israeli settlement of Beit El in the occupied West Bank on April 11, 2022.
Palestinians run for cover during clashes with Israeli security forces near the Israeli settlement of Beit El in the occupied West Bank on April 11, 2022.

(ABBAS MOMANI/AFP via Getty Images)

Israelis and Palestinians are embroiled in yet another cycle of violence. This latest round, however, is more part of a long-term trend that is seeing Israel unintentionally build its own path toward a unity state that integrates at least some of the Palestinian territories. Though many steps still need to be taken before this scenario plays out, the formation of such a state — which the international community, led by the United States and Europe, could very well impose — is becoming increasingly likely amid Israel's continued settlement expansions in the West Bank, along with Israeli and Palestinian disinterest in a peace process.

An Unstable Rhythm
Right now, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is paralyzed and looks set to stay that way. Israelis and Palestinians are both avoiding new talks, and no country on the international stage appears to have either the will or means to jump-start them. Instead, Israel is steadily expanding its settlements in the West Bank, and Palestinians are reacting to this expansion through protests, strikes and occasional violence. This violence subsequently provokes Israeli crackdowns, which either buy time until the next round of violence or escalate into direct conflict before de-escalating and restarting the cycle. What remains of the Oslo accords that began the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in 1993 are tattered in the wind behind these events; there is no strategic change in the balance of power between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, nor have Israel or the United States pushed to restart the peace process.

The international community, meanwhile, treats the simmering conflict as if it's frozen, with actors maneuvering around it. For example, the United States has not even appointed a special envoy to oversee the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has slipped toward the bottom of U.S. diplomatic priorities. And although the U.N. Human Rights Council recently accused Israel of apartheid, the label remains a symbolic measure that has no material effect. Additionally, parts of the Arab world, led by the United Arab Emirates, have normalized relations with Israel. Even the once-confrontational Turkey is now warming to Israel as Ankara tries to rebuild regional ties. Finally, the most recent bout of violence has produced diplomatic concern but little concrete action that would suggest the international community is about to make another push for peace. There are no summits planned, sanctions threatened, or even rumors of slow-cooking peace plans.

Even the local actors seem uninterested in negotiations. Israel's political spectrum is dominated by right-wing factions that favor settlement expansion and, eventually, the annexation of part or all of the West Bank, while leaving the Gaza Strip isolated. There is no credible Israeli coalition that could emerge to push for a new peace process, so even fresh elections would likely yield a similar, right-wing-dominated Knesset rather than another government like that led by Yitzhak Rabin, an Israeli prime minister who was assassinated in 1995 over his desire for peace with the Palestinian Territories. Instead, Israel is slowly inching toward expanded settlements in the West Bank without publicly acknowledging the effect of such settlements on the peace process in which Israel is still nominally engaged.

The Palestinians themselves are also divided and distracted. The Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank, is focused on managing the looming succession crisis that will follow the death of 87-year-old President Mahmoud Abbas, while also trying to keep the West Bank's pandemic-battered economy functioning. The PA's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the bare minimum, as it tries to prevent a major uprising while carrying out a half-hearted diplomatic campaign for international recognition. The PA has no realistic counters to settlement expansion, nor ways to convince the international community or Israel to seriously restart peace talks.

Then there are Hamas, which governs Gaza, and the Gazan militants, who have been corralled into the Gaza Strip. The groups have largely acquiesced that the best they can do is slowly challenge the PA for leadership of the Palestinian cause, while using the threat of their rockets to force Israel to ease the 16-year-old blockade. This is a far cry from achieving the goals of Hamas' charter, which still wants to replace Israel with an Islamist state.

But as organized actors avoid the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the lack of a clear resolution to the conflict produces grassroots radicalization. Palestinians and increasingly far-right Israelis scuffle in East Jerusalem and around settlements in the West Bank, fighting a deadly, low-level partisan war without much central leadership. These skirmishes are the most unstable element of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the moment and have the potential to spark wars. Indeed, Palestinian activists trying to stop Israeli evictions of Arab residents in East Jerusalem began the chain of events that led to the Gaza War in 2021. But regardless of how many times low-level conflict sparks wider violence, the series of events and outcome of those events have so far been the same: Israel strikes Gaza, Hamas fires rockets, and, after a time of fighting, the two eventually agree to cease hostilities and restore humanitarian aid.

Why the Status Quo Cannot Last
In the long run, this cycle of violence and cease-fire deals is unsustainable. The PA can only accept so many new Israeli settlements before it faces a popular backlash strong enough to collapse it. And Hamas can only pick so many fights to win bare-bones humanitarian aid before its own popular legitimacy crashes. Israel, for its part, can also only quell backlash to settlement expansion so many times before the Palestinian public becomes too radical to de-escalate. And the international community can only ignore the problem for so long before Israeli-Palestinian tensions erupt into a full-scale war; even during last year's Gaza War, the United States was forced to engage in rapid phone diplomacy to de-escalate tensions in the hopes of avoiding such a greater military conflict.

But the next Gaza War won't mean a sudden restart of peace talks. The main outside actors — the United States, the Arab states and Europe — will again seek to de-escalate the conflict and return to the status quo. But in doing so, they will enable the very conditions that will cause the next war and, more importantly, enable Israel to continue slowly expanding settlements in the West Bank. Eventually, Israel's hold on the region will be so entrenched that actual annexation is a fact on the ground, if not an outright legal designation. And if Israel does annex part of the Palestinian territories, it will mean the end of the two-state process and possibly the end of the PA, which could be reduced to an Israeli-armed proxy force rather than a Palestinian state in waiting. Gaza would likely be left aside — isolated by Israel and Egypt, and treated as a geopolitical no-man's-land to be managed but never firmly solved.

If annexation (whether de jure or de facto) does happen, 2.9 million Palestinians in the West Bank would be left permanently stateless, controlled by the Israeli military and whatever is left of the PA. It would not be the exact same as South Africa's apartheid regime, under which different racial groups were legally mandated to live separately. But some voters in the United States and Europe, especially those who are already skeptical of if not outright hostile to Israel, may still see the seizure of Palestinian territory as inherently discriminatory against the Arab populations living there. As this ethnically-charged narrative takes hold, the politics of declining international support for Israel, which are already under demographic pressure as younger voters grow more skeptical of Israeli policies, would accelerate. And with the two-state solution buried, another alternative might start to gain prominence.

This possible alternative is a unity state that integrates parts or all of the Palestinian territories and Israel. The partial scenario would see Israel annex the West Bank's land and citizens. The estimated 2.9 million Palestinians living there would become full voting citizens, and while that would dramatically alter Israel's demographics, it would not by itself overturn the country's Jewish majority (there are around 6.8 million Jews in Israel and 1.8 million non-Jews, mostly Palestinian Arabs). With such a greater Arab political voice in the Knesset, Israel would be much less likely to carry out new displacement policies in the annexed West Bank, and land ownership would likely be frozen from that point on.

The unity state scenario would probably exclude Gaza since its 2 million residents would tip Israel's demographic balance away from Jewish citizens. Additionally, if Hamas or another Islamist militant political party could organize the full Palestinian vote, the annexation of Gaza might result in elections that begin to dismantle Israel. Even those in the United States and Europe who are critical of Israel's annexations are unlikely to favor that outcome, given Israel's special place as a homeland for Jewish people.

The partial unity state would appeal to the international community for several reasons:

It would sidestep the issue of Gaza, which will likely remain ruled by Hamas or some other militant faction for years to come.
It would dismantle the PA, which has not been effective in setting up the conditions for an eventual Palestinian state.
It would be most in line with the values of the principal international actors (namely the United States and Europe) by preserving Israel's democratic character, while also putting Arab Palestinians firmly inside a state in which they already have political representation.
It would build on the growing political influence of Arabs already living in Israel (the Islamist Ra'am party made history last year by becoming the first Arab party to join an Israeli government in decades).
But such a unity state would come up against strong domestic opposition inside Israel; based on the April 2021 election results, no Israeli government can be elected on the platform of adding millions of Arab voters to the rolls. Instead, the international community would likely have to use the United States and Europe's substantial economic and military leverage over Israel to force a government to accept such an influx of new voters.

Such a Western consensus would take time and probably more violence between Israelis and Palestinians before taking hold. In the United States, the Democratic Party and especially the pro-Israel Republican Party would each need to reshape their views of Israel's security — a process that would likely take several elections to come to pass. In Europe, where many governments are sensitive to their own histories of anti-Semitism, this process would take even longer, and policy shifts to pressure Israel into forming a partial unity state may only come after the United States takes such a stance.

The political narrative around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, is nonetheless changing. The biggest event that could halt this trend is the restart of the two-state solution, though based on current factors, that remains unlikely.

Title: Re: An apparent grad student writes for Stratfor
Post by: G M on May 03, 2022, 01:52:28 PM

The deep insights of Kamala Harris combined with the verbal skills of someone who is not Kamala Harris.

You should ask Stratfor for a refund.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 03, 2022, 01:36:46 PM

Cyclical Violence Is Laying the Groundwork for an Israeli-Palestinian Unity State
undefined and Stratfor Middle East and North Africa Analyst at RANE
Ryan Bohl
Stratfor Middle East and North Africa Analyst at RANE, Stratfor
9 MIN READMay 3, 2022 | 18:37 GMT





Palestinians run for cover during clashes with Israeli security forces near the Israeli settlement of Beit El in the occupied West Bank on April 11, 2022.
Palestinians run for cover during clashes with Israeli security forces near the Israeli settlement of Beit El in the occupied West Bank on April 11, 2022.

(ABBAS MOMANI/AFP via Getty Images)

Israelis and Palestinians are embroiled in yet another cycle of violence. This latest round, however, is more part of a long-term trend that is seeing Israel unintentionally build its own path toward a unity state that integrates at least some of the Palestinian territories. Though many steps still need to be taken before this scenario plays out, the formation of such a state — which the international community, led by the United States and Europe, could very well impose — is becoming increasingly likely amid Israel's continued settlement expansions in the West Bank, along with Israeli and Palestinian disinterest in a peace process.

An Unstable Rhythm
Right now, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is paralyzed and looks set to stay that way. Israelis and Palestinians are both avoiding new talks, and no country on the international stage appears to have either the will or means to jump-start them. Instead, Israel is steadily expanding its settlements in the West Bank, and Palestinians are reacting to this expansion through protests, strikes and occasional violence. This violence subsequently provokes Israeli crackdowns, which either buy time until the next round of violence or escalate into direct conflict before de-escalating and restarting the cycle. What remains of the Oslo accords that began the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in 1993 are tattered in the wind behind these events; there is no strategic change in the balance of power between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, nor have Israel or the United States pushed to restart the peace process.

The international community, meanwhile, treats the simmering conflict as if it's frozen, with actors maneuvering around it. For example, the United States has not even appointed a special envoy to oversee the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has slipped toward the bottom of U.S. diplomatic priorities. And although the U.N. Human Rights Council recently accused Israel of apartheid, the label remains a symbolic measure that has no material effect. Additionally, parts of the Arab world, led by the United Arab Emirates, have normalized relations with Israel. Even the once-confrontational Turkey is now warming to Israel as Ankara tries to rebuild regional ties. Finally, the most recent bout of violence has produced diplomatic concern but little concrete action that would suggest the international community is about to make another push for peace. There are no summits planned, sanctions threatened, or even rumors of slow-cooking peace plans.

Even the local actors seem uninterested in negotiations. Israel's political spectrum is dominated by right-wing factions that favor settlement expansion and, eventually, the annexation of part or all of the West Bank, while leaving the Gaza Strip isolated. There is no credible Israeli coalition that could emerge to push for a new peace process, so even fresh elections would likely yield a similar, right-wing-dominated Knesset rather than another government like that led by Yitzhak Rabin, an Israeli prime minister who was assassinated in 1995 over his desire for peace with the Palestinian Territories. Instead, Israel is slowly inching toward expanded settlements in the West Bank without publicly acknowledging the effect of such settlements on the peace process in which Israel is still nominally engaged.

The Palestinians themselves are also divided and distracted. The Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank, is focused on managing the looming succession crisis that will follow the death of 87-year-old President Mahmoud Abbas, while also trying to keep the West Bank's pandemic-battered economy functioning. The PA's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the bare minimum, as it tries to prevent a major uprising while carrying out a half-hearted diplomatic campaign for international recognition. The PA has no realistic counters to settlement expansion, nor ways to convince the international community or Israel to seriously restart peace talks.

Then there are Hamas, which governs Gaza, and the Gazan militants, who have been corralled into the Gaza Strip. The groups have largely acquiesced that the best they can do is slowly challenge the PA for leadership of the Palestinian cause, while using the threat of their rockets to force Israel to ease the 16-year-old blockade. This is a far cry from achieving the goals of Hamas' charter, which still wants to replace Israel with an Islamist state.

But as organized actors avoid the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the lack of a clear resolution to the conflict produces grassroots radicalization. Palestinians and increasingly far-right Israelis scuffle in East Jerusalem and around settlements in the West Bank, fighting a deadly, low-level partisan war without much central leadership. These skirmishes are the most unstable element of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the moment and have the potential to spark wars. Indeed, Palestinian activists trying to stop Israeli evictions of Arab residents in East Jerusalem began the chain of events that led to the Gaza War in 2021. But regardless of how many times low-level conflict sparks wider violence, the series of events and outcome of those events have so far been the same: Israel strikes Gaza, Hamas fires rockets, and, after a time of fighting, the two eventually agree to cease hostilities and restore humanitarian aid.

Why the Status Quo Cannot Last
In the long run, this cycle of violence and cease-fire deals is unsustainable. The PA can only accept so many new Israeli settlements before it faces a popular backlash strong enough to collapse it. And Hamas can only pick so many fights to win bare-bones humanitarian aid before its own popular legitimacy crashes. Israel, for its part, can also only quell backlash to settlement expansion so many times before the Palestinian public becomes too radical to de-escalate. And the international community can only ignore the problem for so long before Israeli-Palestinian tensions erupt into a full-scale war; even during last year's Gaza War, the United States was forced to engage in rapid phone diplomacy to de-escalate tensions in the hopes of avoiding such a greater military conflict.

But the next Gaza War won't mean a sudden restart of peace talks. The main outside actors — the United States, the Arab states and Europe — will again seek to de-escalate the conflict and return to the status quo. But in doing so, they will enable the very conditions that will cause the next war and, more importantly, enable Israel to continue slowly expanding settlements in the West Bank. Eventually, Israel's hold on the region will be so entrenched that actual annexation is a fact on the ground, if not an outright legal designation. And if Israel does annex part of the Palestinian territories, it will mean the end of the two-state process and possibly the end of the PA, which could be reduced to an Israeli-armed proxy force rather than a Palestinian state in waiting. Gaza would likely be left aside — isolated by Israel and Egypt, and treated as a geopolitical no-man's-land to be managed but never firmly solved.

If annexation (whether de jure or de facto) does happen, 2.9 million Palestinians in the West Bank would be left permanently stateless, controlled by the Israeli military and whatever is left of the PA. It would not be the exact same as South Africa's apartheid regime, under which different racial groups were legally mandated to live separately. But some voters in the United States and Europe, especially those who are already skeptical of if not outright hostile to Israel, may still see the seizure of Palestinian territory as inherently discriminatory against the Arab populations living there. As this ethnically-charged narrative takes hold, the politics of declining international support for Israel, which are already under demographic pressure as younger voters grow more skeptical of Israeli policies, would accelerate. And with the two-state solution buried, another alternative might start to gain prominence.

This possible alternative is a unity state that integrates parts or all of the Palestinian territories and Israel. The partial scenario would see Israel annex the West Bank's land and citizens. The estimated 2.9 million Palestinians living there would become full voting citizens, and while that would dramatically alter Israel's demographics, it would not by itself overturn the country's Jewish majority (there are around 6.8 million Jews in Israel and 1.8 million non-Jews, mostly Palestinian Arabs). With such a greater Arab political voice in the Knesset, Israel would be much less likely to carry out new displacement policies in the annexed West Bank, and land ownership would likely be frozen from that point on.

The unity state scenario would probably exclude Gaza since its 2 million residents would tip Israel's demographic balance away from Jewish citizens. Additionally, if Hamas or another Islamist militant political party could organize the full Palestinian vote, the annexation of Gaza might result in elections that begin to dismantle Israel. Even those in the United States and Europe who are critical of Israel's annexations are unlikely to favor that outcome, given Israel's special place as a homeland for Jewish people.

The partial unity state would appeal to the international community for several reasons:

It would sidestep the issue of Gaza, which will likely remain ruled by Hamas or some other militant faction for years to come.
It would dismantle the PA, which has not been effective in setting up the conditions for an eventual Palestinian state.
It would be most in line with the values of the principal international actors (namely the United States and Europe) by preserving Israel's democratic character, while also putting Arab Palestinians firmly inside a state in which they already have political representation.
It would build on the growing political influence of Arabs already living in Israel (the Islamist Ra'am party made history last year by becoming the first Arab party to join an Israeli government in decades).
But such a unity state would come up against strong domestic opposition inside Israel; based on the April 2021 election results, no Israeli government can be elected on the platform of adding millions of Arab voters to the rolls. Instead, the international community would likely have to use the United States and Europe's substantial economic and military leverage over Israel to force a government to accept such an influx of new voters.

Such a Western consensus would take time and probably more violence between Israelis and Palestinians before taking hold. In the United States, the Democratic Party and especially the pro-Israel Republican Party would each need to reshape their views of Israel's security — a process that would likely take several elections to come to pass. In Europe, where many governments are sensitive to their own histories of anti-Semitism, this process would take even longer, and policy shifts to pressure Israel into forming a partial unity state may only come after the United States takes such a stance.

The political narrative around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, is nonetheless changing. The biggest event that could halt this trend is the restart of the two-state solution, though based on current factors, that remains unlikely.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 03, 2022, 06:47:16 PM

Did you notice my Subject line?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on May 03, 2022, 10:08:00 PM

I did. You were being overly generous.

Title: stratford
Post by: ccp on May 04, 2022, 07:02:48 AM

sometimes there are a few good points

but overall honestly
I read lots and lots of verbiage with very little to take away from there articles

I find it hard to read
and get virtually nothing for the effort

just my take
but then again I prefer articles that get to the point faster
same for medicine articles .....

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 04, 2022, 03:26:37 PM

I have a residual respect for Stratfor that was established when George Friedman was at the helm.  Now I post it more in the spirit of "FWIW". 

Title: GPF: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2022, 06:20:43 AM

June 16, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Israel Calls Hezbollah’s Bluff
In its maritime dispute with Lebanon, Israel has been undeterred by Hezbollah’s empty threats.
By: Hilal Khashan

Earlier this month, the Israeli-contracted Energean Power gas rig reached the Suez Canal from Singapore on its way to the Karish gas field, located in a disputed maritime zone between Israel and Lebanon. The Lebanese government responded by asking the U.S. to dispatch its envoy for energy affairs, Amos Hochstein, to Beirut to resume stalled negotiations over the contested area. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah also warned that Hezbollah could block Israeli activities in the area to protect Lebanese resources and territorial claims.

Despite the hostile rhetoric toward Israel, however, Lebanon’s issue is primarily a product of its sectarian political system and domestic rivalries. Hezbollah’s claims to defend Lebanese gas wealth against Israeli ambitions are part of its propaganda, aimed at justifying maintaining its own military arsenal. It can’t risk instigating an armed conflict with Israel over this affair and therefore will pressure the Lebanese government to reach a deal.

Origins of the Dispute

The origin of the dispute goes back to the controversial 1923 Paulet-Newcombe Agreement that drew the border between the Lebanon and Palestine mandates. In 2000, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, the United Nations produced a map to determine if Israel had fully pulled out of Lebanese territory. The map included a maritime boundary line and was readily accepted by Lebanon. However, when seismic surveys in the mid-2000s showed potentially substantial gas deposits in the Levantine basin covering the coasts of Syria, Lebanon and Israel, Beirut rejected the previously agreed-to boundaries and demanded a larger share of the sea than the 2000 arrangement would have allowed. Part of the disputed area is what’s called Block 9, a portion of the sea that has shown particularly promising results in these studies.

Lebanon-Israel Maritime Boundary Dispute
(click to enlarge)

In 2012, the Lebanese government rejected U.S. mediator Frederic Hof’s offer to resolve the disagreement by giving Lebanon two-thirds and Israel one-third of the entire disputed area totaling 330 square miles. But the lack of diplomatic relations between the two countries has prevented an agreement from being reached. According to Israel, security issues and its lack of diplomatic recognition also complicate the conflict. The enclosed Eastern Mediterranean basin also precludes countries in the region from claiming an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from their coasts, as allowed for under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The two countries were on the verge of signing a deal based on Hof’s proposal in 2013, but Lebanon’s political instability prevented it from happening. That year, the U.S. dispatched another mediator, Amos Hochstein, to negotiate a settlement. However, Lebanese vacillation, frequent change of demands, and obsession with irrelevant details forced the U.S. to shelve these efforts last year.

Disputed Maritime Borders and Gas Blocks
(click to enlarge)

Gas as a Domestic Issue

Lebanon has long been aware of the potential of its untapped resources. In 1926, the French high commissioner for the Levant authorized exploration activities on Lebanese lands and waters. Subsequent seismic surveys showed great potential for finding natural gas. Though the 1975-1989 civil war postponed assessment of its petroleum potential, Lebanon commissioned British firm Spectrum to conduct a two-dimensional survey of its waters in 2002. The study showed a great possibility of striking significant hydrocarbon assets in Lebanon’s exclusive economic zone. Estimates suggest that its exploitable gas deposits could total 12 trillion to 25 trillion cubic feet.

However, Lebanon’s fundamental problem in accessing these resources is its own domestic squabbling, not Israel. U.S. diplomats have been appalled by Lebanese intransigence about a minor dispute and the loss of billions of dollars in revenue that could have staved off the country’s financial collapse. But like everything else in Lebanon, the hydrocarbon issue has been complicated by sectarian friction. Blocks 1 and 2 lie in the waters of Sunni-majority areas in the north, while blocks 3-6 overlook Maronite-populated areas and blocks 7-10 lie on the coast of the Shiite south.

Lebanon's Distribution of Religious Groups
(click to enlarge)

While Lebanese and Israeli delegates negotiated indirectly under the auspices of U.N. and U.S. mediators, politicians in Beirut disagreed over what they wanted. President Michel Aoun refused to ratify Decree 6433, a government-backed plan pushed by Lebanon’s negotiating team that would have extended the country’s claims in the disputed waters from a boundary known as Line 23 to Line 29, adding 552 square miles to its maritime zone. Aoun initially justified his unwillingness to sign the decree by saying it was issued in 2020 by a caretaker Cabinet that lacked the mandate to make policy. He would have settled for limiting Lebanon’s claim to Line 23 if it gave the country full access to the Qana gas field, which would have meant recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Karish gas field. He hoped this concession, which put him at odds with Lebanese Shiites, would sway the U.S. to remove sanctions against his son-in-law and presidential aspirant Jibran Bassil. Last year, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale praised Aoun for dropping Lebanon’s claim to Line 29, though the dispute remained unsettled.

In 2020, the Lebanese government came under pressure from Christian factions to explore for gas in undisputed areas farther north. TotalEnergies began drilling in Block 4, but to the government’s disappointment, it found no gas in commercial quantities, forcing Lebanon to refocus hopes on the areas under dispute with Israel, including Block 9, which is the most promising of the blocks included in Lebanese claims.

For years, Lebanese officials mismanaged this issue, just as they have mishandled other public resources. In a country where civil society groups that could advocate for the public good are absent, officials have been preoccupied with managing their own wealth. Lebanon refused to establish a national hydrocarbon company and a sovereign wealth fund. Politicians spent two years squabbling over sectarian representation before establishing a national petroleum administration, finally deciding to rotate the chief executive officer annually. This is a reflection of a political system that rests on a loose sectarian alliance striving to maintain balance among its constituent factions. Moreover, Sunni prime ministers have consistently delayed signing documents related to gas exploitation fearing exclusion from the profits that could result from significant discoveries, given that much of the potential gas deposits lie next to Shiite and Maronite Christian-majority areas.

This behavior has stunned the U.N., the U.S. and energy companies, all of which wasted valuable time because of Lebanese politicians’ obsession with minute details and unnecessary delays. High taxes on profits have also discouraged many companies from getting involved in exploration activities.

Hezbollah’s Limitations

Since negotiations with Israel stalled last year, Hezbollah has pushed the government behind the scenes to request that Hochstein return to Beirut to resolve the standoff. Its desire for mediation indicates that Hezbollah knows it can’t force Israel into accepting its terms – despite its repeated hostile rhetoric and threats toward the Israelis.

Iran created Hezbollah in 1985 under the pretext of resisting the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, but after Israeli forces withdrew in 2000, Hezbollah’s anti-Israel mission ended. To justify keeping its military wing, Hezbollah launched minor cross-border operations to abduct Israeli troops and swap them with Lebanese prisoners. In 2006, a raid to kidnap soldiers did not go according to plan, precipitating a war neither side wanted. Since then, Hezbollah has not launched attacks on Israel, focusing instead on acting as Iran’s premier regional proxy.

Over the past decade, Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria. It even targeted Damascus airport, destroying its runways and other vital facilities. Iran and Hezbollah, meanwhile, have consistently avoided retaliation.

Israel’s military chief said the army has thousands of targets it could attack in the next war against Hezbollah, ranging from military commands to missile systems and houses where Hezbollah munitions are stored. This would include all residential structures in south Lebanon where the United Nations Interim Forces operate. It would be suicidal therefore for Hezbollah to provoke Israel into a military confrontation. It has thus conveniently extricated itself from the maritime dispute, stressing that it would take action only if the government in Beirut determines that Israel took what rightfully belonged to Lebanon. The urgency with which the government invited Hochstein to resume his mediation efforts suggests that it too is eager to avoid armed conflict at any cost.

Diplomacy Will Prevail

After five rounds of negotiation, the U.S.-led talks broke down last year when Lebanon refused to accept a compromise deal that would have given Israel control of the Karish gas field and Lebanon two-thirds of the Qana field. The sticking point at that time was Beirut’s insistence on extending its claims to Line 29.

Hochstein expressed surprise when Lebanese officials alerted him about the arrival of the Energean Power gas rig, which he had informed them a year ago would arrive this month to explore for gas. Still, he returned to Beirut to help resolve the dispute, assured that the Lebanese wouldn’t obstruct his efforts this time. Lebanon’s bargaining position is weak. Its politicians can’t form a government, and the parliament is unlikely to elect a new president when Aoun’s term ends in September. Failure to accept Hochstein’s proposal won’t stop Israel, which will proceed with its plans to explore for gas undeterred by Nasrallah’s threats.

Meanwhile, Hochstein suggested another plan to help ease Lebanon’s chronic power shortage. He promised the Lebanese energy minister that Egypt and Jordan would be given the go-ahead to supply Lebanon with gas and electricity through Syrian territory, exempting them from sanctions that would otherwise be imposed for doing business with the Assad regime. Hochstein also promised to convince Iraq to extend fuel donations to Lebanon for another year. After running out of room to haggle and realizing that Hezbollah won’t challenge Israel’s activities in the disputed maritime areas, Lebanese negotiators are now facing a moment of truth.

Title: Why America First Loves Israel, WRM
Post by: DougMacG on July 02, 2022, 08:50:06 AM

https://freebeacon.com/culture/why-america-first-loves-israel/

Title: Israel shoots down Hezbollah drones
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2022, 05:00:19 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62022452

Title: Biden smears Israel
Post by: DougMacG on July 16, 2022, 05:58:56 AM

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bidens-disgraceful-smear-of-israel-is-no-laughing-matter/

Title: Israel, (more from) Walter Russell Mead
Post by: DougMacG on July 16, 2022, 06:01:15 AM

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/walter-russell-mead-the-arc-of-a-covenant.php

He is the author of Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (2002), perhaps the most important foreign policy book of the past 25 years, and, most recently, The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People,

Title: The Palestinians and Pres Biden's false analogy
Post by: DougMacG on July 17, 2022, 07:58:55 AM

The Irish wanted freedom and independence from England, not the destruction of England.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/lets_teach_joe_biden_why_the_palestinians_are_not_like_the_irish.html

Title: Stratfor: Israel and Russia friction
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2022, 04:10:00 PM

Russia and Israel's Row Over Ukraine Risks Bleeding Into Syria
7 MIN READJul 18, 2022 | 20:51 GMT





Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) speaks with then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in Sochi, Russia, on Oct. 22 2021.
Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) speaks with then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett (left) in Sochi, Russia, on Oct. 22, 2021.

(YEVGENY BIYATOV/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)

Russian pressure on Israel to reduce support for Ukraine and ease airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria could trigger a diplomatic crisis or accidental military escalation between the two — particularly in Syria, where the Israeli-Russo relationship is becoming tenser. On July 5, Russia's foreign ministry demanded Israel cease a long-running covert air campaign against Iranian targets in Syria after Israeli warplanes hit a reputed Iranian position relatively close to Russia's naval base in Tartus. That same day, Israel accused Moscow of threatening to close down the Jewish Agency in Russia, which aids Jewish immigration and visits to Israel (known as "Aliyah"). In June, Russia also criticized an Israeli airstrike on the Damascus airport that shut down the airport for days.

Israeli-Russian ties in Syria have been largely pragmatic. Up until recently, Moscow had tolerated Israel's airstrikes aimed at degrading Iran's military influence, including those in Syria's Latakia province, where Russia's air and naval bases lie. But Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has become a drain on its military resources in Syria, where Moscow has withdrawn some of its troops to fight in Europe. This has made maintaining Iranian military influence more important in fulfilling Russia's aim of consolidating Syrian President Bashar al Assad's control of the country. Moscow has, in turn, become warier of Israeli airstrikes against Iran in Syria, seeing them as potentially destabilizing for the al Assad regime. As part of this new concern, in May, a Russian-operated but Syrian-owned S-300 missile system reportedly targeted Israeli jets in Syria.
Russia has also expressed strong displeasure about Israel's diplomatic and defensive material support for Ukraine. Israel has sent limited numbers of helmets and kevlar to Ukrainian troops fighting Russian forces. Roughly a month after Russia launched its invasion in February, Israel also allowed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to virtually address lawmakers in the Israeli Knesset. These actions have angered Russia, which in early May, accused Israel of supporting unproven neo-Nazis in Ukraine and sending mercenaries to fight against Russia. During his visit to Israel on July 14, U.S. President Joe Biden reportedly asked Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid to expand Israel's military assistance to Ukraine, which would risk only further ramping up tensions with Moscow.
Russian-Israeli relations remain anchored by a strong mutual desire to avoid conflict, making it unlikely either country actively seeks a confrontation in Syria. Russia does not have an interest in Iran's regional anti-Israel campaign, which previously saw Moscow largely ignore Israeli air activity over Syria — especially when the targets of those strikes didn't affect the overall civil war. Israel, for its part, has also historically not objected to Russia's position in Syria and alliance with the al Assad regime, which does not target or otherwise impact Israel. This shared neutrality toward each other's actions in Syria has seen Russia and Israel regularly de-conflict in the country. Indeed, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett flew to Moscow in early March to try to establish Israel as a possible facilitator for brokering a cease-fire with Kyiv. Despite the recent uptick in tensions over Ukraine, Russia and Israel also still have deep cultural, social and economic ties. And these ties remain intact, as Israel has notably not joined the Western sanctions campaign against Russia and continues to host some Russian oligarchs.

The Soviet Union established the Tartus naval facility in 1971 as it backed Syria against U.S.-allied Israel in the Cold War. But hostilities between Moscow and Israel ended with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Russian Federation has since used the Soviet-era naval base in Syria to retain influence in the eastern Mediterranean, not to target U.S. allies like Israel in the region.
However, Russia's increasing reliance on Iran to secure strategic gains in Syria will increase its willingness to slow Israeli airstrikes against Iranian targets. Israel's airstrikes against Iran — which is a close ally of the Russian-backed regime in Damascus — now carry a greater risk of destabilizing the Syrian government, as the war in Ukraine continues to strain Moscow's ability to protect al Assad's forces. For Russia, continuing to allow Israel to launch such attacks also risks jeopardizing its relationship with Tehran — one of Moscow's key allies against the U.S.- and European-led economic isolation campaign. This increased economic and security reliance on Tehran's role in Syria will likely prompt Moscow to try to slow Israeli airstrikes. Through the de-confliction communication lines it has established with Israel, Moscow may try to try to convince Israel not to strike certain targets or areas, like the sensitive Latakia province and the Damascus airport, as well as other strategic sites that are either associated with Syria's economy or are particularly important to Iran. Russia might also threaten to give Syrian forces the green light to use Russian-made weapons, such as the S-300 air defense system, to more frequently target Israeli warplanes — either by locking on to the jets or by actually firing at them. In the most extreme case, Moscow might threaten to use the S-400 missile defense system against Israeli warplanes if they target locations Russia considers particularly sensitive. Russia, however, is unlikely to follow through on such a threat, as unlike Syria's S-300, the S-400 is directly operated by the Russian military. Using this system directly on Israeli warplanes would thus almost certainly trigger a direct military crisis between Russia and Israel, and potentially the United States.

Israeli airstrikes harm the Syrian economy by damaging infrastructure (including border crossings, ports and airports). This deters trade and business Damascus needs, undermining Syrian stability.
Israel's warming ties with Ukraine make Russia more likely to continue cutting off its diplomatic and cultural ties with Israel as well. Over 150,000 Jews remain in Russia. Around 900,000 Jews in Israel are also Russian or of Russian descent. This deep cultural and social connection gives Israel a strong political incentive to maintain ties with Moscow, as evidenced by Isreal's resistance to imposing Ukraine-related sanctions. But this also gives Moscow some leverage to try to limit Israel's ties with Ukraine, as Russia can threaten travel bans, block communication, disrupt immigration and travel to Israel (Aliyah), and, in the most extreme cases, arrest prominent Jews in Russia. Russia is also a notable source of tourism for Israel, with Russian tourists making up around 10% of all tourists in 2021, second only to the United States.

Accidental escalation remains possible as Russia attempts to carry out this relationship reframe, which could result in a diplomatic rupture or a military confrontation in Syria. Israel may not meet Russian demands to pare down airstrikes, especially if U.S.-Iran nuclear talks collapse and spur a regional military escalation. Russia would then either have to risk its credibility as a protector of the Syrian government or a possible military confrontation with Israel. Even using Syrian-owned S-300s against Israel could spark a confrontation if Israeli warplanes destroy an S-300 battery and cause Russian casualties. Meanwhile, if Russia overuses its social and economic leverage to push Israel away from Ukraine, it could backfire by causing Israel to align more with Ukraine and the West's isolation campaign against Russia.

Russian attempts to leverage its social and economic influence against Israel could embolden long-entrenched anti-Semitic elements in the country. Russian Jews are already reporting an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Russia.
Since the re-imposition of U.S.-led sanctions on Iran in 2018, Israel has escalated its covert campaign against Iran's nuclear and missile programs, including carrying out assassinations and reported drone strikes inside Iran itself. The covert campaign carries a latent risk of regional escalation.

Title: You'd think Israel would be very sensitive about such things
Post by: G M on July 31, 2022, 09:10:10 AM

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/357072?fs=e&s=cl

Good thing that can't happen here!

Title: Hezbollah-Iran threaten Israel's gas fields
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2022, 11:09:29 AM

Iran's Long Reach Threatens Israeli Gas Drilling and American Troops
by Ioannis E. Kotoulas
Special to IPT News
August 10, 2022

https://www.investigativeproject.org/9234/iran-long-reach-threatens-israeli-gas-drilling

Title: GPF: Hamas and Islamic Jihad
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 11, 2022, 03:05:47 AM

August 11, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Ideological Division Between Hamas and Islamic Jihad
Hamas is transitioning from a terrorist organization into a peace partner.
By: Hilal Khashan

Israel's decisive triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War discredited pan-Arab nationalist movements and secular leaders. It gave impetus to state-oppressed religious groups, such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which promoted political Islam to overcome Arab weaknesses and lead to victory. Israel's capture of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 convinced many Palestinians to join the Brotherhood before deciding to organize their Islamic movements. Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad appeared in the occupied territories.

The two movements grew to overtake the national and secular Palestinian groups such as Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. But despite their staunch anti-Israel stance, fundamental ideological divisions separate Hamas from the PIJ, specifically about political activity and fighting Israel. Apart from their divisions, the two groups decided to manage their disagreements with the understanding that Hamas held the upper hand.

Rivalry, Accommodation and Domination

In 1981, Fathi Shiqaqi, who hailed from the Brotherhood, was dismayed by fellow Brotherhood member Sheikh Ahmad Yassin's reluctance to fight Israel. Shiqaqi decided to establish a separate movement, the PIJ, to undertake this endeavor. PIJ set up military wings in Gaza and the West Bank, renamed Saraya al-Quds in 1993, and carried out the first Palestinian suicide bombing shortly afterward. The Mossad assassinated Shiqaqi in Malta in 1995.

Shiqaqi developed his revolutionary war theory to establish the PIJ by blending jihad (holy war), more than 1,400 years' worth of Islamic wars, and the Palestinian people's opposition to the Jewish state since the 1920s. The PIJ inherited Fatah's fight against Israel, and it was not a coincidence it reorganized its military at roughly the same time as the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in 1993, in which the Palestine Liberation Organization renounced violence and terrorism. Contrary to Hamas, which prefers calming down tensions with Israel, PIJ ideology rests on perpetual confrontation until the Jewish state disappears. It rejects any form of conciliation or interaction with Israelis because doing so violates the Koranic text.

The PIJ's military strategy emulated the concept of national liberation wars during the Anglo-French colonial era, especially since the 1950s. It believed that a protracted revolutionary war would not only end Israel's occupation of the West Bank but eventually lead to the withering away of Zionism and the Jewish state. The PIJ focuses its activity on preparing for military confrontation and avoids involvement in politics until the end of the occupation.

Palestinian Territorial Changes

(click to enlarge)

To that end, Iran is an important ally. Ramadan Shallah, secretary-general of the PIJ from 1995 to 2018, saw Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in Iran as a model for Muslims, especially Palestinians. The PLO, which preferred to work with him instead of Hamas, connected Shallah with the Iranians, who immediately sponsored his military activities and supplied the PIJ with arms and cash. Shallah, who died in 2020, was publicly contemptuous of Hamas, saying that its dream of controlling the Palestinian national decision was “delusional” and that its commercial wheeling and dealing will not benefit our cause.” Shallah coordinated political and military matters with Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, from 2012 until 2018.

PIJ officials argue that Hamas is not a jihadist movement and that it lacks a national liberation ideology. For its part, Hamas does not recognize the PIJ as a political player in Gaza, and it never involved it in Egyptian-mediated truce negotiations with Israel. Hamas is politically pragmatic and well-organized administratively, even though it lacks a clear political ideology. Hamas accuses the PIJ of conversion to Shiism, serving as a bridge for Iran's intrusion into the Arab region and alliance with the Palestinian leftist movements against it.

Unlike national and leftist organizations that immediately after the Six-Day War announced plans to fight Israel in occupied Arab territory, Hamas, whose formal appearance coincided with the first intifada in 1987, did not announce a military resistance strategy. It established its military component, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, in 1993 to rival the PIJ's Saraya al-Quds.

For a while, Hamas and the PIJ learned to manage disagreements and build bridges over conflict lines. Their rivalry in Gaza's small geographic area of 152 square miles often led to friction, generating an ebb and flow relationship that they agreed to prevent from spinning out of control. The two groups put their differences temporarily aside after the formation of the Palestinian National Authority in Gaza and Jericho in 1994, pledging to fight Israeli occupation and to never recognize the Jewish state. Hamas followed the PIJ in establishing its headquarters in Damascus as they began coordinating their military activities in 1994, although they still did not trust each other. The PIJ competed with Hamas in providing public social services to attract community support. Hamas accused the PIJ of claiming for itself military operations it carried out against Israel. Eventually, Hamas’ dismissive treatment of the PIJ led the latter to violate cease-fire agreements and launch rockets at Israel to pressure Hamas to take it seriously.

Hamas views the Palestinian question as a secondary issue for the Muslim world, preferring to promote religious solidarity and further the spread of Islamic governments. Whereas Hamas focused on spreading its influence in the West Bank and Gaza to replace the Palestine Liberation Organization as the dominant political force, the PIJ eschewed politics and refrained from contesting the 2006 general elections. Instead, it sought to create a broad anti-Israel Islamic front. Hamas won the general election in the Palestinian territories. Still, the PLO refused to surrender power in Gaza, leading to a military confrontation that Hamas won and in which the PIJ maintained neutrality.

Today, Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza, and no one can do anything without its permission. In 2009, it crushed Jund Ansar Allah, a Salafi movement, killing its 22 members and leader inside a mosque. Hamas claimed that the group members committed suicide. In 2015, Amnesty International accused Hamas of waging a brutal campaign against Palestinian civilians after it extrajudicially executed 20 people.

The divisions between Hamas and the PIJ became public in 2019 when Israel assassinated PIJ military commander Baha Abu al-Ata after firing rockets near an election rally for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Ashdod, based on coordinates provided by Hamas. When the PIJ sought to avenge his killing, Hamas responded mercilessly, arresting and torturing PIJ militants for hurling rockets at Israeli settlements.

The close security cooperation in Gaza between Israel and Hamas is easy to see. The latter's armed units are numerous and cover field control, national security and coast protection. These forces' primary function is to prevent staging raids or to lob rockets into Israel. Hamas's posts and border units are exposed to Israeli positions and do not indicate combat readiness but a relationship between two armies sharing responsibility for maintaining quiet.

Like officials in most Arab countries, Hamas leaders hold behind-the-scenes talks with Israelis to discuss security arrangements and the flow of goods into Gaza. Hamas condemns the Palestinian Authority's open coordination with the Israelis, which it carries out secretly. Hamas explained to the PIJ that it would not allow it to sabotage its agreements with Israel, be they direct or through Turkish and Qatari mediation, to keep Gaza calm. It prevented the PIJ from launching missiles at Israel to avenge the killing of three of its activists in the West Bank four months ago.

Israel's carrots-and-sticks policy succeeded in containing and taming Hamas. Isolated in the Arab region, partially abandoned by Turkey, and distrusted by Iran, Hamas's only lifeline comes from Qatar, which, with Israeli permission, transfers $30 million to its government in Gaza each month. Hamas's primary concern is to keep Gaza pacified, rule it with an iron fist, and extend its influence in the West Bank should the situation permit.

Hamas's Aspirations

In 2017, Hamas published a Document of General Principles and Policies that accepted establishing a Palestinian state on the borders of June 4, 1967, without relinquishing claim to all of Palestine. The PIJ angrily rejected the document. Hamas revisited a 1988 document that described itself as a religious movement affiliated with the Brotherhood and advocated creating a Palestinian state on the ruins of Israel. It replaced the conception of Palestine as a religious endowment belonging to all Muslims and deserving their sacrifice to a national territorial entity.

The revised document is political par excellence that indirectly renounces violence by claiming adherence to international laws, emphasizing compliance with international humanitarian law. It distanced Hamas from the Brotherhood, referring to it as a national liberation political movement. Since overhauling the 1988 document, Hamas has been trying to convince Arab countries and the international community that it is a credible and rational movement worthy of recognition.

The West Bank's Palestinian Authority is weaker than ever and has no control over political movements and paramilitary groups, while its popularity is plummeting. Fearing that Fatah, the backbone of the PLO, would lose them, PA head Mahmoud Abbas canceled last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Israel has systematically weakened the PA by derailing the two-state solution, leading to an escalation in the confrontation with Palestinian factions such as the PIJ and al-Aqsa Brigades. The explosive West Bank situation points to a new intifada in the making, which would announce the demise of the PA, causing a severe power vacuum and the collapse of authority and security. Hamas is taking advantage of the PA's gradual disintegration and building its presence in the West Bank. In 2007, it ousted the PA from Gaza and now prepares for the day when it could apply the coup de grace to it in the West Bank.

The PLO's demise would free Israel from the two-state solution burden. Hamas's 25-year truce proposal for Gaza would become more appealing to Israel should it expand its grip on power to include the West Bank. Israel says Hamas has developed a military infrastructure in the West Bank, including arms caches. The Israeli army clamps down on belligerent Palestinian factions, although it has not clashed with Hamas activists or confiscated its arsenal. Israel is worried about the post-Abbas West Bank and readies itself for the eclipse of the PLO and the PA.

Hamas realizes that Trump's 2020 Peace Plan covers the West Bank and Gaza and wants to involve itself in it. Hamas is encouraged by Palestinian public opinion polls that consider it better qualified to administer the West Bank than the PA. It has already initiated an effort to stage a soft coup in the West Bank to win elections in universities and labor unions and to dominate civil society organizations. Hamas is undergoing a similar process to the PLO's transition in the early 1990s from a terrorist organization, as previously perceived in the West and Israel, into a peace partner. Hamas is not a friend of Israel, but, unlike the PIJ, it has concluded that it is futile to fight Israel and, obsessed with power, is willing to expand its self-rule in Gaza to include parts of the West Bank.

Title: Palestinian arrests and torture
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 30, 2022, 01:03:58 AM

Palestinians: The Arrests and Torture No One Talks About
by Khaled Abu Toameh  •  August 29, 2022 at 5:00 am

Abbas was obviously not thinking about these prisoners when he expressed concern over the conditions of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. He seems uncomfortable discussing the fact that his security forces are arresting and torturing Palestinians.

Instead, Abbas would like the world to focus only on the prisoners held by Israel and ignore the protests against the "political detentions" that take place every week not far from his office and residence in Ramallah.

Hours before Abbas's remarks about the prisoners in Israel, the mother of Ahmad Hreash, a Palestinian man arrested by the Palestinian security forces more than 80 days ago, was rushed to hospital. She has been on hunger strike for 10 days to demand the release of her son from the Palestinians' notorious Jericho Prison. The prison is infamously referred to by Palestinians as the "Jericho Slaughterhouse" because of brutal torture Palestinians say they have undergone while being held there by Abbas's security forces.

"They keep extending his detention without us, or even the lawyer, knowing what the charges are." — Mukaram Qurt, mother of Ahmad Hreash, Al Jazeera, August 25, 2022.

Palestinian Lawyers for Justice, a human rights group, said that it has documented 117 cases of "political detentions" by the Palestinian security forces since the beginning of June 2022.

The detainees include six Palestinians who had previously served time in Israeli prison for anti-Israeli activities and are currently being held in the "Jericho Slaughterhouse." The group noted that the Palestinian security forces were continuing to imprison Palestinians because of their political affiliation of for criticizing and opposing the Palestinian Authority.

"They hit me with their legs and hands. They beat me with rubber hoses. They put me in a tiny cell with no mattresses or pillows. I had to use my shoe as a pillow while sleeping on the floor." — Mujahed Tabanjah, Palestinian journalist, Facebook, August 16, 2022.

Alarmed by the ongoing crackdown on political opponents and other Palestinians, several Palestinian activists launched an online campaign titled "Political Detention is a Crime," in protest of the arrests and torture in Palestinian prisons.

When Palestinians arrest or brutally torture other Palestinians, it does not appear to be "news that's fit to print." Palestinians who go on hunger strikes in Palestinian prisons are often ignored by the media, while those who protest against Israel receive wide coverage.

By ignoring the horrific human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority, the international community and media expose their hypocrisy in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are also doing an incalculable disservice to the Palestinian people, many of whom have been victimized by their own leaders.


When Palestinians arrest or brutally torture other Palestinians, it does not appear to be "news that's fit to print." By ignoring the horrific human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority, the international community and media expose their hypocrisy in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are also doing an incalculable disservice to the Palestinian people, many of whom have been victimized by their own leaders. (Image source: iStock)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on August 27 that he is concerned about the condition of Palestinians who are being held in Israeli prisons. He described the prisoners, many of whom have been convicted of carrying out or involvement in attacks against Israel and Israeli citizens, as "freedom fighters" and announced that the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people will continue to support them "until they gain their freedom."

On the same day that Abbas made his remarks, a committee representing the families of Palestinian prisoners held in Palestinian Authority (PA) prisons called for holding a protest in the West Bank city of Ramallah, the Palestinians' de facto capital.

Title: GPF: RumInt
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 07, 2022, 05:03:00 PM

Israeli affairs. Israeli media, citing a conversation between U.S. President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, report that the pending nuclear deal between Iran and the West is off the table for now. Biden has asked Israel to reexamine its rules of engagement in the occupied West Bank and reduce the danger of harming civilians and journalists. Meanwhile, Israeli missiles hit Aleppo’s international airport last night in a strike meant to target depots belonging to pro-Iranian militias nearby.

Title: Israel, Palestinians, Remembering the Munich Olympics Massacre 9/5/1972
Post by: DougMacG on September 09, 2022, 08:47:40 AM

I would post this under "history" if they weren't still celebrating.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
50 Years On, Remembering The Munich Olympics Massacre
Palestinian leadership continues to hail Munich massacre as “heroic operation” and Black September terrorists as “martyrs.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/09/50-years-on-remembering-the-munich-olympics-massacre/

September 5, 1972, has gone down as one of the darkest days in the history of world sports. Eight Palestinian terrorists from the Black September group, a terror outfit affiliated with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), broke into Munich’s Olympic village, where the Israeli team was staying.

The world watched in horror as they murdered and mutilated Israeli athletes. The image of the hooded Palestinian gunman standing on the balcony of the Israeli team’s apartment became the symbolic face of international terrorism that will engulf the world in decades.

Title: GPF: Israel to share air defense system with UAE
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2022, 04:10:59 AM

Israel and the UAE. Israel has agreed to sell an advanced air defense system to the United Arab Emirates, according to a Reuters report. The Rafael-made SPYDER mobile interceptors can defend territory against drones, cruise missiles, attack aircraft, helicopters and bombers. Reuters’ sources said the deal also included acquisition of Israeli technology capable of combating drone attacks. It’s a notable development considering newly forged Israeli-UAE ties had previously focused on economic matters.

Title: Stratfor: Israel-Lebanon gas deal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2022, 07:51:23 AM

Lebanon and Israel Ink a Historic Deal on Disputed Offshore Gas Reserves
6 MIN READOct 17, 2022 | 21:47 GMT



A Lebanese-Israeli maritime deal will ease tensions caused by the natural gas fields off the Levantine coast, pave the way for Lebanese energy extraction and increase calls in Lebanon for deeper economic ties with Israel. On Oct. 11, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Lebanese President Michel Aoun announced they had signed a U.S.-mediated deal on divvying up energy resources in disputed waters in the Eastern Mediterranean. The agreement grants Israel exclusive control over the disputed Karish gas field, which is estimated to have 1.75 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of reserves. In exchange, Lebanon will be able to develop the Qana gas field on the basis that Israel is still compensated for resources extracted in nominally Israeli waters. The same day the agreement was announced, Hezbollah — the Iran-backed Lebanese political party and militant group who had initially staunchly opposed ceding the Karish field over to Israel — signaled it would not use its influence in Lebanon's parliament to block the deal's ratification. Other details (like the final delineation of Israel and Lebanon's maritime border) were not settled by the agreement, and appear to await more negotiations.

Israel and Lebanon remain in a state of war and do not have a formalized border. For decades, the regional rivals have disputed a piece of land on their mutual frontier called the Shebaa Farms.

Israel and Lebanon also have overlapping maritime claims, with Israel's claim extending around the Qana prospect while Lebanon's claim covers roughly half the Karish gas field. Following the discovery of those gas fields in the 2000s, both countries have sought to establish a final maritime border to enable energy exploration and development in the region.

U.K.-based Energean is already preparing to extract gas from the Karish field, with tests now underway, while Lebanon has called on French multinational TotalEnergies to explore the Qana gas field.

As negotiations were underway and energy company Energean brought in equipment to extract gas from Karish, Hezbollah threatened to attack the field if Lebanese demands were not met and flew drones to harass the rigs several times. Israel threatened to respond with strikes on Hezbollah inside Lebanon if they carried out such an attack.

The Karish and Qana fields are smaller than Israel's other gas fields, Leviathan and Tamar, which together are estimated to have nearly 30 tcf of gas reserves. Qana's reserves have yet to be proven and are widely suspected to be smaller than Karish's reserves. But if the deal is ratified, Qana would be Lebanon's first gas field for a country that imports all its energy needs.

Israeli and Lebanese lawmakers are ultimately likely to ratify the agreement, though political factions in both countries could still try to modify or jettison it for ideological reasons. Israel's Security Cabinet approved the agreement on Oct. 12 and sent it to lawmakers in the Knesset for review. Under Israeli law, Knesset members cannot block the maritime deal but they can signal their opposition to it, which could, in theory, embolden Israel's nationalist Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked to formally vote against the motion when it returns to the Security Cabinet for a final vote — a move that could pressure the deal to go to the Knesset, where it's uncertain it would pass. Shaked abstained in the initial vote on the maritime deal on the basis that it didn't go far enough to secure Israel's interests. However, with his Jewish Home party currently polling below the threshold needed to enter the Knesset in Nov. 1 elections, Shaked appears unlikely to politically benefit from blocking the agreement, which could trigger a backlash from Israel's security establishment for bringing back tensions to the fields just as Israel begins production from Karish at the end of the month. In Lebanon, individual members of parliament could complain that the deal grants the country a less valuable gas field while it also brings Lebanon closer to normalization with Israel, which is deeply unpopular. However, Lebanese politicians are aware that TotalEnergies will not explore Qana without a deal in place, while Hezbollah knows that it is not well-positioned to stop Israel from extracting from Karish with or without an agreement. These calculations suggest that Lebanon will also ratify the deal.

Israel's opposition parties, led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have slammed the agreement as a surrender to Hezbollah because it gives up Israeli claims to the Qana field. While Shaked's Jewish Home party is tempted to echo those arguments to potentially be part of a future right-wing government, it's unlikely such a gambit would work to win supporters in the upcoming election. Right-wing voters have already soured on Jewish Home for joining the current coalition that includes left-wing and Islamist rivals to the right wing.

Lebanon's economic crisis is making it hard for Hezbollah to credibly threaten to use military force to stop Israel's production in the Karish field, which would go ahead with or without an agreement. Hezbollah cannot politically afford another expensive war with Israel over the fields, while its patron, Iran, has shown little interest in ordering Hezbollah to escalate over the issue as well.

If the deal goes through, it would substantially decrease the threat of military escalation over the gas fields, allow Lebanese energy development, remove one stumbling block to an Israeli-European and/or Turkish pipeline, and increase calls in Lebanon for other ties with Israel. Hezbollah's surrender to the agreement signals that the militant group will likely reduce provocations and rhetorical threats against the Karish field. However, they may continue to conduct harassment flights and will likely threaten the rigs if Israel's tensions with Lebanon and Iran increase in a broader context. Additionally, TotalEnergies would be able to proceed with gas development in the Qana field, possibly leading to gas production if substantial reserves are found. The agreement also brings Israel closer to the reality of a European or Turkish undersea gas pipeline, though it will still need to find ways through Syria- and Cyprus-controlled waters to do so. Meanwhile, some Lebanese political figures will likely try to build on the deal by calling for deeper cooperation with Israel, which could unblock needed humanitarian aid and mitigate the risk of the crisis-ridden country entering another costly war with Israel.

The patriarch of Lebanon's Maronite Christian church, Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, and other influential Lebanese leaders have sought to ease anti-Israeli sentiment among their followers in the hopes of reducing the risk of a public call for war during future periods of tension with Israel.

Israel has offered humanitarian aid to Lebanon multiple times, including after the 2020 Beirut port explosion and in 2021 as its financial crisis continued. Hezbollah rebuffed these offers.

The proposed EastMed pipeline could theoretically connect Eastern Mediterranean gas fields to Europe. But the project is running into economic viability challenges because of the cost stemming from the pipeline's need to go through deeper waters. Meanwhile, attempts to connect these fields to Turkey could run into more diplomatic disputes north of Lebanon. Syria and Israel remain technically at war, and Turkey has maritime disputes with both Greece and Cyprus that make a pipeline project too risky to complete.

Title: Netanyahu: Israel's Iron Triangle of Peace
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2022, 10:59:33 AM

Saw Netanyahu on Bill Maher this week-- very effective!

Israel’s ‘Iron Triangle of Peace’
Soft power is effectual only when you can back it up with military and economic strength.
By Benjamin Netanyahu
Oct. 18, 2022 12:49 pm ET


The world is in crisis. The war in Ukraine could swirl out of control with ominous global consequences. In Iran, the ayatollahs are rushing to build a nuclear arsenal while suppressing domestic dissent over the regime’s brutality. Terrorism and wanton violence abound from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Yemen and Syria. The arc of history may bend toward peace and justice, but it can easily go off in dangerous directions.

Some policy makers contend that the way to keep it on course is through soft power. The superiority of democratic values and culture, they contend, will overcome the forces of violence and aggression. But such thinking doesn’t withstand historical scrutiny. If evil forces have overwhelming military and economic might, they can and will defeat our best intentions. Even Abraham Lincoln needed a decisive victory in America’s bloodiest war before the better angels of human nature could prevail.

The key to peace and human progress is the combination of soft and hard power. I have devoted most of my life to ensuring that my country, the Jewish state of Israel, has enough power to defend itself, protect its values and secure its future. For this purpose I advanced the concept known as the “Iron Triangle of Peace,” which set out to maximize Israel’s prosperity through a combination of economic, military and diplomatic power.

This necessitated a transformation of Israel’s semi-socialist economy into a free-market one. As finance minister (2003-05) and prime minister (1996-99 and 2009-21), I led a free-market revolution, which unshackled Israel’s economy and turned it into a global powerhouse of innovation and enterprise. Over the past two decades, our nation’s companies made technological advances in such areas as medicine, agriculture and water. Israel’s gross domestic output per capita, which long trailed those of Western democracies, now exceeds that of Britain, France, Japan and Germany.

As Israel’s economic and technological power have developed, so too have its military capabilities. The Israeli military today is equipped not only with fighter jets, tanks, submarines and drones, but also with superb intelligence and cyber capabilities, which have saved the lives of countless Israeli citizens and visitors. The combination has resulted in greater diplomatic strength, as more countries have sought to benefit from our success.

Far from being a pariah state, Israel now has robust diplomatic relations with more than 160 countries. I helped bring about these diplomatic fruits and was the first Israeli prime minister to visit countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, as well as Australia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and many African nations. During my tenure, we forged ties with the Baltic states and the Visegrad countries of Eastern Europe—in addition to developing a pact with Greece and Cyprus to extract gas from our seabed, which we’ve begun to use to supply Europe.


But the Iron Triangle of Peace produced its most dramatic breakthrough in our own neighborhood: the Middle East. For 25 years we were told that peace with Arab nations would come only if we first resolved our conflict with the Palestinians. To many Israelis, that presented an insurmountable obstacle, given that the Palestinians have long demonstrated they want a state instead of—not next to—Israel. There had to be another way. The path to peace, in my estimation, wouldn’t go through the Palestinians but around them. And that is exactly what has happened.

My government’s approach has been made possible by a profound change in thinking among many Arab leaders, who now view Israel not as an enemy but as an indispensable ally against a belligerent Tehran. Many of these leaders took note of my opposition to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which showered the Iranian regime with international approval and billions of dollars to fund its aggression and terror.

Shortly after I addressed a joint session of Congress on this topic in March 2015, several Arab leaders secretly requested to meet with me. These meetings ultimately foreshadowed the Abraham Accords, the September 2020 agreement orchestrated by the Trump administration that normalized Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

The results have been remarkable. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis now regularly fly over the skies of Saudi Arabia to the U.A.E. and Bahrain. Sudan is no longer a way station for Iranian arms transported through the Nile Valley. Israeli and Gulf entrepreneurs are busy forming joint ventures with multimillion-dollar investments. A joint railway project among Israel, the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will connect the region once the kingdom joins the accords, which I believe will happen within a few years. If the policies of peace through strength persist, we may soon be able to envision an end to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.

I have been privileged to live a life of purpose, one in which I’ve helped bring my vision of peace through strength for Israel into being. For three millennia, the Jewish people have never given up on our dream to live freely and prosperously in our ancient homeland, the land of Zion. Having restored our independence, we won’t let anyone bring an end to this miracle.


Mr. Netanyahu served as Israel’s prime minister, 1996-99 and 2009-21. He is leader of the opposition Likud Party and author of “Bibi: My Story.”

Title: D1
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2022, 12:11:12 PM

New: Ukraine has officially requested Israel's Iron Dome air defense system, Haaretz reported Tuesday after Kuleba flagged the request in public remarks earlier in the day; Axios obtained an alleged copy of the request letter on Wednesday.

Why won't Israel do more to help Ukraine? In part, because of the deal to contain Iran in Syria that officials in Tel Aviv and Moscow have worked out over the past several years, David Daoud of the Atlantic Council wrote back in April—five months before Russia's invasion lost steam in September. But there is more, too, he argued. For example, "Israel—whose founding raison d'etre and continued vocation is the protection of the Jewish people—also worries that angering Putin will lead him to retaliate against Jews in Ukraine and Russia.

Israel's defense chief hasn't spoken to his Ukrainian counterpart since April. The two were supposed to speak on Monday, but that call was postponed—which made the fifth time the two have had their planned chats postponed, according to Haaretz.

The latest official line from Tel Aviv: "Israel will not transfer weapon systems to Ukraine for a variety of operational considerations," Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Wednesday. He didn't elaborate on those considerations, but added, "Israel is maintaining a policy of supporting Ukraine through humanitarian support and delivery of life-saving and defensive equipment."

"It's just fear of Putin," analyst Yossi Melman told the Washington Post last week. "It's a shame," he added. "We preach to the world about humanity and right and wrong, but when it comes to our international positions, it's only our narrowest security concerns that are considered."

Indeed, Russia's Dmetri Medvedev warned Israel on Monday that arming Ukraine with any weapons would "destroy the political relations between the two countries."

Title: Go Benjamin Netanyahu
Post by: ccp on November 01, 2022, 08:37:28 AM

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-benjamin-netanyahu-national-elections-9ffce2c686db5a868ae781bc104180f6

that would astonishing if he comes back

Title: GPF: Lebanon going under
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2022, 07:21:55 AM

November 3, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Lebanon: The Death of a Country
Lebanon’s recovery from its financial and political meltdowns seems nearly impossible.
By: Hilal Khashan

Last month, Lebanese President Michel Aoun left office, after his term expired, without a designated successor in place. Power vacuums are not uncommon in Lebanon. Aoun’s own election in 2016 ended a 29-month vacancy in the presidency. Since gaining independence in 1943, Lebanon has had six periods in which the chronically divided parliament could not agree on a new president. The inability to select a leader results in a political impasse, with a caretaker government that can’t approve new legislation and a Cabinet whose mandate has expired. Meanwhile, the country is facing its worst economic crisis ever, due largely to Lebanese politicians’ ineptitude and preoccupation with their own political status and wealth accumulation. Their selfishness has brought the country to the brink of collapse.

Ponzi Scheme

The government’s economic mismanagement has been long-standing. Rafik Hariri’s monopoly on economic decision-making when he was prime minister in 1992-98 led the annual deficit to skyrocket to about 50 percent. When he returned to office from 2000 to 2004 to lead a broad coalition government, the deficit fell to 32 percent, still a staggering figure. The government has also regularly issued treasury bonds since 1992 to finance the country’s reconstruction after its 15-year civil war.

The Lebanese banking sector has been running what some might call a Ponzi scheme. By law, all banks operating in Lebanon must keep most of their liquid assets with the central bank. However, the central bank mismanaged the country’s monetary policy and concealed data showing the extent of Lebanon’s impending financial collapse. Banks were thus able to attract new depositors by offering high interest rates – which reached 9 percent on dollar deposits – and deliberately misinforming people about the risks to their savings. The central bank issued local banks with large profits – which they transferred outside the country – squandering people’s savings by artificially pegging the lira to the dollar and filling the gap in the budget.

Lebanon's Ballooning Public Debt
(click to enlarge)

Deposits, mainly from individual depositors, in Lebanese banks reached $172 billion in 2014, equivalent to more than 370 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. In 2018, the central bank’s liquid assets dropped to $43 billion, and they plummeted to $20 billion in the first quarter of 2020. Its reserves fell from about $60 billion in 2005 to less than $10 billion this year. For the first time since independence, Lebanon defaulted on its foreign debt – a $1.2 billion Eurobond – a few months after the 2019 uprising over a 20-cent WhatsApp tax. A few months ago, the deputy prime minister announced the country’s bankruptcy, indicating that the losses, believed to be more than $100 billion, would be shared by the central bank, the broader banking sector and depositors. He added that Lebanese officials hoped to reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund, where negotiations focused on restructuring the banking sector, formulating a balanced fiscal policy, rebuilding the collapsed electricity network, reforming the bloated bureaucracy and tackling hyperinflation, which stood at 3,000 percent.

Abandoning Its Duties

Since the beginning of Lebanon’s civil war in 1975, the state has been gradually abandoning its duties to the people, starting with the rationing of electricity and culminating a few months ago in a complete blackout due to a lack of diesel to operate power plants. The fuel crisis, precipitated by a 95 percent decline in the value of the lira, played a key role in the rapid deterioration of water supplies and sewage networks. Since July 2021, UNICEF has issued warnings about water shortages and the health hazards they pose, especially for the most vulnerable socio-economic groups, which comprise at least 90 percent of the population. The Water Utility Authority recently told residents in many parts of the country to make arrangements to procure water on their own because it cannot operate its pumps – but it reminded them to wash their hands frequently because of the cholera outbreak in the country.

The financial meltdown drained the resources of many sectors, including health care, engineering, academics and education. It severely impacted medical facilities and caused drug shortages, especially for chronic diseases. Critical drugs are hard to find, and those that are available are unaffordable for the vast majority of people who need them.

Individuals are now trying to make up for the deficiencies of the state. Young people volunteer to do the work of ministries, municipalities, unions and government institutions. They organize tourist events and festivals, distribute medicines and collect aid, so much so that they can pave roads and install solar panels. People have learned not to depend on the state and manage the necessities of life on their own.

Dysfunctional Political System

The financial collapse has been presided over by a dysfunctional political system. In 2019, Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned following nationwide protests. When his successor, Hassan Diab, also resigned in 2021 after the Beirut Port explosion, parliament charged Hariri with forming a new Cabinet. He clashed with President Michel Aoun over ministerial appointments to critical portfolios, such as defense, the treasury, interior and foreign affairs. After eight months of unsuccessful attempts to form a government, Hariri resigned again and was replaced by Najib Mikati, who oversaw the general elections last May. Aoun designated him to form the post-election Cabinet after binding parliamentary consultations, but five months later, Mikati has yet to name any appointments, again because of disagreements with Aoun, who wanted to nominate all Christian Cabinet members.

Lebanon's Distribution of Religious Groups
(click to enlarge)

In 1988, when former President Amin Gemayel’s term ended without agreement on a successor, he appointed a military government led by Aoun, who was then the army commander, to ensure that the prerogatives of the president wouldn’t be taken over by another significant sect. Prior to his departure last month, Aoun signed an unprecedented decree accepting the resignation of the caretaker government. The decree sought to encourage the Free Patriotic Movement – led by Aoun’s son-in-law, whose presidential hopes were dashed by widespread opposition – to obstruct the caretaker government’s attempts to claim the president’s powers. Aoun wanted to reassure Maronite Christians that his exit would not increase the powers of the Sunni prime minister. Mikati described the decree as lacking constitutional value and promised that the government would continue to perform its constitutional duties.

Despite the international community’s willingness to help, Lebanese politicians have refused to heed its advice. After meeting with Lebanese officials, a U.N. envoy determined they lacked motivation to tackle the country’s financial problems, which have decimated its once vibrant middle class. He said the officials displayed no sense of responsibility or even empathy for the plight of the people.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri encouraged all parliamentary blocs to engage in dialogue to select a new president. His efforts were not received well by the major blocs, which argued that experience had taught them that dialogue is futile because Lebanese presidents are actually chosen by foreign actors. Instead of cooperating to reach a consensus, rival political factions often clash on key issues. Local players know that the country’s big political decisions, including appointment of the president, are made outside Lebanon.

Future Prospects

When Aoun assumed the presidency in 2014, he said he had made a covenant to ensure the welfare of the Lebanese people. His mission, he asserted, was to safeguard personal liberties and freedom of expression, and to stimulate the economy. Upon leaving office, however, he addressed his supporters by disparaging all state institutions and holding them responsible for the country’s political and economic crises. He accused them of impoverishing Lebanon and expressed the need for extraordinary efforts to root out corruption. This is part of Aoun’s attempt to avenge his failure to usher in his son-in-law, former Energy Minister Jibran Bassil, as his successor.

Lebanon’s recovery from this crisis seems nearly impossible today. The country is prone to political stagnation because of its complex power-sharing arrangement, and the level of corruption among the political elite is beyond redemption. (Aoun, for example, refused to appoint new judges because the list of candidates included more Muslims than Christians. He also insisted that the electricity portfolio remain in Bassil’s hands, even though his management of the sector proved catastrophic.) Lebanon’s future is bleak. With the deliberate prolongation of the economic crisis that began three years ago, it has seen the fastest collapse of any country on record. But its failure shouldn’t be surprising, considering it has been ruled since independence by a group of self-serving sectarian elites who misused its resources and dominated its politics. Successive governments hid the extent of the country’s financial failure. Now its people will pay the cost.

Title: day prior to election Biden calls Bibi his bro
Post by: ccp on November 08, 2022, 04:17:15 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2022/11/07/after-days-long-delay-biden-congratulates-friend-netanyahu/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 29, 2022, 05:34:54 PM

What the Far-Right’s Electoral Victory Means for Israel
8 MIN READNov 29, 2022 | 20:55 GMT

Israel’s ascendent far-right will use its recent electoral success to push its nationalist and ultra-Orthodox agenda. But despite likely criticism, the country’s U.S., European and Middle Eastern allies are unlikely to substantially alter their policy toward Israel to preserve their strategic ties with the country. Israel’s far-right Religious Zionism party — which includes smaller extremist parties like Oztma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”) and the anti-LGBTQ Neom party — won the third largest share of Knesset seats in the country’s Nov. 1 legislative election, giving it significant leverage in negotiations with former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to appoint a coalition government.

Netanyahu is set to return to office after his bloc of right-wing and religious parties secured a majority of seats in the Israeli Knesset in the last election. The former prime minister’s Likud party is currently in talks with far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties to form a new coalition government.

The Nov. 1 election was Isreal’s fifth election in four years. The outgoing government coalition led by Prime Minister Yair Lapid brought together a varied assortment of liberal, centrist and Arab parties into a fragile coalition.

Religious Zionism will use its strong presence in the Knesset to try to reshape Israel’s political system and foreign policies in favor of its supremacist ideology, even as Israel’s allies abroad (like the United States and the United Arab Emirates) and politicians at home (like outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid) warn against doing so. In its negotiations with Netanyahu’s Likud party, Religious Zionism has reportedly been trying to extract promises for the next Israeli government to expand the country’s control in the West Bank, weaken the Supreme Court (which the party sees as a bulwark on religious law), and strengthen gender separation rights for the ultra-Orthodox in public spaces. The party has also been pushing for control of top cabinet positions, including defense minister or finance minister for Religious Zionism leader Bezalel Smotrich, as well as a newly-created national security minister (which would oversee Isreal’s police, prisons, and border security) for Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben Gvir. But the U.S. government and prominent American pro-Israel Jewish lobbies, along with officials from the United Arab Emirates, have warned against appointing such polarizing figures to these positions. On Nov. 17, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, warned Netanyahu directly not to include Religions Zionism leaders in his prospective new cabinet. U.S. Union for Reform Judaism chief Rabbi Rick Jacobs also recently said that giving Ben Gvir the police post would be akin to handing the U.S. attorney general office over to the United States’ far-right Ku Klux Klan.

Much of the concern about Religious Zionism stems from its ideological affiliation with the far-right Kahanist movement, which supports expelling Arabs from Israel, expanding the country’s borders through the West Bank and Gaza, and imposing radical rabbinical law in everyday life across Israel.

Isreal’s First Major Far-Right Party

Far-right ideologies have existed in Israel since the country’s foundation in 1948. But Israel’s first major far-right party didn’t emerge until 1971, with the formation of radical Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Kach Party. The Kach Party wanted to strip Israeli Arabs of citizenship, impose automatic death penalties for Arab terrorism, introduce Jewish ultranationalism to school curricula, annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and have unrestrained military suppression of Palestinian militants. The party won one Knesset seat in the 1984 elections and was then banned for inciting racial hatred in 1988. In 1990, its founder Kahane was assassinated in New York City, and in 1994 both the Kach Party and another offshoot, Kahane Chai, were banned in Israel. Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben Gvir joined the movement in the 1990s, though Gavir claims he’s since moderated some of his beliefs.

The far-right’s probable inclusion in Israel’s next government will formalize its influence over domestic and foreign policy. Netanyahu's next cabinet is poised to be the most far-right in modern Israeli history. Short of the Defense Ministry, far-right politicians might take less prominent posts or accept policy promises to come to an agreement on a new coalition government. Other components of the cabinet — including the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties — will also be dominated by politicians who want to strengthen Jewish nationalism and rabbinical influence in the country. The policy priorities of these new government officials will include weakening Isreal’s Supreme Court so it cannot easily block Knesset legislation, outlawing public displays of sympathy for Palestinian militants and Palestinian symbols like flags, weakening protections for Israeli LGBTQ individuals and marriage, strengthening exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox in education and military service, and imposing Israeli civil (rather than military) law on West Bank settlements and outposts.

Israeli politics have been drifting further to the right for years. In an August 2022 survey conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute, 62% of the country’s Jewish voters described themselves as right-wing — a notable jump from the 46% who did so in April 2019. A 2020 joint poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and Tel Aviv University also found that 51% of Israeli Jews supported the Vision for Peace plan proposed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump, which encouraged Israeli expansionism without guaranteeing a Palestinian state.

The far-right’s ultimate goal is to take full control of territory in the West Bank under Israeli civilian law. Currently, the West Bank is governed under the Oslo Accords, which leaves one portion (Area A) under Palestinian security and political control, another portion (Area B) under joint Israeli-Palestinian control, and a final section (Area C) under Israeli military authority. Religious Zionism aims to transfer Area C to Israeli civilian law, which outgoing Defense Minister Benny Gantz has claimed would be tantamount to annexation.
Both the far-right and the ultra-Orthodox parties aim to push back against secular and nationalist accusations that religious Israelis contribute too little to the country’s economy and military because of their educational and conscription exemptions that allow them to run religious schools and avoid military service. The outgoing Lapid-Bennett government attempted to push conscription for the ultra-Orthodox and introduce more secular education to religious schools.

While Israel’s regional and global partners will criticize the new government’s far-right and ultra-religious policies, they are unlikely to actively boycott it because of the importance of their strategic alliances with Israel. Regardless of its composition, Israel’s next government will likely earn diplomatic criticism from the United States, European powers, Turkey and the Arab Gulf. Israelis are highly sensitive to the threat of international isolation (such as that proposed by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement). This is especially true when it comes to the United States, which is Isreal’s main defense and economic partner. More moderate right-wing parties in the opposition, like A New Hope, will play into these fears by using any U.S. condemnation of the new Israeli government as evidence that right-wing voters should stop supporting such radical parties. Secular, opposition, Arab, and left-wing Israelis will likely criticize the new government’s policies, as well as carry out strikes and protests, in an effort to convince right-wing voters that the country’s ideological drift to extremes could cause international isolation. But this tactic could backfire when such isolation does not manifest, as Israel’s strategic value to its regional and global partners will deter most governments from actually imposing sanctions or cutting ties with the country in response to any controversial new policies. Indeed, the 2021 Gaza War and the bloody clashes that broke out between Arab and Jewish Israelis on the streets initially sparked wide-scale international and domestic criticism of the Israeli far-right. But despite this, Religious Zionism’s support has grown at home and Israel’s foreign relations with countries like Turkey have improved over the past year. International condemnation of the new Israeli government will thus likely again remain largely rhetorical, which could further convince right-wing Israelis that the far-right is not a diplomatic liability and strengthen public support for their positions across an increasingly nationalist electorate.

The United States still needs Israel to balance Iranian activity in the region, and there remains a bipartisan supermajority in Congress that supports current Israeli-U.S. relations. In 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed fresh aid to Israel to resupply its Iron Dome system in a blowout 420-9 vote, despite sustained media and international criticism of Israeli policies during the Gaza War earlier that year.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erodgan has said the expected return of a Netanyahu government is unlikely to change his country’s relations with Israel, which have recently improved after years of animosity amid the Turkish government’s push to bolster trade ties with former regional rivals.

The Palestinian issue has also become less salient among Arab Gulf populations, which has enabled countries like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to ramp up their security cooperation with Israel in response to growing Iranian aggression and other regional threats.

Title: Dershowitz: Israel's Democracy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2022, 06:44:47 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19254/israel-democracy

Title: Putin and Netanyahu chat
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2022, 09:07:20 AM

second

Putin and Netanyahu. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone with designated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who announced on Wednesday that he formed a new coalition to lead the next government. The two leaders discussed Ukraine, Iran and bilateral relations. Israel has so far refused pressure from the West to step up military support for Ukraine and impose sanctions on Russia.

Title: GPF: The cold peace between Israel and Arab Countries
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2022, 08:20:08 AM

December 30, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Cold Peace Between Israel and Arab Countries
The Palestinian question stands at the center of the divide between the two sides.
By: Hilal Khashan

Israeli journalists covering the World Cup in Qatar were stunned by Arab fans’ hostility toward them. Considering that six Arab countries have normalized relations with Israel, while others maintain back-channel communications with Israeli officials, the journalists believed Arabs would show a greater willingness to engage. They were wrong. An Israeli correspondent said he couldn’t find anyone willing to speak to him and that Arabs “approach us and criticize our presence.” The reporter concluded that there was no hope for improving Israel’s relationship with the Arab people.

In 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that the obstacle to peace with the Arab world was not Arab leaders but rather the Arab people themselves. But as Israeli tensions with Arab governments have eased, the Arab public’s hostility toward Israelis is, at its core, a result of the failure to resolve the Palestinian question.

Cultural Incompatibility

The failure to establish cordial relations between the Arab and Israeli peoples goes back decades. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founder and first prime minister, did not believe that Israelis and Arabs would become partners in peace. He thus showed little interest in engaging the Arab region, preferring to build bridges with other foreign countries instead. Israel developed a robust foreign policy in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the U.S. and Western Europe but did not train diplomats to operate in Arabic-speaking countries and cultures.

Ben-Gurion believed the failure to communicate stemmed from deep-seated cultural differences between Israelis and Arabs. Arab culture is collectivist, polychronic and hierarchical, whereas Israel’s is individualistic, monochronic and egalitarian. In “Culture and Conflict in Egyptian-Israeli Relations: A Dialogue of the Deaf,” author Raymond Cohen aptly describes how culture stood in the way of peace negotiations, even when the two sides eagerly sought to resolve their differences.

Arab culture stresses interpersonal relations, subtlety, reservation and conformity. It prioritizes community, honor and respecting superiors. Conversely, Israeli culture is democratic, ostentatious and communicative, although at times divisive. Arabs choose their words carefully and avoid conflict, while Israelis speak bluntly and abrasively. Guilt is embedded in the Jewish conscience and derives from the need for repentance and atonement for sin, which became a driving force toward productivity and excellence. In Arab culture, shame evolved into an escape from reality, driving people to hide their ill-doings rather than correct them.

Many Arabs feel shame over their many defeats at the hands of Israel. They direct their anger and frustration not only at Israelis but also at Palestinians, whom they tend to hold responsible for losing their country, falsely claiming that they sold their land to the Zionist movement. They argue that the Palestinians didn’t deserve the generous support provided by Arab countries. The Palestinians, they say, must get their own house in order before asking for help as they are the root cause of the problem with Israel. They see the Palestinians as a constant reminder of their defeat.

Arab leaders, meanwhile, were concerned less about the loss of Palestine and more about strengthening their regimes and nation-building, as evidenced by the coups in Syria and Egypt. When attempts at peace were made, cultural differences stood in the way. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, for example, found it difficult to make peace with Israel because he didn’t want to tarnish his reputation as the champion of Arab nationalism. Still, Arab leaders maintained secret lines of communication with the Israelis for years.

Behind Closed Doors

Indeed, Arab and Jewish officials communicated behind closed doors even before Israel’s establishment in May 1948. Despite last-minute differences before the 1948 war, Jordan’s King Abdullah I sent his army to Palestine not to prevent the creation of a Jewish state but to seize the Arab part of the 1947 Palestine partition plan. Private talks between the Hashemites and Israelis continued until Abdullah’s assassination in 1951 and throughout the reign of his grandson King Hussein. On the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israelis informed Hussein that they would not attack the West Bank if he did not initiate hostilities. In the 1973 war, he collaborated closely with the Israelis, despite sending an army brigade to Syria in a show of Arab solidarity.

In 1954, Nasser told Le Monde newspaper that Egypt needed peace with Israel so it could focus on domestic issues and that the U.S. could facilitate the normalization. However, Mossad’s botched Operation Suzannah, which targeted Western interests in Egypt in order to sabotage U.S.-Egyptian relations, led to rising tensions, which in turn resulted in the 1956 Suez War.

The 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel opened a new chapter in Arab-Israeli relations. In 1981, then Saudi Crown Prince Fahd announced a comprehensive peace plan between Arabs and Israelis – though both sides ultimately rejected it, with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin describing it as a plan to gradually destroy the Israeli state. In 1994, eight years after Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank, Amman made peace with Israel and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

In 1999, representatives of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein met secretly with Israeli negotiators and offered to resettle Lebanon’s 300,000 Palestinian refugees in Iraq as an olive branch to Washington. Though neither the U.S. nor Israel took the offer seriously, it would have resolved the question of the refugees’ right of return, one of the preconditions set by the PLO to reach a final status agreement with Israel. In 2020, former Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz told a Saudi newspaper that he visited “every Arab state but in secret during the performance of military missions.” He even visited Algeria, which, since its independence in 1962, has adamantly refused to recognize Israel’s existence. Notably, Algerian President Abdulaziz Bouteflika decided to dismantle his country’s nuclear program over Israeli security concerns, despite his country’s firm anti-Israeli position. In 1999, Bouteflika shook hands with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak while attending the funeral of Morocco’s King Hassan II, telling him he could count on Algeria to facilitate peace in the region.

Unresolved Issue

Israel has long been eager to make peace with Arabs. The sticking point, however, has always been the Palestinian question. Since 1967, Palestinians in the West Bank have been denied civil rights. Under Israel’s Military Order No. 101 issued in 1967, political assemblies of 10 or more persons are prohibited for public safety reasons, in violation of international law. Military Order No. 1651, issued in 2010, criminalized attempts to influence public opinion with a 10-year prison term. Last February, Amnesty International described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a “cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity.” These conditions have led to frequent violent clashes, which killed 227 Palestinians and 27 Israelis in 2022 alone.

Arab attitudes toward Israelis also stem from a massive anti-Jewish political socialization campaign that began as early as 1919, when Eastern European Jews started arriving in Palestine. After Israel’s founding in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars, these negative sentiments grew. Arabs’ position on the Palestinian question reflects this intense socialization.

At the 2002 Beirut summit, Arab heads of state presented an initiative to normalize relations with Israel. They demanded that Israel withdraw from the land it occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War and accept the formation of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital. The Israeli prime minister immediately rejected the plan. Nearly 20 years later, however, Israel signed normalization deals with four Arab countries – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

Though it now publicly engages with some Arab governments, Israel has not yet convinced them that it’s serious about resolving the Palestinian question, which remains the core issue between them. Arabs show no empathy for the Jewish people’s historic travails, with many even denying that the Holocaust occurred. People on both sides engage in the politics of denial to rationalize their actions and avoid challenging their misconceptions about each other.

There’s no evidence that the stalemate will end any time soon. Israel is preoccupied with security, understandably so given that it’s surrounded by hostile populations whose ruling elites are interested only in security arrangements and have no affinity for Jews. The UAE, for example, misled the public about its intention to normalize relations with Israel. Before signing the peace treaty in 2020, UAE officials said they would seek normalization to stop the annexation of West Bank lands. The official English version of the treaty, however, mentioned merely suspending annexation, not stopping it.

Looking Ahead

For the Palestinians, the options are limited. Israeli historian Mordechai Kedar proposed creating Palestinian emirates similar to the United Arab Emirates. The Palestinian Emirates would include eight autonomous cities – Gaza, Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Hebron – which would be connected by Israel through land routes for travel and trade.

This seems to be the only workable solution. Neither Israel nor Arab countries want to see the creation of a Palestinian state. The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is too small to accommodate two countries. Moreover, Arab leaders see the Palestinians as destabilizing agents and fear their revolutionary zeal. The more the Palestinians wait to achieve statehood, the more they lose. They cannot count on the Palestinian Authority, which is hopelessly corrupt and nepotistic. Kedar’s proposal will at least preserve a semblance of Palestinian national identity and end the conflict with Israel. In peace and stability, Israel will probably inch toward liberal democracy.

Title: NYT : Israel has it coming
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2023, 02:11:45 PM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/01/29/nyt-describes-deadly-palestinian-terror-attacks-as-spasms-of-violence-israel-had-coming/

sometimes see patients from the Israeli consulate in NYC

I asked a few what they think of Netanyahu
and they don't like him though I did not probe further as to why

the last one said Israeli politics is as polarized as here when I asked

like my mother told be 40 + yrs ago - about some old saying - something that goes like "
put 100 Jews in a room and you get 100 different opinions   :-o

I have no recall what in the world the context of the conversation at the time.

Title: Judiciary rules in Israel
Post by: ccp on March 09, 2023, 06:10:18 AM

and US. Democrats support them:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/tom-cotton-benjamin-netanyahu-democrats/2023/03/09/id/1111652/

and WELL WORTH The listen (47 min.)
From Mark Levin on tyranny of Israel's  [leftist] judiciary:
https://www.marklevinshow.com/2023/01/26/israels-judicial-tyranny/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2023, 05:44:31 AM

March 16, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
How Arabs Aggravated Israeli Existential Fears
The Arabs knew they would be outmatched in a war against the Israelis.
By: Hilal Khashan

The Arab world’s hostility to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine exacerbated the existential fears of many Israelis, developed over centuries of discrimination and persecution in Europe. Arab governments and media repeatedly promoted a campaign of anti-Israeli rhetoric beginning in the late 1940s and peaking during the 1967 Six-Day War. The consequences of this vicious bullying campaign are still evident today.

Songs of War

Violent, anti-Israeli discourse dates back to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the secretary-general of the Arab League announced that Arab countries would throw the Jews into the sea. The ruling elite have often used patriotic songs to ratchet up hostility toward the Israelis and portray a sense of unrivaled strength. These songs helped Arab leaders forge a bond with the population, boost morale and evoke pride in the Arab people. Blood, threats and intimidation characterized the vast majority of war songs threatening to destroy Israel and describing the inevitable conflict between Israelis and Arabs as a necessary battle to ensure victory for Arab armies. Nowhere has this been more true than in Egypt, especially in the lead-up to the Six-Day War.

In the early 1960s, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ruled out starting a war with Israel, saying he could not launch a full-scale offensive while one-third of the Egyptian army was busy fighting royalists in Yemen’s civil war. He argued that Egypt maintained a defensive, not offensive, military posture. Still, he asserted that Egypt would not coexist with Israel and dismissed any possibility of future peace between the two nations. He pressed for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, believing this would be enough to force the state of Israel into disrepair.

As the political situation in the Middle East worsened in the mid-1960s, Nasser became worried about his political survival due to worsening relations with the U.S., tensions with the army commander, military setbacks in Yemen, and coups that overthrew his allies in Indonesia and Ghana. On May 15, 1967, the Egyptian army, along with Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi troops, was put on high alert based on false Soviet information about Israel’s intention to launch a massive military attack against Syria. Three days later, Nasser asked the United Nations Emergency Force in Sinai to leave the border with Israel. An Egyptian patriotic song described Nasser’s defiant mood with the lyrics, “Welcome to the battles, and what a great fortune for those who participate in them.”

On May 22, 1967, Nasser announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships heading from Eilat to the Red Sea, which was essentially a declaration of war. He said Egypt was ready for battle and could destroy Israel. A few days before the war broke out, he predicted that Israel would initiate a military confrontation, saying that he would finally get rid of the Jewish state – which was the dream of every Arab. He bragged that Arab armies would enter Palestine with its soil not covered with sand but rather saturated with blood. An Egyptian patriotic song warned the Israelis that the Arabs would bury them at sea with no regrets: “O Zionists, your misfortune is your action.”

The government required all Egyptian songwriters and singers to contribute to the propaganda machine. Egypt’s most prominent singer sang: “We will return [to Palestine] by force of arms. The tragedy of Palestine will push you towards the borders and turn the pain we endured with gunpowder in your cannon.” The songs celebrated Nasser as a heroic figure who would lead the charge into Israeli cities: “Abu Khaled [Nasser], our beloved, you will enter Tel Aviv tomorrow… O missile, go up in the air and destroy Tel Aviv. Set fire and flames in it, and do not leave one of them.”

The media lied about Egypt’s performance in the war, reporting the destruction of more fighter jets than the Israeli air force possessed. Egyptian media outlets said that Syrian bombers attacked an oil refinery in Haifa. In reality, two MiG-17 planes equipped with two 23 mm cannons carried out the botched air raid; the Israelis shot down one of them, while the second ran out of fuel and landed on a coastal road in southern Lebanon.

As for Syrian war songs, they described the war as the most fantastic day for the Arabs and called on their armies to tear apart the enemy. A Syrian song praised the country’s air force, always the underdog in air battles: “Mirage fighter pilots escaped fearing defeat by the Eagles [pilots] of the Arabs, and the MiG flew and climbed into the air, defying fate.” This was a dubious portrayal of Syria’s capabilities relative to the Israelis, evidenced by the fact that just two months before the Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force shot down six Syrian warplanes without sustaining any losses.

Three days after the outbreak of the war, it became clear that Israel had soundly defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. But even after the Arabs began to retreat, the media continued to publish false military reports stating that Arab forces were “penetrating Israel” and that the Israelis had “admitted to heavy losses.” Patriotic songs continued to distort the outcome of the war, claiming that “the day of salvation is near” and that “the Arabs united and surrounded the enemy under the leadership of Nasser, leading us to a clear victory.” One song described the situation this way: “There will be no more oil, no canal, the veil has fallen from the scary faces, revealing the truth of the devil. We would rather perish than surrender, for 90 million have marched to fight.”

On June 9, Nasser admitted defeat, saying that the Arabs faced a severe setback for which he bore responsibility. He decided to step down as Egyptian president, but the media urged him to remain in power, describing him as a hero who would restore the lost territory to Egypt. Immediately after the defeat, the Egyptian media shifted its attention from Pan-Arabism to Egyptian nationalism. Radio Cairo aired patriotic songs that urged people not to give up, with lyrics such as “Long live my country, guarded by my heart” and “Cairo is unconquerable, and Egypt’s great people are indefatigable.”

After the war’s conclusion and until his death in September 1970, Nasser disengaged from the Palestinians and the Arabs, shifting his primary focus to Egyptian politics. In November 1967, he accepted U.N. Security Council resolution 242 to end hostilities between Arabs and Israelis in exchange for a vague statement on Israel’s return to Arabs of the territory it occupied in the Six-Day War. Nasser also accepted the 1970 Rogers Plan, which effectively limited negotiations between Israel and Egypt to Sinai and Gaza, since it did not refer to the West Bank or Golan Heights.

Nasser’s True Intentions

Nasser rarely referred to the option of war against Israel. He always demanded that Israel respect the Palestinian people’s rights under U.N. General Assembly resolution 194, which gave Palestinian refugees a choice between returning to their homes and financial compensation. In a meeting of the Arab chiefs of staff in Cairo in December 1963, Nasser explained why he did not dare enter a war against Israel, saying that the calamity that befell the Arab in the 1948 war was sufficient.

In “The Philosophy of the Revolution,” which outlined Egypt’s economic development in the 1950s, Nasser said humanity did not deserve the honor of life if it did not fight with all its heart for the cause of peace. In August 1954, Nasser told the French newspaper Le Monde that Egypt needed peace to focus on domestic issues and that Washington could facilitate talks between Israel and the Arab states. In his interviews with Western journalists, he emphasized that he did not wish to destroy Israel and that the idea of throwing Jews into the sea was propaganda. Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin recalled that his forces who besieged an Egyptian unit in the Negev desert in the 1948 war negotiated their exit. Nasser, then deputy commander, told Rabin: “The war we are fighting is the wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time.”

Despite Nasser’s public defense of the Palestinian cause during his political career, he seemed indifferent to the Palestinians and reluctant to confront Israel. Nasser is still a popular figure among Arabs because of his fiery rhetoric about destroying Israel, but the evidence suggests that his support for the Palestinians was only verbal and motivated by his desire to glorify his own leadership of the Arab world. Ordinary Israelis, traumatized by centuries of violence and discrimination, took the vitriol of his propaganda machine seriously. This aggravated existing anxieties and deepened the fissures between the two sides.

Title: What leftist MSM media will NOT tell us
Post by: ccp on March 16, 2023, 06:14:53 AM

In Israel like here, the liberal media twists the truth around :

https://www.jns.org/why-do-we-need-judicial-reform-an-architect-behind-the-proposal-explains/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2023, 06:36:45 AM

Very helpful for an email convo I'm having with a smart fellow Jew about this.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 16, 2023, 07:15:17 AM

yes
Mark Levin had great podcast describing this well and that is where I learned of it from a Conservatives point of view who tells the other side .

Imagine for a moment that  the entire judiciary in the US  was ruled by total liberal democrats [ a Democrat goal - pack the judiciary get as many democrat activist judges in every chance they get ]
The judgeship was entirely made up of partisan judges who have the power to   choose all other judges.  Of  course they pick like minded liberals (democrats) for every judgeship in the nation.

If  that is not enough the Judicial branch has  total veto power over the the President and legislative bodies
who in turn have ZERO  power to check the Judicial branches .
So essentially we would have total Democrat party rule -

THAT my friends is what is going on in Israel

But of course the Democrat media twists it all around trying to tell the world it is Netanyahu who is the power hungry totalitarian .
when in fact he and his party are solely seeking some checks and balances)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on March 16, 2023, 07:19:09 AM

Aren't we there now?

Quote from: ccp on March 16, 2023, 07:15:17 AM

yes
Mark Levin had great podcast describing this well and that is where I learned of it from a Conservatives point of view who tells the other side .

Imagine for a moment that  the entire judiciary in the US  was ruled by total liberal democrats [ a Democrat goal - pack the judiciary get as many democrat activist judges in every chance they get ]
The judgeship was entirely made up of partisan judges who have the power to   choose all other judges.  Of  course they pick like minded liberals (democrats) for every judgeship in the nation.

If  that is not enough the Judicial branch has  total veto power over the the President and legislative bodies
who in turn have ZERO  power to check the Judicial branches .
So essentially we would have total Democrat party rule -

THAT my friends is what is going on in Israel

But of course the Democrat media twists it all around trying to tell the world it is Netanyahu who is the power hungry totalitarian .
when in fact he and his party are solely seeking some checks and balances)

Title: Netanyahu being called dictator
Post by: ccp on March 19, 2023, 11:52:43 AM

when the opposite is true
sound familiar :

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/israel-protests-military/2023/03/19/id/1112647/

leftists control the whole court system with no counter balance from what I can discern

Title: Re: Netanyahu being called dictator
Post by: G M on March 19, 2023, 11:55:35 AM

Quote from: ccp on March 19, 2023, 11:52:43 AM

when the opposite is true
sound familiar :

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/israel-protests-military/2023/03/19/id/1112647/

leftists control the whole court system with no counter balance from what I can discern

Is he literally Hitler, like every republican president?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2023, 06:22:23 AM

CCP:

A very smart very Jewish friend of rational Democrat orientation who follows these things acknowledges your point.   Though I have not read enough to have a strongly held opinion, I suspect it is as you describe.

Title: Biden against Netanyahu's judicial reform
Post by: ccp on March 20, 2023, 08:44:46 AM

extremely strong evidence Levin and others are correct
in the reality is the  Judiciary in Israel is totally rigged
 by liberals . If  Biden defends it, then this would be the most logical conclusion.

One can only imagine the America Jewish crats (nadler schiff larry lib etc) advising the senile one, and telling him to call Ben with his "advice "  (perhaps with just a tinge of threat )

same lawfare in Israel as  here (lawyers circumventing the will of the people ):

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/03/20/biden-lectures-netanyahu-on-judicial-reform-after-launching-his-own-court-packing-commission/

CD ,
did your very Jewish friend do more than simply concede the point?  like admit Netanyahu is right and should be allowed to proceed with judicial reform

 

Title: dersh on israel judicial reforms
Post by: ccp on March 27, 2023, 10:06:07 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRRw8CVy9P8

Title: David Solway: Jews against Jews
Post by: ccp on March 27, 2023, 09:13:58 PM

https://pjmedia.com/columns/david-solway-2/2023/03/27/the-scourge-of-jewish-self-division-or-the-court-jews-are-busy-at-work-n1681976

Title: Cal Thomas defends Netanyahu
Post by: ccp on March 30, 2023, 09:10:17 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2023/03/30/in-defense-of-netanyahu-n2621285

sounds like LEFT wing media/ lawyers/ and libs doing the same to Bibi
as they do to Republicans here.

Title: Re: Cal Thomas defends Netanyahu
Post by: G M on March 30, 2023, 02:34:06 PM

Quote from: ccp on March 30, 2023, 09:10:17 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2023/03/30/in-defense-of-netanyahu-n2621285

sounds like LEFT wing media/ lawyers/ and libs doing the same to Bibi
as they do to Republicans here.

It’s the same playbook

Title: Jerusalem Post op ed against Netanyahu
Post by: ccp on April 03, 2023, 01:57:46 PM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/04/03/jerusalem-post-publishes-op-ed-calling-for-coup-against-netanyahu/

what the article does NOT points out is that 85 yo author is an American

That he was an NYU professor , and a virulent anti Republican

look at his articles :

https://www.israelhayom.com/writer/alon-ben-meir/

he calls Ben a liar
would this libshit write a piece calling Biden a liar - almost certainly not.

Title: Israeli opposition leader to meet nadler
Post by: ccp on April 10, 2023, 10:02:58 AM

If Nadler supports this then, almost certainly, I should be against it.

Like GM pointed out - same playbook

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/04/10/hypocrisy-israeli-opposition-leader-yair-lapid-meets-radical-judicial-reformer-jerry-nadler/

Title: Why Palestinians cannot resume talks with Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2023, 06:23:50 AM

Why Palestinians Cannot Resume Peace Talks with Israel
by Bassam Tawil  •  April 11, 2023 at 5:00 am

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
Once a Palestinian leader makes such a serious (and false) allegation against Jews [such as "violent storming of the al-Aqsa Mosque"], he is telling the Arabs and Muslims that the Jews... should therefore be fought against, not welcomed as peace partners.

If you tell your people (again, falsely) that the Israelis are perpetrating "war crimes," "desecrating mosques" and "stealing land," what will the Palestinians think of you when they see you sitting with an Israeli? They will denounce you as a "traitor" and call for your death.

By describing the Jews as "colonizers," [Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad] Shtayyeh is seeking to send a message that the Jews have no religious or historical connection to their homeland, Israel.

In the eyes of Shtayyeh and many Palestinians, all Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are "colonizers" and "settlers." These Palestinians see no difference between a Jew living in a Jewish community in the West Bank and a Jew living in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. For them, all Jews are foreigners who have no connection whatsoever to Israel and Jewish holy sites and no right ever to live there. Period.

Palestinian leaders such as Shtayyeh are straightforwardly saying that they see Israel as one big illegal settlement that must be eradicated... [and not] as a place for anyone other than Muslims.

[C]ontrary to the false claim made by Shtayyeh and other Palestinian leaders, the Jews who visit the holy site have never set foot inside the al-Aqsa Mosque.

One of those who have failed to call out the Palestinians for their antisemitism and lies is US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

"Palestinians and Israelis alike are experiencing growing insecurity, growing fear in their homes, in their communities, in their places of worship," Blinken argued.

If the Palestinians are "experiencing growing insecurity," it is because they are enabling terrorists to operate freely against Israel within their own communities. If the Palestinians want to live in their homes in security and without fear, they could stop terrorists from planning and executing terror attacks against Israel. If the Palestinians want to feel safe in their worship places, they could stop attacking and harassing Jews....

The Israeli army does not send its soldiers to Palestinian cities for fun. The only reason Israeli troops enter Palestinian cities and towns is to arrest terrorists or foil terror attacks that are being planned.

The Israeli security forces are actually forced to launch these counterterrorism operations because the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, are not fulfilling their obligations under the terms of their agreements with Israel to prevent and combat terrorism.

Instead, Abbas and the Palestinian leadership continue to glorify terrorists and to reward them and their families financially through the infamous "Pay-for-Slay" program. These are payments for killing Jews – like Murder, Inc.

In a place such as the West Bank that has lived off handouts from Europe, the US, Qatar and Iran, and where the Palestinian Authority never bothered to build any kind of industrial or self-sustaining economic base, paying people to murder Jews has, in a poor region, become a booming jobs program.

Every day, every Jew in Israel literally walks around with a bounty on his or her head. If you are a Jew in Israel, every day is "hunting season."

In the world of Palestinian leaders, a terrorist is entitled to murder or wound Jews, but when the Jews manage to foil the attack or kill the terrorist, the Jews should be condemned for perpetrating "crimes" and "violating international law."

What is more bizarre is that Blinken, who did not utter a word to refute the lies coming out of Abbas's mouth, instead chose to praise the Palestinian leader: "I also appreciate, Mr. President, your consistent and resolute stance against terrorism."

For the Biden Administration, a Palestinian leader who glorifies terrorists as "heroes and martyrs" and pays their families monthly salaries deserves praise for his "stance against terrorism." If this US position was not so dangerous, it would be a sad joke.

If the Biden administration wants to understand why Palestinian leaders cannot resume any "peace process" with Israel, Blinken and the State Department would be advised to listen to the anti-Israel statements and lies of Abbas and Shtayyeh. These lies include charges that Israel is committing "war crimes," "extra-judicial killings," "ethnic cleansing," and "apartheid."

As long as Palestinian leaders continue to incite violence against Israel and Jews, these leaders will never return to any negotiating table with Israel.

Naïve Americans and gullible Europeans keep giving these leaders every incentive to continue their program of "Murder, Inc." by rewarding them with "free" money for terrorism -- with no strings attached. Under those terms, who wouldn't continue killing Jews -- or anyone? It is a gold mine.

Finally, these leaders might simply find it more comfortable to perpetuate the drama of the "cause" rather than the anonymous, less-than-heroic tedium of running a state. Unless, of course, that state could entail driving out the Jews.


By describing the Jews as "colonizers," Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad] Shtayyeh is seeking to send a message that the Jews have no religious or historical connection to their homeland, Israel. In the eyes of Shtayyeh and many Palestinians, all Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are "colonizers" and "settlers." Pictured: Shtayyeh speaks at a meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on February 18, 2023. (Photo by Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images)
As the Biden Administration continues to state its commitment to a "two-state negotiated solution" between the Palestinians and Israel, Palestinian leaders are pursuing their campaign to vilify Israel and demonize Jews. This campaign, which is manifest mostly in the rhetoric of the leaders and the Palestinian media, mosques and schools, has made it impossible – not to mention personally dangerous – for any Palestinian leader to seek a negotiated and peaceful settlement with Israel.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 19, 2023, 06:29:08 AM

"In the absence of any desire on the part of the Biden administration to support the Saudis -- for decades one of Washington's most important allies in the region -- China has moved quickly to fill the diplomatic vacuum to launch its own initiative to restore ties with Iran."

Also Biden team (not him as he has no idea what he is doing) have meddles quite significantly is Israeli affairs
and hurting security there
turning SA away from better relations with Israel and interfering in judicial reform,
and providing aid to Palenstinians.

watch this PBS' Amna Nawaz on sided interview Israel previous Prime Minister Naftali Bennett:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/former-israeli-prime-minister-on-the-escalating-violence-in-his-country

One can only think this is the Biden / Rice  administrations (obama people) contempt for. Israel conservatives - same as here .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amna_Nawaz
Modify message

remember this:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-members-of-the-116th-congress

35 of 37 Jews In Congress/Senate are crats
and to my knowledge not one (that I know of ) publicly criticizes Biden administration for Its anti Israel policies

Anyone welcome to correct me if I am wrong or missed it.

Title: How did Israel become Right Wing?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2023, 02:32:43 PM

Israel’s Independence Day Marks a 75-Year Odyssey From Left to Right
The Jewish state has lived up to its miraculous creation, but not in the way its founders expected.
By Elliot Kaufman
April 25, 2023 12:07 pm ET


How did Israel, a liberal cause at its founding 75 years ago, become right-wing? You could begin the tale in 1935, when a Jewish state was still far from assured. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of right-wing Zionism, despised by the socialist mainstream, made a promise and a threat to David Ben-Gurion, the Labor Zionist leader of Palestine’s Jewish community:

“I can vouch for there being a type of Zionist who doesn’t care what kind of society our ‘state’ will have; I’m that person. If I were to know that the only way to a state was via socialism, or even that this would hasten it by a generation, I’d welcome it. More than that: Give me a religiously Orthodox state in which I would be forced to eat gefilte fish all day long (but only if there were no other way), and I’ll take it. . . . In the will I leave my son, I’ll tell him to start a revolution, but on the envelope, I’ll write, ‘To be opened only five years after a Jewish state is established.’ ”

That Jabotinsky’s heirs kept his promise and threat allows us to trace the nation’s journey from left to right as the world’s most successful postcolonial state.

In 1944 right-wing Zionists revolted against the British, the colonial power blocking desperate European Jews from immigrating to Palestine. Ben-Gurion, focused on a postwar settlement, opposed the revolt. His forces betrayed hundreds of members of the Zionist underground to the British. This turned Jew against Jew and could have easily spiraled into civil war. But it didn’t. “There will not be a fratricidal war,” said Menachem Begin, successor to Jabotinsky. “Perhaps our blood will be shed, but we will not shed the blood of others.”

A worn-down Britain withdrew from Palestine in 1948, and Ben-Gurion declared Israeli independence. Rather than create an Arab state alongside it, as the United Nations had envisioned, five Arab armies invaded Israel immediately. The Irgun, Begin’s paramilitary, sought to smuggle in weapons to resupply Jerusalem during the fighting. Ben-Gurion knew, however, that a state with private armies would be a tinderbox. He suppressed Israel’s far-left military faction and ordered his new Israel Defense Forces to fire on the Irgun’s weapons ship, setting it ablaze. Again, Begin refused to retaliate: “It is forbidden for brother to raise a hand against brother.”

East Jerusalem, with Judaism’s holiest sites, fell to Jordan, which expelled every last Jew. Yet Israel emerged with one army under a single command, loyal to the state. This unity, achieved via the ruthlessness of the moderates and the restraint of the extremists, allowed the country to develop the social solidarity to hold off repeated invasions, integrate hundreds of thousands of refugees, liberate Jerusalem and stand firm against terrorism—all while flourishing as a democracy.

Labor Zionists, secular and Ashkenazi, governed Israel for its first 29 years. But Jabotinsky’s envelope had been opened. The “Second Israel,” led by traditional Mizrahi Jews expelled from Arab lands, powered Begin’s 1977 election victory, known as ha’mahapakh, the upheaval. The right would push for a more-Jewish state and attempt to break the power of the left-wing Ashkenazi bastions, from kibbutzim to state corporations, unions and, most recently, the Supreme Court.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose father had been Jabotinsky’s secretary, led free-market reforms in the 1990s and 2000s, unleashing a dynamic Israeli economy with a gross domestic product per capita exceeding Britain’s. In 2020 Mr. Netanyahu secured the Abraham Accords, a diplomatic flanking maneuver that junked the liberal consensus on a moribund peace process. Now, as the country shakes, he leads a once-unthinkable all-right-wing government into uncharted territory.

One man who foresaw Israel’s transformation was political theorist Leo Strauss, a Jabotinskyite in his youth. In 1956 he wrote to the editors of National Review with a then-outrageous argument: Zionism was conservative. When “the moral spine of the Jews was in danger of being broken” with false promises of European emancipation, he wrote, Zionism had held Jews to their Jewishness. “Zionism was the attempt to restore that inner freedom, that simple dignity, of which only people who remember their heritage and are loyal to their fate, are capable.” It “helped to stem the tide of ‘progressive’ leveling of venerable, ancestral differences; it fulfilled a conservative function.”

Even a purely political Zionism, he explained in a 1962 speech, was bound to raise deeper questions of culture: How should citizens of a Jewish state live? A serious cultural Zionism, in turn, had to conclude that Jewish culture’s most profound sources and purposes are religious. The logic of Zionism, he said, leads to Judaism.

Welcome to Israel, the new global center of Jewish life and learning. Israel has experienced a religious and cultural renaissance, leaving the old socialist Sparta in the dust. Scripture is woven into hit songs and novels, lives of piety the stuff of TV dramas. Birthrates remain elevated among all types of Jews. The “national-religious” lead a settlement movement to return Jews to Judea and Samaria, the biblical heartland from which Jordan had expelled them. These Jews, piling into the officer corps, may one day lead the army.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Labor Party, discredited by the waves of Palestinian terrorism that answered Israeli peace offers, has been reduced to four Knesset seats out of 120. Only foreign pressure and an increasingly aggressive Supreme Court, protected from ideological change by its unique selection mechanism, preserves the left’s power.

Israel’s opposition is now center-left and center-right, led by new parties with little vision beyond stymieing Mr. Netanyahu and his religious allies. They can be formidable, however, when the right forgets that favorable demographic trends for the future don’t settle disputes today. The judicial-reform fight has proved that. But here, too, is a confirmation of change—even the opposition to the right has shifted rightward, dropped all talk of surrendering territory and draped itself in the flag.

India, founded a year before Israel, provides a parallel. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s secularist first prime minister, stopped short of crushing religion, even making certain concessions to help legitimate the new state his party would dominate for decades. Like Ben-Gurion, he was confident that traditional religion would wither away with progress.

Over time, however, some Israeli Jews and many Indian Hindus sought deeper meaning for their states. Had they won sovereignty merely to modernize along British lines? Looking for a different source of values and solidarity, both nations have seen a conscious return to religion, in many cases yielding not at all traditional national-religious fusions with great vitality and expectations.

The outcomes in Israel and India may be as different as Judaism and Hinduism, but the challenge for the right is the same: to marshal the best in its tradition to revise what is no longer sustainable from the old regime. The worry is that it will marshal the worst to squander its national inheritance.

Once upon a time in Israel, the left-wing majority knew how to lead and the right-wing minority knew when to hold fire. The combination produced a state worthy of its miraculous creation. Now, as Israel’s third generation beckons, the roles are reversed and neither side is content. The right struggles to consolidate control; will its flailing only tighten the no longer subtle restraints on its power? The left convinces itself that the greatest danger to Israel is the majority of its fellow citizens; will it ever accede, like Jabotinsky and Begin did for a time, to a different kind of Jewish state?

Only Mr. Netanyahu keeps his eyes fixed on Iran rather than internal squabbles. Increasingly it seems that he must solidify the state and redeem the revolution or be devoured in its wake.

Mr. Kaufman is the Journal’s letters editor

Title: From River to the Sea
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2023, 05:16:10 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19641/palestine-river-to-sea

Title: Iran's strategy to drive the Jews out of Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2023, 07:29:32 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19797/iran-drive-jews-out 

Title: Netanyahu in hospital
Post by: ccp on July 15, 2023, 08:37:12 AM

sounds serious heart condition

hope they do tox screen for poisons and have armed guards nearby at all times :

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-750170

fingers crossed in NJ

 :cry:

Title: Ben Shapiro on Netanyahu's reforms
Post by: ccp on July 29, 2023, 07:25:22 AM

https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/07/23/no-israel-is-not-in-existential-danger-of-civil-war

"Israel will not collapse. It will not break into civil war. It will continue to be a fractious and chaotic country filled with highly opinionated people who fight with each other, protest each other, argue with each other — and then share arak and chamin and cholent and falafel."

Same as here except the last part - the Jewish liberals here are unforgiving .

Aa far as I can tell the anti - Netanyahu sentiment of the WH administrations started with the great snake - Obama

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on September 18, 2023, 08:38:01 AM

speaking of Bibi

I finished Doug Schoen's book - worth the read

He has done consulting work with Bibi, Rabin, and Peres

He had fine things to say about Rabin and Perez but not about Bibi.

States since circa 1970 since of all the consultations he has helped for people running for positions in politics Bibi was the only one who stiffed him

States he was consulted during the Obama administration .  Bibi wanted his opinion on whether he thought it was a good idea to address Congress in person against the wishes of the Bama administration which was clearly anti - Bibi

He went to Israel and recommended that he should address Congress and get his point of view out there.
Bibi did do that . Of course not clear if he would have anyway regardless of what Doug recommended.

But what was sad to hear is he stated he never got paid for his advice , his travel , hotel , plane fair .  He was stiffed.
He states he asked other Israelis about this and the response was , "well that is Bibi"

Sorry to hear this  because I appreciate Bibi overall.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2023, 03:45:27 PM

Apparently Bibi triggers strong pro and anti views in Israel, but this American Jew thinks he does a fine job of communicating with the American people.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2023, 01:19:41 AM

Hamas starts war with Israel?!?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 07, 2023, 05:41:23 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2023, 01:19:41 AM

Hamas starts war with Israel?!?

Hamas plus Hezbullah?

Early reports aren't always the most accurate
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/war-in-the-middle-east.php

Netanyahu says we are at war. Europe says Israel has right to defend itself.
US says use restraint.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2023, 06:58:20 AM

BTW, see my post of yesterday in the Saudi thread-- a lot of analysis there relevant to here.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2023, 07:14:53 AM

second

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710514746448023897

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ya on October 07, 2023, 07:44:22 AM

Keep track of the world responses
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F719YmKboAAGW4u?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F71_-k6boAADIKl?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F71b4tNaYAAkuRi?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F71pizZbUAAStX9?format=jpg&name=small)

Title: Yum Kippur war Oct 6 - 25, 1973
Post by: ccp on October 07, 2023, 01:48:05 PM

50 yrs to the day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Title: VDH:
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2023, 06:43:28 AM

Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson
A 50th Anniversary War?

Why did Hamas stage a long-planned, carefully executed and multifaceted attack on Israeli towns, soldiers, and civilians—one designed to instill terror by executing noncombatants, taking hostages, and desecrating the bodies of the dead?

And how were the killers able to enter Israeli proper in enough numbers to kill what could be hundreds and perhaps eventually wound what could be thousands?

a) Ostensibly, radical Palestinians wanted to stop any rumored rapprochement between the Gulf monarchies—the traditional source of much of their cash—and Israel, by forcing the issue of Arab solidarity in times of “war”, especially through waging a gruesome attack aimed at civilians and encompassing executions and hostage taking. Iran likely was the driving force to prompt the war—given its greatest fear is a Sunni Arab-Israeli rapprochement.

b)  Arab forces have had only success against Israel through surprise attacks during Israeli holidays, as in the Yom Kippur War (i.e., was it any accident that the present attack began 50-years almost to the day after the October 6, 1973 beginning of the Yom Kippur War?). And so they struck again this Saturday during Simchat Torah, coming at the end of a weeklong Jewish celebration of Sukkot—in hopes that others will join in as happened in 1973. (So much for the Arab warnings not for Westerners to conduct war during Ramadan).

c) Hamas may have reckoned that recent Israeli turmoil and mass leftist street protests over proposed reforms of the Israeli Supreme Court had led to permanent internal divisions and thus a climate of domestic distraction if not an erosion of deterrence.

But, more importantly, in a larger sense the Biden administration has contributed both to the notion that Hamas was a legitimate Middle East player, and to the perception that the U.S. was backing away from its traditional support for Israel—to the delight of Hamas—based on the following inexplicable policies:

1) In February Secretary of State Blinken had bragged that not only had the Biden administration resumed massive aid to the PLA cancelled by Trump, but cumulatively had transferred $1 billion—even as Palestinian authorities bragged that they would continue to pay bounties to the families of “martyrs” (i.e., those killed while conducting terrorists attacks against Israel).

And millions of American dollars also went into Gaza, run by Hamas—despite the Biden administration’s efforts to keep mostly quiet the resumption of such inexplicable support. In this regard, note the current shameful State-Department (“U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs”) website news release that was posted after today’s attack. It ended with this quite embarrassing, morally equivalent admonition:

“We urged all sides to refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks. Terror and violence solve nothing.”

"All sides?" "Refrain from retaliatory attacks?”

So Israel is the moral equivalent of terrorists executing civilians and brutalizing their corpses? And the IDF then is not supposed to retaliate against these killers?

This Biden State Department insanity cannot stand. So expect some apparatchik to take down this Munich-like posting as soon as possible.

2) The Biden administration had recently released some $6 billion to Iran through a prison swap deal that saw South Korea hand over embargoed Iranian money to Qatar—despite Tehran’s  increased anti-Israeli rhetoric and its loud brag about the escalation. We should assume money for rockets (Hamas claims they have launched 5,000, and have received 100,000 of them via the Damascus airport) and weapons in general for Hamas were supplied by Iran, which again is likely the chief catalyst for this surprise attack.

3) Almost immediately, after his inauguration Biden mobilized to resume the bankrupt Iran deal. And in unhinged fashion he appointed the anti-Israeli bigot, pro-Iranian journalist Robert Malley as America’s chief negotiator. Note that Malley is now under FBI investigation for security breaches, involving disclosing classified U.S. documents and also for allegedly helping pro-Iranian activists and propagandists land influential billets inside the U.S. government.

In short, there was a general Hamas and Iranian perception that the Biden administration had resumed the discredited Obama madness of empowering Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. This discredited agenda was to “balance” the power of Israel and the moderate Arab Gulf governments to achieve “creative tension”, exacerbated by Biden’s loathing of the government of Benjamín Netanyahu (who has been snubbed by Biden and never invited for an official visit).

Note as well that the Biden administration has siphoned off key weapons and munitions from stockpiles inside Israel to transfer them to Ukraine. The so-called “War Reserve Ammunition—Israel" is all but depleted of just the sorts of weapons needed in the present crisis.

In this regard is there not a pattern here?

Upon the ascension of Biden and his woke military agendas, we saw the following: the complete humiliation of the U.S. in Kabul in its most shameful flight in 50 years and greatest abandonment of equipment in its history; followed by Vladimir Putin’s opportunistic invasion of Ukraine; followed by China’s new belligerence and escalating threats to Taiwan; followed by Turkey’s new de facto alliance with Russia and recent drone encounter with the U.S. air force in Syria; followed by the Hamas/Iranian inspired attack on Israel—with more to come unfortunately.

And will Biden finally get the message from the attacks on the Ukraine and Israeli borders, that borders matter and we too are being invaded, with the encouragement of the Mexican government and to the advantage of the cartels whose fentanyl exports kills 100,000 Americans a year?

What to expect in Israel?

Expect the following: the usual Hamas/terrorist selling and/or execution of Israeli hostages, the use of Israeli hostages as “human shields” in Gaza,  the bargaining/sale of the remains of Israeli dead, occasional killings of Jews inside Israel by Arabs who falsely believe there will be a winning Middle East-wide existential war against Israel. And finally, a devastating Israeli counter-response that will eventually earn a U.S. rebuke.

What should the U.S. instead do?

It should quit talking to Iran and restore full sanctions against it. It should cut off all aid immediately to all the Palestinians. It should undertake a 1973-like massive arms lift of key munitions to Israel and warn Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and others in the Middle East not to intervene or else, given that Israel will need several weeks to deal with Hamas and Gaza. And if it shows any hesitation or weakness, other terrorist groups will opportunistically jump in.

Title: Blinken
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 07:24:22 AM

" In February Secretary of State Blinken had bragged that not only had the Biden administration resumed massive aid to the PLA cancelled by Trump, but cumulatively had transferred $1 billion—even as Palestinian authorities bragged that they would continue to pay bounties to the families of “martyrs” "

remember even the never Trump McCain called Blinken out - something like the least competent DoS official he could think of .

not only that he is corrupt as well as stupid.  intertwined with Univ of Penn for the Biden "library " or whatever it was that probably helped bribe Biden for his job.

maybe some of the liberal Jews will actually get a wake up call. not holding my breath . they are probably already figuring ways to shyster out of

 their responsibility for this.

I say GO BIBI!  Who would Israaeli's rather have as PM now - a Blinken fool or Bibi?

 :wink:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 07:45:57 AM

christie

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/attack-on-israel-shows-irresponsibility-of-republicans-paralyzing-house-christie/ar-AA1hSwPH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4614ca596d5a40139ee79942fe2288ab&ei=14

"to serve as a "sounding board" to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to help him "think through the ramifications of every step they're going to take to defend themselves."

and of course while at it on Stephanapolous bash Rs.

"Christie went on to criticize the dysfunction in the U.S. House of Representatives"

from one narcissist to the next............

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ya on October 08, 2023, 07:59:16 AM

I think Ukr is done for, attention has shifted to Israel, giving the US a face saving exit from Ukr. If the Israel war goes ballistic with Hezbullah joining in....again the US will get involved,until the next war between China and Taiwan....

Title: Our Steve Brown: Attacks send a message if we can read it.
Post by: SWBrowne on October 08, 2023, 08:37:07 AM

My column, just submitted.

Attacks send a message if we can read it
By Steve Browne

Israel is at war again and disturbing questions arise, more than we have answers for.
To begin with, why now?
The attacks took place a day after Biden released a bunch of money to Iran. Biden supporters rightfully point out the planning for the attacks took a lot longer than a day and suggest it’s because of Putin’s birthday or something.
Nonetheless it is not unreasonable to suppose the one had something to do with the other. Hamas doesn’t make a move without Iran’s say-so. Perhaps Iran was holding back till now lest it delay the release?
It’s worth noting the attacks came 50 years almost to the day after the October 6, 1973 surprise attacks that began the Yom Kippur War. Dates are important to the jihadists.
What’s the connection with Russia? Did Russia support this as a distraction from Ukraine? Do they hope for a strategic diversion? Is this the opening of another front in a wider war?
And how did Israeli intelligence not see this coming?
Is it possible preparations were made somewhere out of the theater of operations beyond Mossad’s area of activity? If so, under whose sponsorship?
The attackers came across the border on motorbikes, pickup trucks, and motorized parasails. That last has a dramatic effect beyond the merely practical. Is there a message there?
And why attacks of this kind with conspicuous atrocities?
They killed women and children hiding in their homes. They kidnapped civilians and took them back to Gaza. They paraded the naked body of a young woman around and made sure it was videoed. They showed a terrified mother with two redhead boys humiliated by their captors. They showed a terrified young woman tourist captured at a concert dragged by her hair into a vehicle to be taken to Gaza.
It's not just that they committed recognized war crimes, it’s that they made sure we saw them.
Preliminary photo collages of the missing show a preponderance of young women. What do they intend to do with them? Use them as human shields? Sell them back?
And what are they doing to them now? God help them, rape might be the best they could hope for.
We are dealing with people whose thought processes and world view are alien to us and too often we try to fit their actions into what makes sense to us, rather than try to figure out why it makes sense to them.
We could start by realizing that though these are military actions they do not have specifically military objectives. They gain no territory nor do they significantly impact Israel’s ability to wage war.
They may hope to provoke a response so violent it would bend world opinion in their direction, but those lines pro and contra Israel are already firmly drawn and not likely to change. And why would they make sure the world sees those horrific atrocities if that’s their goal?
After 9/11 the German composer Karl Stockhausen had an insight that repelled a great many people. He called it, “The greatest work of art of all time.”
I suggest if we can get past the shock, there is a point here.
What the jihadists are doing, is theater. The audience is both the West and their own people.
To Israel it’s a taunt, “You can’t protect your women!”
To their own a boast, “Look what the warriors of Allah can do with pure hearts and intentions!”
However this turns out I think it’s a new turn in the Long War, and it’s not just Israel in danger.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 11:16:41 AM

all great questions
waiting for answers

sometimes Jew haters just take pleasure in killing Jews
I am also thinking the worst - does Iran have nuclear device(s) and the will use the Israeli revenge as an excuse to use?

As John Bolton has said for yrs.

if you think Iran is a problem now can you imagine them with nucs.

OTOH Israel has enough nucs I think to eradicate the existence of Iran need be.

 :-o

Title: 2nd post
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 11:24:27 AM

after some more thought
some in the media are thinking this is to get the Saudis and others to stop working towards "understandings" relations with Israel.

I note SA came out on side of Palestinians (the fault lies with Israel)

Certainly some Saudis support this

Perhaps strategy by Iran again to dampen any agreements with Israel?

Perhaps another manifestation of the Jihad?  or another caliphate?

Title: 3rd post
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 11:28:49 AM

this is huge move :

sending Gerald Ford to Mediterranean

gutsy move
and glad to see but with substantial risk of worsening and not improving

More going on than us plebes are privy to?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ya on October 08, 2023, 12:14:35 PM

Will the US get involved and bomb Iran. Would solve the Iranian nuke issue and also Iranian support to Russia ?. This whole Hamas entry into Israel is quite fishy..too many loose ends and a lot of people sleeping. Does not add up.

Title: George Friedman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2023, 12:46:18 PM

October 8, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Hamas-Israel War
By: George Friedman
Editor's note: This is a special Sunday report on Hamas' surprise attack on Israel and the Israeli response.

Hamas fighters launched a major attack on Israel on Saturday morning. Hamas is an Islamic group with close ties to Iran, which is said to be its main source of funding. This differentiates it from Fatah, which is supported by Egypt, is more secular in nature, and apparently was not involved in the attack. The bulk of Arab countries are hostile to Iran and therefore won’t support Hamas, and negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize relations are underway. Egypt is hostile to Hamas even though the latter dominates Gaza. In 2008, when Hamas launched rockets into Israel from Gaza, Republicans claimed that American aid money had been released to Hamas just prior to the attack. Similar claims have already been made against the Biden administration over funds it released to Iran as part of a prisoner swap.

This is a small fraction of the complexity of the Middle East and the politics involved in this weekend's events. This was not a spontaneous attack but a vastly complex operation, carefully coordinating air and rocket attacks, naval landings and large-scale infantry assaults.

Why was it carried out now? I can only speculate that Iran was observing increasing cooperation with Israel among Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and was concerned that it would be excluded from the emerging system. Tensions between Arab Sunnis and Iranian Shiites – a fundamental split in Islam – are substantial, and the morphing Arab relationship with Israel had to be disrupted. Hence the attack, under the assumption that a brutal Israeli response was inevitable along with U.S. aid to Israel, which would shame the Arabs. It is undoubtedly much more complex than this, and many Arab Sunnis want nothing to do with normalization with Israel, but this is a reasonable explanation of why the attack had to happen now.

The attack was designed to discourage a counterattack. Its focus, other than capturing objectives, was capturing people, especially children. The assumption is that the Israelis would not strike back and risk killing Israeli hostages. The Israelis have claimed that Hamas chained Israeli children to stakes in areas where an attack would likely take place. Capturing and planting children is unsavory but effective.

Before we discuss Israel’s response, we must consider Israeli intelligence, vaunted as world-class but having experienced its largest failure since almost exactly 50 years ago, when Israel was simultaneously and surprisingly attacked by the Egyptian army from the Suez Canal and the Syrian army from the Golan Heights. Those attacks were designed to shock the Israelis and force them into completely unplanned action to split their forces and weaken their ability to resist the attacks.

The attacks were resisted and the counterattacks ultimately succeeded, but the outcome was touch and go. Israel’s fighting forces recovered rapidly from the intelligence failure to see the threat. In fact, Israeli intelligence saw much of the planning and preparation for the attack – which required many meetings and electronic communications that were intercepted. The Israelis also captured photographs of massing tanks, and human intelligence picked up growing activity and excitement at airfields. But the Israelis failed to understand what simultaneous activity in Egypt and Syria might mean.

The main breakdown was the analysts. Analysts must absorb all the data to draw a conclusion. In many cases, however, intelligence organizations develop an analysis originally based on fact but fail to update it as new, contradictory facts flow in. The analysis becomes sacred, and the forecast goes unchanged. In 1973, the Egyptians and Syrians were obviously preparing for something, but the Israelis’ existing concept – which said neither would launch a war with their current equipment and training – governed their understanding of events. Every intelligence organization battles its concepts. Few succeed. In intelligence, humans’ love of stability is deadly.

It seems that the concept this time was that Hamas and especially its Iranian benefactors were caught up in negotiations with various powers and seeking to enter into profitable relations leveraged by the Iranian nuclear program. Obviously, this analysis was wrong, and I wonder whether some shred of intelligence or the concept drove the analysts. I suspect the latter but don’t know, as Israel’s official position is that it will examine the intelligence failure. I doubt it will publish a full report. In the meantime, the current team stays in place. There is a lot of intelligence to process, and this may be a long war, but that’s their call. Like all wars, this is an intelligence war – intelligence deploys the troops.

I will end with the obvious question: Did Russia trigger this to divert American attention from Ukraine? My guess is no. Russia is tangled with many countries, like Saudi Arabia, that did not want this war. At any rate, starting a war on the assumption the U.S. will be diverted could blow up in Russia’s face, and its face is beat up enough.

Title: NRO: Hamas attack changes everything
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2023, 01:07:07 PM

second

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/10/the-hamas-attack-changes-everything/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202023-10-08&utm_term=WIR-Smart

Title: funny
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 02:58:57 PM

I was just reading up on the 1973 war.
Deciding whether to see the movie:

https://www.fandango.com/golda-2023-232617/movie-overview

She was heavily blamed for the intelligence failure during that war.
The  movie reviews are mixed so I decided to wait till movie comes out on cable .

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2023, 03:05:22 PM

anti semites in Congress already trying to set up the blame Israel game

calling for "de-escalation "

after Israelis murdered kidnapped likely raped and used as human shields.

so when Israel does come back hard they can scream bloody murder etc

https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/08/squad-democrats-weigh-in-hamas-terrorists-murder-hundreds-israel/

will the media fall for this - again.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ya on October 08, 2023, 07:52:29 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F79TCJVXgAAxQjv?format=png&name=small)

Title: interview with Michael Oren
Post by: ccp on October 09, 2023, 07:08:26 AM

Bari Weiss podcast:

53 minutes long but has a lot of insight :

https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/20ca69c5/war-in-israel-michael-oren-explains-how-evil-infiltrated-the-country

On Michael Oren who you have probably seen on TV:

Michael Bornstein Oren is an American-born Israeli historian, author, politician, former ambassador to the United States (2009–2013), former member of the Knesset for the Kulanu party and a former Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office 1. He has written books, articles, and essays on Middle Eastern history, and is the author of the New York Times best-selling Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide, Power, Faith and Fantasy, and Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East 12. Oren has taught at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown universities in the United States and at Ben-Gurion and Hebrew universities in Israel 1. He was a Distinguished Fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and a contributing editor to The New Republic 1. Oren won two gold medals and one silver medal at the 1977 Maccabiah Games in rowing

At end of interview, he pointed out the hardest part of all this is he is in NJ while this is happening.
He could not explain the pain he felt knowing his children are sitting in bomb shelters in Israel while he is in NJ
He was going to catch a plane back in 4 hrs after the show and hoped he could get thru.

Title: UAE condemns Hamas
Post by: ccp on October 09, 2023, 09:42:41 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/10/08/uae-sides-with-israel-condemns-hamas-nihilistic-destruction/

Title: Gatestone
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 10, 2023, 07:07:06 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20033/palestinian-war-on-israel

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 10, 2023, 08:07:10 AM

https://freebeacon.com/columns/no-daylight/

Matthew Continetti, there can be no daylight between US and Israel.  Opposite of Obama Biden policy.

Ukraine war, (and this one?) (and the upcoming war in Taiwan?)
"caused by a collapse of deterrence".

Title: Re: Gatestone
Post by: DougMacG on October 10, 2023, 08:21:33 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 10, 2023, 07:07:06 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20033/palestinian-war-on-israel

The prominence of the Hamas wing of our ruling Democratic Party is part of the collapse of deterrence.

Almost half of the Democratic Party either want a terrorist state next to Israel, or they are deniers of terror.

Kind of hard to deny that now.

Title: the 20 Dem Senators & letter sent to Biden
Post by: ccp on October 10, 2023, 09:31:44 AM

with regards to CD post # 2626 earlier today

here is the letter and signatories to Biden requesting regarding Saudi - US - Israel negotiations:

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/saudi-israel_normalization_letter.pdf

Title: WSJ: Hamas's al-Aqsa Lie
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 10, 2023, 02:24:42 PM

Hamas’s al-Aqsa Lie Has a Long and Disgraceful History
The pro-Nazi mufti of Jerusalem first accused the Jews of targeting the Muslim holy site.
By Douglas J. Feith
Oct. 9, 2023 2:34 pm ET


Most of the coverage of the Hamas-Israel war omits the reason for Hamas’s attack. Reports that do address the question often cite the official Hamas explanation that Israel is plotting to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Hamas calls this war “Operation al-Aqsa Deluge.” But that justification is a fraud. The mosque is in no danger, and Hamas isn’t defending any Muslim holy site. The attack is offensive. Hamas wants to torture and kill Israelis in hopes of triggering mass uprisings by Muslims and perhaps spurring a larger war that might wound and isolate Israel, with the ultimate aim of destroying the Jewish state.


The accusation that the Jews are plotting against al-Aqsa was concocted a century ago by Haj Amin al-Husseini (1897-1974), the predominant political leader of the Palestinian Arabs from the 1920s through World War II and beyond.

Haj Amin, an Islamist radical from a notable Jerusalem clan, became a significant figure at age 24 when a British official appointed him mufti of Jerusalem, a high religious office. Britain made the appointment because it conquered much of the Near East—including Palestine—in World War I, after the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire sided with the Germans. The British victory ended 400 years of Turkish rule.

The Arab-Jewish conflict arose from the peace settlement after the war, which put the approximately 19 million Arabs of the Near East on the path to sovereignty over 99% of the region’s territory. The remaining less than 1% was Palestine west of the Jordan River, the bulk of the ancient Jewish homeland. It was put into a trust, called a “mandate,” for the benefit of world Jewry, which then constituted some 15 million people. Its small population of Arabs—600,000 or so—naturally preferred to remain the majority, like Arabs in the rest of the Near East. The Jewish people, however, would then have had to live as a stateless and vulnerable minority everywhere, and enjoy national self-determination nowhere.

Haj Amin was a violent enemy of Zionism. He had no interest in sharing the land, no sympathy for the Jews, and no interest in peace with them. He said Palestine belonged to the Arabs, period. While Zionist leaders time and again showed a willingness to accept the best deal offered to them—to set up a state in less territory than they believed they were entitled to—Haj Amin argued that national control of the land was a matter of honor and religious faith and therefore couldn’t be compromised.

Haj Amin expanded his power beyond the religious sphere by appealing to the public’s nationalist passions. He concentrated on making a white-hot issue out of Jerusalem. He claimed the Jews weren’t interested only in a national home but intended to wreck Islam’s holy sites on the Temple Mount and eliminate Arabs from the country. He repeated these accusations for decades, summarizing them in an article he published in the 1950s: There is “a plot devised long ago between the Jews and colonialism,” he wrote, and its aim is “to remove the indigenous Arabs from their homeland.”

This “plot also intends to terminally eliminate the Arab character, religion, holy places and places of worship in this country” and “to uproot its sons,” he wrote. “They also intend to rebuild the Jewish temple known as the Temple of Solomon on the current site of the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque.” He described “our battle with World Jewry” as “a question of life and death, a battle between two conflicting faiths, each of which can exist only on the ruins of the other.”

Haj Amin positioned himself as Islam’s champion in Jerusalem. He made a project of heightening the city’s importance in Muslim eyes and systematically—and falsely—alleging horrific Jewish threats. He succeeded in becoming the predominant Palestinian Arab political leader of the 1930s and ’40s. Britain expelled him from Palestine in the late 1930s for supporting terrorism. During World War II, he helped organize a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad, which Britain helped suppress. Haj Amin then fled to Berlin, where he met Hitler, became a Nazi government guest, made pro-German wartime propaganda broadcasts, and helped the SS recruit Bosnian Muslims. Haj Amin’s embrace of Hitler discredited the Arab cause in Palestine, making Palestinian Arabs diplomatic pariahs for a quarter century after World War II.

Today, Hamas brazenly uses Haj Amin’s playbook. Its leaders hope to rally the Muslim world by repeating the mufti’s claims of Jewish threats to al-Aqsa. The allegations’ falsity should be obvious. Israel has controlled the Temple Mount for 50 years. It hasn’t destroyed the al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Regarding freedom of worship on the Temple Mount, it has shown extraordinary deference to Muslim interests and sensibilities. Muslims pray there without hindrance. Visits by Jews are allowed, but not in the main buildings, and Arab security personnel generally prohibit open prayer outdoors.

The alleged Jewish threat to al-Aqsa has been bogus since Haj Amin invented it. Hamas’s actual goal, also borrowed from the mufti, is to drive the Jews out of Israel—to win what he saw as “a battle between two conflicting faiths, each of which can exist only on the ruins of the other.”

In aligning itself with Haj Amin, Hamas conceives and fights its battle against Israel in such a way that diplomacy cannot resolve. Opposing all compromise, Hamas demands a fight to the death.

Mr. Feith is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He served as undersecretary of defense for policy, 2001-05.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 11, 2023, 05:34:57 AM

The more we learn about this war the uglier it looks.  Words can't describe.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scenes-from-a-massacre-inside-an-israeli-town-destroyed-by-hamas/ar-AA1hZKGY

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/10/middleeast/israel-kibbutzim-kfar-aza-beeri-urim-hamas-attack-intl/index.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 11, 2023, 07:10:30 AM

You know I was looking for the videos of the IDF soldiers who it is claimed were beheaded.

No videos came up and one message came up that Israel took all these videos down.

Instead I got one video of a Mexican woman being tortured to death by a cartel
They handcuffed her hands behind her back . Hacked off one arm , then the other then as she screamed in pain and for her life then cut her throat.

I could not watch the rest of it, as they were getting ready to cut off her legs.

My point is Mexican cartels are committing atrocities like Hamas
right here just South of the border .

When I watched that all I could think about was , yes send in the military to wipe them out.
Easier said than done.

I felt the same way when W went in and took out Saddam.  The atrocities on the news were unbearable.

Yet W went in again , under the theory Iragis would be happy Saddam was taken out of power and instead we got war more death over 100K Iragis dead and more.

I just don't know......

Title: President Biden ties Israeli aid to restraint
Post by: DougMacG on October 11, 2023, 10:55:55 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PSmMgyq4aw

No mention of whether Ukraine aid has the same constraint.

Title: Re: Israel, at least 22 Americans Dead
Post by: DougMacG on October 11, 2023, 11:01:57 AM

22 dead:  https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/11/americans-dead-hamas-attack-israel/

Plus 17 missing?  https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4250581-white-house-scant-on-details-of-very-small-number-of-american-hostages-caught-in-israel-hamas-war/

Umm, those aren't "small numbers".

There goes the tourism industry.

Title: Plenty of Primers from Prager
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 11, 2023, 01:39:29 PM

https://www.prageru.com/video/the-middle-east-problem?playlist=the-middle-east-conflict&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_7911306

Title: Re: Israel, Ben Shapiro
Post by: DougMacG on October 11, 2023, 01:49:25 PM

https://jewishworldreview.com/1023/shapiro101123.php

Title: Glick
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 11, 2023, 05:06:52 PM

The conversation that lead to my return began when I shares this link with Crafty:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2023%2F10%2F08%2Fa-very-somber-assessment-by-caroline-glick-from-israel%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1PH8Ts6OE-_k4wcCu4L8tixiWnxRKmXBo5vhOgYDZDjr-VHO2zGzUpO3E&h=AT0mxsn329365BCvBYkhNdeCNAtKk5YFTTLCTxEQLz7Pgz4_uk0LZ6glCEd7wznu-rs5obTDoqHfV9vg8gGd0883TRx0DuzfJEV-oLud6Ly1DDLoAU2jwzfrYvN-QF2v2UvD3bbuXTvjtqTpwwLiXek&__tn__=%2CmH-R&c%5B0%5D=AT3XKBbJ-LnJiqhH5fGiRjcFaM2016TR78Cjn_6hsJjCfAt3uC4lak2QVNVBG0ePsDi9_DFkD-eDSF7lEXDKMTonMPQ43IjSrF-EncK8IHSedK03GAw9px-cpa_-FiCdl9sGrTANfCbwHNFtScSafvLMIJZIZNhi9XzSygxbyCp7FsLwYjEZJg

Glick has more than a few clues to rub together, is an actual journalist rather than an opinion disguiser, though this is very much an opinion piece, albeit a grim one indeed.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 11, 2023, 05:57:07 PM

Respect for Glick.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: objectivist1 on October 11, 2023, 11:48:34 PM

What Hamas Was Really Out To Do
This was not a terrorist attack; it was an annexation.
October 12, 2023 by Daniel Greenfield



[Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]

After the Hamas atrocities, experts scurried to explain why it had embraced “ISIS tactics”. Many saw the attacks purely as a way of sabotaging Israel’s talks with Saudi Arabia. Others argued that Hamas had tried for a small attack that escalated when Israel failed to promptly respond. Some express bafflement at what Hamas could have hoped to gain from such an attack.

The experts as usual are wrong because they don’t understand Hamas. And their ignorance stems from their inability to grasp Islamic terrorism because they don’t understand Islam.

Hamas, like the PLO and other Islamic terrorist groups, had spent much of its existence promising to do exactly what it tried to do, invade Israel, and seize and occupy its territory, taking Jewish villages and towns by stages over the years until one day besieging Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority, funded by American taxpayers, still airs Arafat’s old speeches in which he calls for “millions of martyrs marching to Jerusalem”. Americans and Israelis refused to take such rhetoric seriously. The cost was over 1,200 lives when Hamas tried to carry it out.

In operational terms, Hamas transitioned from a terrorist organization to a guerrilla force like ISIS or Hezbollah. Israel had been conditioned to expect small hit and run raids. It was not expecting an actual invasion. A hit and run raid with this many Jihadists makes no sense.

This wasn’t a hit and run raid.

Israeli military leaders are now saying that Hamas had not come just to attack, but to occupy and take over the Jewish communities that it invaded. It brought heavy firepower and some of its best trained Jihadists to not just attack, but to hold, fortify and annex those areas.

What the world witnessed was mostly the first stage of a three stage plan. In the second stage, Hamas Jihadists would have secured the captured communities while in the third stage, Hamas civilians, especially women and children, would have been brought in to occupy them. The Israeli military would have had to choose between firing on enemy civilians crossing the border or trying to fight Hamas once it was operating from behind its own human shields.

The captured villages would have been functionally annexed. Even if Israel had recaptured them, it would then have to expel the Muslim civilians now living inside them. Human rights groups and international pressure might have prevented Israel from taking such a step.

Fortunately Hamas never reached the third stage of its plan. Israel managed to destroy the invaders before they were able to fortify themselves and complete the second stage.

But there is every reason to think that Hamas or other Islamic jihadists will try it again.

The Hamas attacks were predictable when viewed in the context of Israel’s history and of the tactics of Islamic groups like ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates in Mali, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, to name just a few.

Terrorism is only the first stage of Islamic warfare. Once they have the numbers and the firepower, Islamists transition to guerrilla warfare, seizing and holding territory that they then expand outward from, killing and driving away non-Muslims and unaffiliated Muslims.

The Hamas attacks followed that same strategy. Even the vicious cruelty, the rapes, the beheadings, the torture and the dead children, are part of the standard Islamic playbook. Beyond gratifying their followers and gaining new recruits, atrocities are used to drive away the non-Muslim populations so that Muslim populations can be brought in to replace them. .

Terror was used to depopulate Kashmir of Hindus. The Islamic crimes included raping and sawing a Hindu teacher in half while she was still alive. ISIS employed similar tactics as do the Islamic Jihadis operating in Africa. Rape and the murder of children are used to panic non-Muslims into fleeing and leaving the area to be colonized and occupied by Muslims.

Muslims had used these same tactics against Jews before the State of Israel was reborn. During the Hebron Massacre in 1929, Muslims tortured, killed and mutilated women and children to destroy the Jewish community in the historic city. During Israel’s War of Independence, Muslim forces, similar to those deployed by Hamas, tried to overrun Jewish communities and butcher their inhabitants. The difference is that the typical ‘kibbutz’ back then was heavily fortified and its residents were able to hold out even against superior numbers.

While some of the ‘kibbutzim’ targeted by Hamash held out this time around, others were unprepared for an attack of this kind. Their limited security forces were overwhelmed by superior manpower once the Hamas terrorists were able to get past their security barriers. What would not have worked against a kibbutz in 1948 has succeeded tragically well in 2023.

What went wrong in Israel was not just an intelligence failure, but a conceptual failure.

Hamas views itself as a successor to the Arab Muslim forces that had attacked Jews in the 20’s and 30s, not to mention the 40s, using these same tactics. Its jihadist force is known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades after a Muslim cleric who had tried to conduct his holy wars in Syria and Libya, before coming to Israel where his ‘Black Hand’ targeted Jewish communities.

Israel, like America, treated the actions of terrorists as relevant, but their ideological worldview as irrelevant, even though the only way to predict their actions is by understanding what they believe. This schizophrenic approach to terrorism is necessary to avoid dealing with the Islamic beliefs that motivate the Jihadists to do what they do. Every time government officials around the world claim that the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, they are blinding themselves.

The false notions that there are “moderate” and “extremist” Islamic terrorists or that the various terrorist groups are just reacting to something we did, rather than advancing their beliefs, has made it impossible for nations to accurately predict future Islamic attacks.

Modern counterterrorism is reactive, training on what the terrorists are doing now, and learning to prevent it, with no ability to anticipate when the terrorists change their tactics, as Al Qaeda did when it switched from centrally planned long-range attacks to ‘lone wolf’ attacks locally. These transformations can only be anticipated by understanding the purpose of Islamic warfare.

The Jihad is a colonial settler project to subjugate the world under Islamic law. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Zahar said last year that “we are not talking about liberating our land alone… the entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no treachery, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity.” Seizing Israel is just another stage toward seizing all 510 million kilometers.

Experts fail to comprehend Islamic terrorism because rather than understanding how Jihadists think, they project their own tendency toward unnecessary geopolitical complexity onto them. Unable to admit that the only way to meet ruthless armed force is with ruthless armed force, they overthink everything and assume that Islamic terrorists want us to ‘react to them’.

Islamic terrorists cannot be trusted when it comes to negotiations, but they should be taken at their word when they describe what their ultimate goals are. Hamas has been telling us all along what its goals are. Over the last 5 years, it proposed a ‘March of Return’, urged Gazans to cut through the border fence and promised that they would conquer Israel and seize Jerusalem.

The failure to take Hamas at its word about its intentions is what led to this nightmare.

Israel’s political and military leadership needs to fundamentally reorient its thinking. Hamas partially succeeded in its invasion. That means that if left to control Gaza, it will do it again. The success it achieved will spur a wave of recruits and money. Already the propaganda images have allowed Hamas to temporarily eclipse ISIS as the leading jihadist organization in the world.

Hamas has always made its intentions clear. It is out to mobilize all of Israel’s Arab Muslim population and those of the surrounding countries to provide it with money and manpower to attack, invade and destroy Israel. After long years of shelling, it launched a first major invasion to depopulate and then seize Jewish communities within range of the Gaza border.

Some Jewish communities have now been depopulated. While some residents will rebuild, others will leave. Hamas is celebrating such departures as a validation of its strategy that with enough terror all the Jews of Israel will leave the land. And the Muslims will take over.

Hamas leaders gambled that hiding behind civilians would allow them to survive any Israeli retaliation. After enough bombs have been dropped on empty buildings and the media accuses Israel of devastating Gaza and killing civilians, Biden will threaten to cut off support. Previous Israeli retaliations have consistently played out this way and this one may too unless a united Israel is willing to defy the Biden administration and finish the job. Otherwise Israel should anticipate that Hamas will rebuild bigger and stronger than ever with more wealth and a flood of new recruits motivated by tangible evidence of what horrors they can accomplish. The hostages will be traded for terrorists once family members level enough pressure on the government. And Hamas will resume planning for another invasion. And this one may succeed.

The experts will go on getting it wrong because they don’t understand Islam. And without understanding an enemy’s worldview and beliefs, predicting their actions is very difficult.

Intelligence failures are rooted in a materialistic reading of the enemy. Israel was nearly destroyed 50 years ago during the surprise attack of the Yom Kippur War because its intelligence head was convinced that the timing made no tactical sense. And he was right. But the Egyptian invaders prioritized attacking on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

The Yom Kippur War timetable may have made no secular strategic sense, but it made sense to those who understand that the purpose of Islamic warfare is to assert the supremacy of Islam over all other religions. A mandate embodied by the Islamic cry of, “Allahu Akbar”.

From a secular strategic perspective, the Hamas invasion baffles experts, but scheduled on the day of Simchat Torah, the joyous conclusion of the Jewish High Holy Days, it makes perfect sense. It was not a terrorist attack, but an invasion meant to fulfill the Islamic mission of reconquering Israel, driving out the Jews and colonizing their towns and cities, killing most, taking captives for ransom, and others as slaves, which is the entire purpose of Hamas.

And of every Islamic terrorist group operating in and around Israel.

The next time, Hamas will try to reach its third stage, to fortify, occupy and annex communities within Israel. And then the enemy will no longer be ‘out there’, but beginning its conquest of Israel, seeking to link up with Arab Muslim towns and villages for the final campaign of Jihad.

Unless Israel finishes Hamas now, it will be fighting Hamas deep inside the Jewish State.

Title: Why there never is peace between Israel and the Palestinians
Post by: objectivist1 on October 12, 2023, 12:04:09 AM

Why There is Never Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians
Hint: it's not about negotiations over territory.
October 12, 2023 by Robert Spencer


[Make sure to read Robert Spencer’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]

In its analysis of the war that has begun between Hamas and Israel, CNN noted on Saturday that the Biden regime was just in the process of pressuring Israel to make a series of concessions to the Palestinians in order to further the cause of normalization of ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this, both the sinister establishment media propagandists of CNN and the sinister kleptocrats of the Biden regime betrayed their fundamental failure, or refusal, to understand why there is this apparently endless conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the first place.

CNN reported that “as recently as this week, Biden had hoped to be nearing the completion of a major agreement with Israel and Saudi Arabia to establish formal diplomatic ties, potentially transforming the entire Middle East. The expectation had been that the deal would include agreement from Netanyahu on certain concessions to the Palestinians, including potentially freezing settlements and agreeing to an eventual Palestinian state.”

The universal assumption is that freezing settlements and agreeing to a Palestinian state (which the Palestinians have previously rejected on numerous occasions) will bring peace. Yet this is not true, and the Palestinians themselves have made that clear on numerous occasions over the years. Back on Oct. 5, 2018, on “Not a Neighbor,” a program on official Palestinian Authority television, Sharia judge Muhannad Abu Rumi denounced the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was about territory and could thus be subject to negotiations:

People could be deluded or think…that we have no way out with the Jews…The liberation of this land is a matter of faith, which will happen despite everyone. The Jews leaving this land is a divine decree…The war is not only over this strip of land, as you all know the Jews want everything and not just a part. They want to subjugate us, and that we be slaves to their command…

Just a week after that, during a Friday sermon at the Islamic Center of South Florida, Imam Hasan Sabri offered a succinct encapsulation of the principle of “Drive them out from where they drove you out” (Qur’an 2:191): “If a land is occupied or plundered, it should be liberated from its occupiers and plunderers, even if this leads to the martyrdom of tens of millions of Muslims.”

Sabri ridiculed the very idea of negotiations: “Take the Palestinian cause, for example. It is not being plotted against with a deal they call ‘the Deal of the Century.’ Why do they call it a ‘deal’? Because whoever is involved in this treason is not a man of principles. These are peddlers, not men with a cause. All they want are positions and jobs. That is why for them, the cause is nothing but a deal, a matter of give and take. For them, it is nothing but a deal.”

To this, Sabri contrasted the “position of a believing Muslim about the Palestinian cause,” which he characterized in this way: “That Palestine in its entirety is Islamic land, and there is no difference between what was occupied in 1948 and 1967. There is no difference between this village or that village, this city or that city. All of it is Islamic waqf land that was occupied by force. The responsibility for it lies with the entire Islamic nation, and the [Palestinians] should benefit from this land. If a land is occupied or plundered, it should be liberated from the occupiers and plunderers, even if this leads to the martyrdom of tens of millions of Muslims. This is the ruling, and there is no room for discussion or concessions.”

There is no room for discussion or concessions because of the nature of the foe as they communicate it to their people. An Egyptian Muslim cleric, Sheikh Masoud Anwar, on Al-Rahma TV on Jan. 9, 2009, also stated that negotiations with the Israelis were worthless because Jews could not be trusted. He declared: “The worst enemies of the Muslims — after Satan — are the Jews. Who said this? Allah did.” Indeed he did: it’s in the Qur’an (5:82).

Numerous Muslim clerics have for many years contradicted the general assumption that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was over land and could be settled through negotiations. As Barack Obama pressed Israel to resume peace talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in the summer of 2013, Sheikh Hammam Saeed, the leader of the Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, thundered that eradicating all Jewish presence from the Holy Land was a matter of Islamic law. He termed the idea of a negotiated settlement “heresy, according to Islamic law, because Allah says that Palestine belongs to the Islamic nation, while they say that Palestine belongs to the Jews. Anyone who says that Palestine belongs to the Jews has no place in the religion of Allah, and no room in this creed. This is an issue of heresy and belief.”

Examples of this kind of rhetoric could be multiplied endlessly. Yet in the next few days, Biden and his cohorts will demand that Israel stop defending itself and return to the negotiating table. You know, some men you just can’t reach.

Title: After the Hamas atrocities,experts scurried to explain why it had embraced “ISI
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2023, 07:55:33 AM

Objectivist
the 3 phase plan makes perfect sense

to me

I am thinking if they murder hostages and post online it will backfire and harden Israel and it's supporters.

Welcome back BBG - hope you stay around for longer.

We like your posts !

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2023, 08:02:11 AM

the number of Palestinians in 1948 was ~ 160 K ( if I read that correctly )

now in the millions
for the purpose of out populating Jews

and as we have all read they teach their children that hating and murdering Jews noble and makes them martyrs

 :x

Title: QOTD, Scott Adams
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 12, 2023, 08:53:05 AM

Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays

Was Gaza an “open air prison” as some say, or was it more like a quarantine to control a lethal mind virus?

I try to avoid ESG, CRT, and DEI like they are deadly mind viruses. It’s not a statement about the people who are infected. They are victims too.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2023, 10:02:54 AM

message to Hamas from Israel:

you can save non Hamas innocent Palestinians, not yourselves.

That is best deal we can make:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=no+country+for+old+men++youtube+where+Sagur+says+you+can+save+your+wife+but+not+yourself+telephone+call&mid=4540BA9DC226CAEA70634540BA9DC226CAEA7063&FORM=VIRE

Title: Hamas has been at it a long time
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2023, 10:57:10 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20045/hamas-iran-slaughtering-jews

Title: Slaughtering the Hands that Feed It
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 12, 2023, 12:53:42 PM

No more Israeli work permits for Gazans?

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1712528375678472351?fbclid=IwAR1S6OUJdWYF1fxZlUY2-Qax9cGuYNDhsZAGp5CARQk5NPlmiON8-31ERnI

Title: RANE: US support for now
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2023, 04:15:35 PM

The U.S. Throws Its Support Behind Israel, Saving Its Scrutiny for After the War
10 MIN READOct 12, 2023 | 21:01 GMT





A photo illustration shows the U.S. and Israeli flags.
A photo illustration shows the U.S. and Israeli flags.
(Getty Images)

U.S.-Israeli ties will remain close over the course of the current war, but tensions will grow in the aftermath as the White House pressures Israel to reduce the risk of future conflicts that might drag the United States back into the Middle East. The United States has unequivocally thrown its support behind its long-time ally Israel following the attacks that the Gaza-based Palestinian militant group Hamas began on Oct. 7. In a nationwide speech delivered on Oct. 11, U.S. President Joe Biden declared that ''the United States [had] Israel's back,'' and would ''make sure the Jewish and democratic state of Israel can defend itself today, tomorrow, as we always have.'' Beyond words, the U.S. government has also given Israel substantial military aid over the past week. Immediately after the initial Hamas assault, the USS Gerald R. Ford — the U.S. Navy's largest aircraft carrier — was deployed to the Mediterranean as an explicit show of support. Washington has also begun arms transfers to resupply the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and has reportedly sent U.S. special forces to advise on the hostage crisis in the Gaza Strip as well. Moreover, the United States has warned Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah that it may intervene on Israel's behalf if the Gaza conflict begins spilling into other countries, with Joint Chief of Staff head General Charles Q. Brown telling Tehran on Oct. 9 ''not to get involved'' as U.S. forces raced to the region. However, not all U.S. politicians have reacted the same way. In an Oct. 11 radio interview with Fox News, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he and Israel were ''not prepared.'' In addition to former President Trump, at least one other member of the GOP has also expressed skepticism toward Israel in the wake of the Hamas attacks. On Oct. 11, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) Massie said he would not break his policy of voting against all foreign aid for the Middle Eastern country, leading media to speculate that other lawmakers in Congress, like progressive members of the Democratic Party, might join him for a no-vote on future support to Israel.

While Israel and the United States do not have a formal defense treaty, Israel is a major non-NATO ally, which allows it access to more advanced U.S. weapons, a U.S. stockpile on its territory, and enhanced training opportunities. Nevertheless, Israel's defense is a bipartisan concern: the country has received an estimated $160 billion in total U.S. aid since its foundation in 1948, much of which came after the United States and Israel aligned in the 1960s against Soviet-backed Egypt and Syria.
Despite these close ties, U.S. public opinion on Israel has shifted over the past decade — driven by both partisanship and generational shifts in how Americans' perception of the country views Israel, with Democrats and younger voters tending to be more critical of Israel. In March 2023, Gallup reported for the first time that Democrats viewed Palestine with greater sympathy than Israel, with 49% of respondents sympathizing more with Palestinians, and 38% sympathizing more with Israelis. Support for Palestine among U.S. independent voters also hit a new high in the 2023 survey, with 32% favoring Palestinians. In the same survey conducted in 2014, just before the last major Gaza war, only 23% of Democrats and 18% of independents said they sympathized more with Palestinians. Republican sympathy has remained highly aligned with Israel, with 78% saying they favored Israel over Palestine in the 2023 Gallup poll compared with the 80% who said so in the 2014 poll.
Before the war, the United States had expressed concern about many of the Israeli government's actions and policies. The Biden administration has been particularly critical of the Israeli government's recent push to overhaul the country's judicial system, which has sparked widespread protests since the reforms were announced at the beginning of the year. In July, after Israel's government passed its controversial ''reasonableness'' bill that banned judges from using liberal legal customs to decide cases, Biden called Prime Minister Netanyahu to try to convince him to broaden the consensus on future reforms, indicating the White House was concerned about domestic stability and its impact on Israel's security and military. That same month, the White House also chided Netanyahu's move to form an alliance with far-right partners, with Biden noting that the new government included ''some of the most extreme members'' he had ever seen in Israel. And in regards to managing Palestinian tensions, the White House has criticized the Israeli government's push to expand West Bank settlements, and also condemned its conduct during the previous 2021 Gaza war.

During the Gaza war of 2021, Biden used back channels to de-escalate and pressure the Israeli government to use restraint, which helped bring an end to that conflict in 11 days. After the 2021 Gaza war, the U.S. House of Representatives, in an unprecedented but ultimately symbolic move, voted not to immediately send new Iron Dome supplies to Israel. Though the body ultimately voted overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation, progressive Democrats in Congress were in part responding to their supporters' increased criticism of Israel and demands for greater scrutiny of aid to the country in the wake of the war.
Tensions also existed between Netanyahu and former President Barack Obama, particularly over the latter's push to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, which Netanyahu and Israel said was too weak to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.
In the United States, Jewish Democrats have also become increasingly critical of the current composition of the Israeli government, which includes Religious Zionism, an heir party to the far-right Kahanist movement that was banned in both the United States and Israel. In addition, liberal Jewish Americans have expressed alarm over Netanyahu's attempts to legally shield himself from ongoing corruption trials. Many also oppose his government's judicial reforms on the grounds that they risk weakening Israel's democracy.
The United States will remain willing to resupply, diplomatically support and potentially militarily intervene in the course of the conflict. But once the emergency phase of the war is over, U.S. politicians will join their Israeli counterparts in questioning the Netanyahu government's role in the intelligence failures that led to Hamas' surprise attack. The United States will continue to back Israel in the wake of the new war by supporting its Gaza military campaign and ongoing search for hostages, as well as by helping deter Iran and Hezbollah from escalating into a regional conflict. But Washington will not need to maintain this level of support once the war is over, which will likely see the United States join Israelis in scrutinizing the Netanyahu government's role in the latest surge of violence. There is already substantial domestic outrage in Israel over their government's failure to anticipate the Hamas terrorist attack that killed over 1,300 Israelis, which is now being compared to the worst days of the Holocaust in Israeli media. In a Dialog Center poll released on Oct. 12, 86% of Israeli voters — including 79% of the ruling coalition's current supporters — said the new Gaza war was the result of failed government leadership. The IDF has promised to launch a full investigation into the causes of the Oct. 7 assault, which will likely find that the government's policies — namely, its management of Hamas in Gaza and push to expand settlements in the West Bank —- were at least partially to blame in triggering the current conflict with the Palestinians. When the investigation is complete, such findings will arm American critics of U.S.-Israel ties with more evidence that the United States should further scrutinize its support of Israel and, in particular, more aggressively push back against the policies of Netanyahu's government.

U.S. national security debates will feed into the reappraisal of U.S.-Israeli ties. With the United States now involved with arming Ukraine and trying to deter China, Washington has long focused on trying to reduce its military presence in the region and build up a network of friends and allies to replace its security footprint. Already, U.S. defense officials worry that an extended war in Israel might affect the U.S. arms supply to Ukraine, with both Israeli and Ukrainian troops using the U.S.-manufactured 155mm artillery shell, a weapon that Israel would need at scale in case of a war in Lebanon and which Ukraine's demands have already stretched thin.
In the face of challenges from Russia and China, the United States has also been trying to de-escalate with Iran, including through a recent agreement to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds to Tehran in exchange for American prisoners. Concern about Iran and China has also spurred Washington to push for Saudi-Israeli normalization and a regionwide air defense network of its allies.
The political fallout from the Gaza conflict may make it virtually impossible for the United States to ink a defense pact with Israel. Concern about Iran and China has also spurred Washington to push for Saudi-Israeli normalization, along with a regionwide air defense network of its allies. As part of Israeli-Saudi normalization talks, the White House reportedly was prepared to offer Israel and Saudi Arabia defense pacts that would formally commit the United States to come to their aid if either country came under attack. Such offers may have been designed to increase the chances that any U.S. promises made to ink an Israeli-Saudi normalization deal could become part of a treaty passed by the U.S. Congress, which is skeptical of offering concessions to Saudi Arabia but more open to defense guarantees to Israel. But in the wake of the Gaza War, it's more clear that Israel's own policies could ignite conflicts that are not directly in America's interests and could push the United States into a war with Iran, making a defense pact for Israel less politically viable.

In response to domestic political pressure, the Biden administration might more actively intervene in Israeli politics to try to convince the Netanyahu government to address the policies that have driven violence with the Palestinians. While the Biden administration prefers to keep its criticism of the Israeli government private, the United States may press the Netanyahu government to change its settlement policies, approach to the judicial reforms, and policies towards the Gaza Strip that helped fuel the recent violence, even if such policies alienate the far-right that the government relies on. Additionally, the White House will have viable alternatives to Netanyahu's leadership, including former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who refused to join the new Israeli unity government formed in the wake of the Hamas attacks and on Oct. 12 accused the Netanyahu government of ''unpardonable failures.'' Some Israeli voters and politicians motivated by their government's ability to manage ties with the United States, Washington will have the option to shape the public narrative surrounding the Israeli government and could help convince individual members of the Knesset, particularly from the center-right Likud party, to potentially bring down the government to hold fresh elections.

In the run-up to the Oslo Accords in 1992, the U.S. pushed the right-wing Israeli government of Likud's Yitzhak Shamir to take part in talks with the Palestinian Liberation Organization by threatening to block loans Israel needed to absorb immigrants from the collapsing Soviet Union, as the United States pushed to resolve the core drivers of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after the 1st Intifada. Shamir relented and began the talks, but his government collapsed shortly thereafter.

Title: 10,000 rifles for Israeli civilians
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2023, 05:16:21 PM

second

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/10/israels-bold-move-empowering-civilians-10000-rifles/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)#axzz8FqeIB4hh

Title: Re: 10,000 rifles for Israeli civilians
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 12, 2023, 05:57:10 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2023, 05:16:21 PM

second

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/10/israels-bold-move-empowering-civilians-10000-rifles/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)#axzz8FqeIB4hh

Looks like they are going the “select militia” route, something the Antifederalists argued against.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 13, 2023, 03:40:48 AM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12626287/idf-flotilla-13-sufa-checkpoint-hamas-hostages.html

Title: Count of Non-Israeli Killed & Missing
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 13, 2023, 04:09:02 AM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8T8A_Eb0AAGimL?format=jpg&name=small)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2023, 05:54:03 AM

Maybe they have a finite quantity for this purpose, with the military claiming priority?

Title: WRM: Wake up!!!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2023, 07:09:04 AM

A Middle East Wake-Up Call
Hamas’s atrocities make complacency much harder to sustain. But will we face up to the Iranian threat?
Walter Russell Mead
Oct. 12, 2023 12:29 pm ET



Almost a week after Hamas fanatics bent on murder slipped across the borders of Gaza, the world is still struggling to process the shock. It will be months or perhaps years before the full consequences of this attack can finally be assessed, and we do not know if the war in Gaza will spread across the Middle East and possibly beyond.

But three consequences of the attack can already be discerned. First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been seriously and maybe irrevocably wounded. Mr. Netanyahu has argued that he was the indispensable man who alone had the stature and vision to guide a small nation in a rough world—even if the price of his continued leadership involved bringing an unruly and chaotic coalition to power and a year of all-consuming domestic political strife. That seems harder to justify now.

Similarly, the belief among some on the Israeli right that Israel was strong enough and the Palestinians were isolated enough so that expanding settlements on the West Bank entailed no real risks or costs has been exposed as a dangerous delusion. The decision to plunge Israel into a year of turmoil over judicial-reform proposals also looks more questionable in light of the Hamas attacks.

Israel needs a sober government. Too many of the parties in the current coalition are too poorly led, impulsive and prone to wishful thinking to provide the leadership an embattled nation needs. Wednesday’s announcement of a wartime freeze on controversial legislation and a unity government with an experienced war cabinet will help Israel focus on the tasks at hand, but a serious political reckoning lies ahead.

Second, while the Israeli right has lost ground, the cause of the Palestinians has suffered even more. After these attacks, the two-state solution is sick, and the one-state solution is dead.

The time may come when the establishment of an independent Palestinian state returns to the agenda, but I see no prospect that any Israeli government of any party would embrace this cause now. The danger that Hamas-linked genocidaires would take over is too real to make the idea acceptable to Israelis. Israeli politicians must make the survival of Israel the supreme goal of their policies. Thanks to Hamas, the goal of Palestinian independence is further off than ever.

The idea of combining the two peoples into a single state is even more absurd. No sane person can imagine that Israelis would accept millions (or even tens of thousands) of Hamas supporters as fellow citizens of a common state. No serious person would ask them to.

Third, the ability of the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a member) to advance democracy in the Arab world has sustained a staggering, perhaps fatal blow. Until the brotherhood unambiguously repudiates Hamas, its credibility as a stabilizing democratic force will collapse. Western governments and nongovernmental organizations will have to review their links with Hamas-supporting groups, and Western pressure for democratization in the Arab world will weaken even further.

If some things have become clear in the wake of the attacks, important questions remain. The most immediate and urgent concern the possible spread of the war and the role of Iran. The Iranian proxy Hezbollah has launched rockets into Israel and, with an arsenal of more than 100,000 rockets and missiles at its disposal, could significantly widen the conflict. The Iranian regime has poured money into Hamas and provided technical training, weapons and political cover without which attacks on this scale couldn’t have happened.

Washington’s first priority, correctly, has been to reduce the chance of escalation by moving forces into the region and warning Iran and Hezbollah to keep their distance. “Don’t,” was President Biden’s advice for any country or armed group thinking of attacking Israel during this crisis.

For Israel, the priority is to deal directly with Hamas. But soon both Washington and Jerusalem must develop a response to Iran’s undoubted role as funder and sponsor of these attacks. Lawyerly quibbles about the exact details of Iran’s involvement can’t obscure the reality that its role was sufficient to demand a response. If the U.S. and Israel are, in effect, deterred by their fears of Iranian retaliation from inflicting this price, Iran has achieved its long-sought hegemonic position in the Middle East even without the nuclear weapons it will soon possess. It can attack Israel without being punished. It will do so again. Israel and the U.S. must either act or accept this new reality.

The Biden administration has a historic choice to make. Strategic passivity in the face of Iran’s relentless and remorseless rise to regional power was the central plank of President Obama’s Middle East policy and has largely guided policy in the Biden years. The Biden administration hoped that U.S. security guarantees to Israel and Saudi Arabia could maintain a regional balance in the face of growing Iranian power. The Hamas attacks were intended to frustrate this initiative. Iran is determined to destroy the Jewish state and to banish American power from a region that remains vital to the peace and prosperity of the world. Mr. Biden must decide whether he will stand his ground or cede regional leadership to a hostile Iran.

Finally, there is the question of whethe

Title: Map of Israel
Post by: ccp on October 13, 2023, 07:57:02 AM

can anyone see it?

Last I looked 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.  I refreshed the number yesterday and it is now  1.9 billion and growing faster than any other group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#/media/File:Islam_percent_population_in_each_nation_World_Map_Muslim_data_by_Pew_Research.svg

Yet 7 million Jews and the State of Israel need by destroyed.

JIHAD!!!!!!!!

Title: GPF
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2023, 10:29:16 AM

   
Daily Memo: Israel's Warning to Palestinians
Egypt, for its part, urged the people of Gaza not to leave the territory.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Israel sends a warning. The Israel Defense Forces issued a statement on Friday warning Palestinians in Gaza to evacuate to the southern part of the strip for their own safety within 24 hours. They were also asked not to approach the area of Gaza bordering Israel. Israel also declared parts of the northern city of Metula, on the border with Lebanon, a closed military zone. Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday.

Egypt's input. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi said Palestinians should “remain on their land” following calls for Cairo to allow those left in Gaza to flee to Egypt. El-Sissi argued that, though Cairo is sympathetic to their plight, there is a danger of “liquidation” of the Palestinian cause if they leave the besieged enclave. Relatedly, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry clarified that the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza remains open, despite reports that it had been closed. Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan is in Egypt for talks on bilateral relations and the situation in Israel.

Putin's offer. Speaking at a leaders summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to act as a mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He said that Israel has the right to defend its citizens but that a solution must involve the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. He also said an Israeli ground operation in Gaza would lead to grave consequences for the civilian population.

Russian wheat. Also at the summit, Putin declared that Russia can meet the food needs of all its CIS partners. This comes as it was reported this week that Egypt’s Food Procurement Agency has agreed to purchase almost 800,000 tons of wheat from Russia.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 13, 2023, 10:33:53 AM

"Putin's offer. Speaking at a leaders summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to act as a mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He said that Israel has the right to defend its citizens but that a solution must involve the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. He also said an Israeli ground operation in Gaza would lead to grave consequences for the civilian population."

apart that anything that comes from Putin to mediate would not be in our interests

NO ONE claims to know how to deal with HAMAS and other Jihadists.

I recall Putin gassed a building that had Chechen Muslims terrorists in it yrs ago.

Maybe offer rewards to Palenstinians above and beyond pensions to turn in Hamas members.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2023, 10:55:30 AM

Reads to me like he is just looking to stir things up and be a nuisance so as to increase leverage.

Title: Equivocation Exposed
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 13, 2023, 06:33:34 PM

This piece does a fine job of demonstrating the claims that Israel is no better than Hamas are utter balderdash:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1712797668148150545.html?fbclid=IwAR0_b5S7k9SwTko-BTOUn29YxvyYiQ6sHwYcN4_EDhwhqM0yLopgsykAy_c

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2023, 05:03:01 PM

https://twitter.com/simonateba/status/1712572390968811770?fbclid=IwAR1LmRn-kOYCre-CbupuqiuRXd9ommVLXi6H3OaMnkJETeYTPGYCTbBaq1o

Title: there was another quote but I cannot find it now
Post by: ccp on October 14, 2023, 10:17:38 PM

it was either a Roman Caesar or general who said to the enemy  -

you want peace, we will give you peace.

you want war, we will give you war.

Rome was ready for either - it did not matter to them.

Hamas wants war - well they will have it.

We don't choose it - they did.

Title: Is Planning a Response While Grieving Going to Bear Fruit?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 15, 2023, 12:26:42 AM

I like most think Israel has every right to stamp out every Hamas viper nest, but in their grief can Israeli planners develop a strategy that well serves its ends? This piece explores that question:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/in-israel-theres-grief-anger-and-determination-but-whats-the-plan-00121366

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 15, 2023, 09:41:57 AM

When I see the radicals holding "free Palestine" signs all I can think of is why not demand this of Hamas, not Jews.

Title: The “Shadow Unit” Holding Hostages?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 16, 2023, 08:23:11 AM

Interesting piece regarding a Hamas military unit I had not heard of before:

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2023/10/shadow-unit-meet-the-hamas-division-likely-holding-israeli-and-american-hostages.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=shadow-unit-meet-the-hamas-division-likely-holding-israeli-and-american-hostages

Title: Weapons Israel has Found in Gaza
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 16, 2023, 08:37:27 AM

2nd post from the same source. Israel has found weapons in Gaza the strongly indicate Iranian assistance (which is not a big surprise) as well as Russian anti-aircraft missiles that are a concern unto themselves. No clue how many cutouts the latter have run through, but it may more than suggest Putin is playing peacemaker while arming a savage side of the argument.

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2023/10/idf-seizes-efps-rpgs-and-other-weapons-from-hamas.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=idf-seizes-efps-rpgs-and-other-weapons-from-hamas

Title: The attack on Netanyahu-- we will see this seized upon more and more
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 17, 2023, 06:50:57 AM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1713636496287150257.html

Title: yes we will see more of this
Post by: ccp on October 17, 2023, 07:43:22 AM

also, the anti Bibi Iran apologists libs in the Obama-Biden administration aligning with the libs in Israel

will also at some point become more and more vocal.

Jack Lew should be sent home packing :

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/israel-needs-us-ambassador-but-gop-bridles-at-biden-nominees-iran-record/ar-AA1imdRI

Title: Ananpour - again
Post by: ccp on October 17, 2023, 08:17:36 AM

Her guest claims this is all Netanyahu's fault.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/this-is-an-attack-not-on-hamas-it-s-an-attack-against-2-3-million-people-in-gaza-says-palestinian-politician/vi-AA1ijfxI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=8b7b50ef7b83413e814f53a71683da88&ei=53

oh, if only he had let Abbass have democratic elections

there would not be hundreds of kilometers of military tunnels beneath hospitals schools mosques

there would not be abundant weapons and apparently 10's of thousands well trained terrorists in Gaza

I guess I could spend more time reading about Mahmoud Abbas
 and Fatah.

My understanding is that he is no angel but I admit I am cloudy on this.

I am not clear he has control over Hamas .

It sounds like he doesn't.

Did anyone here the phrase :

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer "

Not clear to me where this came from.  Maybe it was Don Corleone in the Godfather:

It was also attributed to Sun Tzu but I found this:

Misattributed
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
This has often been attributed to Sun Tzu and sometimes to Petrarch. It comes most directly from a line spoken by Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II (1974), written by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola:
My father taught me many things here. He taught me in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
Niccolò Machiavelli, who is also sometimes credited, wrote on the subject in The Prince:
It is easier for the prince to make friends of those men who were contented under the former government, and are therefore his enemies, than of those who, being discontented with it, were favourable to him and encouraged him to seize it.
There are also some attributions of a relatable comment to Genghis Khan:
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.
This is sometimes attributed to Sun Tzu in combination with the above quote, as well as alone, but it too has not been sourced to any published translation of The Art of War, though it is similar in concept to his famous statement in Ch. 3 : "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles..."

Title: Re: The attack on Netanyahu-- we will see this seized upon more and more
Post by: DougMacG on October 17, 2023, 08:26:31 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 17, 2023, 06:50:57 AM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1713636496287150257.html

"If you're about to lose power and your people are mass protesting you for your corruption, just start a war and everyone will forget about it immediately and still unify behind you. Oldest trick in the book."


   - Who started the war?  Blame the victim?  I even wonder who started the corruption charges, it seemed to start right after the Obama cabal tried to defeat him.  All the election meddling they alleged here.

Their politics seem to be as divided as ours. Too bad, because both nations should focus on a small survival problem.

Yes you can see it switch, at least here.  About 2 days of shock for an attack on the innocent, 30 times proportionally worse than our 911.  Now MSM and the Left (redundancy alert) are preparing to be eternally outraged by Israel's response.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 17, 2023, 12:52:33 PM

A not so latent appeal to Jewish conspiracy bigotry IMHO.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 17, 2023, 04:54:35 PM

https://www.oann.com/video/oan-contribution/open-the-books-founder-biden-admin-has-funded-palestinians-for-over-3-years/

https://thedailybs.com/2023/10/16/bidens-half-empty-strategic-political-reserve/?utm_campaign=james&utm_content=10-16-23%20Daily%20AM&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=Get%20response&utm_term=email       

https://twitchy.com/grateful-calvin/2023/10/16/light-em-up-rand-paul-promises-to-stop-biden-admin-from-funding-wait-for-it-the-taliban-n2388593?fbclid=IwAR1VZkJUq2FdiqFjJtpBIdlFcgQs5yFU_Wo5FbC_hVw2b3obVSXtZ4g-n0A

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2023, 08:05:25 AM

The Gaza Refugee Problem
The truth is nobody wants Palestinian Arabs, which Hamas has used to its advantage.

Thomas Gallatin


As much as Palestinian apologists bemoan Israel's supposed "oppression" of the Arab population living in the Gaza Strip, the truth is that nobody wants them. With Hamas terrorists running the show in Gaza, it's effectively a situation of the inmates running their own prison. Palestinians are suffering in Gaza primarily because of Hamas, not Israel.

So, with this latest war between Israel and Hamas, Palestinians will once again be the biggest losers. Israel is on the cusp of launching a massive ground assault through which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vows to eradicate Hamas once and for all. Yet the Islamic Middle Eastern nations that feign concern for the Palestinians are absolutely unwilling to accept them as refugees.

Egypt could open its border with Gaza to let the million or so fleeing refugees in, but it won't. This works in Hamas's favor, as its jihadists use civilians as human shields to protect themselves from Israel's military assault, banking on a high civilian casualty count to win sympathy from the rest of the world that has been duped into overlooking its genetical anti-Semitic credo.

At least one European official sees clearly through Hamas's gambit. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insightfully observed: "Hamas brings nothing but suffering and death to the people — in Israel and in Gaza. It is Hamas's perfidious strategy to use the civilian population as a human shield. Terrorism's cynical plan must not be allowed to take hold. Civilians need safe spaces where they can find protection and have their essential needs met."

But as noted above, Egypt won't provide that "safe space." So, is Egypt the bad guy here? Or Jordan? Or Saudi Arabia?

What these Middle Eastern nations know is that accepting a massive influx of refugees is no small matter, as it can create politically and economically destabilizing events. And there is no guarantee that Hamas terrorists won't slip in with the Palestinian refugees.

Most of the cultural instability that has been rankling Europe is tied directly to its open-border embrace of massive numbers of migrants. This was on full display in major European cities, and even in the U.S., where groups of foreigners celebrated Hamas's murderous attack.

Like Europe, Joe Biden's de facto open-border policy threatens and undermines America. As millions of illegal aliens have entered the U.S. on Biden's watch, among them are an unknown number of Islamists from the Middle East. More than 600 suspected terrorists were apprehended. We don't know how many weren't. Obviously, jihadi terrorists see the open U.S. southern border as a prime means of gaining entry and establishing terror cells within America.

Nevertheless, many Democrats insist that we open our borders further. "The international community as well as the United States should be prepared to welcome refugees from Palestine while being very careful to vet and not allow members of Hamas," declared New York Democrat Congressman Jamaal "Fire Alarm" Bowman.

Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis recognizes this as a problem. "I don't know what Biden's gonna do, but we cannot accept people from Gaza into this country as refugees," he argued. "I am not going to do that. If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all anti-Semitic. None of them believe in Israel's right to exist."

DeSantis's message is clear. The basic standard for anyone seeking to enter the U.S. is that if you object to our value system, if you object to our nation, then you should not be allowed in, period.

"We've got some serious problems in this country," DeSantis added. "We've allowed a lot of these problems to fester. But my view is very simple: If you don't like this country, if you hate America, you should not come to this country. We've got to start being smart about this." Exactly.

Love of country demands that one priorities the protection of country over all others. If refugees hate our country, they should not be brought in because all they will do is seek to destroy the U.S., not seek to build up the country. Exhibit A is Jamaal's "Squad" pal, Minnesota Democrat Representative Ilhan Omar, who continuously voices anti-American views and preaches false narratives about our founding and our history.

As that old expression goes, good fences make good neighbors. In other words, the respecting of others' boundaries and property is key to respecting each other. Those who seek to undermine the boundaries don't have their neighbors' best interests at heart.

Title: Tablet: What did US know?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2023, 11:24:37 AM

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/biden-administration-tries-hide-knew-impending-massacre-leaving-iran-untouched-hamas-lee-smith?fbclid=IwAR2teIvtIEYdnMCX8MT_jWON5C7rJSKNw5y9BuU9v79Bw6CI16Fof3Vre0k

Title: PP: The Hospital
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2023, 11:36:03 AM

second

https://patriotpost.us/articles/101397-media-blames-israel-for-hospital-attack-2023-10-18?mailing_id=7847&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.7847&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 18, 2023, 07:49:04 PM

I don't recall seeing anyone in the Arab world

ever simply call for Hamas

"release the hostages"

or

"lay down your weapons and surrender."

OTOH I have yet to see anyone in media do this either!

all I ever see are calls for Israel to do this or that.

Israel must use restraint, must be careful, do not rush, stop the carnage, and on and on.

Not that I would expect people who dedicated their entire reason to live to killing Jews and wiping them from Israel to actually concede.

Title: 2nd post so where do Palenstinians live
Post by: ccp on October 18, 2023, 07:52:13 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_diaspora

I can understand why Jordan does not want any more.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 19, 2023, 05:46:36 AM

Iran-backed militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah are closely coordinating their next steps in fighting against Israel, a senior Hamas representative in Lebanon told POLITICO on Tuesday, just hours after Tehran warned of “preemptive action” against Israel.Ahmed Abdul-Hadi, the head of Hamas’ political bureau in Beirut, insisted Gaza-based Hamas had not given its ally Hezbollah any advance notice of its attacks against Israel on October 7, which killed more than 1,400 people. Despite this, however, he described a continual cooperation between the two groups, stressing Hezbollah was now “geared for a major war” against Israel in the north, while Hamas would burst Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “dream” of driving it out of Gaza. The remarks will heighten fears the conflict in the Middle East could be about to spill onto two fronts and engulf Lebanon, particularly if Israel launches a ground invasion of Gaza. (Source: politico.eu)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 06:10:14 AM

IIRC the last time Israel went into Lebanon it was thinking of driving all the way to the Bekka Valley, but their losses were such that they changed their minds and went home.

Presumably Hezbollah, just like we have just seen with Hamas, is much stronger now.

Title: Some interesting assessments
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 06:35:28 AM

second post

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-101823-israel-ukraine-war?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=138062728&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR1JwXBnEYDvpG5j49SuEinQQT6waP98MjCb_nDwbtDYI-AQClB2URB7KKI

Title: Hersch: The Samson Option
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 06:44:43 AM

third post

Hersch is a source of proven , , , variable reliability. 

FWIW:

https://archive.org/details/Sampson_Option

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 19, 2023, 08:24:24 AM

"Democrats Have a Palestinian Problem".   

Yes I get it - many young Democrats side with Palestinians

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-have-a-palestinian-problem/ar-AA1iv0db?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e7956bd42338405e822f1acc12267644&ei=12

but the truth is we ALL have a Palestinian problem.

Ever since Yassar started hyjacking airplanes in the 60s the world has been forced under threats of terror to cave into them.

Their propaganda war works

with 1.9 billion Muslims around the world campaigning for them against Israel.

we can't even flood their tunnels as done in past due to hostages.

negotiating only invites further

thanks to the "rules of war" diatribe we are hamstrung.

I am thinking we should bomb Iran ports and strangle their oil process
to pressure them into pressuring their proxies.

Title: “The horror, the horror…”
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 19, 2023, 08:31:17 AM

“… exterminate the brutes.”

A description of how a family was tortured. Not for the faint of heart.

https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1714847625130762425?s=20

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 19, 2023, 08:41:49 AM

we have same problem just South of border

with the terrorists cartels

force seems like the only answer.

Title: Cal Thomas - what a Palestinian state look like
Post by: ccp on October 19, 2023, 09:53:16 AM

https://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas101923.php

Title: Hamas supporting Gazan group received $1B from Biden.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 09:55:02 AM

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/palestinian-group-accused-harboring-terrorists-received-1b-biden-admin?fbclid=IwAR2wyvyi3nq1qFoNavJNW77mtWbJsZDfzvqWTZo0ORemT_HQN3DmujNUrek

Title: righteous man resigns from Dept. of State
Post by: ccp on October 19, 2023, 01:08:10 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/couldnt-shift-anything-senior-state-230445518.html

" Paul described Hamas’ assault on Israel ― which killed more than 1,400 people ― as “a monstrosity of monstrosities.”

“But I believe to the core of my soul that the response Israel is taking, and with it the American support both for that response, and for the status quo of the occupation, will only lead to more and deeper suffering for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people,” he continued.

Ok Mr. so righteous - what should Israel do?

besides "diplomacy" besides "negotiation" besides "appeasement"?

What do you not understand that we are dealing with a terrorist organization DEDICATED to killing Jews and wiping them out of Israel.
They spend all their lives working towards this end.

 :roll:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 02:02:21 PM

FWIW I now use the terms "Gazans" and "West Bankers" instead of "Palestinians".

Title: US Ships Shoot Down Yemeni Missiles …
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 19, 2023, 02:25:45 PM

… inbound to Israel:

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2023/10/u-s-warship-intercepts-missiles-fired-by-iran-backed-houthis.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=u-s-warship-intercepts-missiles-fired-by-iran-backed-houthis

Not sure what this bodes, but the US is making things go “boom.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 02:41:16 PM

To keep in mind is that Yemen has the potential to be a choke point for access to the Suez Canal.

Add in the Straits of Hormuz , , ,

Title: drones / IDF intelligence / Pegasus
Post by: ccp on October 19, 2023, 09:25:08 PM

Some key excerpts from the article with link below:
 
"If Israel launches ground operations in Gaza, the world would likely witness the next chapter of drone warfare in urban environments. "

"But too much reliance on digital signals intelligence could also lead to lapses. Loewenstein argues that such over-reliance may have contributed to the massive intelligence failure that allowed the Hamas attack. "

"The NSO Group, founded by soldiers from Israel's elite 8200 cyber intelligence unit, has for years sold a spyware product called Pegasus to a variety of regimes"

"What I'm hearing is that Israel, like the US after 9/11, overly relied on digital surveillance and far less on the human intelligence side in the last 5-10 years, leaving open the possibility of a major security breach.”

"Will Israel be able to use its new capabilities to limit the effects on innocent Gazans in a ground offensive? Loewenstein expressed skepticism."

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/10/next-drone-war-coming-gaza/391277/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on October 20, 2023, 06:19:33 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2023, 02:02:21 PM

FWIW I now use the terms "Gazans" and "West Bankers" instead of "Palestinians".

Yes.  Much more precise.

Title: Turkey's proposal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2023, 06:24:07 AM

October 19, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Daily Memo: Turkey's Proposal, Xi-Putin Meeting
Ankara proposed a formula for reaching a long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Turkey's plan. Turkey proposed setting up a guarantor system for Israel and Palestine if a deal on a two-state solution is reached. According to Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, this would involve appointing multiple countries, including Turkey, as guarantors to ensure both parties comply with the agreement. He emphasized that the guarantors, especially for Palestine, should be from the Middle East region.

Title: Playing Win-Win with Zero Sum folks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2023, 10:52:29 AM

Second

Irina Goldanskaya
6d
  ·
Eyal Waldman, Israeli high-tech tycoon, founder and CEO of Mellanox Technologies, stunned the tech industry and the whole Arab world by creating R&D centers five years ago, first in the West Bank and then two years ago in the Gaza sector, hiring hundreds of Palestinian developers.
He said then: "Today we have 25 employees in Gaza. There are talented and smart people out there, economically it pays off. We have good staff, within one hour zone, with high motivation, availability and opportunities. And I think it's very important for the two nations to come together. People used to be afraid of each other and didn't talk. But the positive thing is created when people begin to work together and see how tensions decrease and cooperation work. This is good for all sides."
And on October 7, 2023, Hamas killed his daughter Danielle. It happened near Kibbutz Reim, less than a mile from where her father opened the most innovative factory in Gaza.

Title: Palestinian student at Harvard blames Biden
Post by: ccp on October 20, 2023, 11:15:33 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-fanned-the-flames-of-hate-in-gaza-now-thousands-of-palestinians-are-dead/ar-AA1izXGf?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=4d0d1090913b4c9da4ece7eae33a22fc&ei=16

what is wrong with these people:

"In this difficult moment with all of its bloodshed and pain, we can still find an opportunity to forge a path toward a better future. The only way forward is to broker a peace based on justice. The old U.S. gameplan is hollow and incapable of preventing tragic episodes like the one we find ourselves in now. Do not fail us again, President Biden. "

All we here is we need diplomacy and peace (justice  :roll:) 
All I see is decades of Hamas and Muslim hatred toward Jews, no recognizance of Israel, total commitment to killing them and proceeding to do so, no willingness for peace or agreeing to 2 states and yet the Arabs all blame the Jews, as do so many others.

What God awful BS.

Title: Zeihan: This is not WW3
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2023, 02:01:48 PM

Regarding the tunnel problem Israel is facing I would not be surprised if small drones were put to go use.

Zeihan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OagYlYna75Y

Title: Bedouin IDF Hero
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 20, 2023, 03:48:35 PM

Vid of Bedouin IDF hero being thanked in Israel.

https://twitter.com/yaelbt/status/1715299385624412297?fbclid=IwAR2DtL4hpuzD9E8E-eb46rYEX3aNezJMHYfQtusksKrY1VelZONMopv2TLc

Title: Mark this day on your history calender!!!
Post by: ccp on October 21, 2023, 08:51:15 AM

Saudi crown prince condemns Hamas!

While not a total home run - he also condemns Israel

this IS as far as I know from my armchair the first time a high Saudi official condemns Hamas

This IS a start and maybe some progress

Some Arabs calling for the 2 state solution I read now.
Now if we can only get rid of Hamas Hezbellah and the Iran threat.....


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/powerful-saudi-prince-breaks-ranks-to-condemn-hamas/ar-AA1iAh0e

Title: vivek on the risks for Israel and US
Post by: ccp on October 21, 2023, 10:39:58 AM

I do not agree since he calls for debate

but he makes good points

endless debates..... being called for ....

I feel we need action

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vivek-ramaswamy-israeli-ground-invasion-of-gaza-could-be-a-disaster/vi-AA1iB7E2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=80d8ec4fb576418591f52befec6f1c50&ei=7

agree with stopping Iran's nuclear threat but not sure how to do that without a military strike
which he does not address

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2023, 02:00:43 PM

"which he does not address"

Quelle surprise!

Title: Site Documenting All Recent Hamas Atrocities
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 21, 2023, 02:22:35 PM

Linked below. Be aware, many of the videos are quite heartbreaking:

https://sites.google.com/view/hamas-massacre-new/home

Title: Hamas & Anti-Israeli Propoganda
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 21, 2023, 03:51:44 PM

No new ground tread for those that follow these things, but the piece’s point about the ignorance of the MSM where this stuff is concerned is difficult to overstate:

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2023/10/inside-hamas-propaganda-game.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=inside-hamas-propaganda-game

Title: Remember Adolph Eichmann?
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 21, 2023, 06:10:37 PM

Israel does, and they remember how they hunted him down:

Shaiel Ben-Ephraim
@academic_la
·
3h
The Shin Bet (Israeli internal security) has formed a group called NILI. They have one task, to eliminate every terrorist who participated in the October 7th slaughter. They have pictures and info of most participants, and assassination plans are underway. May justice be swift.

Title: US Boots on the Ground
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 22, 2023, 05:14:08 AM

https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1715926385334587517?s=61&t=L5uifCqWy8R8rhj_J8HNJw

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2023, 06:23:01 AM

On the ground?  Is that what the article says?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 22, 2023, 07:46:16 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2023, 06:23:01 AM

On the ground?  Is that what the article says?

Last night the US ships off Israel’s coast served their crews steak and lobster, which is usually done on holidays, or to boost morale in advance of action. The piece I posted stated Patriot as well as offensive missiles/capabilities are either headed to or on the ground, as well as troops to guard ‘em. I’d lay money that folks on the same pointy end my sifu used to be on are also doing more than sneaking and peeking as US hostages are involved.

Title: Miss Israel calls out BLM
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2023, 08:30:03 AM

Fir enough.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/16/former-miss-israel-slams-black-lives-matter-for-not-supporting-jews-after-hamas-attacks/?fbclid=IwAR31mH-GSUG5KzmaoOsKJ9ukrvNGQeKppwSmwFpw2vSTXP3ubl4KTcBJDIw

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2023, 08:35:36 AM

From here in the safety of my armchair, this is what it looks like to me:

IT IS HAMAS WHO IS KILLING THE GAZANS BY HIDING BEHIND THEM. IT IS THE GAZANS WHO OVER THE YEARS HAVE CHEERED HAMAS' VARIOUS MURDERS OF JEWISH CIVILIANS. IT IS THE NEAR UNIVERSAL FAILURE OF THE GAZANS TO SAY "NOT IN MY NAME!"

Philosophy question: If someone is shooting at/killing your children and using their children as shields, what do you do?
My answer: I do what I must to protect my children.

=======================================

In my previous comment I but looked to frame the context-- to establish the real world meaning of the coming fight instead of the evil sophistry that looks to deny Israel the right to defend itself.

To rephrase what John A. Curley states nearby in my own words-- the can has been kicked down the road, and now we are at the end of the road.

To me it looks like a definitive fight is to be had, with Unconditional Surrender to be our goal. This is what it took with both Nazi Germany and WW2 Japan.

With that established, then we can count on Israel being the magnanimous victors that we were in after WW2.

The implications here are truly frightening.

If/when Israel goes into Gaza, it seems likely that Hezbollah will unleash massive rocket attacks on the entirely of Israel that will overwhelm the Iron Dome.

If fear of this possibility causes Israel to not go into Gaza after having had the proportional equivalent of 37,000 Americans killed in one day, then, though it may take a little while, Israel is done for IMHO.

I think the Israelis understand this.

If/when Israel goes into Gaza and Hezbollah unleashes-- then this armchair general assesses that Israel must go full Chechnya on Hezbollah's positions in Lebanon.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room-- Iran and the Obama-Biden policy of utter appeasement.

It boggles the mind that:

a) Biden lifted the oil sanctions on Iran, thus enabling them to the tune of $40-80B;
b) Biden paid $6B in ransom (and then pardoned the minimally reported dual citizens involved of their treasonous behaviors!!)
c) and in the aftermath of Oct 7 has barely mentioned Iran or threatened it, let alone reimpose the oil sanctions or pull back the $6B.

BIDEN'S APPEASEMENT IS WHAT ENABLED IRAN TO ENABLE THESE ATTACKS AND GAVE THEM THE COURAGE TO DO SO.

IMHO of the two aircraft carrier groups off of Israel, one of them should be off Iran. Iran's oil fields and refineries should definitely be on the table.
But our President is venal, senile, and flaccid. He is not doing this, nor will he. Instead, he gives $100M to Hamas in the name of Gazan civilians!!!
Thus, should my assessment prove correct, it is entirely possible that Israel may be cornered into the nuclear option.
Should those who control Biden decide that in point of fact we really do have to act against Iran, then I predict that the Iranian and Jihadi fifth column elements that I believe already to be in America (there are Chinese, Russian, and others too!) will begin a campaign of sabotage and terror here in America.
Indeed, such may be the case as soon as Israel goes into Gaza.
Obama Biden have been appeasers of America's enemies and we are now about to pay a very heavy price.
Prepare to have our assumptions shattered.
All this from the present safety of my armchair.

=================

A friend comments:

"This quote is often attributed to Churchill, but which seems to be from Abba Eban says:-

“Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources.”

Title: steak and lobster
Post by: ccp on October 22, 2023, 11:02:47 AM

" Last night the US ships off Israel’s coast served their crews steak and lobster, which is usually done on holidays, or to boost morale in advance of action."

BBG , interesting.

Almost like the last supper before the hard work and possible serious danger begins.

Reminds me of a well known oncologist in my area who I have known for over 30 yrs.
He was one of my professors in the late 80's.

He still takes care of some relatives of mine.

He was famous in the hospital oncology floors for providing his patients with steak / or lobster their first day of admission prior to the start of chemotherapy.

Almost like their last supper before they have their appetites wiped out by sometimes grueling chemo.

Title: modern Nazi hunters
Post by: ccp on October 22, 2023, 02:44:01 PM

https://nypost.com/2023/10/22/new-elite-israeli-unit-to-hunt-down-every-hamas-terrorist-involved-in-sneak-slaughter/

I have feeling they will operate internationally

like in movie Munich.

and in history elsewhere

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2023, 04:03:00 PM

Allah willing!  :-D :-D :-D

Title: Son of Hamas leader
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2023, 04:26:02 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/son-hamas-leader-breaks-silence-decision-denounce-terror-group-care-palestinians

Title: Re: steak and lobster
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 22, 2023, 10:33:34 PM

Quote from: ccp on October 22, 2023, 11:02:47 AM

" Last night the US ships off Israel’s coast served their crews steak and lobster, which is usually done on holidays, or to boost morale in advance of action."

BBG , interesting.

Almost like the last supper before the hard work and possible serious danger begins.

Reminds me of a well known oncologist in my area who I have known for over 30 yrs.
He was one of my professors in the late 80's.

He still takes care of some relatives of mine.

He was famous in the hospital oncology floors for providing his patients with steak / or lobster their first day of admission prior to the start of chemotherapy.

Almost like their last supper before they have their appetites wiped out by sometimes grueling chemo.

Indeed, been down that road. No lobster, but I did get to ring a large bell after my final infusion.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 23, 2023, 06:57:14 AM

well we here wish you health, happiness, and liberty going forward from here.

Title: IDF not in fighting trim?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 23, 2023, 05:10:01 PM

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/brick-our-forces-are-not-ready-for-war-574122

Title: VDH on Death Cult Incongruities
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 23, 2023, 09:41:50 PM

Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson
Israel vs. a Death Cult
Here are three critical considerations that must be understood about the current Israel-Hamas conflict. It is a sort of half-war. It consists of a military trying to defeat an organized clique of passive-aggressive, media-obsessed tribal murderers.
It is not really a war. This ‘war’ did not begin with a military assault. It is nothing like the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, or indeed most other conflicts. It broke out with a surprise assault by between 1,500 and 2,500 gunmen of the Hamas death squads.
During peace and on a holiday, they entered Israel in a long-planned hit operation to murder civilians and take captives, focusing specifically on butchering the most vulnerable—the elderly, women, children, and infants—and in the most grotesque fashion imaginable.
Their desire was to be as savagely pre-civilizational as possible—the more macabre the manner of murder, the more fertile their sophistry that they were reduced to such repulsive blood lust by their worse “oppressors”. It would be as though gruesome Mafia hitmen had claimed they were forced to become animal-like due to even worse systemic anti-Italian bias. Even the Mexican cartels do not claim they are led to behead because of the injustice of the Mexican government.
By preplanned design, women were raped, and children and infants were burned alive, bound and executed, and (yes) beheaded. The dead were often mutilated. Some 1,400 Israelis were butchered, the vast majority civilians. Some 3,500-4,500 were wounded.
Hamas never planned to stage a preemptive war against the Israeli military. Its only agenda was to send killers to unprotected villages to murder the unarmed as they slept—in the manner of Nazi Einsatzgruppen and other mobile death squads on the Eastern Front. Almost immediately they counted on using hostages, human shields, and the media to avoid any accounting from the IDF.
To distract from the murder mission, Hamas launched some 5,000 rockets—all intended as terror weapons to strike civilians, in the fashion of the V-1 and V-2 attacks on London. What followed is the most asymmetrical “war” in memory. The IDF is the only military in the world told to be “proportionate” in its use of retaliatory force—not the U.S. after 9/11, and not Ukraine after February 24, 2022. No Arab army or terrorist cadre has ever waged a war under the rules of “proportionality”.
Can anyone remember a conflict, other than ones involving the U.S. or Britain, in which the attacked in its response is expected to first phone or drop leaflets warning its target areas? Does Hamas do that when it launches its rockets at Israeli cities?
It is not an anti-colonial struggle. Gaza is not anyone’s“colony”. It has been autonomous since 2006-7. No free Israeli Arab Muslim citizen would willingly emigrate there to live under the dictatorship of Hamas. And for good reason. Gaza has been the recipient of aggregate billions in cash from the Gulf monarchies, Europe, the US, the UN. and expatriate remittances. The more money came in, the  less Hamas had any intention of using it to serve its people.
Most of the gifted funds were used to build the world’s largest subterranean city of death, to buy drones and rockets, and to pay gunmen to kill Jews. Essentially Hamas is an enormous mafia-like, shakedown and hostage-taking operation that threatens the general peace, the moderate Arab nations, the Western democracies, and Israel with terrorist operations and kidnapping unless sufficiently bribed to behave. Usually, soldiers wear uniforms in battle and their far away civilian overseers do not; Hamas killers in action wear anything, but their distant leaders in safety often prefer uniforms.
So, Hamas is primarily neither a government nor even an armed force designed to fight other soldiers, but rather some eerie updated SS or Mexican-like cartel. Was that reality at the time unknown to Gazans who once voted them into power, or to its unhinged supporters on the streets and campuses of the US who celebrated its murder missions and damned Israel—even before Israel responded?
Only Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians. Hamas fires its rockets at Israeli civilians from hospitals, schools, UN facilities, and mosques. Again, note the logic: Hamas assumes that Israel fights wars more humanely than Hamas itself does, and so will both try to avoid Hamas’s Palestinian human shields, and of course never itself employ such a barbaric tactic—since, among other humane reasons, Israeli civilians would attract, rather than deflect a Hamas rocket.
The Israelis avoid collateral damage; there is not even such a concept for Hamas: all of its attacks are primarily aimed at civilians. Collateral damage for Hamas follows from accidently encountering the IDF.
How Orwellian that the world demands that Israel, in its efforts to prevent Hamas rocket launches aimed exclusively at its civilian population, must not hurt a single civilian who is impressed to shield the rocket launchers. Note well: Hamas’s air campaign is specifically designed to kill civilians—Israel’s to avoid them. In Israel rockets are used to shield civilians; in Gaza civilians are used to shield  rockets.
Hamas seeks to force the Israeli military to violate the rules of war; Israel accepts that there are no rules that Hamas gunman would ever follow. The odd result is that a sick  world is more accepting of deliberate mass murdering by Hamas than occasional accidental collateral damage by Israel.
8:23 PM · Oct 23, 2023

Title: Interviews w/ Captured Hamas Terrorists
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 23, 2023, 09:47:54 PM

2nd post. Chilling interviews w/ captured Hamas gunman:

https://twitter.com/TheNewsTrending/status/1716534940802732387?fbclid=IwAR3dl4QIRxaGVPKUjJsgN9jKF0ZSq0CYGM2IbEklgywJO8ihfWj4-4QMgt0

Title: the media war
Post by: ccp on October 23, 2023, 09:57:30 PM

was listening to Greg Kelly for a bit today on radio and he was calling Israel to just ignore the media/propaganda war.

I am thinking it is impossible - they have to consider it.

the US is surely pressuring them

how do you say no to the country that provides 4 billion in aid per yr
and will deliver you the weapons and more $ as needed?

whether or not Biden would really attack Iran seems dubious to me.

and of course this international giant of a statesman (in his own mind):

https://news.yahoo.com/obama-wades-israeli-conflict-counsels-210459077.html

Title: Hamas Joined by Ordinary Gazans During 10/7 Rampage
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 24, 2023, 01:14:10 PM

I'd heard elsewhere that there was a $10k bounty and a free apartment in it for anyone that kidnapped an Israeli and brought them back to Gaza, which didn't quite make sense as it appears Hamas was hardcore from the onset and didn't require additional motivation. Then comes this story that states ordinary Gaza citizens traipsed over into Israel in the wake of Hamas and committed many of the atrocities we then heard of. I confess these new facts strike me as pretty darn chilling in their banality: oh look butchers are butchering, let's join the fun and see if there is anything to this kidnapping lottery and snag a piece of it just in case....

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/just-as-cruel-as-the-terrorists-many-ordinary-palestinians-joined-in-hamass-atrocities-against-israel/?fbclid=IwAR0RaAJuzZWJc0RvvZIqwFhDayFFzO9Qyh5161MoYO4LzJgsvIL2zxVGRnE

Title: STUD!!!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2023, 02:57:41 PM

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/406739.php

Title: Powerful Atlantic article
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2023, 06:40:20 AM

A Record Of Pure, Predatory Sadism
THE ATLANTIC - GRAEME
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2023

This afternoon, at a military base north of Tel Aviv, the Israel Defense Forces held a grisly matinee screening of 43 minutes
of raw footage from Hamas's October 7 attack. Members of the press were invited, but cameras were not allowed. Hamas had
the opposite policy on cameras during the attack, which it documented gleefully with its fighters' body cams and mobile
phones. Some of the clips had been circulating already on social media in truncated or expurgated form, with the footage decorously stopped just before beheadings and moments of death. After having seen them both in raw and trimmed forms, I can endorse the decision to trim those clips. I certainly hope I never see any of the extra footage again.

It was, as IDF Major General Mickey Edelstein told the press afterward, "a very sad movie." Men, women, and children are shot, blown up, hunted, tortured, burned, and generally murdered in any horrible manner you could predict, and some that you might not. The terrorists surround a Thai man they have shot in the gut, then bicker about what to do next. (About 30,000 Thais live in Israel, many of them farmworkers.) "Give me a knife!" one Hamas terrorist shouts. Instead he finds a garden hoe, and he swings at the man's throat, taking thwack after thwack. The audience gasped.
I heard someone heave a little at another scene, this one showing a father and his young sons, surprised in their pajamas. A terrorist throws a grenade into their hiding place, and the father is killed. The boys are covered in blood, and one appears to have lost an eye. They go to their kitchen and cry for their mother. One of the boys howls, "Why am I alive?" and "Daddy, Daddy." One says, "I think we are going to die." The terrorist who killed their father comes in, and while they weep, he raids their fridge. "Water, water," he says. The spokesman was unable to say whether the children survived.

The videos show pure, predatory sadism; no effort to spare those who pose no threat; and an eagerness to kill nearly matched by eagerness to disfigure the bodies of the victims. In several clips, the Hamas killers fire shots into the heads of people who are already dead. They count corpses, taking their time, and then shoot them again. Some of the clips I had not previously seen simply show the victims in a state of terror as they wait to be murdered, or covered with bits of their friends and loved ones as they are loaded into trucks and brought to Gaza as hostages. There was no footage of rape, although there was footage of young women huddling in fear and then being executed in a leisurely manner.

Edelstein said that the IDF chose to show the footage out of necessity. It is not every day that snuff films of Jews are shown
at an IDF screening hall. (The original site of the screening was a commercial theater, which would have been even worse.)

"What we shared with you," Edelstein said, searching for words, "you should know it." And he said he struggled to understand how some journalists could present the IDF and Hamas as comparable. This footage would refute that false equivalence.

"We are not looking for kids to kill them," he said. "We have to share it with you so no one will have an idea that someone is
equal to another."

To me the most disturbing section was not visual at all. Like the clip of the father and his boys hunted in their pajamas, it was upsetting in part because it showed a relationship between parent and child. The clip is just a phone call-placed by a terrorist to his family back in Gaza. He tells his father that he is calling from a Jewish woman's phone. (The phone recorded the call.) He tells his father that his son is now a "hero" and that "I killed 10 Jews with my own hands." And he tells his family, about a dozen times, that they should open up WhatsApp on his phone, because he has sent photographs to prove what he has done. "Put on Mom!" he says. "Your son is a hero!"

His parents, I noticed, are not nearly as enthusiastic as he is. I believe that the mom says "praise be to God" at one point, which could be gratitude for her son's crimes or pure reflex, indicating her loss for words to match her son's unspeakable acts. They do not question what their son has done; they do not scold him. They tell him to come back to Gaza. They fear for his safety. He says, amid rounds of "Allahu akbar," that he intends "victory or martyrdom"-which the parents must understand means that he will never come home. From their muted replies I wonder whether they also understand that even if he did come home, he would do so as a disgusting and degraded creature, and that it might be better for him not to.

Graeme Wood is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of The Way of the Strangers: Encounters With the Islamic State.

Title: Holocaust studies professor states Israelis need to reckon plight of Palestinian
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2023, 07:18:07 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/professor-demands-israel-stop-weaponizing-the-holocaust-to-justify-violence/ar-AA1iPkt9?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=1a3900220fcb4f53b003b00ee42df226&ei=11

https://stockton.edu/graduate/holocaust-genocide-studies.html

I just sent him an email politely inquiring about his solution to the problem
and what exactly does he mean a reckoning by Israel

they have offered 2 state solutions for decades and always get rebuffed.

I will post if he responds

Title: the obama influence
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2023, 07:43:38 AM

it is now obvious
that Obama people with biden are again preventing Israel from responding

and blowing the response up like they did with anonymous leak of Israel's plans to bomb the Iran nuc sites from Belarus

and lets not forget that it appeared Obamster already seemed to accept that iran would get nucs and best option was to contain

what a fool

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2023, 07:53:15 AM

Baraq also sabotaged Israel's landing rights deal with Azerbaijan.

Title: Re: the obama influence
Post by: DougMacG on October 25, 2023, 09:47:29 AM

Strange that a guy that has complete private access to the President and all his key advisors feels a need to speak out publicly.  As a 'senior statesman ' it is obviously about shifting public opinion, in this case against Israel's response.  He is giving cover to the inevitable shift of Biden's policy and rhetoric on that away from Israel.

Can't we all just get along?

(The clear answer on the ground and in the films is no, we can't.)

Title: Erdagon
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2023, 11:13:41 AM

terrorists

JIHAD !

or I guess :

MUHAJIDEEN !

JIHAD JIHAD JIHAD

my ass.

Only Jews have to play be different rules.....  :wink:

Title: Israeli military intel guy speaks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2023, 12:01:17 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/24/amos-yaldin-israeli-military-intelligence-netanyahu-qa-00123099

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2023, 03:35:43 PM

Very interesting perspective from left of center .   Still not clear why Israeli or US intelligence did not pick it up.  The libs were so mad Netanyahu they went on strike?      He also calls Biden the best president Israel ever had!   A diss to Trump if I ever heard one!    This is how American democrat jews will respond to Morris’ perpetrated dissolutionment.     They can still be Jewish and crat at the same time by rallying around Biden who overall has been good so far I don’t disagree though I don’t like Obama fools around him

Title: Obma's homework assignment
Post by: ccp on October 25, 2023, 04:32:23 PM

Maybe Obama could read this for his homework assignment and start lecturing the other side - if they would listen:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mellman-do-palestinians-support-hamas-polls-paint-a-murky-picture/ar-AA1iPUTB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b6e64102e7d84a1d9207655744b532da&ei=10

By 70 percent to 28 percent, Palestinians oppose a two-state solution — “the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.” 

An even larger number — 76 percent to 21 percent — oppose a “one state solution …in which the two sides enjoy equal rights.” 

Given a choice among three options for “ending the occupation and building an independent state,” 21 percent prefer “negotiations,” 22 percent “peaceful popular resistance” and 52 percent select “armed conflict.”   

A 58 percent majority support a “return to the armed intifada [terrorism] and confrontations,” while 41 percent oppose such a move.

Title: Hamastan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2023, 06:24:57 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/24/amos-yaldin-israeli-military-intelligence-netanyahu-qa-00123099

We refer to Hamas from now on as the government of “Hamas-stan” in Gaza, a neighboring country that attacked Israel, and we declare war on this country. And we are going to destroy this state, very much like what the Allies did to Germany in 1945, very much like what the U.S. did to ISIS, to the Caliphate, in Iraq and Syria, 2014 to 2019. We hope that after Hamas is destroyed, the [Palestinian Authority] may come back to Gaza. There are even more innovative ideas of an Arab mandate — maybe a consortium of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — that will control the place. We are not there yet. It took the Americans years to try and destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or the jihadists in Iraq and five years against ISIS. Gaza is smaller, the Israelis are fighting close to home, and we can do it maybe in months — two months, three months — but it is not going to be so quick, so we have time to think about the solution as the operation goes on. But the goal is well-defined: Hamas will not control Gaza anymore.

============

Marc:  Upon victory perhaps Gazastan would be better.

Title: The World's Most Moral Army
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2023, 03:06:33 PM

https://www.prageru.com/video/israel-the-worlds-most-moral-army

Title: War in Israel, Glick: Obama administration’s support for Hamas was not passive
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2023, 06:56:01 AM

The Lessons of the Hamas War - The Obama (Biden) administration’s support for Hamas was not passive.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/column-one-the-lessons-of-the-hamas-war-483103

(Doug)   11 years of siding with the wrong 'team'. Plus Iran support.  Iran's support for Hamas is not passive. Now we get THIS.  Is it over the top politics to assess blame??
---------------
Here's what we know about Hamas:

Hamas Leader — ‘We are trying to rid the world of all Jews and Christians.’
https://twitter.com/ACTBrigitte/status/1712532259830407580

Maybe that's misunderstood or out of context...

It's not fair to animals to call these people animals. Name one that behaves like this.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on October 30, 2023, 07:14:55 AM

don't hold our breaths waiting for Obama or any of his little dwarfs to admit they were wrong

about Iran
about Hamas
about China
about Russia
about the UN
about WHO
about covid source

and on and on

Like Michael Oren says officials politicians in the US never take responsibility or pay a price for mistakes like they do in Israel.

The only hope is they do not get re elected
or reappointed

but that does not work well either

no justice for the snakes

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2023, 08:17:25 AM

Exactly so.

Title: Spectacular mix of lies and half truths
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2023, 03:00:31 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6SOZOwdfrg

Title: top line Drudge report says it all
Post by: ccp on November 01, 2023, 12:25:28 PM

Any bozo who calls for "cease fire" should go sit in the corner and write a hundred times what this loon says:

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771199

and give them an F on their final grade

Title: Glick interviews a witness to the carnage
Post by: DougMacG on November 02, 2023, 06:04:57 AM

https://patriotandliberty.com/video-all-the-bodies-were-brutalized-the-truth-sbout-the-hamas-attacks-the-horrors-firsthand-the-caroline-glick-show/

Title: ex Hamas fighter who later worked for Mousad
Post by: ccp on November 03, 2023, 08:24:00 AM

guest on Newsnation's Cuomo.

very brave and courageous:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/son-of-hamas-co-founder-blasts-hamas-as-nazi-group-tells-chris-cuomo-israel-is-not-responsible-for-gaza-civilian-deaths/

Title: Palestinians who are speaking out against Hamas
Post by: ccp on November 03, 2023, 10:48:20 AM

I think there is hope that after Hamas is eradicated that there could be avenue to peace but admit not all agree:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/11-facts-about-the-tomb-of-the-unknown-soldier/ar-AA1jipnd?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=d64683b5bafe40ab90eca954fb31708f&ei=11

Title: Netanyahu says no to Biden and the rest of the nattering nabobs
Post by: DougMacG on November 03, 2023, 11:08:21 AM

No "pause".  The mission Against Hamas does not have whenever we get around to it urgency.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/11/03/breaking-netanyahu-rebukes-us-declares-no-pause-and-no-fuel-before-hostages-are-released-n589754

Title: from previous post
Post by: ccp on November 03, 2023, 11:27:33 AM

Netanyahu Rebukes US, Declares No Pause and No Fuel Before Hostages are Released!

 :-D :-D :-D

So Blinkens rushed trip to Israel this past week for more "discussions", "diplomacy",  "talks with friends and allies" and "conversations" and then 
failed to force Bibi to be suckered and get on his knees to Hamas.

This time I am glad Blinks failed!  Blinks et al. like to grovel with hard core irreversible enemies.  We need strong leadership.  We gotta win next yr.

Title: Israel/US honeymoon over
Post by: ccp on November 03, 2023, 12:33:24 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/blinken-warns-israel-that-humanitarian-conditions-in-gaza-must-improve-to-have-partners-for-peace/ar-AA1jldPb?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=2bfdfe3b2a3141129a78e8cf3fcb5cbd&ei=10

Title: Ratcliffe: What about the Americans killed and our hostages?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2023, 01:14:52 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEp2MebcTBE

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2023, 05:01:47 AM

A FB post that makes a more subtle point. 

"Not indigenous when they're actually white European khazarians as proven by dna tests.
Their dna tests result will describe them as Ashkenazi.
There are some middle eastern Jews in Israel who are native and have always been there and there are some Middle Eastern Jews who were living in surrounding countries who returned to Israel, but their dna tests results are different to the white European khazarian ashkenazi Jews.
The ashkenazi are the ones in government power in Israel and they are the ones who always appear on television.
Glenn, you describe yourself as a Christian, but you're obviously not a native of either the middle East or from Europe, ..... which shows that your forefathers/ ancestors converted from your actual native Asian Indian Hindu religion to Christianity in the past, just like the Khazarians converted from their previous religion to jewdaism in the past.
There's nothing wrong with changing religion, but it doesn't change your nativity."

How best to respond?

Title: WSJ: Jewish Emigration from Arab Lands
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2023, 01:14:56 PM

second

Many Israelis Are Refugees From Arab Lands
In 1948 some 900,000 Jews lived in Iraq, Yemen and other countries. Almost all of them were violently forced out.
By Edward Meir
Nov. 3, 2023 6:48 pm ET


As people around the world demonstrate for Palestinian rights, we shouldn’t overlook another group of Middle Eastern refugees who also have suffered for decades but whose plight is seldom discussed: the displaced Jewish refugees from Arab lands. I should know; I am one of them. Our story needs to be told.

I was born in Baghdad, Iraq, as were my parents and grandparents. When Cyrus the Great liberated Babylon in 538 B.C. and gave Jews the choice to leave, my ancestors stayed. By 1948 an estimated 135,000 Jews lived in Baghdad, comprising one-third of the city’s population—more Jews by proportion than Warsaw or New York at the time. Iraqi Jews were active in government, launched businesses and held prominent positions. Iraq’s first finance minister, Sassoon Eskell, was Jewish. He insisted that the British pay for Iraq’s oil in gold rather than pounds sterling, a prescient move that salvaged the country’s finances after sterling crumbled.

By the time modern Israel was founded in 1948, some 900,000 Jews lived in the Arab world. Over the next few decades, their ranks shriveled. Jews were stripped of their passports, assets and businesses. Many were expelled in mass airlifts and were prohibited from returning. Some Arab countries banned emigration to Israel, prompting Jews to arrange to be smuggled out. Many died in the countries they called home. Others were imprisoned or executed, including relatives of mine who were hanged in Baghdad’s public squares in the late 1960s on trumped-up charges of being Zionist spies. Saddam Hussein was among the henchmen presiding over these sham trials.

By 2012 only about 4,300 Jews lived in the Arab Middle East, concentrated mainly in Morocco and Tunisia. The Jews in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Libya virtually all vanished. Algeria had 140,000 Jews in 1948 and none by 2012. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi told Secretary of State Antony Blinken last month that Egyptian Jews were never subject to repression, but he failed to explain why the country is now largely devoid of them.

And so I ask, what about the rights of Jews in Arab lands? Who will return our property and funds and stolen lives? Where was our “right of return”? Why weren’t there protests on our behalf?

Middle Eastern Jews were able to move to Israel after they were displaced. But because living conditions were difficult early on and few jobs awaited those streaming in, many moved elsewhere, including to the U.S., Canada and the U.K. My father moved to Iran in the early 1950s, where the Jewish community enjoyed a relatively peaceful period under the shah. I attended an American-run K-12 school in Tehran—complete with SATs and cheerleaders—before coming to the U.S. for college. But going back to Iran wasn’t an option once the mullahs took over in 1979. In effect, I was displaced twice. Now living in the U.S., I enjoy rights I never dreamed of growing up in the Middle East.

Contrast this to the 22 Arab countries that have never been welcoming toward Palestinian refugees or integrated them. Apart from Jordan, which until recently took in more than its fair share, most other Arab countries have had an uneasy relationship with their Palestinian neighbors. The approximately 200,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon aren’t eligible for citizenship and have limited access to healthcare and education. Syria has refused to grant its Palestinian refugees citizenship. Egypt didn’t want Palestinian Gaza back, leaving it for Israel to govern until Israel evacuated the territory in 2005.

About half the displaced Palestinians live in Israel, and although subject to hardships that shouldn’t be ignored, they enjoy a higher standard of living than Palestinian refugees living elsewhere. Meanwhile, the number of Palestinian refugees living across the Middle East has ballooned to six million, the largest stateless community in the world. Palestinians, unlike other refugees, are protected by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency instead of by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Unrwa doesn’t have a mandate to resettle refugees, so it is in effect a refugee enabler, preventing Palestinians from rebuilding their lives by going to other countries as Middle Eastern Jews did.

Equally tragic for the Palestinians are the poor choices their leaders have made on their behalf. Periodic offers of a two-state solution have been dismissed since 1948. In July 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Palestinian President Yasser Arafat far-reaching concessions for a self-governing entity and eventually a state. Mr. Arafat rejected the deal. In 2008, after another round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a sweeping proposal, which Mr. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, turned down. The mood in Israel has also hardened. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has essentially given up on negotiations, opting instead to make peace with other Arab countries.

Amid more conflict and violence, I hope that Israelis and Palestinians find the peace they seek and deserve. From one ex-Jewish refugee to a current Palestinian one, I welcome you to a home and a state, but only if you come in peace and with leaders who are like-minded in this noble pursuit. I hope the wait won’t be long—but sadly, I think it will be.

Mr. Meir is the president of Commodity Research Group.

Title: GPF: Energy aspects to the Gaza War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 06, 2023, 05:13:54 AM

Eastern Mediterranean Energy Hangs in the Balance of the Israel-Hamas War
Unless the conflict spreads, the impact on the global economy should be manageable.
By: Antonia Colibasanu

As the Israel-Hamas conflict threatens to spread, oil traders are paying a premium for their annual supply of most grades of Middle Eastern crude for 2024, according to Reuters. Though this seems to confirm what many suspect – that the conflict has irrevocably triggered increases in the price of energy – it’s unclear how much, and for how long, these increases will affect the global economy.

The usual caveats about the fog of war apply, of course, but so far businesses in the region are operating under two potential scenarios. The first is a confined war in which prices jump only a little ($4-$7 per barrel) and thus lead to a marginal increase in inflation (0.1 percent). The second is a larger war that spreads throughout the region. If it does escalate, oil prices could jump to as much as $150 per barrel, according to some estimates, potentially leading to a global recession with serious inflationary pressures.

For its part, the Israeli economy is already starting to adjust to the new normal, after what some consider an Israeli equivalent to 9/11. Consumer spending is down, and as reservists get called up for the fight, serious shortfalls in manpower have hurt supply chains at seaports and supermarkets alike. GPF sources say daily rocket attacks continue, and in some areas, rocket sirens are heard at least twice a day, so the economic uncertainty in Israel isn’t going away any time soon. The government, meanwhile, has vowed “no limit” spending to finance the war and compensate affected individuals and businesses, implying a larger budget deficit and more debt. The Economy Ministry has established a war room that as of late October had created a database connecting at least 8,550 people with failing firms. The Bank of Israel cut its economic growth forecast for 2023 to 2.3 percent from 3 percent and its forecast for 2024 to 2.8 percent from 3 percent. These forecasts assume the war will be limited to Gaza.

Israel
(click to enlarge)

While Israel has halted electricity supplies to the Gaza Strip, it has also had to change its own consumption patterns. Natural gas accounts for 70 percent of Israel’s electricity generation and more than 40 percent of the country's energy mix. The Energy Ministry has asked electric utilities to look for alternate fuel sources to meet their needs. It ordered Chevron to temporarily halt production on the Tamar field, which is located 25 kilometers (16 miles) from Gaza and largely serves domestic supply. It also directed Chevron to temporarily halt flows through the East Mediterranean Gas (EMG) pipeline, which connects Ashkelon, an Israeli city 13 kilometers north of Gaza, to Arish in Egypt's northern Sinai. Though the EMG could no longer operate given its proximity to the battlefront, the cuts have had little effect on Israel’s overall energy supply.

However, offshore gas reserves have become a strategic asset for Israel. The discovery of offshore gas reserves, most notably the Tamar field in 2009 and the Leviathan field in 2010, has accelerated the switch from coal to gas and driven a substantial overhaul of Israel's energy infrastructure, allowing it to become a gas exporter. In 2022, Israel produced 21.9 billion cubic meters of gas, with Leviathan producing 11.4 bcm and Tamar producing 10.2 bcm. Israel consumed 12.7 bcm and exported 5.8 bcm to Egypt and 3.4 bcm to Jordan. Exports were expected to increase further in 2023. In light of the Ukraine war and the EU’s efforts to find alternatives to Russian energy, Israel could have enhanced its share in the global natural gas market.

In fact, the offshore gas reserves in Israel’s and other Eastern Med countries' coastal waters have led to discussions over using energy to stabilize the regional economy. The war in Ukraine accelerated the will for these countries to work in exploiting and selling the resources to Europe. Last November, for example, a decades-long dispute over maritime borders between Israel and Lebanon ended, and according to the new borders, Lebanon has the right to explore the Qana or Sidon reservoirs, portions of which are located in Israeli territorial waters. Authorities in Beirut hope the agreement will help Lebanon rebuild its economy – hence why, so far, Hezbollah appears to be respecting unofficial red lines it shouldn’t cross despite rhetoric to the contrary.

Though the war will delay future energy operations and increase their costs, Israel seems intent on moving forward with them. On Oct. 29, it announced that six companies, including BP and Italy’s Eni, had been granted 12 licenses to explore and locate additional offshore natural gas reserves. This is the fourth offshore bid for natural gas exploration in Israel’s economic waters since 2010. The winning businesses in this bid will form two consortiums to explore two locations adjacent to Israel's Leviathan field. (Eni, Dana Petroleum and Ratio Energies make up one group, while BP, Azerbaijan's state oil company Socar and NewMed Energy represent the other.) Firms have three years to conduct exploration programs and can obtain two-year extensions for a total of seven years if they agree to drill at least one well.

All of this is to say that Israel has not just obtained new upstream investment from European oil companies but also secured their long-term commitment to the area – suggesting many companies are betting on a contained war scenario. And because they seem to agree that it may take six to 12 months for explorations to begin, firms like Eni are clearly in it for the long haul.

This wasn’t always the case. For years, companies tended to avoid upstream Israeli operations for fear of alienating Arab oil-producing governments. But the 2020 Abraham Accords changed the game. Chevron entered the market, prompting the United Arab Emirates sovereign wealth fund to invest in the Tamar gas field in 2021. BP expressed its interest in offshore projects in the Eastern Mediterranean, bidding, with Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., to acquire a 50 percent stake in Israeli gas producer NewMed Energy, despite the current Gaza conflict.

Chevron’s experience in Israel is a reminder of the resilience in conflict areas. After all, Tamar was targeted by rockets in 2021, and EMG has been shut down, its volumes redirected through an alternate regional network. However, if the Tamar and EMG shutdowns continue, the gas deliveries to Israel will be reduced, as will exports to Egypt.

In fact, the conflict has already complicated life in Egypt. While the country appears to have rejected all suggestions for accepting Palestinian refugees in exchange for external aid and debt forgiveness – a prospect reportedly floated by U.S. and European officials – the turmoil will continue to provide Cairo with opportunities to get concessions from its creditors and alleviate its severe economic problems. Concerned about the conflict's destabilizing effects, which could increase irregular migration from Egypt to Europe, the European Union is looking into a partnership agreement with Egypt focused on migration and economic cooperation, the core of which would be a significant financial assistance package.

EU concerns about the status of Egypt will grow so long as the EMG continues to be offline. Prolonged lapses of gas will undermine Egypt’s ability to meet the energy demands of its people, as well as its ability to export liquefied natural gas to the EU. (Shipments are already lower this year compared with 2022.) Egypt isn’t an especially significant supplier, but in such a tight LNG market, and with winter just around the corner, prices have already increased in Europe and could increase in Asia soon too.

Ultimately, how long the Israel-Hamas conflict lasts will determine how much it affects the global economy. The appeals from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Arab and Muslim nations for a trade embargo that includes oil against Israel haven’t yet made corporations begin to reevaluate their investment choices. None of the current foreign investors seem to want to leave.

Turkey is one potential outlier. Roughly 40 percent of Israel’s annual oil consumption is met by crude exported through Turkey’s Ceyhan terminal. But Ankara doesn’t appear to be on board with Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s speeches in support of the Palestinians and the Turkish media reports that follow – both of which call on energy-rich Islamic countries to impose oil and natural gas embargoes on the West to halt Israeli airstrikes in Gaza – suggest that Turkey may well support Iran in an energy ban. But that may be easier said than done. According to Bloomberg, a Malta-registered oil tanker called the Seaviolet recently delivered 1 million barrels of Azerbaijani petroleum from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Eilat. While Israel needs the crude coming from Ceyhan, Turkey also needs the revenue from facilitating oil exports to Israel. Rhetoric and protests aside, Turkey can’t afford to suspend any line of its trade with Israel, much less its energy cooperation.

The worst-case scenario – a wider conflict between Israel and the Arab states – could hamper energy cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean. It would make Israeli gas initiatives with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon much more difficult – if not impossible. The new gas developments are meant to establish a hub and boost regional trust. More sustained limits on Eastern Mediterranean export capabilities would be a setback, particularly for EU countries such as Italy that rely on the region’s energy as part of the transition away from Russian exports, and whose companies are investing in Eastern Mediterranean production and export infrastructure anyway. If Turkey joins the coalition against Israel, it will need to limit its own role in facilitating energy exports not only to Israel but also to Europe. But to do that, Ankara needs to produce more than political speeches. And while it has no interest in doing so, all businesses working with Israel to develop energy projects in the Eastern Mediterranean remain tentative but optimistic.

Title: Brouhaha over US guns for Israeli citizens
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 06, 2023, 12:31:31 PM

https://news.yahoo.com/u-officials-fear-american-guns-133349565.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 06, 2023, 12:57:35 PM

If you want peace let Israel do its job and get rid of Hamas.


If you want endless war then keep running around the world with failed diplomacy ala Neville Chamberlain.

Netanyahu to BlinKs:

Go back to your hole asshole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvpZx7eLD3o

Title: WSJ: FY Baraq
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 06, 2023, 02:41:40 PM

Obama, Hamas and ‘Complicity’
The former president seeks to shift the blame for the attack on Israel. He ought to look in the mirror.
By Elliot Kaufman
Nov. 6, 2023 12:57 pm ET




594

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(4 min)


image
Former President Barack Obama speaks during the Obama Foundation Democracy Forum in Chicago, Nov. 3. PHOTO: PAT NABONG/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Even Barack Obama supported Israel in dismantling Hamas, a senior Israeli official was eager to tell me early in the war. The former president said so in a 73-word statement on Oct. 9.

But on Oct. 23, in a 1,130-word statement, Mr. Obama called for Israeli restraint. Now, on the “Pod Save America” podcast, Mr. Obama counsels “an admission of complexity.” In a part of the interview released Saturday, Mr. Obama says: “What Hamas did was horrific and there’s no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is unbearable.” To get to the full truth, “you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree.” He adds: “As hard as I tried—I have the scars to prove it—but there’s a part of me that’s still saying, ‘Well, was there something else I could have done?’ ”

Only a part? Mr. Obama sent Iran $1.7 billion in cash, released some $100 billion in frozen assets and unshackled Iranian industry. His plan to extricate the U.S. from the Middle East was suitably complex: find a rapprochement with Iran that would empower it to stabilize the region for us. Predictably, Tehran used the money to build up each front—Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq and Yemen—in today’s war on Israel.

The rest of Mr. Obama’s policy paved the way. In August 2012, he drew a “red line.” The U.S. would respond militarily if Syria used chemical weapons. When Syria did a year later, Mr. Obama blinked and then let Russia bail him out by pretending to remove all the chemical weapons. Russia never left Syria, and propping up Bashar al-Assad solidified its alliance with Iran. The Journal reports that Russia plans to give Hezbollah better air defenses in Lebanon, and Syria is a key Hezbollah staging ground and transit point for Iranian weapons.

Mr. Obama pulled out of Iraq in 2011, only to see Iran-backed militias fill the vacuum. Once ISIS, which the president had dismissed as the “JV team,” established itself, reluctance to commit further to the region led the Obama and Trump administrations to work with the Iranians to defeat the group. This elevated Tehran’s Iraqi proxies, which have been attacking U.S. forces almost daily to pressure the U.S. to constrain Israel.

Israel had an early chance to destroy Hamas in the 2008-09 Gaza war, but the incoming Obama administration signaled its displeasure. Israel stopped short, declaring a unilateral cease-fire. That only prepared the next war, in 2014, but overthrowing Hamas wasn’t even on the table with Mr. Obama in the White House.

The Obama strategy of pressuring Israel and indulging the Palestinians made no progress toward peace. A 2009-10 Israeli settlement freeze was shrugged off. John Kerry shuttled around, banging his head against the wall called the “peace process.” Mr. Obama’s parting shiv—enabling a United Nations Security Council resolution that condemned the Jewish state and undermined its claim to Jerusalem—did nothing for Palestinians but indulge the fantasy that U.S. pressure on Israel will obviate the need for them to compromise.

If everyone is responsible for this war, as Mr. Obama says, then Hamas becomes only one guilty party among many, and Oct. 7 a mere link in a long causal chain. Blame shifts to Israel. As the U.N. secretary-general put it, “the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.” But if anyone has been complicit in enabling Hamas’s atrocities, Barack Obama has.

Mr. Kaufman is the Journal’s letters editor.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2023, 03:57:19 AM

Some well articulated points in here:
=========================

[David Horowitz’s new book, The Radical Mind: The Destructive Plans of the Woke Left, will be published on November 14, 2023. Pre-order it: HERE.]     

Quiz: What is the difference between Hitler’s Nazis and Palestinian supporters of Fatah and Hamas? Both are national socialists, both have embraced the totalitarian oppressors of their respective peoples and elected them whenever they were given the chance. Both are driven by a demonic hatred to exterminate the Jews. Both deploy “Big Lies” to justify their malignant cause.

Answer: The main difference is that Hitler hid the “Final Solution” – the extermination of the Jews – because he feared that Germany’s citizens were too civilized to embrace such an inhuman and evil cause. By contrast every Palestinian leader has stated their intentions clearly, written them in their covenants and visions of a Palestine without Jews, boasted of their massacres of innocents down to the cradle, and even shouted them from the rooftops.

Why is this so? German Nazis were pagans. The genocidal goals of the Palestinian Nazis are religious in origin, emanating from the mouth of the prophet Mohammed himself. The head of Hezbollah has proclaimed the Muslim war against the Jews a “Holy War.” The call to murder the Jews – “every last one” – and to behead them as infidels, is part of the sacred texts of Islam. The Hamas Slogans “Gas the Jews” and “Finish the job that Hitler started” are just tributes to a secular monster who shared their evil goal.

For decades hundreds of American campuses have been targeted by university-supported and subsidized student groups that function much like the Hitler Youth. The most prominent among them is the Muslim Students Association, created by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is seconded by the more activist Brotherhood creation, Students for Justice in Palestine. Some 20 years ago, on a speaking visit to the University of Wisconsin, I was greeted by a poster created by the MSA caricaturing me as a Nazi with a hook nose standing in a garbage can. The cartoon reminiscent of the Nazi caricatures of Jews can still be viewed on the Internet today.

Students for Justice in Palestine, which turns a blind eye to the murder of gays by the Hamas dictatorship in Gaza, was created by a Berkeley professor and Muslim Brotherhood star, Hatem Bazian, who has notoriously called for a terrorist Intifada in America while retaining his professorship. Several presidents of the Muslim Students Association have gone on to the Middle East to become terrorist leaders in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, and Saudi Arabia.

Intimidation of Jewish students, harassment of anti-terrorist speakers, support for the terrorist-sponsored boycott of Israel movement, and the relentless spreading of Hamas propaganda lies is the mission of SJP and its leftist campus allies. These lies include the fiction that Israel – whose inhabitants are actually the indigenous people of the region – “occupies” a square inch of Palestinian land. Israel was carved by the UN out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks who occupied and ruled the area for 400 years prior to the creation of Israel in 1948 are not Arabs let alone Palestinians. The fake national identity “Palestinian” was not invented until 16 and 19 years after the creation of the Jewish state. Until that time “Palestine” was the name of a geographical region like “New England.” The Palestinian identity was created specifically to justify the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of its Jews.

Other lies spread by the campus Nazis include the preposterous claim that Israel is an apartheid state. In reality, it is the only state in the Middle East that is not an apartheid state. If a subject of the Palestinian dictatorship on the West Bank sells land to a Jew, for example, the official penalty is death.

In the war between barbarism and civilization, the civilized are often inclined to present the enemy as not as a bad as he seems. The President of Israel recently claimed “The Hamas attack does not represent Islam.” a statement reminiscent of George Bush’s claim that the 9/11 attackers were Muslim imposters. Robert Spencer, the leading expert on Islamic jihad, had this conversation-ending response to the Israeli president’s remark: “Gee, that’s swell. Where are the Muslim leaders saying it?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2023, 08:35:28 AM

good article by David Horowitz.  Thanks CD

reminds me of Mark Levin with a tad less legal acumen but very good with the history.

Two Jews who I admire! 

Title: Biden caves on Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2023, 09:14:32 AM

a) Tail wags for the kind words'

b)  "Two Jews WHOM I admire!" -- the Grammar Nazi-- to observe and correct!  :-D

c)  https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/joe-biden-caves-on-israel/

Title: Newsweeks Arahs Azizi on Obama speech
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2023, 09:38:20 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-progressives-should-heed-obama-s-call-on-israel-palestine-opinion/ar-AA1jxrg0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=4c205c570a634c609315e959e2a10c4b&ei=9

why "progressives" should heed Obama [the great] speech.

Azizi - there is only one side that is not listening

and it ain't the Jews.

Title: Glick: Worse than we knew
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2023, 01:34:09 PM

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/caroline-glick-hamas-wanted-destroy-israel-oct-7/

Title: typical Democrats - they never quit
Post by: ccp on November 08, 2023, 07:19:57 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/blinken-rallies-britain-canada-france-germany-japan-and-italy-to-condemn-hamas-urge-hostage-release/ar-AA1jAiBn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ed3135a54d084f4999b0f22eaca0655a&ei=10

Ok so he got some Western allies to condemn Hamas - but then he has to increase pressure on BIBI to pause for "humanitarian aid", thus pursuing a strategy that has been a loser for decades and makes things worse in the long run.

All while money flows to Iran. 

You want peace (like we do) we will give you peace

You want war we will give your war


we will give you appeasement.

Title: GPF: Egypt and Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 09, 2023, 06:07:51 AM

November 9, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF
Egypt’s Singular Role in Gaza
For Cairo, there are risks and opportunities involved in managing whatever comes next.
By: Kamran Bokhari

As the international community struggles to figure out what to do with Gaza after the war, Egypt is poised to play its biggest role there in more than 50 years. Whether it likes it or not, it is the focal point of efforts that involve the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Turkey, a responsibility that will present as many opportunities as risks.

Egypt and Neighboring Countries
(click to enlarge)

On Nov. 8, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the Gaza Strip cannot continue to be run by Hamas, but that neither could it be reoccupied by Israel beyond a transition period after the end of the military offensive. He also mentioned that U.S.-led international efforts are meant to ensure that there is no displacement of the Palestinian population and to reinstate the “unity of governance” between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

This is a difficult road map to follow. The key challenge will be to minimize the length of Israel’s occupation and administration of Gaza. Already there is mounting international and domestic pressure on the Biden administration to broker a cease-fire. That so many Palestinians have been killed – more than 10,000 as of Nov. 7 – has shifted the narrative on the war from condemnation of Hamas to criticism of the Israeli counteroffensive. Implicit in this pressure is the debate over the broader occupation of the Palestinian Territories, the rise of Hamas and the immorality of terrorism.

Under these circumstances, it is in neither America’s nor Israel’s interest to see Gaza reoccupied. After all, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, when the territory was still under the control of the Palestinian Authority, and when Israel Defense Forces had largely stopped Hamas’ suicide bombing campaigns. However, Hamas’ legislative victory the following year created a situation in which Hamas would rule Gaza while its rival, Fatah, would govern the West Bank. Toppling the Hamas government in Gaza would upend this 16-year arrangement, which allowed Egypt to step back from the conflict – other than to manage the flow of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip.

Gaza Strip Evacuation Zone, November 2023
(click to enlarge)

Egypt’s position on Gaza is defined by two different periods. The first began with the war in 1948, when Egypt, Syria and Jordan sought to seize control of what used to be British-ruled Palestine, large parts of which had become the state of Israel that same year. The Arabs lost the war, of course, but Egypt gained control of the Gaza Strip. After the 1952 coup – which essentially established the military-dominated regime that rules Egypt to this day – Cairo continued to advance an agenda of defeating Israel and liberating Palestine (if not necessarily as an independent state).

This would lead Egypt, Syria and Jordan to fight and lose the 1967 war, in which Cairo lost control of Gaza as well as the Sinai Peninsula – a much larger and more strategic piece of land. Thus, the final war between Egypt and Israel in 1973 was no longer about Palestine so much as it was about retrieving the Sinai, which the Egyptians eventually reclaimed per the 1978 peace treaty with Israel. In other words, a new normal was established in which Cairo no longer considered Palestine a strategic issue. And when, a decade or so later in this second era, the Palestine Liberation Organization decided to give up armed struggle to pursue its cause diplomatically, the Palestinian issue became, from Cairo’s point of view, an Israeli concern.

The Middle East Before and After the Six-Day War
(click to enlarge)

Even so, the rise of Hamas was a major problem for Cairo because Hamas is an armed offshoot of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition movement. Yet Egypt took comfort in the fact that between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas would be contained. It wasn’t, and the group’s takeover of Gaza forced Cairo to take a more active role in managing the territory. The new Egyptian strategy was two-fold: coordinate with Israel on a blockade of Gaza and establish a working relationship with Hamas so that Cairo can serve as a mediator with Israel – which it did during the wars in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021.

This arrangement was tested in the wake of the Arab Spring uprising, when the Muslim Brotherhood briefly came to power in 2012. Though the group took a pragmatic approach to Gaza, the Egyptian establishment wasn’t taking any chances; it was too concerned about the prospect of a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo, Islamist militancy in the Sinai and a Hamas-led regime in Gaza. To the establishment, this was a threat not just to Egypt’s stability but to the peace treaty with Israel. Thus came the coup in 2013 that removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power and installed military chief Abdel Fattah el-Sissi as the country’s president.

While suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood at home, the new government continued its limited, pragmatic engagement with Hamas as a way to insulate itself from the brand of Islamism gaining ground next door. Meanwhile, el-Sissi had other major issues to deal with, including a floundering economy kept afloat by billions of dollars of assistance from the Gulf Arab states.

Regime stability was a stated priority of el-Sissi’s when he confirmed he would seek a third term – an announcement he made just four days before the Oct. 7 attacks radically altered Egypt’s strategic environment. Cairo will now have to do much of the heavy lifting. It’s unclear how the government will deal with the messy process of regime change in Gaza while maintaining regime stability at home, especially since the Egyptian public is highly sensitive to the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. It is so sensitive, in fact, that the government made the unusual move of allowing pro-Palestinian demonstrations to take place in Cairo on Oct. 20, during which protesters criticized Egypt’s handling of the economy.

However, Hamas’ dismantlement by Israel isn’t without opportunities for Cairo. Egypt is eager to weaken the Islamist movement, as are its benefactors in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which oppose Islamism on its merits but also want to deny Iran the ability to exploit the Gaza issue. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are therefore likely willing to invest in the efforts to re-establish a post-Hamas order in Gaza. No other country than Egypt would benefit as much from the arrangement. (This is especially important as Saudi Arabia recently said it would stop giving out money to countries such as Egypt with no strings attached.)

But it’s still a tall order. Once the dust settles, Hamas will be weakened but probably not eliminated. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank will have to restore its writ over Gaza, but the group is famously corrupt and approaching a chaotic transition. Israel can bring down the Hamas regime in Gaza, but Egypt will have to take the lead in establishing a new order there, and fast in order to avoid the pandemonium of an Israeli reoccupation becoming longer than intended.

Title: population explosion in Gaza
Post by: ccp on November 09, 2023, 06:57:17 AM

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/money_for_nothing_the_radical_growth_of_the_gazan_population.html

Title: Work parsing from the NYT
Post by: ccp on November 10, 2023, 08:09:02 AM

more left wing academics trying to shyster the meaning of "from the river to the sea" as though it is not obvious what it means



https://www.yahoo.com/news/congress-campuses-river-sea-inflames-125955943.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2023, 03:03:59 PM

From the river to the sea, Israel will be Jew free.

Title: Gal Gadot screening of Hamas atrocities
Post by: ccp on November 10, 2023, 03:31:01 PM

can anyone find the video anywhere
I would like to see it but cannot find it

it appears we are not allowed to see it due to the elites who have decided it is too graphic for us
and may offend Palestinians or other Democrats

 :x

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2023, 03:39:06 PM

PLEASE!

Title: Reporting for CBS, this is Captain Obvious
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on November 10, 2023, 06:21:01 PM

CBS notes Hamas doesn’t play nice. In the immortal words of Bruce Willis, “Welcome to the party, pal.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-photos-hamas-gaza-weapons-un-facilities-including-schools/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=247103305&fbclid=IwAR0DFwKrtnfEYvliH8L20ETOi9P4xc_i8tdRbKj34lQe6wm8Zka3_Ibxxgg

Title: Hamass fires on fleeing civilians
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 11, 2023, 04:13:59 AM

https://nypost.com/2023/11/10/news/video-reports-to-show-hamas-firing-on-civilians-fleeing-childrens-hospital/?fbclid=IwAR3ylbOU0S77tXeC_GImhhj_rZDMcKx4ihsJpwkTwXkBGbgh_2P4ma8nKA4

Title: Why I support Israel
Post by: SWBrowne on November 13, 2023, 07:36:49 AM

Why I support Israel
By Steve Browne
(Weekly column)

“I have a premonition that will not leave me: as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.”
-   Eric Hoffer

First of all, no I’m not Jewish. I suppose however that I’m a Zionist though I say that with some surprise as it never occurred to me to call myself such before now.

By Zionist I mean I support the right of Israel to exist, to have secure borders, to have the right to control immigration, to defend itself by all means recognized for any other state, and to retaliate against aggression by all means recognized for any other state.

Why? No seriously why? What business is it of mine?

Well for one, consider the alternative. The atrocities of Hamas are well known in sickening detail and cannot be denied because Hamas is documenting and boasting about them.

Still they are being denied, even justified by some of the vilest people one can imagine. That should be enough in and of itself.

Israel by contrast still attempts to minimize civilian casualties among a population that hates them. And one wonders why. They’re not going to affect public opinion that way.

It appears to have something to do with Jewish ethics. And here we come to an important reason.

Israel is part of Western Civilization, is in fact historically one of the twin roots of the West. The other being ancient Athens, with the emphasis on ancient.

Us anthropologists like to classify human organization in ascending levels according to how many people they can support: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states.

We tend to forget there’s a level above states – civilizations. A civilization is a group of nations with recognized commonalities of culture, law, etc. The definition gets vague around the edges but can often be practically defined as speakers of related language families.

Isolationists do not see a level above their country. A luxury only maintainable in big powerful states such as ours.

When we play the parlor game of “When did Western Civ begin?” it’s fun to argue, was it when the democratic party of Athens swore not to take revenge on the out of power oligarchs even for the murder of their families? Was it when the Romans put the Twelve Tablet of the law in the public forum for all to read?

Or was it when the Prophet Nathan told King David, “Thou art the man!”

One moral law for king and peasant alike, what a concept! One that is not shared by every culture, even today.

I believe Western Civ has evolved some basic assumptions that are worth keeping and worth spreading for the benefit of all mankind. Such as the rights of Man, equality under the law, the dignity and worth of the individual.

Our civilization is under attack, from without and within by an axis of enemies united for the sole purpose of opposing the West. Israel is one front in a multi-front attack on the West. I believe Ukraine is another, and I greatly fear the opening of another front, perhaps in Taiwan – or here.

But perhaps that’s a bit tin-foil hat conspiratorial for some of my readers. So here are some practical questions I like to ask.

Who is more likely to develop…?

-   A cure for cancer?
-   Significant life extension?
-   Clean cheap sources of energy?
-   Cheap practical desalination tech? (Oops, cross that one off. Already done.)

Seven million Israelis or 700 million Arab Islamists?

And that’s why I support Israel, for my own self-interest.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 13, 2023, 08:06:39 AM

Appreciate your thoughts on the matter and since I am Jewish your support of Israel's right to exist.

Israel really is the "canary in the coal mine" so to speak.

Do you have any thoughts about taking on Iran at this time?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 01:52:32 PM

Outstanding post Stephen!

I would also add that Israel took out the nuke programs of Iraq and Syria.

Title: USS Liberty
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 02:11:43 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 01:52:32 PM

Outstanding post Stephen!

I would also add that Israel took out the nuke programs of Iraq and Syria.

Did they do that to protect America?

Why did they take out the USS Liberty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JITBsNMcN8A

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 02:41:10 PM

1) "Did they do that to protect America?"

No-- and that is a rather potent point; their self interest and ours are in fundamental harmony.


2)  This material has been hashed for decades now and has become a cesspool.  There is nothing fresh to add and to go into now would be a waste of our time.  MOVE ON.   

"Why did they take out the USS Liberty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JITBsNMcN8A

Title: Some Gazans ratting out Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 02:54:19 PM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/11/13/with-hamas-grip-broken-gaza-civilians-reportedly-providing-israeli-troops-with-valuable-intelligence-n2631087

Title: Is this what allies do?
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 03:38:14 PM

1) "Did they do that to protect America?"

No-- and that is a rather potent point; their self interest and ours are in fundamental harmony.

https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china

Report: Israel Passes U.S. Military Technology to China

24 Dec 2013

Secret U.S. missile and electro-optics technology was transferred to China recently by Israel, prompting anger from the U.S. and causing a senior Israeli defense official to resign.

The head of defense exports for the Israeli Defense Ministry resigned after a U.S. investigation concluded that technology, including a miniature refrigeration system manufactured by Ricor and used for missiles and in electro-optic equipment, was sent to China, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv.

Another Israeli news site, Aretz Sheva, reports the U.S. is concerned the technology could ultimately find its way to Iran, which last year sought to buy military equipment from China for its nuclear program.

Ricor, on its company website, identifies a number of defense programs using its miniature cryo-coolers, including UAVs, airborne enhanced vision systems, missile warning systems, hand-held thermal imagers and thermal weapons sights.

The Maariv report identified the Israeli defense official as Meir Shalit, and said he apologized to U.S. officials on a recent visit.

Israel has a long record of getting U.S. military technology to China.

In the early 1990s then-CIA Director James Woolsey told a Senate Government Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling U.S. secrets to China for about a decade. More than 12 years ago the U.S. demanded Israel cancel a contract to supply China with Python III missiles, which included technology developed by the U.S. for its Sidewinder missiles, The Associated Press reported in 2002.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial-directly-contradicted-secret-nsa-documents/



Seems kind of disharmonious.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 03:59:33 PM

My point remains: 

Israel doesn't want the Muslim Middle East going nuclear nor do we.

With proper citations you raise a distinct point though-- just how transactional is Israel willing to be?  Answer-- plenty.  Given how fickle an ally America can be:

*witness Obama giving $140B to the Iranians, and green light to build missiles and go nuclear in approx 12 years, then leak the existence of an Israeli landing rights deal with Azerbaijan that would have enabled Israel to hit Iran by air and return and by so doing blow the deal out of the water.

*Witness plethora of ways in which Biden continues Obama's appeasement

* etc etc etc.

There is understandable logic to this for a tiny country surrounded by bat shit religious loons in a collective militant frenzy of genocidal
passions.

What remains though is

*Israel is THE bastion of western civilization in the Middle East-- and it is the linch pin of SA and other Arab states aligning against Iran.  Without Israel we will be driven out of the ME 100%.  Death to Little Satan?  Then who?  Oh yeah, Death to the Big Satan!

https://www.thefp.com/p/you-are-the-last-line-of-defense?fbclid=IwAR0tIZHRfA5O1gXl0VhENTV6TSQkzOF7pkvJViF4sC8RyigzIJtkZDuPaAo

*Israel can fight really well-- and they have quite a few nukes and the means to deliver them 

*Israel has outstanding intel capabilities

*they and we don't want the Arabs or the Iranians going nuke

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 04:34:28 PM

With proper citations you raise a distinct point though-- just how transactional is Israel willing to be?  Answer-- plenty.  Given how fickle an ally America can be:

No doubt the USG have long proven it's a weak enemy and treacherous friend, especially when dems are in charge. But Israel was running it's own agenda contrary to ours long before the majority of American Jews voted to elect and re-elect Obama.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

So perhaps you could explain the cognitive dissonance that Jewish Obama voters have about avoiding a nuclear Iran and calling Trump and his supporters antisemites while Trump was very pro-Israel and the vast majority of Trump voters do see Israel as an ally.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 05:54:27 PM

Your , , , filter leads you astray.   

We are talking about Israel, not American Jews.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 06:06:53 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 05:54:27 PM

Your , , , filter leads you astray.   

We are talking about Israel, not American Jews.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/countries-that-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s

Ok, what do we get in return from Israel aside from the constant espionage, including industrial espionage and Epstein honeypot blackmail ops for the billions we send every year?

Actual numbers for a cost/benefit analysis would be nice.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2023, 06:45:19 PM

What remains though is

*Israel is THE bastion of western civilization in the Middle East-- and it is the linch pin of SA and other Arab states aligning against Iran.  Without Israel we will be driven out of the ME 100%.  Death to Little Satan?  Then who?  Oh yeah, Death to the Big Satan!

https://www.thefp.com/p/you-are-the-last-line-of-defense?fbclid=IwAR0tIZHRfA5O1gXl0VhENTV6TSQkzOF7pkvJViF4sC8RyigzIJtkZDuPaAo

*Israel can fight really well-- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12745313/Israeli-troops-pose-guns-Gazas-parliament-building.html and they have quite a few nukes and the means to deliver them

*Israel has outstanding intel capabilities

*they and we don't want the Arabs or the Iranians going nuke

*a role model for the middle east

*some seriously bitchin technology

AND proof that Walls work!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 07:20:44 PM

"Israel is THE bastion of western civilization in the Middle East-- and it is the linch pin of SA and other Arab states aligning against Iran.  Without Israel we will be driven out of the ME 100%.  Death to Little Satan?  Then who?  Oh yeah, Death to the Big Satan!"

What Israel has become, if it wasn't from it's start is an example of the rot infesting western civilization.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-the-gayest-country-on-earth/

https://www.advocate.com/world/2015/08/31/study-one-third-israelis-are-bisexual

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-safe-haven-paedophiles-jerusalem-sex-abuse-jewish-community-watch-a7445246.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/jerusalem-ap-christian-palestinian-last-supper-b2256029.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2023/0414/Israel-failing-to-stop-attacks-on-Christians-Jerusalem-churches-say

Let's see, Israel selling weapons to Shiite Muslims so those Muslims can use those weapons to slaughter Christians. What wonderful allies!

https://apnews.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh-weapons-israel-6814437bcd744acc1c4df0409a74406c

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2023-09-27/ty-article-opinion/israels-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-ethnic-cleansing-in-nagorno-karabakh/0000018a-d331-d13d-a98f-dbb5028e0000

Some genocides are more equal than others!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 07:37:07 PM

"*Israel has outstanding intel capabilities"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ehud-barak-met-with-jeffrey-epstein-dozens-of-times-flew-on-private-plane-report/

Yes, lots of rich and powerful people in the western world could attest to that!

Except strangely, on October 7th, 2023.


https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/hamas-training-site-gaza-israel-intl/index.html

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hyjgqqz11a

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-warnings-potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/24/amos-yaldin-israeli-military-intelligence-netanyahu-qa-00123099

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 13, 2023, 07:55:38 PM

"AND proof that Walls work!"

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/deplatform-tucker-carlson-and-great-replacement-theory

https://www.adl.org/resources/news/adl-and-israel

https://news.sky.com/story/benjamin-netanyahu-says-he-wants-all-eritrean-migrants-involved-in-israel-clashes-deported-12953989

If you want to protect America like Israel protects Israel, you are a natzee!

https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/biden-nominates-alejandro-mayorkas-a-latino-jew-as-homeland-security-secretary/

His gratitude and loyalty to America is obvious to all!


Walls don't work when you are betrayed from within. Yes?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 14, 2023, 07:15:31 AM

Yes, our self interests aligned defines ally.

USS Liberty?  Open with an incident that goes back to President Johnson and involves mistake, apology and restitution.  I don't recall Pearl Harbor or 9/11 described as a mistake or followed with apology or offer of restitution.

Who makes mistakes in war?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
Who started the 1967 war, wasn't it the enemies of Israel? 

Weird that the enemies of Israel chant "Death to America".  But people doubt the connection?

ADL is screwed up and not acting in the best interests of their stated cause.  That's not exactly news.  UN is screwed up too and they aren't Jewish or Israel supporters.

My complaint with Liberal American Jews is with how they vote, not with their religion.  We don't criticize blacks voting Democrat for being black, we want to change the way they vote.

Mayorkas is Jewish.  I didn't know that.  What the hell does that have to do with not defending the border?  Biden isn't Jewish and he has more control over it than Mayorkas.  Obama hates Israel and he doesn't want our southern border guarded.

Epstein wasn't guilty of being an American Jew, he was guilty of abusing girls and running a sex ring.  Not for Jews, for people of money and power and no morals.  Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, not Jewish far as I know. Nothing I know of in Judaism promotes sex trafficking.  Just the opposite.

"White Christian nations"?  Where I come from they referred to Judeo-Christian values, meaning (to me) shared values not specific to one religion or denomination, (or even to 'believers.').  My reading of the Bible (in church) started with the first five books of the "Old Testament".

Good grief this conversation digressed fast.

Israel isn't a perfect ally?  Who is?  Ask India whose cooperation we need right now, how consistent an ally has the US been over the years?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 14, 2023, 07:36:52 AM

"USS Liberty?  Open with an incident that goes back to President Johnson and involves mistake, apology and restitution.  I don't recall Pearl Harbor or 9/11 described as a mistake or followed with apology or offer of restitution."

Was it a mistake? What makes you think it was?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 14, 2023, 09:10:42 AM

"Mayorkas is Jewish.  I didn't know that.  What the hell does that have to do with not defending the border?"

https://hias.org/news/still-fighting-the-muslim-ban-after-two-years/

https://hias.org/statements/hias-congratulates-board-member-alejandro-mayorkas-dhs-nomination/

Open borders for America! But not Israel!

Your vibrant and diverse Somalis in Minnesota? HIAS helped bring them there! Don't you love the cultural enrichment?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 14, 2023, 09:39:48 AM

Somalis in the Twin Cities, spiking in the 1990s, has something to do with Mayorkas being Jewish, and falls under topic of 'Israel bad'.  There is nothing there I want to put another minute of my life into.  - Doug

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: G M on November 14, 2023, 10:27:19 AM

Quote from: DougMacG on November 14, 2023, 09:39:48 AM

Somalis in the Twin Cities, spiking in the 1990s, has something to do with Mayorkas being Jewish, and falls under topic of 'Israel bad'.  There is nothing there I want to put another minute of my life into.  - Doug

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2023, 10:47:52 AM

Houston, we have a problem here.

GM, at your convenience please give me a call.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2023, 03:59:06 PM

Gen Keane on Brett Baier tonight:

Hezbollah has the 100-150K raockets/missiles that it has held back.  They cover the entirety of Israel to deadly immediate effect.

If/when Hamas is about to go under (coming soon?) Iran tells Hezbollah to pull the trigger and launch the rockets/missiles.

Israel's nuclear decision is presented , , ,   

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 14, 2023, 07:51:08 PM

third

https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-admin-pushing-coup-in-israel/

Title: An Israeli friend writes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 15, 2023, 05:30:46 AM

Several years ago, and again just a week or so ago Israel unzipped it's fly and told Hezbollah where they were storing their rockets and missiles. We know what they have and where it's at. Israel said as recently as yesterday that they are only using about 30% of its air power on Hamas. That means that Israel is aware of what is going on in Lebanon, and while we do not want to fight a two front war we can do so. If Iran actually orders an attack, Hezbollah will feel the wrath of G-d come down on their heads.

After the last Israel/Lebanon war their leadership complained that had they known how Israel would act they wouldn't have pulled the tigers tail. Israel is a small nation that fights above its weight. And while Iran, it's proxies, and even some of our Arab neighbors believe that we are weak it simply isn't so. beyond conventional warfare we have first, second, and third strike abilities to take out our enemies assets and leadership. What stops us is the US, who fear the political fall out should Israel actually be allowed to finish a war. I remember back in 73 Kissinger telling Israel to let Egypts third army survive. That a complete defeat of Egypt would be an affront to Egypts manhood. While I would care whether or not Egyptian men feel manly I have no clue. But, the truth is that the US, NATO, and the EU babysitting the Arabs from war to war has only cost the Arabs and Israel lives.

I have complained often in the past 20 years over the fact that our friend the US, has always kept Israel on a short chain. And no administration has been any worse than the current one. Biden started out like he had a pair, until the left of the DNC reminded him that Arab voters in the US are angry over his comments.

I appreciate what the US is and has done to help Israel, but as long as we are not allowed to finish a war we are then doomed to repeat it. And as long as domestic politics stays the hand of Israel from destroying our enemies we will be doomed in a few years to fight this war again. What we are seeing is nothing more than a political Ground Hog Day.

Title: Re: An Israeli friend writes
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on November 15, 2023, 07:07:30 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 15, 2023, 05:30:46 AM

Several years ago, and again just a week or so ago Israel unzipped it's fly and told Hezbollah where they were storing their rockets and missiles. We know what they have and where it's at. Israel said as recently as yesterday that they are only using about 30% of its air power on Hamas. That means that Israel is aware of what is going on in Lebanon, and while we do not want to fight a two front war we can do so. If Iran actually orders an attack, Hezbollah will feel the wrath of G-d come down on their heads.

After the last Israel/Lebanon war their leadership complained that had they known how Israel would act they wouldn't have pulled the tigers tail. Israel is a small nation that fights above its weight. And while Iran, it's proxies, and even some of our Arab neighbors believe that we are weak it simply isn't so. beyond conventional warfare we have first, second, and third strike abilities to take out our enemies assets and leadership. What stops us is the US, who fear the political fall out should Israel actually be allowed to finish a war. I remember back in 73 Kissinger telling Israel to let Egypts third army survive. That a complete defeat of Egypt would be an affront to Egypts manhood. While I would care whether or not Egyptian men feel manly I have no clue. But, the truth is that the US, NATO, and the EU babysitting the Arabs from war to war has only cost the Arabs and Israel lives.

I have complained often in the past 20 years over the fact that our friend the US, has always kept Israel on a short chain. And no administration has been any worse than the current one. Biden started out like he had a pair, until the left of the DNC reminded him that Arab voters in the US are angry over his comments.

I appreciate what the US is and has done to help Israel, but as long as we are not allowed to finish a war we are then doomed to repeat it. And as long as domestic politics stays the hand of Israel from destroying our enemies we will be doomed in a few years to fight this war again. What we are seeing is nothing more than a political Ground Hog Day.

Very apt and well said!

Title: GPF: Gaza War threatens Jordan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2023, 05:49:22 AM

November 16, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Gaza War Threatens Jordan
Fighting in the West Bank would be much harder to contain.
By: Kamran Bokhari
Unlike previous wars in Gaza, the current conflict has the potential to expand to the West Bank, where clashes involving Palestinians, Jewish settlers and Israeli security forces are on the rise. While the Israel Defense Forces are in the process of dismantling the Hamas regime in Gaza, the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has continued to break down. Should it lose control, Israel would face unprecedented chaos in both Palestinian territories, and it would not take long for unrest in the West Bank to spill over into neighboring and chronically fragile Jordan. Such a turn of events would provide an opening for Iran to expand its influence into the Hashemite monarchy from Syria and Iraq.

West Bank on Edge

On Nov. 14, Israeli forces killed at least eight Palestinians in the West Bank during a raid and clashes with suspected militants in the town of Tulkarem. The incident came after Hamas’ armed wing claimed responsibility for attacks in the northern West Bank city of Nablus. As many as 170 Palestinians have died in clashes with Israelis across the West Bank since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack in Gaza. Meanwhile, Jewish settlers are reportedly seizing more land in the West Bank.

The situation in the West Bank has been deteriorating since well before the Oct. 7 attack. Under the Netanyahu government, which is dominated by extreme far-right political factions, there had been an uptick in Jewish settlement construction as well as moves to annex significant parts of the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority, which since its founding in 1994 has had limited control over the territory, has been weakening – not only because of its inability to do much about the settlers’ encroachments but also due to its own corruption, a geriatric leadership and internal factionalization. Thus far, the Palestinian Authority has managed to contain popular dissatisfaction with its governance, resentment over the Israeli occupation and the growing assertiveness of Israeli settlers. But estimates of the number of Palestinians who have died already total 11,000. Should the rising death toll spark civil unrest in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority would struggle mightily to restore order, much less to assume control of postwar Gaza as the U.S. hopes.

Moreover, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is 88 years old, and various factions in the Fatah-dominated government body have been jockeying for position in anticipation of a leadership transition. These divisions likely extend to the ranks of the Palestinian security services, which are responsible for the West Bank’s Area A, where the Palestinian Authority has full control, and Area B, where it runs the civil administration under Israeli security oversight. The situation is ripe for exploitation by Hamas and other militants in the West Bank. An escalation of clashes between Palestinians and IDF troops and/or Israeli settlers could shatter discipline among the Palestinian security services and result in fighting between Palestinian security personnel and militant groups on one side and IDF troops and armed settlers on the other.

Forced Displacement of Palestinian Communities
(click to enlarge)

Risks for Jordan

In Gaza, the fighting is more easily contained because of the area’s small size and the fact that it can directly spread only to Sinai, where Egypt maintains a robust military presence. By contrast, the West Bank is much larger and more populous. A major Israeli military operation there could drive refugees into neighboring Jordan, where well over half the population has Palestinian origins.

It has happened before. Jordan ruled the West Bank from 1948 until Israel seized control in 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. Rather than give up the fight, Palestine Liberation Organization guerrillas sought sanctuary in Jordan. Israeli forces pursued them across the border in 1968, opening a rift between Amman and the PLO. Having failed in its struggle against Israel, the PLO sought to consolidate its position in Jordan. By 1970, the PLO had essentially established a state-type presence within the kingdom and began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy. Fearful of losing power, the monarch at the time, King Hussein, opted to fight back. The ensuing conflict culminated in the event known as Black September, when Jordanian forces, with the help of a Pakistani military task force, defeated the PLO and expelled it to Lebanon.

This experience is seared into the psyche of the Jordanian political elite. Jordan’s leaders have long been concerned that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in the West Bank, represents a major threat to the stability of the Hashemite monarchy. In recent years, the collapse of the peace process, the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the many wars in Gaza have amplified Amman’s fears, despite a 1994 Israel-Jordan peace agreement. This is why Jordan’s King Abdullah II has been more vocal than usual in his criticism of Israel since the Oct. 7 attack.

Jordan’s government is also attuned to the internal pressure on it to do more to alleviate the Palestinian situation. However, as a small, weak state, its options are limited. In the absence of an Israeli-Palestinian resolution, it has long hoped the conflict would at least remain confined to the Gaza Strip. It took comfort in the fact that the West Bank, despite its many problems, was still manageable. The wars in Gaza over the past 15 years did not threaten to destabilize the West Bank and, by extension, Jordan. But Israel’s pursuit of regime change in Gaza credibly threatens to break the fragile order in the West Bank. The last thing the Jordanians want – and a dream scenario for Hamas and Iran – is Gaza-like conditions in the West Bank.

Jordan has long feared Iran’s growing power. Tehran is well positioned on two of Jordan’s borders – in Iraq and Syria – to expand its influence into the West Bank. In 2004, King Abdullah II warned of the rise of a Shiite crescent stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea “that would be very destabilizing for the gulf countries and actually for the whole region.” Nearly 20 years later, that crescent is poised to threaten Jordan itself. While the world is bracing for Hezbollah to open a second front on Israel’s northern flank, another front to the east is in the making.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2023, 08:08:09 AM

Carline Glick:  Strategic Imperative
https://www.jns.org/israels-strategic-imperative/
Hamas is the weaker front of Iran's war on Israel
There is Hezbollah’s arsenal of 150,000 rockets and missiles.
And Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium that can be quickly enriched to bomb-grade levels sufficient to build three nuclear bombs.
If Israel decimates Gaza and annihilates Hamas, then it will deter Hezbollah and other potential foes, including Iran, from attacking.


Victor Hanson:  When has war ever been 'proportional?'
https://jewishworldreview.com/1123/hanson111723.php
Hamas strives for a more disproportionate terrorist agenda to prolong the war. And Israel strives for a more disproportionate retaliation to end it.
(read it all)

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 17, 2023, 08:50:52 AM

when was war ever proportional ?

never really but the online instantaneous media accessed with anyone who has access to device certainly could explain the change.

who can forget this image:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=GjBOkh6i&id=399BE19F9A6748E9C7841F2E693897960B6951CF&thid=OIP.GjBOkh6i_wz9Q645-b7jeQAAAA&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.1a304e921ea2ff0cfd43ae39f9bee379%3Frik%3Dz1FpC5aXOGkuHw%26riu%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252f3.bp.blogspot.com%252f-lyZgFnb3op0%252fToHkViymx8I%252fAAAAAAAAFYI%252fNOjHz9EbbM8%252fs1600%252fVietnam_girl_napalm.jpg%26ehk%3DgBsAdPzrPGHAHJgd%252f77Vc1qHs2HRTAYgeAOlUYt%252flfI%253d%26risl%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=288&expw=367&q=famous+image+of+vietnamese+injured+by+us+forces&simid=608001236093455272&form=IRPRST&ck=76DEE4FB4A3B67985927F7D180C31CDA&selectedindex=10&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&pivotparams=insightsToken%3Dccid_KgpLVZXR*cp_07C4184E183179AC12B4730E94261CC5*mid_4EC0D9881DEDD606A9207C0870A9DF8C03B9B64E*simid_607999419300790643*thid_OIP.KgpLVZXRUA8ZDnqXVfYaPAHaDC&vt=0&sim=11&iss=VSI&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

1) The power of war in our living rooms.
2) The power of propaganda use of this media the Palestinians have made part of their war strategy.

I think both have partly to blame for what seems like one sided attacks etc on Israel
OTOH there is also no doubt anit Jewish / Israel bias as well.

Title: Great VDH
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2023, 09:31:59 AM

https://jewishworldreview.com/1123/hanson111723.php

Title: An unfriendly analysis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2023, 10:14:54 AM

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/israel-and-americas-growing-zugzwang?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=138949771&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&utm_medium=email

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 18, 2023, 10:58:29 AM

"Meanwhile, U.S. knows the dangers of this as it has no where near the current capability to fight a protracted conflict against Iran"

what?

we couldn't smash their military operations and take out their energy infrastructure

I don't believe that

if true we are in a world of hurt

Title: JPost: Warnings from the ranks were blown off
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2023, 02:39:47 AM

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-773974?fbclid=IwAR1SKb2H4wAmhqLNOFd_8xWiQ2U6ER1ryIqo7OQsvMy5IECAjeQ9QXL6pY8

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2023, 07:33:33 AM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12767727/Israeli-soldiers-raid-luxury-homes-Hamas-terrorists-unearth-35-tunnel-shafts-hiding-weapons-psychological-warfare-documents.html

Title: Why the Arabs do not like the Pals
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2023, 04:01:29 PM

https://rumble.com/v3wxhq5-palestine-jordan-issues.html?fbclid=IwAR1X0NgSsb6_9HFXZBiZboAJVEXm78w3d0yZ8QRy8Oe5JUzaJg2Txa97C_I

Title: Israel: Hamas leaders dead men walking
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2023, 07:56:45 PM

fourth

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/11/18/israeli-defense-minister-hamas-leaders-in-exile-are-dead-men-walking/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 21, 2023, 05:46:39 AM

"Israeli Defense Minister: Hamas Leaders in Exile Are Dead Men Walking"

I would love a sequel to Munich !   :-D

Title: GPF: Gaza and the making of a new ME order
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2023, 04:16:07 AM

November 22, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Gaza and the Making of a New Middle East Order
As the fighting continues, Israel is formulating its vision for a postwar Gaza Strip.
By: Hilal Khashan
The ferocity of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas will reshape the Middle East. Its brutality is reminiscent of World War II's final battles, which transformed Germany and Japan from belligerent states into democratic countries championing worldwide peace. It is unlikely that democracy can prevail throughout the Middle East, but it is highly possible that the region’s regimes and populations will in the future eschew conflict and focus instead on internal economic issues.

The war in Gaza will reconfigure the Palestinian question and lay to rest the anti-Israel role of political Islamic movements like Hamas and Hezbollah. It will also usher in Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government would work to transform the West Bank into an integral part of Israel and announced a committee to impose full Israeli sovereignty over it. Netanyahu did not hide his intention to keep Gaza when the war with Hamas ended. In response to U.S. President Joe Biden’s comments that Gaza should eventually be part of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, he said the Israeli army did not enter Gaza to hand it over to the PA. Meanwhile, the reactions of other regional governments to the war haven’t gone beyond demanding aid and humanitarian relief. These conditions indicate that Israel could try to revive a decades-old proposal to push the Palestinian population of Gaza into northern Sinai.

Gaza-Israel in the Middle East
(click to enlarge)

Reoccurring Plan

Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, the Gaza Strip had a population of 80,000 and an area of just 140 square miles. Following Israel’s founding, however, some 160,000 refugees fled into the strip. After signing the armistice agreement with Israel in 1949, Egypt administered Gaza, but its growing population – which today exceeds 2.2 million – and frequent intrusions into Israel by refugees trying to recover possessions from their villages created a security threat for the nascent Jewish state. The U.S. played a critical role in resettling Palestinian refugees through U.N. Resolution 194, adopted by the General Assembly in December 1948. The resolution gave the refugees a right to return to their homes, though the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Work Agency aimed at integrating them into the societies of the Arab countries bordering the Palestinian territories.

The idea of resettling Palestinians in Sinai has resurfaced repeatedly ever since. In 1950, Egypt’s King Farouk rejected a U.S. offer to buy the Sinai Peninsula to settle Palestinian refugees displaced from their homes after the 1948 war. President Gamal Abdel Nasser considered resettling about 60,000 Gazans in northern Sinai. His administration cooperated with the UNRWA from 1953 to 1955 to implement the project, but it was thwarted by Palestinians in Gaza in an uprising called the March Intifada. Nasser subsequently abandoned the plan after an Israeli raid on Gaza in which dozens of Egyptian soldiers were killed, forcing him to turn to the Soviet Union for weapons.

With its dense population, Gaza has been a constant source of concern for Israel since its occupation at the beginning of the Six-Day War in 1967. At the time, the British ambassador to Israel indicated that the Israelis believed that any permanent solution to the Gaza issue must include the transfer of part of the population outside the limits of the 1949 armistice agreements. He stressed that the new Israeli policy included settling Palestinians in northern Sinai and that the Israeli government was not concerned about international criticism its strategy would receive because its priority was finding a lasting solution to the problem. Thus, an influential plan developed by Israeli lawmaker Yigal Allon proposed relocating Palestinians to Sinai following its seizure by Israel after the 1967 war.

Israel’s security problems in Gaza continued into the 1970s, with repeated operations launched against its forces. The Israeli government decided to forcibly displace thousands of Palestinians to the city of el-Arish on the northern coast of the Sinai Peninsula. Israeli Defense and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said it was time for the government to refocus its attention on the situation in Gaza rather than the West Bank. Its first step was to reduce by about a third the population of Gaza, which had reached 350,000 by 1967. In 2000, Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland, the head of the planning department in the Israeli army and director of the National Security Council, proposed to house Gazans in northern Sinai. The plan included construction of an airport, a port and a city that could accommodate 1 million people.

In 2010, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said he had rejected an offer by Netanyahu to cede part of Israeli territory in the Negev Desert in exchange for resettling Palestinians from Gaza in northern Sinai. In 2013, geography professor Joshua Ben-Arieh proposed a plan to expand the Gaza Strip to the outskirts of the Egyptian town of el-Arish into Rafah and Sheikh Zuweid. There are also indications that former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi reached an agreement with Hamas to allow Palestinians to move into northern Sinai. The Sinai Development Project would have allowed Arab nationals to own property in Egypt, but it collapsed after Morsi’s overthrow in 2013.

In 2018, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas revealed that he had rejected an offer from Morsi to obtain a piece of Sinai to settle Palestinians there, with the knowledge and approval of Hamas. According to Israeli leaks, Egypt, Israel and Jordan held a secret summit, also attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in February 2016 in the Jordanian city of Aqaba. Israeli sources claimed that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi made an offer to settle Palestinians in Sinai between Rafah and el-Arish. Although Netanyahu denied that Egypt had made such a proposal, he acknowledged that the conference took place, while the Egyptians avoided discussing it altogether.

During the current war, the idea of resettling Gazans in northern Sinai has again resurfaced. After Netanyahu warned residents to leave the strip ahead of a heavy bombardment, the Palestinian ambassador to France asked where they should go. The chief spokesman for the Israeli army said the Rafah crossing was still open and advised anyone who could leave to do so. Israeli writer Eddie Cohen proposed settling Palestinians in Sinai in exchange for eliminating Egypt’s foreign debts. He believed Egypt would not reject the idea due to its serious economic challenges and the likelihood that the U.S. would give its tacit approval. Besides, he pointed out that even European countries were unable to stop thousands of Syrian refugees from crossing their borders, and the Egyptians will likely experience the same fate with Palestinian refugees.

Cairo has publicly rejected any proposals to resettle Gazans in Sinai – though pro-government media have claimed (falsely) that Egypt has always welcomed Palestinians as visitors. Egypt’s rejection of the idea raises the ceiling for negotiations to obtain greater financial returns from Western countries.

A number of factors could indicate whether Egypt will maintain this position in the future. Chief among them are the distinguished relationship and unprecedented cooperation between Israel and Egypt during the el-Sissi era and his pivotal role in the aftermath of the Hamas attack. Other key factors include Egypt’s fragile political situation, its escalating economic crisis, and the government’s dire need for U.S. and Western support on these and other issues.

Some political observers claim, based on two plans proposed by sources close to Netanyahu, that Israel intends to deport the residents of Gaza. The first plan originated in the Misgav Institute, led by Meir Ben-Shabbat, who worked as Netanyahu’s secretary and envoy on special missions. The second allegedly came up in the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence. While the first plan suggested transferring Gazans to Egyptian cities, the second preferred that they remain in Sinai, with the option of absorbing some into Western countries. However, both plans call for pushing residents initially to the southern sector of the strip until the terrible living conditions there force them to flee to northern Sinai. Egypt, then, could not avoid opening the Rafah crossing and accepting them into the country.

Regional Consensus

Prior to the Oct. 7 attack, Arab countries backed the international consensus on eliminating Hamas and creating a Palestinian state in Gaza and northern Sinai. However, Hamas’ attack facilitated the decision to wage all-out war against it. Western countries, Israel and most Arab states have reached the conclusion that fully normalizing diplomatic and commercial relations will be very difficult with the presence of movements that are supported by Iran and call themselves the "axis of resistance." However, even Iran is now dissociating itself from Hamas. In his recent meeting with Hamas Politburo head Ismail Haniyeh, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Palestinians should stop demanding that Iran intervene in the war because it is not in Iran’s best interest to do so. Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif came under attack by Revolutionary Guard-controlled media after he said the Iranian people reject the regime’s policies on the Palestinian issue. Some newspapers loyal to the government believed his honesty repudiated the image of the Islamic Republic as the defender of the axis of resistance.

Another Iranian official said that Tehran made the right decision to avoid participating in the war and that its decision was in the best interest of the Palestinians. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian also announced that his country had informed the United States of its unwillingness to expand the conflict. The Iranians hope that the war’s end will initiate a new drive to resolve the lingering dispute over its nuclear program. They also hope that, given their strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon and the weakness of Arab states, they will retain a significant role in the Middle East’s postwar order. They are not oblivious, however, to the fact that military escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, short of total war, would be necessary to transition to an era of non-belligerency with Israel.

 
    
We value your thoughts and opinions.
Reply here or simply reply to this email.
 
    Join ClubGPF
Thank you for being a part of the Geopolitical Futures community.
GPF is 100% subscriber-supported.
If you found this analysis valuable, consider sharing with a friend or colleague.

 
    
Follow Us
               
    
View More Geopolitical Futures   

Title: hostage deal : all Biden and advisors !
Post by: ccp on November 23, 2023, 12:56:07 PM

so says the propaganda machine:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/terrible-choices-deep-distrust-path-135113800.html

PS : we are still waiting as Hamas starts in with the last minute tricks

Joe for Nobel Peace Price to share with Blinks Sullivan and maybe the guy who runs Qatar (cutter)

Title: Jason Pollard: Families of hostage should have been STFU
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 24, 2023, 12:35:30 PM

 I cannot say the man does not have a point.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-hostages-families-should-have-been-jailed-to-shut-them-up-says-former-us-citizen-who-was-an-israeli-spy/ar-AA1ktxTD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e06b8ae0ac4e44ffb74ee32e608061f6&ei=11

Title: Why the tunnels are not being used as civilian shelters
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2023, 09:28:49 AM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/hamas-made-in-the-u-s-a/?bypass_key=S2YxRFQ0K2dtOTFGWGRzczZkRWphUT09OjpNVE53V2xGTlRHbHBMMWh1YW5GelNHMUVMMjk1WnowOQ%3D%3D

Title: Jewish exodus from the Muslim world
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2023, 09:34:25 AM

second

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world?fbclid=IwAR3qam_MERErnsgbSq2pS5o56pj95MZxEIEOCtcQSu7QDpWaWldo0vMaKNE

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on November 26, 2023, 09:56:32 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jewish-professor-usc-criticized-hamas-110018138.html

Title: Jewish prof who spoke at anti Israel rally barred from campus
Post by: ccp on November 26, 2023, 09:59:59 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jewish-professor-usc-criticized-hamas-110018138.html

but wait, Hamas are murderers who have sworn not to stop until they kill all Jews in Israel or force them out.

no difference.

moral in equivalance denied.   All are the same - when their not.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 26, 2023, 01:48:51 PM

Whoa! 

Please post in either/and the Antisemitism thread and the Politics of Education thread.

Title: MSM Biden approach different then Obama's
Post by: ccp on November 29, 2023, 10:14:27 AM

more lies from propaganda outlets:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-obama-divide-over-closely-120041308.html

he still supports Iran
still supports Hamas indirectly
pressuring Israel to cease fires vs holding military aid;  pressuring Israel (behind the scenes) to stop

all the same

Title: Palestinians disrupt Christmas tree lighting in NYC
Post by: ccp on November 29, 2023, 05:11:00 PM

https://nypost.com/2023/11/29/metro/pro-palestinian-protesters-swarm-nyc-to-derail-rockefeller-center-christmas-tree-lighting/

time to arrest for hate crimes and levy  fines

this is more then just "freedom of speech"

or "disturbing the peace"

Title: AMcC: The Aborted War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2023, 04:41:00 AM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/the-aborted-war-in-israel/?bypass_key=OHpVZzlwNno0RllUbDd4bWRUWllLZz09OjpaaXRwYW1oTU1WVlBibmRFTWxGRWVpODVPRzF4UVQwOQ%3D%3D


The Aborted War in Israel

Members of the Israeli military operate near the border with Gaza during a temporary truce between Israel and Hamas, in southern Israel, November 29, 2023. (Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters)
Share
255 Comments
Listen
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
November 29, 2023 2:28 PM
Even if it were politically and psychologically possible to resume a war under the circumstances, how could Israel realistically win?
Iwish I could be optimistic about Israel’s ability to defeat Hamas in the aborted war, but I am more pessimistic than ever.

I’ve been a pessimist from the start. As Rich Lowry and I have discussed on the podcast, that’s because I’ve never believed Israel’s stated war aims were either politically feasible or reflective of on-the-ground reality — which is much worse than Israel or the Biden administration is willing to acknowledge.

Israel’s principal stated objective is to destroy Hamas. It has analogized this to the Trump-era American objective of destroying ISIS. There is something to this comparison. Contrary to his extravagant rhetoric, Trump did not actually destroy ISIS — it still exists and is a menace wherever it rears its head. Trump did, however, eviscerate ISIS’s capacity to hold territory as a de facto sovereign. This was a significant achievement. (Whether it was accomplished constitutionally is an interesting question.) Yet we shouldn’t overstate the achievement, because (a) terrorist organizations are more effective in pursuing their core competencies of insurgency and sneak attacks than in trying to govern territory, and (b) ISIS is a rebel sect broken off from al-Qaeda, which remains a major challenge, so ISIS would inevitably either fold back into al-Qaeda or rebrand as some new terrorist group — since what catalyzes jihad is the regional predominance of sharia-supremacist ideology, not any particular, transient organization.

The situation with Hamas is similar, and in some ways more vexing.

It was never going to be possible for Israel to “destroy” Hamas. Its leadership flits between Qatar and Turkey. Even if we assume that Israel will hunt down these leaders, as it did the terrorists who killed its athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, that will take a very long time; plus, assassinations carried out in foreign countries (especially hostile ones, such as Qatar and Turkey) would trigger their own perilous consequences.

More to the point, Hamas is not Israel’s main opponent. It is, instead, a proxy of Iran that enjoys effective alliances with Erdogan’s regime in Turkey (our “NATO ally,” which continues threatening to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza) and Qatar (our “major non-NATO ally,” which is a Muslim Brotherhood regime and thus a lifeline for Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch). Wiping out Hamas in Gaza would only marginally and temporarily reduce the Iranian threat on Israel’s Gazan border (and there is always the danger that it could intensify the threats on Israel’s borders with Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank — in the latter, the Palestinian prisoners Israel has released in exchange for hostages are already stirring up trouble).

TOP STORIES
The White House Explains Biden Was Only Spouting Gibberish
‘Not A Single Cent’: Germany Joins European Union in Pulling Funding for U.N. Palestinian Aid Group
‘Gay Furry Hackers’ Breach U.S. Nuclear Research Facility
George Floyd Square Businesses Sue City of Minneapolis for Allowing Rampant Crime, Driving Away Customers
Young Kansas City Chiefs Fan Smeared as Racist for Wearing Headdress Is Native American, Mother Says
Some Americans Really Do Stand with Hamas
Furthermore, Hamas won’t be that hard to replace. This is where Biden’s delusional portrayal of the Palestinian territories (and the administration’s mulish insistence on a “two-state solution” that the Palestinians reject and thus Israel cannot abide) rears its head. The notion that the Palestinians are a peace-loving people who should not be conflated with Hamas is laughable. Hamas is less a ruler than a reflection of the Palestinians — a young population marinated in Brotherhood indoctrination and all the scripturally rooted Jew-hatred that implies.

As I’ve recently outlined (e.g., here and here), Hamas was established during the First Intifada and instantly became successful because it was closer to Palestinian sensibilities than the Arafat-led PLO and its Fatah party. Hamas was elected, not imposed on Gaza, and it would be elected in the West Bank if Arafat’s successor, “President” Mahmoud Abbas, allowed elections. It is silly for commentators to suggest that Hamas is unpopular with Palestinians when, right before our eyes in Western cities and campuses, we see unabashed Hamas support — not just “pro-Palestinian” demonstrations but agitators sporting Hamas regalia as they chant Intifada slogans. Hamas has been strongly backed by the international Brotherhood since 1987. It has always had a deep pool of young male supporters to draw on.

More on
ISRAEL
 
The White House Explains Biden Was Only Spouting Gibberish
‘Not A Single Cent’: Germany Joins European Union in Pulling Funding for U.N. Palestinian Aid Group
Some Americans Really Do Stand with Hamas
My point here is not to dismiss Israel’s combat operations as inconsequential. At least in northern Gaza, the IDF has destroyed the physical infrastructure on which the jihadists depend to carry out their eliminationist war. Israel’s warriors have killed thousands of trained Hamas fighters (it is impossible to say with precision how many). It is not easy to replace trained and vital fixed assets. Israel has deeply damaged Hamas’s current capacity to hold territory as a ruling regime. The jihadists’ state sponsors will not, any time soon, be able to reconstitute what’s been lost — even allowing for their above-discussed capacity to raise the threat level at other flashpoints on and within Israel’s borders.

But will Israel even be able to realize the aim of eliminating Hamas as a ruling regime? Here’s the New York Times yesterday:

American officials have told the Israelis that any coming military operations should not hamper the flow of power and water or impede the work of humanitarian sites such as hospitals and U.N.-supported shelters in south and central Gaza.

Obviously, President Biden knows that Hamas commandeers international-aid deliveries and conducts its operations in and under humanitarian sites, including hospitals. Hamas’s cooperative relationships with U.N. officials are notorious. How can Israel conceivably root out Hamas if the Biden administration is going to micromanage, and undermine, its capacity to fight Hamas where Hamas is? And after Biden officials pressured Israel to refrain from commencing combat operations in northern Gaza until corridors could be set up to move non-combatants to the south, is the administration really now going to take the position that Israel must avoid attacks that could cause population displacements?

None of this makes strategic sense. But it makes perfect, if cynical, political sense.

For all the right things Biden has said (more in the immediate aftermath of October 7 than recently), he has not been willing to face down his base’s robust, raucous opposition to Israel (especially as October 7 recedes in time). For Biden, then, Hamas’s barbaric taking of hostages — including toddlers, women, and the elderly — has been a focus-shifting godsend.

From a military standpoint, Israel should have been able to pound its enemy until the hostages were unconditionally released. But for emotional reasons (and influenced by Jewish history and mores), the possibility of recovering at least some of the hostages has been permitted to supplant military objectives. This was a political boon for Biden: It gave him an opportunity to push for ever-lengthening pauses in Israel’s military campaign, which has tamped down the grousing from pro-Hamas Democrats. As Biden has seen the domestic political benefits of this as we head into an election year, his administration’s rhetoric (and, consequently, the media coverage) has evolved: Now, the uber-objective is the return of the hostages; fading into the mists of diminishing memory are who took the hostages, the savagery that attended these abductions, and the fact that Israel is paying for innocents — at a 3-to-1 premium — by freeing convicted Palestinian terrorists and violent criminals.

Now, when the president and his advisers speak hopefully, it is about whether they can pull off a grand deal that could result in the release of all the hostages and a permanent ceasefire. In fact, toward that end, Biden’s CIA director, William Burns, has been in Qatar for talks with Hamas’s patrons since Tuesday, and he will soon by joined by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The Times reports that the Biden administration’s goal is a ceasefire “until all of the hostages are released.” According to Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, there are currently about 161 hostages (146 Israelis, mostly men, and 15 other nationals — including as many as eight or nine Americans).

Photos
ISRAEL AT WAR
 

163
Consider the logic of this. If there is to be a ceasefire until Hamas decides to release the last of the hostages whom it kidnapped (often after raping and killing their relatives), then it is Hamas, not Israel, which gets to decide when fighting will resume. Meantime, every day Israel’s combat ops are suspended, the Biden administration — urged on by congressional Democrats who are feeling their base’s heat — puts more conditions on how Israel must conduct itself if it wants to maintain American support. Simultaneously, Israel must continue springing three Palestinian fighters to go back to the jihad for every hostage Hamas deigns to release. In the interim, Hamas is given more time to set traps for Israeli soldiers and fortify its positions in the humanitarian sites that Biden has admonished Israel to avoid hitting.

Even if it were politically and psychologically possible to resume a war under those circumstances — a war that many of Israel’s erstwhile, post–October 7 sympathizers would blame Israel for if crushing combat resumed after a long pause — how could Israel realistically win under these strictures?

I ask the question to remind us that, unless and until Israel’s enemies are decisively defeated, the thrum of eliminationist war and the periodic surges of jihadist terror will continue.

Title: WSJ: US sends bunker busters
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 01, 2023, 10:32:27 AM

U.S. Sends Israel 2,000-Pound Bunker Buster Bombs for Gaza War
After sending massive bombs, artillery shells, U.S. also urges Israel to limit civilian casualties
By
Jared Malsin
Follow
 and
Nancy A. Youssef
Follow
Dec. 1, 2023 12:52 pm ET





The U.S. has provided Israel with large bunker buster bombs, among tens of thousands of other weapons and artillery shells, to help dislodge Hamas from Gaza, U.S. officials said.

The surge of arms, including roughly 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells, began shortly after the Oct. 7 attack and has continued in recent days, the officials said. The U.S. hasn’t previously disclosed the total number of weapons it sent to Israel nor the transfer of 100 BLU-109, 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs.

The airlift of hundreds of millions of dollars in munitions, primarily on C-17 military cargo planes flying from the U.S. to Tel Aviv, shows the diplomatic challenge facing the Biden administration. The U.S. is urging its top ally in the region to consider preventing large-scale civilian casualties while supplying many of the munitions deployed.

“I made clear that after a pause, it was imperative that Israel put in place clear protections for civilians, and for sustaining humanitarian assistance going forward,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Dubai on Friday.

Some security analysts say the weapons transfers could undercut the administration’s pressure on Israel to protect civilians.

“It seems inconsistent with reported exhortations from Secretary Blinken and others to use smaller-diameter bombs,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the nonprofit International Crisis Group, and a former attorney-advisor at the State Department.

Unlike in Ukraine where the U.S. has published regular updates on some of the weapons it has provided to support Kyiv’s fight against the Russian invasion, Washington has disclosed little about how many and what types of weapons it has sent to Israel during the current conflict. U.S. officials say the lack of disclosure is a result partly of the fact that Israel’s weapons come through a different mechanism, including military sales. Israel also is one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid, receiving $3.8 billion every year.

Israel resumed its offensive in Gaza on Friday after negotiations to extend a weeklong cease-fire broke down. Israeli officials have said repeatedly that they planned to resume the war at the end of the truce, which began on Nov. 24 with an agreement that freed dozens of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

The arsenal of artillery, bombs and other weapons and military gear have been used by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and Libya, among other places, usually to target large groups of gathered enemy forces. In Gaza, by contrast, Israel is battling militants who are among civilians in dense urban environments.

“They are kind of the weapons of choice for the fights we had in Afghanistan and Syria in open, non-urban areas,” said Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and officer in the Marine Corps and C.I.A. “The U.S. may use them in more urban areas, but first it would do a lot of target analysis to make sure the attack was proportional and based on military necessity.”

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Defense didn’t respond to a request for comment on the weapons transfers. The White House National Security Council didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

‘Maximum damage’
President Biden initially expressed full support for Israel and its military campaign to destroy Hamas after the Oct. 7 attack, but the soaring civilian death toll in Gaza has caused the administration to shift in recent days.

Israel’s military says it already takes precautions to protect civilians, though in the initial days of the war its air force also said its strikes were causing “maximum damage.” Israeli officials have also said they have a limited capacity for precision strikes because its forces are stretched thin.

More than 15,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed in Gaza since the war began, according to the authorities in the Hamas-controlled enclave. The number doesn’t distinguish between civilians and combatants. Hamas killed more than 1,200 Israelis, most of them civilians, during the Oct. 7 attack.

Among the munitions the U.S. has transferred to Israel are more than 5,000 Mk82 unguided or “dumb” bombs, more than 5,400 Mk84 2,000 pound warhead bombs, around 1,000 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and approximately 3,000 JDAMs, which turn unguided bombs into guided “smart” bombs, according to an internal U.S. government list of the weapons described to The Wall Street Journal by U.S. officials.

The BLU-109 bunker buster carries a 2,000 pound warhead and is designed to penetrate a concrete shelter. The U.S. military also used the bombs in the Gulf war and the war in Afghanistan.

Military analysts say the transfer of large bombs to Israel illustrates the choices facing the Israeli military as it attempts to wipe out Hamas in Gaza, a tiny, densely populated ribbon of land that is home to more than two million Palestinians. Israel urged more than a million civilians to leave the northern part of the Gaza Strip to give its military a freer hand there, but tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians have remained in the area.

In Gaza, Hamas’s military wing also uses a vast network of underground tunnels, which Israel could attempt to strike with the bunker busters, analysts say. The tunnels however lie beneath Gaza’s urban landscape of apartment blocks, schools, hospitals, and other civilian buildings.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 01, 2023, 11:34:48 AM

" 2,000-Pound Bunker Buster Bombs "

are these different then the  2K bombs dropped from B 52s?

or ground bunker penetrating

everyone think what I am thinking?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 01, 2023, 12:51:53 PM

No doubt it is just a coincidence that this leaked , , ,

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 01, 2023, 02:38:43 PM

" No doubt it is just a coincidence that this leaked , , ,"

Biden Administration supports Israel 100% :|!

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on December 02, 2023, 09:42:55 AM

Billions of people around the globe are about to gather to celebrate the birthday of a Jewish man born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, but don't think Jews lived there before 1948.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/12/the-week-in-pictures-smackdown-edition.php

Title: Bolton: The Terrorist Veto
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2023, 07:07:38 AM

Israel Faces Pressure to Yield to the ‘Terrorist Veto’
The strategic consequence of any pause, truce or cease-fire is to increase Hamas’s odds of survival.
By John Bolton
Dec. 1, 2023 5:59 pm ET


There is a tension between Israel’s two objectives of eliminating Hamas as a political and military force and recovering the innocent civilians kidnapped on Oct. 7. Weighing these competing priorities, Israel decided to pause its anti-Hamas military campaign in exchange for the return of some hostages. This policy’s wisdom is debatable.

A greater hazard, however, imperils Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense. I call it the “terrorist veto,” and with every passing day, Israel’s chances of escaping it diminish, notwithstanding Friday’s resumption of hostilities. For many people, the not-so-hidden goal of the hostage negotiations is to focus international attention—and emotions—on pausing hostilities indefinitely and tying Israel’s hands militarily. Whether labeled a pause, truce or cease-fire, the strategic consequences are objectively pro-Hamas. Using human bargaining chips and fellow Gazans as shields, Hamas seeks to prevent Israel from eliminating its terrorist threat.

Success for Hamas means merely surviving with a limited presence in Gaza, particularly a Gaza rebuilt as it was before Oct. 7. This result is a terrorist veto, even if military-pause supporters resist this painful but accurate term.

If the Hamas veto succeeds, other barbarians such as Hezbollah and Tehran’s mullahs (the ultimate enemy here) can insulate themselves from the consequences of their terrorism. Even worse, the terrorist veto can be copied by barbaric nation-states, with victims of aggression rendered unable to vindicate their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine and Taiwan come to mind as potential victims of this new paradigm.

President Biden and others deny trying to block further military action, but that is precisely the effect of their policies. On Wednesday CNN said Mr. Biden’s policy rests on three pillars: releasing the hostages, stepping up aid into Gaza, and figuring out what happens after the war. No mention of eliminating Hamas. Meantime, some Democratic senators are pressing for conditions on aid to Israel to restrict its military operations, to which Mr. Biden has alluded positively.

However the arguments for prolonging the initial or subsequent pauses are made, Israel will face three potentially debilitating consequences if it ceases or limits its military campaign. First, despite strong statements by many Israelis, in government and out, the country’s resolve is weakening. Right after Oct. 7, Jerusalem perhaps was prepared to hear U.S. military advisers caution that subduing resistance in Mosul and Fallujah took between nine months and a year. Then, Israelis might have been committed to a long struggle, but it seems unlikely they still are after this initial pause. Declining Israeli resolve guarantees that Hamas won’t be eliminated.

Cease-fire advocates argue that because Israel persuaded a million Gazans to move south before its initial campaign, Gazan “civilian” casualties in further operations in the south will dwarf previous casualties. Although Hamas and Iran initially placed Gazans in harm’s way, international recrimination will unfairly fall on Israelis, further sapping their resolve.

Second, because Hamas, Iran and their allies likely gain more militarily from the pause than Israel, the human costs to Israeli’s military will rise, as will domestic opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives. It may be impossible to count incremental Israel Defense Forces casualties due to the pause, but the tally could exceed the number of hostages released.

Third, the greater the pauses or limitations, the more time Hamas’s surrogates worldwide have to increase anti-Israel pressure on their governments. In turn, many governments will lean on Israel to accept less, probably far less, than Mr. Netanyahu’s stated objectives.

The White House is urging, post-hostilities, turning over responsibility for Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. That utterly ignores its dismal performance in the West Bank, where the authority has been ineffective, corrupt and covertly supportive of terrorism. By some accounts Hamas is now more popular in the West Bank than Gaza. Extending Palestinian Authority control would put Israel back under the threat that surged on Oct. 7. The only long-term solution is to deny Hamas access to concentrated, hereditary refugee populations by resettling Gazans in places where they can enjoy normal lives.

Winston Churchill’s observation that “without victory, there is no survival” directly applies to Israel’s crisis. Victory for Israel means achieving its self-defense goal of eliminating Hamas. Anything less means continuing life under threat, with Tehran and its terrorist surrogates confident that when Westerners say “never again” they don’t really mean it.

Mr. Bolton is author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.” He served as the president’s national security adviser, 2018-19, and ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-06

Title: NYT: What did Israel know and when did it know it?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 03, 2023, 07:34:16 AM

second

Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago
A blueprint reviewed by The Times laid out the attack in detail. Israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings.

Share full article


2.3K
Several men holding rifles sit and ride in an olive green military vehicle driving down a dusty road.
Hamas-led gunmen seized an Israeli military vehicle after infiltrating areas of southern Israel during the Oct. 7 attacks. A blueprint for similar attacks was circulating among Israeli leaders long before Hamas struck.Credit...Ahmed Zakot/Reuters


Nov. 30, 2023

Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing.  The latest news about the conflict. Get it sent to your inbox.
Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.

The approximately 40-page document, which the Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people.

The translated document, which was reviewed by The New York Times, did not set a date for the attack, but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases, including a division headquarters.

Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. The document called for a barrage of rockets at the outset of the attack, drones to knock out the security cameras and automated machine guns along the border, and gunmen to pour into Israel en masse in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot — all of which happened on Oct. 7.

The plan also included details about the location and size of Israeli military forces, communication hubs and other sensitive information, raising questions about how Hamas gathered its intelligence and whether there were leaks inside the Israeli security establishment.

The document circulated widely among Israeli military and intelligence leaders, but experts determined that an attack of that scale and ambition was beyond Hamas’s capabilities, according to documents and officials. It is unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other top political leaders saw the document, as well.


Last year, shortly after the document was obtained, officials in the Israeli military’s Gaza division, which is responsible for defending the border with Gaza, said that Hamas’s intentions were unclear.

“It is not yet possible to determine whether the plan has been fully accepted and how it will be manifested,” read a military assessment reviewed by The Times.

Your free account gives you access to many of our newsletters.
Sign up for ones that interest you. You can always opt out or make changes.

Then, in July, just three months before the attacks, a veteran analyst with Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence agency, warned that Hamas had conducted an intense, daylong training exercise that appeared similar to what was outlined in the blueprint.

But a colonel in the Gaza division brushed off her concerns, according to encrypted emails viewed by The Times.

“I utterly refute that the scenario is imaginary,” the analyst wrote in the email exchanges. The Hamas training exercise, she said, fully matched “the content of Jericho Wall.”

“It is a plan designed to start a war,” she added. “It’s not just a raid on a village.”

Officials privately concede that, had the military taken these warnings seriously and redirected significant reinforcements to the south, where Hamas attacked, Israel could have blunted the attacks or possibly even prevented them.


Instead, the Israeli military was unprepared as terrorists streamed out of the Gaza Strip. It was the deadliest day in Israel’s history.

Israeli security officials have already acknowledged that they failed to protect the country, and the government is expected to assemble a commission to study the events leading up to the attacks. The Jericho Wall document lays bare a yearslong cascade of missteps that culminated in what officials now regard as the worst Israeli intelligence failure since the surprise attack that led to the Arab-Israeli war of 1973.

Underpinning all these failures was a single, fatally inaccurate belief that Hamas lacked the capability to attack and would not dare to do so. That belief was so ingrained in the Israeli government, officials said, that they disregarded growing evidence to the contrary.

The Israeli military and the Israeli Security Agency, which is in charge of counterterrorism in Gaza, declined to comment.

Officials would not say how they obtained the Jericho Wall document, but it was among several versions of attack plans collected over the years. A 2016 Defense Ministry memorandum viewed by The Times, for example, says, “Hamas intends to move the next confrontation into Israeli territory.”

Such an attack would most likely involve hostage-taking and “occupying an Israeli community (and perhaps even a number of communities),” the memo reads.


The Jericho Wall document, named for the ancient fortifications in the modern-day West Bank, was even more explicit. It detailed rocket attacks to distract Israeli soldiers and send them hurrying into bunkers, and drones to disable the elaborate security measures along the border fence separating Israel and Gaza.


Hamas fighters would then break through 60 points in the wall, storming across the border into Israel. The document begins with a quote from the Quran: “Surprise them through the gate. If you do, you will certainly prevail.”

The same phrase has been widely used by Hamas in its videos and statements since Oct. 7.

One of the most important objectives outlined in the document was to overrun the Israeli military base in Re’im, which is home to the Gaza division responsible for protecting the region. Other bases that fell under the division’s command were also listed.

Hamas carried out that objective on Oct. 7, rampaging through Re’im and overrunning parts of the base.

The audacity of the blueprint, officials said, made it easy to underestimate. All militaries write plans that they never use, and Israeli officials assessed that, even if Hamas invaded, it might muster a force of a few dozen, not the hundreds who ultimately attacked.

Israel had also misread Hamas’s actions. The group had negotiated for permits to allow Palestinians to work in Israel, which Israeli officials took as a sign that Hamas was not looking for a war.

But Hamas had been drafting attack plans for many years, and Israeli officials had gotten hold of previous iterations of them. What could have been an intelligence coup turned into one of the worst miscalculations in Israel’s 75-year history.


In September 2016, the defense minister’s office compiled a top-secret memorandum based on a much earlier iteration of a Hamas attack plan. The memorandum, which was signed by the defense minister at the time, Avigdor Lieberman, said that an invasion and hostage-taking would “lead to severe damage to the consciousness and morale of the citizens of Israel.”

The memo, which was viewed by The Times, said that Hamas had purchased sophisticated weapons, GPS jammers and drones. It also said that Hamas had increased its fighting force to 27,000 people — having added 6,000 to its ranks in a two-year period. Hamas had hoped to reach 40,000 by 2020, the memo determined.

Last year, after Israel obtained the Jericho Wall document, the military’s Gaza division drafted its own intelligence assessment of this latest invasion plan.


Hamas had “decided to plan a new raid, unprecedented in its scope,” analysts wrote in the assessment reviewed by The Times. It said that Hamas intended to carry out a deception operation followed by a “large-scale maneuver” with the aim of overwhelming the division.

But the Gaza division referred to the plan as a “compass.” In other words, the division determined that Hamas knew where it wanted to go but had not arrived there yet.

On July 6, 2023, the veteran Unit 8200 analyst wrote to a group of other intelligence experts that dozens of Hamas commandos had recently conducted training exercises, with senior Hamas commanders observing.

The training included a dry run of shooting down Israeli aircraft and taking over a kibbutz and a military training base, killing all the cadets. During the exercise, Hamas fighters used the same phrase from the Quran that appeared at the top of the Jericho Wall attack plan, she wrote in the email exchanges viewed by The Times.

The analyst warned that the drill closely followed the Jericho Wall plan, and that Hamas was building the capacity to carry it out.

The colonel in the Gaza division applauded the analysis but said the exercise was part of a “totally imaginative” scenario, not an indication of Hamas’s ability to pull it off.

“In short, let’s wait patiently,” the colonel wrote.

The back-and-forth continued, with some colleagues supporting the analyst’s original conclusion. Soon, she invoked the lessons of the 1973 war, in which Syrian and Egyptian armies overran Israeli defenses. Israeli forces regrouped and repelled the invasion, but the intelligence failure has long served as a lesson for Israeli security officials.

“We already underwent a similar experience 50 years ago on the southern front in connection with a scenario that seemed imaginary, and history may repeat itself if we are not careful,” the analyst wrote to her colleagues.

While ominous, none of the emails predicted that war was imminent. Nor did the analyst challenge the conventional wisdom among Israeli intelligence officials that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, was not interested in war with Israel. But she correctly assessed that Hamas’s capabilities had drastically improved. The gap between the possible and the aspirational had narrowed significantly.

The failures to connect the dots echoed another analytical failure more than two decades ago, when the American authorities also had multiple indications that the terrorist group Al Qaeda was preparing an assault. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were largely a failure of analysis and imagination, a government commission concluded.

“The Israeli intelligence failure on Oct. 7 is sounding more and more like our 9/11,” said Ted Singer, a recently retired senior C.I.A. official who worked extensively in the Middle East. “The failure will be a gap in analysis to paint a convincing picture to military and political leadership that Hamas had the intention to launch the attack when it did.”

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 03, 2023, 09:33:17 AM

last night on Levin for those who did not see

General Jack Keane I think said only ~20 % of Hamas destroyed
and both agree many moved south to blend in and shield themselves with "civilians"

I am not sure what is a "non-combatant" or "civilian" is in this case
as most Palestinians support Hamas

even the children are radicalized.

Title: Israel, and its neighbors, Saudi
Post by: DougMacG on December 04, 2023, 04:47:55 AM

Too bad Biden snubbed Saudi in its fateful turn to Iran Hamas.  Once again we need Saudi's help.

https://www.newsweek.com/will-saudi-prince-mbs-become-biden-partner-containing-mideast-conflict-1849094

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 04, 2023, 06:01:36 AM

"Too bad Biden snubbed Saudi in its fateful turn to Iran Hamas.  Once again we need Saudi's help."

yes.

I notice Biden Blinken are not criticized in the leftist rag Newsweek is about this.

Why it just dawned on them to consider SA might be a valuable partner (Iran is also carefully not mentioned in the article either).

The notorious Thomas Friedman of Newsweek notoriety did not write the article apparently.

Title: Gory details of 10/7
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2023, 02:11:48 PM

Have not watched this yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l3EbRiDATE

Title: WSJ: Resurrect Trump's plan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2023, 02:45:42 PM

second

Revive Trump’s ‘Vision’ for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Palestinians rejected this two-state solution that’s the only proposal Israelis might accept.
By Michael Oren and Jason Greenblatt
Dec. 3, 2023 5:35 pm ET




By agreeing to exchange a multiday cease-fire for the release of hostages, Israel is likely to come under mounting pressure to accept a more permanent truce. This would enable Hamas to get away with one mass murder while actively preparing for the next. Nevertheless, some policy makers viewed the agreement as a way to end the war, secure the remaining hostages’ freedom and alleviate the Palestinians’ suffering. President Biden has signaled his opposition to a complete pause—but that opposition may not be so steadfast. The White House is reportedly asking Israel to allow more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and agree to a “day after” plan that includes a so-called two-state solution.

Israel can expand aid shipments to Gaza, but it should unequivocally reject the creation of a Palestinian state while Hamas rules Gaza and a corrupt Palestinian Authority controls large parts of the West Bank. A Nov. 14 survey found that 75% of the public in the West Bank and Gaza supports the atrocities of Oct. 7 and wants to eliminate Israel entirely.

Yet if speaking about peace is helpful to Mr. Biden, it’s vital to recall that a U.S. proposal for a realistic two-state solution already exists and was approved by a previous Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu.

The proposal is called “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People”—or simply the vision. Presented by the Trump administration in 2020, it called for the establishment of a Palestinian state similar in size to the pre-1967 area of the West Bank and Gaza, with unprecedented investment in the Palestinian economy. The vision estimated that within a decade a million new jobs would be created, doubling Palestinian gross domestic product and significantly reducing the poverty rate. The vision provided for the integration of Palestinians into the regional and global economy and for major development projects in Gaza.

Israel, for its part, would receive the security provisions it needs to prevent attacks akin to Hamas’s Oct. 7 assault. Neither Jews nor Palestinians would be forced out of their homes, and both would be given access to their holy sites. Jerusalem would remain united under Israeli sovereignty with a capital created for the Palestinians in its eastern suburbs.

The vision also called for the construction of a high-speed rail line between the West Bank and Gaza, as well as a system of bridges, roads and tunnels between noncontiguous Palestinian territories in the West Bank. The Palestinians would have their own port in Gaza as well as access to Israeli ports, and designated roads would connect the Palestinians to Jordan and the broader Arab world. Under the vision, Palestinians would be able to chart their own destiny, supported by massive sums of money.

Mr. Netanyahu hailed the plan as an opportunity “Israel will not miss,” but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected it with “a thousand no’s.” The vision, he claimed, would give the Palestinians less land than previous proposals would have and prohibit the Palestinian Authority from paying stipends to reward Palestinian terrorists who attacked or murdered Israelis. Today, in the 19th year of his four-year term, Mr. Abbas opposes the vision’s requirements for democratization.

The Palestinians weren’t alone in rejecting the proposal. Most of the media denounced it as too pro-Israel, despite its several territorial concessions to the Palestinians. Many commentators likewise overlooked that right-wing Israelis rejected the vision precisely because it would result in a Palestinian state—albeit one without full sovereignty and subject to overriding Israeli security control.

Mr. Biden has no doubt satisfied his party’s progressive base by abandoning many of his predecessor’s initiatives. Yet his administration continues to maintain the Abraham Accords, which Mr. Trump forged, and hopes to expand it by creating peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia. He ought to extend similar sympathy, and exert equal political capital, to advance the vision.

Talking about peace while Hamas continues to hold more than a hundred people hostage strikes many as tone-deaf. But at least 20 Democratic senators think otherwise and may seek to revive a failed two-state formula. To give Mr. Biden the backing he needs to maintain his principled opposition to a total pause—and provide time and space for Israel to defeat Hamas—the U.S. should renew the vision, at least as the basis for future negotiations. It is the only proposal Israelis might approve if and when the time is right, and it is an opportunity the Palestinians would be wise not to miss.



Mr. Oren has served as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., a Knesset member and deputy minister in the prime minister’s office. Mr. Greenblatt is director of Arab-Israel diplomacy for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of “In the Path of Abraham.” He served as White House Middle East envoy, 2016-19.

Title: WSJ: Flooding tunnels with Sea Water Considered
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2023, 02:30:08 AM

Israel Weighs Plan to Flood Gaza Tunnels With Seawater
Move could drive out Hamas fighters but threatens to foul Gaza’s freshwater supply and damage infrastructure
By
Nancy A. Youssef
Follow
,
Warren P. Strobel
Follow
 and
Gordon Lubold
Follow
Dec. 4, 2023 5:08 pm ET




WASHINGTON—Israel has assembled a system of large pumps it could use to flood Hamas’s vast network of tunnels under the Gaza Strip with seawater, a tactic that could destroy the tunnels and drive the fighters from their underground refuge but also threaten Gaza’s water supply, U.S. officials said.

The Israel Defense Forces finished assembling large seawater pumps roughly one mile north of the Al-Shati refugee camp around the middle of last month. Each of at least five pumps can draw water from the Mediterranean Sea and move thousands of cubic meters of water per hour into the tunnels, flooding them within weeks.

Israel first informed the U.S. of the option early last month, prompting a discussion weighing its feasibility and effect on the environment against the military value of disabling the tunnels, officials said.

U.S. officials said they didn’t know how close the Israeli government was to carrying out the plan. Israel hasn’t made a final decision to move ahead, nor has it ruled the plan out, officials said.

Sentiment inside the U.S. was mixed. Some U.S. officials privately expressed concern about the plan, while other officials said the U.S. supports the disabling of the tunnels and said there wasn’t necessarily any U.S. opposition to the plan. The Israelis have identified about 800 tunnels so far, though they acknowledge the network is bigger than that.


An Israeli soldier in an underground tunnel underneath a hospital in Gaza City in November. Israel says that Hamas militants used the tunnel. It isn’t known whether this tunnel would be flooded under the plan being considered by Israel. PHOTO: VICTOR R. CAIVANO/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The weekslong process of flooding the tunnels would enable Hamas fighters, and potentially hostages, to move out, a person familiar with the plan said. It isn’t clear whether Israel would even consider using the pumps before all the hostages are released from Gaza. The Palestinian militants who attacked Israel on Oct. 7 took more than 200 hostages and brought them back to the Gaza Strip.

“We are not sure how successful pumping will be since nobody knows the details of the tunnels and the ground around them,” the person said. “It’s impossible to know if that will be effective because we don’t know how seawater will drain in tunnels no one has been in before.”

The deliberation over the plan to flood the tunnels illustrates the balance Israel’s forces must make between pursuing their war aims and the intense international pressure they face to protect civilians. The Israeli military campaign has flattened neighborhoods and the fighting has displaced more than a million Gazans from their homes in the crowded strip of territory.

An Israel Defense Forces official declined to comment on the flooding plan, but said: “The IDF is operating to dismantle Hamas’s terror capabilities in various ways, using different military and technological tools.”


A water desalination plant in Gaza City in 2021. PHOTO: OMAR ASHTAWY/ZUMA PRESS
Hamas has used the extensive tunnel system to hide, move undetected between houses in Gaza and hold hostages. Some of the more sophisticated tunnels were built with reinforced concrete, contain power and communication lines, and are tall enough for an average-size man to stand up in them.

Most Gazans don’t currently have access to clean water. Among the sources for drinking water in Gaza are purification plants that have been recently disabled. Before Oct. 7, three Israeli pipelines sent water into Gaza. Of those, one has shut down and the other two operate at sharply reduced levels.

At its peak, the system provided 83 liters of water per person a day. Now Palestinians receive no more than three liters a day, according to the United Nations. The U.N. says the minimum should be 15 liters a day.

Tunnel system in Gaza strip

Gaza

ISRAEL

Tunnels

destroyed

GAZA STRIP

Known tunnels

inside Gaza

N

Khan Yunis

Rafah

Area of

detail

ISRAEL

EGYPT

JORD.

EGY.

1 mile

Note:  As of 2014

Source: Israel Defense Forces
Carl Churchill/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Because it isn’t clear how permeable the tunnels are or how much seawater would seep into the soil and to what effect, it is hard to fully assess the impact of pumping seawater into the tunnels, said Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It’s hard to tell what pumping seawater will do to the existing water and sewage infrastructure. It is hard to tell what it will do to groundwater reserves. And it’s hard to tell the impact on the stability of nearby buildings,” Alterman said.

Former U.S. officials familiar with the issue confirmed that Israeli and U.S. officials had discussed flooding the tunnels with seawater but said they didn’t know the current status of the plan.

The former officials acknowledged such an operation would put the Biden administration in a tough position and perhaps bring global condemnation, but said it was one of the few effective options for permanently disabling a Hamas tunnel system estimated to stretch for about 300 miles.

One of the former officials said Gaza’s water and sanitation systems are badly damaged and heavily polluted, and would need to be reconstructed with international assistance after the war.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Wim Zwijnenburg, who has studied the impact of war on the environment in the Middle East, said that assuming that about one-third of the tunnel network is already damaged, Israel would have to pump roughly 1 million cubic meters of seawater to disable the rest.

Gaza’s aquifer, from which the population draws for drinking water and other uses, is already becoming saltier with a rise in the sea level, requiring more energy to fuel the desalination plants on which the population depends, said Zwijnenburg, who works for PAX, a Netherlands-based peace organization.

Flooding could affect Gaza’s already polluted soil, and hazardous substances stored in the tunnels could seep into the ground, he said in an email.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How can Israel safely work to extricate Hamas from its network of underground tunnels? Join the conversation below.

Egypt in 2015 used seawater to flood tunnels operated by smugglers under the Rafah border crossing with Gaza, prompting complaints from nearby farmers about damaged crops.

Typically, militaries charged with clearing tunnels, including Israel, use dogs and robots to check for threats or to search for hostages before sending ground troops in, said Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and officer in the Marine Corps and CIA.

“Dogs are most effective,” he said, but need to be followed by troops to clear the tunnels. “Robots move slow and break. And using humans is risky.”

Using water over a long period would force Hamas fighters out, Mulroy said.

But “if you salted the water, it could compound the humanitarian crisis,” he said.

Title: Question : what do you do with prisoners like this?
Post by: ccp on December 10, 2023, 04:28:32 PM

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/12/08/idf-large-numbers-of-hamas-terrorists-are-surrendering/

It is not like you put them in prison camp and when war is over you send them back and that is the end of it.

You send them back and is back to square 1.
They battle for now is over but the war continues for eternity as long as they are alive.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2023, 05:38:35 AM

Good question.

Title: WSJ: Israel's message to Iran and Hezbollah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2023, 06:11:32 AM

Israel’s Message in Gaza to Iran and Hezbollah
Jerusalem, no longer afraid of taking the offensive, shows it is willing to go to the mat if pushed too far.
By Yonah Jeremy Bob
Dec. 10, 2023 5:17 pm ET


Northern Gaza has been flattened. It isn’t just another combat zone. The area will need years of rebuilding before Palestinian civilians can live there.

I saw the fallout from the war between Israel and Hamas during a recent trip with Israel Defense Forces to Gaza City, including the vast network of tunnels around Al-Shifa Hospital, one of the terror group’s unofficial capitals. I moved around the area aboard one of the IDF’s Namer armored personnel carriers.

What happened in Gaza, and particularly at Al-Shifa, will reshape the Middle East, including for Hezbollah and Iran, over the next decade and possibly beyond. While the Mossad blocked Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons for more than 20 years, questions persisted about whether Israel would actually launch a major strike against Tehran if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave the order to break out a nuclear weapon. My visit to Gaza answered that question.

But first, what has emerged from the war and the IDF’s taking over Al-Shifa Hospital and Hamas’s underground tunnels there? What paradigms have been shattered?

For the past 16 years, with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip, Al-Shifa was untouchable. After the 50-day Gaza conflict in mid-2014, many Israeli defense officials said if they could take out the tunnels under Al-Shifa, they could end Hamas or cripple its leadership hiding there. At the same time, the IDF warned that Hamas was storing weapons and running command-and-control operations from Gaza hospitals. Al-Shifa, the pinnacle of those activities, is no longer untouchable. No part of Gaza is.

Hamas’s officials lost their precious underground network at Al-Shifa. They had sent forces and messages through the tunnels and sneaked commanders throughout Gaza City, with Israel’s mighty air force and technological sensors unable to track any of it.

Israel showed Hamas that after the Oct. 7 massacre, it has the power and the will to rout the terror group from even sensitive civilian locations. For years Israel feared using its military advantage against weaker adversaries. Why? Because of the damage rockets could do to the Jewish state’s home front, the cost in Israeli soldier casualties and worries about global legitimacy. With tools such as the Iron Dome missile defense system, Jerusalem avoided playing offense. Now Israel has proved—at least to anyone who sees Hamas’s stockpiles of guns, grenades, drones and other materiel found at Al-Shifa—that it was right all along about the terror group’s abuse of civilian locations.

The U.S. government took Israel’s side when it took over the hospital—something Jerusalem wouldn’t take for granted. This will have implications for any effort by the International Criminal Court to go after the IDF for alleged war crimes.

What Israeli forces didn’t do at Al-Shifa was defeat Hamas completely. Rather, the IDF appears to have let Hamas, including about 200 fighters, escape to southern Gaza. This may have been either to avoid a bloodbath inside the hospital or preserve the possibility of what turned out to be a weeklong cease-fire in which dozens of Israeli hostages were returned. Since the Dec. 4 invasion of Khan Younis, the IDF has been confronting Hamas in a more definitive fashion, with most of the terror group’s fighters and leaders fleeing south.

Israel expects an insurgency in Gaza even after it defeats Hamas. According to the United Nations, 60% of housing in northern Gaza has been destroyed. The extent of the destruction means civilians won’t be able to return quickly. An insurgency could last longer than the six to nine months that defense officials have predicted. The staggering cost to rebuild will make it harder to manage the region after the war and the insurgency, no matter whom Israel puts in charge.

The flattening of northern Gaza also sends a message to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Tehran and to Iranian proxies in Syria: Mess with us and expect the same. Israelis are now more inclined to believe their country will use force against Hezbollah and Iran if necessary. The Lebanese terror group is far more dangerous than Hamas, given its special forces, mortars and precision rockets. Jerusalem has lived in fear of Hezbollah for well over a decade. What I saw in Gaza City is probably in part why Hezbollah has fired “only” 1,000 times on Israel since Oct. 7 and “only” in the north. The group now believes Israel’s threats of what it would do if Hezbollah crosses certain lines. So does Tehran.

That won’t end the violence against Israel in the Middle East, but it will shift the balance of power. Israel has shown it is willing to go to the mat when pushed too far.

Mr. Bob is senior military analyst for the Jerusalem Post and a co-author of “Target Tehran: How Israel Is Using Sabotage, Cyberwarfare, Assassination—and Secret Diplomacy—to Stop a Nuclear Iran and Create a New Middle East.”

Title: A bit of perspective
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2023, 06:25:55 AM

"In the months following the end of the war, 'wild' expulsions happened from May until August 1945. Czechoslovak President Edvard Beneš on 28 October 1945 called for the 'final solution of the German question' which would have to be solved by deportation of the ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia. More than 3 million Sudeten Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1945 following Germany's defeat in the Second World War, in an officially ordered act of ethnic cleansing supposedly justified by Hitler's aggression and permitted by war-time allies Britain, the US and the Soviet Union. Not all Germans were expelled; estimates for the total number of non-expulsions range from approximately 160,000 to 250,000."

Title: Walter Russell Mead: 10/7 Made Israel Stronger
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2023, 05:46:38 PM

second

Hamas’s Oct. 7 Attack Made Israel Stronger
The terror group managed to shock the Jewish state out of its disunity and complacency.
Walter Russell Mead
WSJ
Dec. 11, 2023 6:15 pm ET

Tel Aviv

The Jewish state, and the Zionist movement that sustains it, is emerging from this crisis stronger than before. That’s my conclusion after a week in Israel, traveling to the combat zones in the north and south, touring the Gaza-area kibbutzim that were occupied by Hamas, and meeting with Israelis ranging from senior government officials to survivors of the Oct. 7 attacks struggling to put their lives back together. Israel is more united, its citizens are more determined to fight for their state, and Jews around the world have renewed their commitment to the Zionist cause.

I spoke to Israelis across the political spectrum. From leaders of the pre-Oct. 7 protests against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to senior officials in the war cabinet, I heard only commitment to supporting the government through the war. Politics isn’t dead in Israel. Protests demanding Mr. Netanyahu’s resignation have resumed, and profound disagreements bubble below the surface. But none of this affects the country’s determination to prosecute the war. Israelis from all political camps are determined to put national security first when the war ends.

Israeli military experts, including critics of the government, think the war is going reasonably well. Casualties are significant, and there is hard slogging ahead, but Israel is on course to inflict defeat on the deranged and misguided Hamas movement. It also is headed toward deeper integration into the Middle East. Arab leaders, who are moving the Arab and Islamic worlds into a brighter future than the fanatics can imagine, appreciate as never before the value of a strong Israel to their own security and prosperity.

Much can still go awry. Iran and its proxies have a vote in what happens next. America’s Middle East policy remains muddled, and the global struggle of revisionist powers against the American-led world system can intersect explosively with Middle East politics. But for now, Israel has rallied from the shock of Oct. 7 and is on track to re-establish deterrence.

This isn’t the first time that the enemies of the Jews have unintentionally contributed to the rise of the Jewish state. The founder of modern Zionism was a secular and assimilated Austrian Jew named Theodor Herzl (1860-1904). He was driven to embrace his Jewish identity and the idea of Zionism by the realization that the irrational evil of Jew-hatred was an ineradicable force in modern Europe. Only when Jews built a state of their own could they be safe, Herzl reasoned. As he contemplated the factionalism that plagued Zionism from its beginning, he took comfort in the belief that the hatred of their opponents would bind the fractious Jews into a united people.

READ MORE GLOBAL VIEW
Henry Kissinger on Power and MoralityDecember 4, 2023
How to Avoid Defeat in UkraineNovember 27, 2023
Gaza Is Gen Z’s First Real WarNovember 20, 2023
Jews in liberal Western countries initially scoffed at Herzl’s Zionism, but the grim course of 20th-century history vindicated his insights and recruited brilliant disciples and able campaigners into the Zionist camp. Decisions in the U.S. and elsewhere to slam the door on desperate Jewish refugees from the Nazis further strengthened the appeal of Zionism to the world’s Jews. Such decisions also brought to Palestine the committed Zionist recruits without whom the Jewish community there could never have won its independence or built a state. In perhaps the greatest instance of Jew-haters shooting themselves in the foot, vindictive Middle Eastern mobs and governments forced some 850,000 Jews to flee to Israel in the aftermath of its War of Independence. Those immigrants and their descendants feel no guilt for Palestinian dispossession and are skeptical of Arab intentions. They are a plurality of Israeli Jews today, and without them Israel could never have grown into the powerful state it is.

For Israel, bad Palestinian strategy is the gift that keeps on giving. Over the decades, Palestinian resistance movements have consistently been too weak and fragmented to threaten Israel’s survival. Nevertheless, their constant low-level threat led Israelis to develop the first-class defense and technology capabilities that make it an indispensable partner for countries all over the world.

The unspeakable barbarity of the Hamas attacks has again united and strengthened Israel while accomplishing nothing for the Palestinian people. The Jew-haters who overshadowed more peaceful and responsible demonstrators across U.S. streets and campuses have deeply damaged the Palestinian cause with centrist opinion. Such displays remind Americans that anti-Jewish bigotry and the ignorance it fosters threaten the foundations of American life. Based on what they hear from friends and relatives overseas, many Israelis believe that hundreds of thousands of new Jewish immigrants may head their way soon, migrants who will strengthen Israel’s Jewish demographic base and pull its politics to the right.

For all this, Israel’s worst enemies have only themselves to thank. The haters continue to build the Jewish state even as their barbarism frustrates the hopes of thoughtful Palestinians and those who wish them well.

Title: who could have guessed
Post by: ccp on December 12, 2023, 12:52:19 PM

not new
but getting worse:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-losing-support-biden-says-185717915.html

Title: GPF: Hezbollah's Last Stand?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2023, 07:05:08 AM

By: Geopolitical Futures
Potential deal. Israel's defense minister said his country was open to a deal with Hezbollah if it included the establishment of a safe zone along the border and other security guarantees. According to an Al Hadath report, Israel agreed to have Hezbollah maintain some joint monitoring sites with the Lebanese and French armies in southern Lebanon. The deal would require that weapons be confined to the Lebanese army in the area south of the Litani River. It also includes an American guarantee that Israel will not carry out any operations in southern Lebanon. The possibility of U.S. forces being deployed on the Israeli side of the border was also raised.

======================

December 13, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

Hezbollah’s Last Stand
The Israel-Hamas war could be the end of the Lebanese group.
By: Hilal Khashan
When Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah celebrated the event as a liberation. It later became a national holiday. When the two went to war six years later, the fighting lasted only about a month, largely because Israel was uninterested in reoccupying southern Lebanon. Hezbollah celebrated the result as a divine victory. Since then, the group has bragged about its military advancements, adding long-range surface-to-surface missiles that could reach the far southern Israeli city of Eilat – a move Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah justified by saying a balance of power was essential to defend Lebanon's national interests and to deter Israeli encroachment.

Describing itself as the eminent anti-Israel resistance movement, Hezbollah has continuously said it would support the Palestinians in their struggle against Israel. When Hamas launched its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, Hezbollah found itself compelled to show token solidarity, immediately embarking on low-grade attacks on Israeli positions in the upper Galilee. Hezbollah failed to realize that it caught Israel at a moment of an unprecedented breach of national security. Thousands of Israeli residents near the border with Lebanon fled their houses, insisting that they would not return until Hezbollah was evicted from the border area.

Israel tolerated Hezbollah's violations of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war. The resolution required Hezbollah to abandon the south Litani River, from where it used to launch attacks into northern Israel. The quiet that prevailed for 17 years gave Israel the impression that its military posts and settlements were secure and that Hezbollah had learned its lesson. Hezbollah's limited attacks that started on Oct. 8 focused on a 19-square-mile (49-square-kilometer) contested area that it promised to liberate after Israel left southern Lebanon. It even justified maintaining its military component after 2000 to free the area from Israeli occupation. Hezbollah did not anticipate Israel's insistence that it abide by Resolution 1701, and it rejected it outright. Four weeks after the start of the Israel-Hamas war, and before Israel's demand that Hezbollah leave southern Lebanon, Nasrallah announced that now was not the time for the great war against the Jewish state. Hezbollah's expulsion from the border area, forcibly or diplomatically, spells its demise as a self-described resistance movement, ending its hegemony in Lebanon and its political system.

Why Southern Lebanon Matters to Hezbollah

Hezbollah is an offspring of war. It was created by Iran during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon to evict the Palestine Liberation Organization. It had no future in the semi-arid north Bekaa, where impoverished Shiite clans ran amok outside state jurisdiction. Hezbollah maintained a stronghold in the area, but starting in 1985, it focused its activities on Israeli-occupied territory in southern Lebanon. By 1987, it monopolized the fight against Israel. It soon emerged as the dominant local force in the south, taking the Amal Movement, leftist movements and Palestinian organizations under its wing.

Hezbollah led the fight against Israel and its South Lebanon Army surrogate in a low-intensity conflict punctuated by two prominent Israeli retaliatory air campaigns, Operation Accountability in July 1993 and Operation Grapes of Wrath in April 1996. The five-nation committee to monitor the cease-fire agreement (comprising the U.S., France, Israel, Syria and Lebanon) ended the second operation. It recognized Hezbollah as a resistance movement but regulated its war activities to avoid inflicting civilian casualties. Hezbollah’s resistance won it recognition and acclaim, not only among Shiites but also among Sunnis and Christians. However, Israel's withdrawal from the south in 2000 pressured Hezbollah to disarm like all other sectarian militias as per the 1989 Taif Agreement that ended the civil war.

Hezbollah resisted this pressure, insisting that its task – countering Israel – was unfinished and presenting itself as the defender of Lebanon's territorial integrity. It proposed the introduction of a national defense strategy based on the “people, army, resistance” thesis that it forced on all new Cabinets as a precondition for granting them a vote of confidence. For Hezbollah, to pull out from south Litani would be to renounce its anti-Israel mission, surrender its domestic political power, and accept disarmament. In other words, Hezbollah cannot retreat, and its refusal to do so will inevitably lead to war, regardless of the outcome. It seems that Hamas' Oct. 7 attack will seal not only its fate but also that of Hezbollah, whose underestimation of Israel's response gave it the cause for war.

Push for Normalization

Contrary to some commentators' concern that the war in Gaza has stalled the peace talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the truth is that it might expedite them. The Saudi position on the war did not go beyond demanding a cease-fire and accelerating the supply of aid to Gazans. The battle between Israel and Hamas did not occupy significant coverage in the Saudi press, which focused its attention on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's meetings with foreign delegations, Riyadh’s growing cultural role, and economic development projects. Saudi Arabia, like most Arab countries, views Hamas as a terrorist organization, and it is eager to see Israel eliminate it. If Israel's war against Hamas ends inconclusively, it will be a victory not only for Hamas but also for all radical Islamic movements, giving impetus to a new wave of Arab uprisings and reviving the slogan that Islam is the solution.

Since Oct. 7, U.S. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have been reiterating their support for establishing a Palestinian state after the war's end. It might be challenging to take their statements at face value, given their prewar announcements that Palestinian statehood is a complicated matter and is not achievable in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, advocating Palestinian statehood, regardless of its chances of success, will give a boost to Saudi-Israeli peace talks, which are strategically compelling for the two countries. Even though Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani boycotted the proceedings of the U.N. Climate Conference held recently in Dubai, he still took the time to shake hands and chat with Israeli President Isaac Herzog – despite the fact that Qatari state media criticizes Israel and praises Hamas. Qatar's Israel policy is typical of the dichotomy between Arab public demeanor and actual policy.

Iran’s “axis of resistance” is the only remaining obstacle to normalizing ties between Israel and the Arab-Islamic world. Iran arms Iraq’s militias, Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen's Houthis. Gulf Arabs see Iran as an existential threat. They ringed themselves with Western bases to keep Iran at bay (and to keep from being dominated by any fellow Gulf Cooperation Council member states). The turbulence in the region has painted Israel as a beacon of stability and hope for achieving economic development. Arab countries have concluded that they must coexist with Iran but contain its regional Shiite proxies and eliminate its beleaguered Sunni allies, including Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Iranian Conundrum

The Israel-Hamas war has demonstrated Iran's power deficiency, limited to verbal bellicosity and condemnation of Israel – and, by extension, of U.S. support for its war machine. Its empty rhetoric has exposed it not only to adversaries but also to Shiite allies. Hezbollah's partisans know that Iran will not rescue them in times of distress. Given the turn of events, Iran increasingly sees Hezbollah as a liability. For the ayatollahs, Hezbollah has achieved its objective of making Iran a regional power and a player in the Arab-Israeli conflict after Arab countries extricated themselves from it. Iran's meddling in the military conflict is coming to an end, and its focus now is on the more numerous Iraqi Shiite militias that are situated north of the Arabian Peninsula and on the Houthis south of it.

Iran is starved for regional recognition. Its meddling in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has run its course, and it now faces the dilemma of resolving its standoff with the U.S. over its nuclear program. It realizes that short of a breakthrough on this vital issue, it will not manage to lift the crippling sanctions to reconstruct its aging economic infrastructure and improve the standard of living of the Iranian people. Iran’s struggle to establish regional parity with Israel will shift from outright hostility to soft power competition. It is time for Hezbollah to come to terms with Iran’s realpolitik and become a local political actor, not a strategic adversary of Israel.

Title: Thomas Friedman being Thomas Friedman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2023, 07:16:20 AM

Second

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/opinion/israel-gaza-saudi-arabia.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk0.VoIH.5aSRxlap1ftA&hpgrp=ar-abar&smid=em-share

Title: GPF
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2023, 08:05:22 AM

third

Waning support. The U.N. General Assembly voted on Tuesday in favor of a resolution to demand a cease-fire in Gaza. The United States and Israel were among just 10 countries that voted against the proposal. U.S. President Joe Biden warned ahead of the vote that Israel was losing international support due to its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, the U.S. is reportedly looking to form a naval task force to secure passage through the Red Sea. Yemen’s Houthi rebels have launched several missile strikes at targets in the sea since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Maritime insecurity. Relatedly, revenue at Israel’s port of Eilat fell by 80 percent over the past month amid the rising threat from the Houthi rebels, who have targeted the port in several attacks. According to Israeli daily the Calcalist, the general director of the port said ships are afraid to pass through the area and have instead turned to an alternate route that extends transport time by about 20 days.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 13, 2023, 08:59:23 AM

Thomas Friedman being Thomas Friedman

yes

he always winds up being a liberal blow hard
anti Netanyahu through and through.

never offers any solutions other then Israel has to do this has to do that.

always it is up to Israel when in fact the problem is Hamas and its supporters and the Arab world that supports them.

Title: MOUT in Gaza
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 14, 2023, 05:56:19 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-w2cJSYbqI&t=142s

Title: A Jewish attorney I am proud of !
Post by: ccp on December 14, 2023, 08:11:26 AM

Did anyone see on Newsmax Brooke Goldstein of the Lawfare project last night?

She is on the right track but in narrow scope with regards fighting lawfare used against Jews and Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Goldstein

https://www.thelawfareproject.org/

Title: WSJ
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2023, 05:52:08 AM

President Biden made headlines by declaring on Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “has to change.” As is typical with the President, his subsequent remarks were hard to follow, but many heard them as a call for a new Israeli government coalition willing to jump-start a two-state solution.


It isn’t Mr. Biden’s place to pick Israel’s leaders. Instead, he could try listening to Israelis about the risks of empowering a Palestinian Authority (PA) that has refused to condemn the Hamas massacre. Or he could listen to Palestinians, 72% of whom believe Hamas was right to launch its Oct. 7 attack, according to a new poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. That figure rises to 82% among West Bank Palestinians, who are ruled by the PA, not Hamas.

Mohammad Shtayyeh, the prime minister of the PA, said Sunday that “Hamas is an integral part of the Palestinian mosaic.” The problem is that this is true. That’s why no one in his right mind in Israel thinks of creating a Palestinian state today. Hamas doesn’t want a two-state solution; it wants the final solution.

Israelis are focused on defeating Hamas, a goal the U.S. shares. Mr. Biden was right to say Tuesday that “nobody on God’s green Earth can justify what Hamas did. They’re a brutal, ugly, inhumane people, and they have to be eliminated.” He was also right to stand up for Israel at the United Nations, where the international herd demands a cease-fire.

Israel fights on because it has no other choice if it wants to survive as a state. But many nations see these U.N. votes as consequence-free gestures for peace or solidarity. That a cease-fire now would mean a Hamas victory and the death of Israeli deterrence, bringing on the next massacre and the next war, doesn’t concern them.

Israelis know Mr. Biden is under pressure from the Democratic Party left to stop Israel’s Gaza operation, and they are making sacrifices to satisfy him. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisted that the Israeli campaign “we saw in northern Gaza not be repeated in the south,” and Israel has complied. It is now telegraphing its attacks to the enemy so civilians can flee, and it is using a smaller force with less reliance on air power and artillery.

As a result, Israel is taking more casualties. Ten soldiers were killed Tuesday. That follows five Monday and seven Sunday for a total of 445, including Oct. 7.

The rising fatality rate is noticed in Israel, if nowhere else. In a video making the rounds, an infantry officer protests in Hebrew: “How can it be that an area isn’t cleared from the air before allowing our soldiers to enter?” Israel did that earlier in the war, he says, but now “our fire power is being restrained because our leaders may have started prioritizing the enemy’s lives over the lives of our soldiers.” A petition by soldiers’ mothers makes a similar point.

Israel gets little credit for its sacrifices. Mr. Biden even criticized it Tuesday for “indiscriminate bombing,” a slander so belied by the evidence that the White House tried to walk it back. Civilian casualties in Gaza are tragic, but they are mainly a result of Hamas’s way of embedding in what should be safe civilian spaces. The U.S. military also couldn’t avoid civilian casualties against ISIS in Mosul, Iraq, or other post-9/11 engagements. The U.S. doesn’t bomb indiscriminately either.

Facilitating the transfer of fuel and aid to Gaza also hasn’t stopped U.S. criticism. On Oct. 18 Mr. Biden said, “If Hamas diverts or steals the assistance, they will have demonstrated once again that they have no concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, and it will end.” Really? Hamas theft, some of it caught on video, is so blatant and pervasive that Gazans denounce it publicly. Still, Israel keeps aid flowing, and the U.S. has pressured it to open another crossing to let in even more.

Israel has no good choices here, but America does. The President can focus on supporting a U.S. ally in vanquishing a genocidal enemy.

Title: Israel and Hezbollah (and Jake Sullivan)
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2023, 03:10:44 PM

By: Geopolitical Futures
Israel and Hezbollah. In talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly said the U.S. would support Israel in a war with Hezbollah if efforts to forge a diplomatic settlement fail. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly told Sullivan that Israel is ready to fight Hezbollah if no political solution is reached. Meanwhile, Israel’s home front commander, Maj. Gen. Rafi Milo, said a war with Hezbollah is inevitable. According to Milo, the situation in the north is much worse than in the south, and the Israeli army is preparing for an armed confrontation with the militant group.

Title: Tom Friedman again on CNN
Post by: ccp on December 16, 2023, 09:03:29 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/friedman-israel-cannot-win-while-netanyahu-denies-two-state-solution/vi-AA1lB3Bg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e7ab1732789347fd8a2422365fa633cf&ei=20

thinks Israel made a mistake going into GAZA and Netanyahu is the problem.

I think he lives in never never land, like most libs

Title: GPF: Hezbollah mobilizes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2023, 06:30:31 PM

December 16, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

Hezbollah Mobilizes
By: Geopolitical Futures
Hezbollah is mobilizing its forces in the south Litani area in preparation for a full-scale war with Israel. That the group will not voluntarily evacuate the border area has made conflict inevitable. The mood in Lebanon is sullen; nobody wants war, and the images coming out of Gaza have made Lebanese residents fear what could happen to them.

The mobilization does not mean war will break out tomorrow. But Hezbollah wants to be ready.

Title: The Stupidity is Strong Within Them
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2023, 08:35:58 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/half-of-young-americans-say-israel-should-be-ended-and-given-to-hamas-poll/ar-AA1lDlBV?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=29eaf9a5a30445d88b2615355dec1c97&ei=29

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 17, 2023, 10:16:59 AM

just think what tiktok is doing to their mindset, their brains

DEI CRT BLM LBGTQ+

did I miss any?

Title: Up from the Memory Hole: Obama messes with Israeli elections
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2023, 12:12:33 PM

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/?fbclid=IwAR0v3DbQsarcBDdSuxfCjjdfEH69nqYCw-I0BrJA1XcfvX2dn84fYDqFw2Y

Title: STFU
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2023, 07:54:49 PM

Stop Lecturing Us on Palestinian Civilians
Who's really responsible for civilian casualties?
December 13, 2023 by Alan Joseph Bauer 25 Comments

Newsletter

A day does not go by without some politician or talking head demanding that Israel worry about killing fewer Palestinian civilians. Sorry, while we do not wish for human suffering, the Palestinians have brought upon themselves everything they are currently suffering.

You live in Chicago and you’re in the kitchen making a steak. The TV in the background is blurting out the news. Suddenly, there is a news flash. “A jumbo jet with over 300 people has crashed into multiple residential buildings. Details to come.” You stop what you’re doing and wait for the report to continue. Let’s imagine two scenarios:

1. The crash was in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya.

2. The crash was in Chicago, a few blocks from your kids’ school.

In the first instance, you would feel bad for those killed and wounded, but you would probably go back to making dinner and think no more about the event. In the second case, you would frantically start making phone calls and probably rush out of the house to see if your kids are okay and if anyone you know was harmed.

Such a reaction is normal. Professor Mike Sandel of Harvard is a bigshot. When I had his course on Moral Reasoning 40 years ago, he was an assistant professor. Professor Sandel had a theory of “justice” that involved a person having concentric rings of interests and connections: family, job, country, religion, etc. These rings move according to the situation at hand. An example he brought forth back in the day was Mujaheddin from Afghanistan asking you if you were a freedom-loving person. The response was ‘Yes, I am.’ He’d then counter, ‘So come fight with us against the Soviets!’ But the natural response was, ‘Well, my family, country and job come before my ring for foreign freedom lovers, so sorry guys.’

We all feel closer to some than to others. And sometimes a religious obligation trumps work, or work trumps a family event. That is normal. But every night for the past six weeks we have been treated to some news host, or even Kamala Harris, demanding that Israel be more careful and invent bullets and bombs that can only kill card-carrying Hamas members. I will not deny that the Palestinian people in Gaza are suffering. One can see the destroyed buildings, their moving south with their belongings and the taking apart of aid trucks out of desperation. The IDF today estimated 2 civilian shields killed for every Hamas terrorist. While the Palestinians are suffering, they alone are responsible for their plight:

1. Hamas started the war. I think that Colin Powell called it “the Pottery Barn Rules”. You break it, you pay for it. Everything that happens in Gaza is on them. Everything.

2. The Palestinian population was and is ecstatic about Jewish suffering. Remember the Palestinian civilians (including the old guy with a walker) shown on CCTV coming into Israeli settlements to steal, rape and take captives? Remember their wild reception in Gaza of Hamas barbarians and the raped women they brought back in their trucks?

People here in Israel generally feel towards the Palestinians EXACTLY what the latter feel towards Israelis. No, Israelis do not hand out candies when Palestinians are killed en masse, but the Palestinian suffering is something of their own making. If Israeli tanks and planes for no apparent reason on 10/7 simply went into Gaza to kill civilians, I hope that I would be at the front of any protest, demanding an end to the killing. But details matter, and Hamas started the war, and those Palestinians with the mule-carts are the same ones who spit on the Israeli women abused by Hamas psychos.

The media and politicians often like to leave out or bend details, as they can then push forward whatever agenda they have. I remember during the Trump presidency Forbes touting immigrants who had been super-successful and had made it big in the US. Their list included Sergei Brin of Google and Jan Koum of WhatsApp. Wonderful. Those immigrants were LEGAL immigrants who filled out the forms, paid the fees, stood in line, and completed the legal process to enter the US. They have nothing to do with the millions illegally entering the US with few skills and little education.

An Israeli-Russian captive succeeded in escaping his Hamas handlers and was hiding for four days. He reported after his release that Palestinian citizens turned him over to Hamas. A UNRWA teacher held a captive in his house. A woman with a gunshot wound was treated by a veterinarian. The Palestinians started the war and were enthralled with the killing, raping, and plundering. Now that Hamas is receiving its comeuppance, the world demands that Israel treat Palestinian human shields with kid gloves. Sorry. As Kurt Schlichter always writes, if the Palestinians want to protect their citizens, then let Hamas put down its weapons and stop fighting.

Those demanding so much from Israel are antisemites. Why? Because when Syrian civilians were being slaughtered by the Assad government or Uyghurs were being abused by Chinese authorities, they said nothing. They did not form some BDS movement or demand a halt to the killing and torture. But when they can stick it to the Jews and demand that Israel fight an impossible war against a cowardly enemy that hides in population centers, then they are marching endlessly.

Israel does not kill civilians. It actually puts its soldiers into harm’s way to reduce civilian deaths. But civilians will continue to suffer and die as long as Hamas is still around. So blame Hamas and not Israel. It will make the war end more quickly when the murderers realize that they have lost their fans in the West.

Title: History: Brits united with Arabs in anti-Jewish policies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2023, 06:50:15 AM

https://www.museumoftolerance.com/.../annual-4-chapter-17...
> this article talks about how Britain prevented jews from emigrating before (and after) the war
> Britain was not allied with the Arabs, but they were united in their anti-jewish policies
> and I seem to remember they were buying oil from them
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/british-restrictions...


, , ,

"If I recall my history, early Zionists were able to make a deal with the Nazi's that allowed something like 50,000 German/Austrian Jews to immigrate to then Palestine. At the time Germany was aware that their treatment of Jews was looked down upon by the West. Cooperating with Jewish Zionists accomplished two things. One they got rid of Jews, and it helped push back on anti German feeling present in the US and Europe.

"Several years ago an historian found a document that was sent by someone in the British government to his German counterpart complaining about Germany dumping Jews in Palestine. Britain at the time was trying to restrict immigration of Jews from Europe to what is now Israel. Eventually there was a conference in 1938 in Evian, France led by the US. While everyone complained about German treatment of Jews, almost every nation in attendance had an excuse why they just couldn't allow Jewish refugees. This doomed European Jewry, a fact that means while the West could have taken in Jews they didn't. Which means that they bear some responsibility for the holocaust. Several factors determined the ebb and flow of emigration of Jews from Germany. These included the degree of pressure placed on the Jewish community in Germany and the willingness of other countries to admit Jewish immigrants. However, in the face of increasing legal repression and physical violence, many Jews fled Germany. Until October 1941, German policy officially encouraged Jewish emigration. Gradually, however, the Nazis sought to deprive Jews fleeing Germany of their property by levying an increasingly heavy emigration tax and by restricting the amount of money that could be transferred abroad from German banks.

"By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.

"At the end of 1939, about 202,000 Jews remained in Germany and 57,000 in annexed Austria, many of them elderly. By October 1941, when Jewish emigration was officially forbidden, the number of Jews in Germany had declined to 163,000. By the end of the war for all intents and purposes Western Europe and parts of Eastern Europe were free of Jews."

Title: Arab: Arabs must condemn Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2023, 05:02:47 PM

Hamas Sees Peace as Weakness
It destabilizes the Mideast with terrorism each time Arabs try to normalize relations with Israel.
By Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib
Dec. 18, 2023 5:52 pm ET


I was 12 and living in Gaza City on March 27, 2002, when a Hamas suicide bomber from the West Bank blew himself up in a hotel in Netanya, Israel, killing 30 Israelis and injuring 140 others. This attack became known as the Passover Massacre. It was the deadliest incident involving Israeli civilians during the second intifada. I vividly remember the glee with which Hamas leaders, supporters, religious clerics and enthusiasts in Gaza celebrated this horrendous and unprecedented attack.


The attack, which sent shock waves through Israeli society, occurred a day before the unveiling of the Arab Peace Initiative by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at the Arab League Summit in Beirut. The proposal, which Hamas, and initially Israel, rejected, offered the normalization of relations between the Arab world and Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian and Arab territories to pre-June 1967 borders.

After the Passover Massacre, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield, the largest military campaign in Palestinian territories since the 1967 war, which resulted in the current occupation of a large part of the West Bank. The Israeli government also constructed a security barrier, often called the separation wall, along its border with the West Bank, which isolated and effectively annexed some Palestinian towns and villages.

In the 1990s and during the second intifada, Hamas’s attacks put the Palestinian Authority in a difficult position. The Oslo Accords gave it a monopoly on the use of violence, especially to prevent terrorist attacks. Hamas’s attacks undermined the Palestinian Authority and prolonged the conflict, preventing the establishment of a secular Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. The massacre overshadowed the fragile peace initiative and provided extremist Israeli political parties an opportunity to sideline the peace process and expand Israel’s West Bank settlements.

Hamas had accomplished its goal of sabotaging nonviolent political solutions to the conflict. Additionally, the group’s propaganda, which I experienced firsthand in Gaza, glorified its terrorism and demonized the word “peace,” claiming it was equivalent to betrayal, weakness, surrender and the embrace of Jews. It also focused on Islamizing Palestinian society, which had historically been secular.

I remember signing up for a summer camp in 2002, thinking it would be full of fun recreational activities. Though I hadn’t realized it, this camp was organized by Hamas propagandists who proselytized the virtues of armed resistance and being a good Muslim. I told my mom that I wouldn’t be attending the rest of the boring weeklong camp. Even as a child I saw through its cheap propaganda.

Through its indoctrination and Islamization of Gaza’s youth, Hamas was breeding future generations of radicalized Palestinians. I remember the “protests” that Hamas regularly organized: They took students out of class, bused them to border checkpoints and Israeli military positions, and had them throw stones at soldiers. These field trips would often end up with young Palestinian children being maimed by Israel Defense Forces fire. Hamas wanted scenes of dead Palestinians for its recruitment efforts and propaganda and to undermine the Palestinian Authority-led peace process.

The second intifada was an opportunity for Hamas to sow chaos. The group used Gazans as tools to undermine any political resolution of the conflict in pursuit of an unrealistic, maximalist goal to liberate all of Palestine and somehow expel all Jews from the region.

More than two decades after the Passover Massacre, Hamas launched an even deadlier attack on Oct. 7, killing more than 1,200 Israelis and provoking an Israeli counterattack that has thus far killed over 19,000 people, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. Hamas planned this attack to derail another pending political evolution: Saudi Arabia’s normalization of relations with Israel, which would have legitimized broader peace initiatives with Arab states.

The slaughter on Oct. 7 was meant to destabilize the region and fulfill the destructive aspirations of Hamas and its backers. The group counted on an overwhelmingly violent Israeli reaction to reinvigorate the spirit of resistance born out of Palestinian suffering. Hamas sought to hide its failures and inability to produce any progress in Gaza behind this brutal attack. Hamas counted on international sympathy for the unbearable civilian casualties—including dozens of my own family members—resulting from the Israeli offensive. Hamas bet that these deaths would shield it from criticism.

Many Palestinians and their allies, particularly outside Gaza, aren’t willing to condemn Hamas and acknowledge its undeniable role in the suffering of Gazans. Hamas has been a disaster to Palestinian aspirations for freedom and self-determination. It must be ruthlessly criticized and rejected, especially because it is serving the goals and interests of anti-peace Israeli factions.

How can Hamas claim to be a resistance group seeking the liberation of Palestinians when its Passover Massacre resulted in the occupation of the West Bank and its Oct. 7 attack will result in the full destruction and reoccupation of the Gaza Strip?

Weakening Hamas begins with normalizing criticisms of its ideology, its violent agenda and its subjugation of the Palestinian people.

Mr. Alkhatib is a nonprofit administrator and a writer on Middle East issues based in the San Francisco Bay Area

Title: WRM
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2023, 05:29:19 PM

third

Jerusalem

Travel is educational, and a week in Israel taught me two things. First, the conventional Beltway wisdom about Israeli politics is deeply flawed. Second, the gap between the Biden administration and Israel on the Palestinian question may be more manageable than most observers understand.

In Washington, almost every conversation about Israeli politics starts with two big ideas: that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a dead man walking, and that his fall from power will bring someone more amenable to two-state negotiations with the Palestinians.

Israelis scoff at both notions. Even Mr. Netanyahu’s harshest domestic critics aren’t sure that his career is over. The Oct. 7 attacks wounded him badly, but he’s pulled enough rabbits out of enough hats over the years that few are ready to write him off. The common view seems to be that Mr. Netanyahu, like Westley in “The Princess Bride,” is only “mostly dead,” and that his government has at least six to 12 months to run.

As to the policies of his potential successors, there is no pro-“peace process” movement in Israeli politics today. With the Oct. 7 attacks still reverberating, no serious Israeli politician would dream of running on a platform of facilitating the emergence of a Palestinian state.

That said, the Beltway chatter about “the day after” in Gaza and the future of the Palestinians overstates the difference between the Israeli and American positions. There is a narrow path for progress here.

There is consensus in Israel not only that Hamas lacks the will (and the human decency) to be an interlocutor for a future Palestinian state, but also that the terminally corrupt and exhausted Fatah movement now in power in the West Bank is too ineffective and unpopular to survive the hard compromises that peace would require. The Fatah leadership would be too vulnerable to being overthrown by more-radical Palestinian movements for Israelis to trust it as a security partner. The chance of Israelis seriously engaging with an unreformed Palestinian movement on the old Oslo peace agenda is zero. On this point, Mr. Netanyahu and his rivals agree.

But what if there was a deep reform in Palestinian governance? What if, with significant financial and political support from the Gulf Arabs, a new generation of pragmatic Palestinian leaders bent on stability and economic development replaced the tired old guard and rejected the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in favor of more-effective institutions, stopped financial payments to the families of terrorists in Israeli prisons, and introduced real educational reforms to stop radicalizing young Palestinians?


Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United Arab Emirates has experience with or interest in building democracy. But both have been successful at addressing extremism and improving governance. There are pragmatic Palestinians all over the world who have turned their backs on the hollow radicalism and stale rhetoric of official Palestinian politics and become successful in business and other fields. Bringing these parties together with like-minded Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza could start a new era of better Palestinian governance and pragmatism toward Israel.

If that happened, over time Israelis could come to trust Palestinians again. Peace with a weak and unstable entity like the Palestinian Authority in its current form is impossible. Peace with a time-tested, stable and competent Palestinian Authority backed by the Gulf Arabs would be another proposition.

The Gulf Arabs badly want new and better Palestinian leadership to emerge. That is partially because they want regional stability and partially because they genuinely want a better future for the Palestinians. The Biden administration could launch a process of political reconstruction among Palestinians by helping the Gulf Arabs, the Israelis and a mix of new and old Palestinian leaders develop an interim program for the rehabilitation of Gaza, serious change on the West Bank, and a growing role for a reformed Palestinian Authority.

The negotiations wouldn’t be easy, and like many other hopeful initiatives in the history of this tragic conflict, this attempt could fail. But the opportunity is real. Israel needs American support and would like to deepen its relations with Arab neighbors. Team Biden wants stability and a foreign-policy success. Palestinian politics have reached a dead end both in the West Bank and Gaza. The Gulf Arabs want détente in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to block Iran’s effort to legitimate its regional ambitions by appearing as the chief supporter of the Palestinian movement.

The old Oslo peace process is dead, but President Biden has a chance to initiate a new kind of peace process that could at long last lay the foundation of a peaceful future for both peoples.

Title: Re: WRM
Post by: DougMacG on December 19, 2023, 04:45:06 AM

Who knew the inspiration for world peace would come from the movie Princess Bride? 

Seriously he identifies the first and only path to world peace with a simple what if.

What if we quit radicalizing our youth as well?

Title: Gazans support Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 21, 2023, 09:31:05 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20240/palestinians-inconvenient-truths

Title: Tunnel War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2023, 07:13:00 PM

https://www.timesofisrael.com/if-the-generals-are-counting-tunnels-it-suggests-things-are-not-going-well/?fbclid=IwAR0xe7ZxJE1Lqi9qcavp5aJJQZnsdP_I_KFUA3bItvVo4-n0y0U-w72LoWs

Title: US should "rethink" "uncritical loyalty" to Israel
Post by: ccp on December 26, 2023, 02:50:56 PM

 This author's head is up his ass.  We have been hearing endless criticism coming from WH, media , SOS,
DOD etc.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-us-should-rethink-its-uncritical-loyalty-to-israel/ar-AA1m3mnf?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b125d504ef6f4a5889f25cf8cb253656&ei=22

of course, speaking of the author:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/05/05/central-commands-top-spokesman-under-inspector-general-investigation/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 28, 2023, 04:31:22 AM

Why Hamas Won’t Release Hostages
As pressure builds on Israel, the terror group now thinks it can win.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Dec. 27, 2023 6:42 pm ET


Deal or no deal? In the early days of Israel’s counteroffensive against Hamas, the terrorist group begged for a breather. It released 105 hostages for a seven-day pause and some low-level prisoners. But Hamas has since turned down two offers for a pause in the fighting, each one more generous than the last. What changed?

After the terrorist group brushed aside an Egyptian proposal over Christmas weekend, Hamas Politburo member Izzat al Rishq explained, “There can be no negotiations without a complete stop to the aggression”—an end to the war. On Dec. 20, in rejecting an Israeli offer, Politburo member Ghazi Hamad said Hamas is no longer interested in “a pause here and there, for one week, two weeks, three weeks,” even though Israel was ready to release senior Hamas terrorists as well.

A sobering explanation is offered by Meir Ben Shabbat, Israel’s national security adviser from 2017 to 2021. He writes that Hamas now “feels confident enough” to reject any deal that doesn’t deliver it victory outright. That confidence may be misguided, but it isn’t unfounded.

“While the conditions under which our forces operate are more difficult than in the past,” Mr. Ben Shabbat explains, “for Hamas fighters, things have improved.” Under Biden Administration pressure, Israel is now using less firepower to prepare its advances on the ground. This leaves more opportunities for Hamas to ambush Israeli soldiers.

In between hit-and-run attacks, the terrorists hide in well-stocked tunnels. “Hamas gets to have de facto control over most of the aid entering the strip,” Mr. Ben Shabbat writes. Again under Biden Administration pressure, Israel has allowed an increase in the flow of fuel to Gaza, which Hamas needs to stay underground.

Three political trends may also encourage Hamas. One is a growing campaign by Israeli journalists to free the hostages at any cost, even leaving Hamas in power. The accidental killing of three hostages dealt a political blow to the belief that Israel’s war effort will bring its people home.

Second, U.S. behavior reveals an overriding desire to de-escalate the larger fight with Iran’s proxies. Attacks by Yemen’s Houthis go unanswered. Iraqi militias get away with hitting U.S. bases. While Hezbollah’s daily barrage has displaced about 100,000 Israelis from their homes, Washington urges Jerusalem to keep its response to a minimum.

Third, while the White House supports the Israeli counteroffensive in Gaza, its focus is now on scaling it back. Reports emerge almost daily of senior U.S. officials urging Israel to “transition to the next phase of operations”—low-intensity fighting with raids from the border. Israel says it needs more time to flush out Hamas, but rising military casualties take a toll.

This is Hamas’s path to survival and victory: a premature shift of Israel’s war effort to meet Mr. Biden’s political timetable. Why give up your hostage bargaining chips if you need only hold out for another few weeks?

The flaw in this Hamas analysis may be that it assumes Israel will follow Mr. Biden’s advice all the way to defeat. After Oct. 7, don’t count on it. Israeli troops are still advancing, expanding operations in some areas and focusing them in others. Israel has no choice but to press on until it destroys Hamas.

Title: WSJ: Not another US style counterinsurgency
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2023, 03:39:28 AM

Please, Not Another U.S.-Style ‘Counterinsurgency’
Why do Americans push on Israel a doctrine that failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Dec. 27, 2023 10:45 am ET




Rep. Seth Moulton’s letter (Dec. 21) challenges your editorial “Biden’s Rising Tension With Israel” (Dec. 15), which noted the simple fact that Israel’s troops in Gaza are suffering more casualties to “satisfy the U.S. President’s demands on how to fight in Gaza.” In other words, the Israelis have been asked to fight with much less air power and artillery, and also to advance faster, to end the war sooner. The two requirements aren’t additive: To move faster with less firepower multiplies casualties.

Mr. Moulton writes, “A basic principle of counterinsurgency warfare is that you must work assiduously to distinguish terrorists from innocent civilians who must be won over, lest someday they become terrorists as well. Anyone who misunderstands this principle risks winning battles but losing the war.” This invocation of the peculiar and utterly discredited U.S. practice of “counterinsurgency warfare” is passing strange, for that failed doctrine was the root cause of the enormously costly American defeats in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Moulton himself cites its fundamental—and fundamentally erroneous—doctrine: “innocent civilians . . . must be won over.” That will be impossible because Hamas, like the Viet Cong, Iran’s Iraqi militias and the Taliban, would promptly kill anyone who acts or speaks as one who has been “won over.” Moreover, that futile pursuit typically expands into costly and useless “nation-building,” another giant distraction.

My war was in El Salvador, the one and only war against guerrillas in which the U.S. side won, and the guerrillas were utterly defeated, because there were neither U.S. troops nor generals with Ph.D.s preaching counterinsurgency warfare. It was all done the old-fashioned way, by patiently ambushing and killing guerrillas in many small fights, until they gave up, stopped fighting and tried their hands at electoral politics.

As Mr. Moulton writes, “Hamas must be eliminated.” That is what Israel has been doing—with rifles and grenades, house by house, basement by basement, in one tunnel after another, with scant opportunities for air or artillery support.

Edward N. Luttwak

Title: Former PM: Take out Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2023, 03:45:42 AM

The U.S. and Israel Need to Take Iran On Directly
Make the ayatollahs pay for sowing chaos through their Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi proxies.
By Naftali Bennett
Dec. 28, 2023 6:05 pm ET

Hamas and Islamic Jihad, backed by Iran, massacred 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, resulting in full-scale war in Gaza. Hezbollah, also backed by Iran, has launched more than 1,000 rockets at northern Israeli communities since then, risking regional conflagration. Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen are attacking and hijacking ships in the Suez canal, threatening one of the world’s most vital waterways. Militias in Syria and Iraq, with support from Iran, are attacking U.S. bases and—as always—threatening moderate Arab nations.

Notice a pattern? The Iranian regime is at the center of most of the Middle East’s problems and much of global terror. Yet inexplicably, almost nobody is touching it. For the past 45 years, the regime has been the source of endless war, terror and suffering throughout the world. I’ve come to realize that enough is enough. The evil empire of Iran must be brought down.

As a young officer in Israel’s special forces, I spent a great deal of time fighting Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy. I studied its methods and vulnerabilities. I targeted its commanders and fighters. In 2006, as a reservist, I commanded a special search and destroy team in the second Lebanon War.

Only after that war, in which I lost my best friend, did I begin to realize our great folly. We were fighting the wrong battle, and that is exactly what Iran wants us to do.

In the late 1980s, Iran embarked on a simple yet brilliant strategy: Set up terrorist proxies across the Middle East. Fund them, train them and arm them. Let them do the dirty work of fighting and dying.

Iran executed this plan well. There is little direct war taking place between Iran and Israel. Instead, Iran constantly attacks Israel via its proxies in such places as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza and Yemen. Its brutal Quds unit exported terror around the globe. Iran’s terrorist proxies have waged war on every moderate element in the Middle East. They’ve attacked the Saudi oil company Aramco, the United Arab Emirates, the Kurds and Israel on many occasions. The most amazing part: Iran has largely gotten away with it.

There is a new cold war taking place in the Middle East. On one side, there is a corrupt, incompetent and hollow empire—the Islamic Republic of Iran—similar to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. On the other side, there is a thriving, free and strong democracy—Israel (and its allies)—reminiscent of the U.S. in the original Cold War.

When I became prime minister in June 2021, I decided to change this. I told my three security chiefs—the heads of the Israel Defense Forces, Mossad and Shin Bet—that my goal was to avoid, if reasonably possible, local clashes with Hezbollah and Hamas. Rather, Israel’s national-security resources must be focused on weakening our primary enemy—Iran.

There are many ways to weaken Iran: empower domestic opposition, ensure internet continuity during riots against the regime, strengthen its enemies, increase sanctions and economic pressures. But Israel can’t and shouldn’t do this alone. The U.S. should be leading the effort. This doesn’t require a full-scale war, just as the demise of the Soviet Union didn’t result from total war. Rather, the Soviet Union collapsed from internal rot coupled with external pressure applied by the U.S.

As prime minister, I made another decision regarding Iran. I directed Israel’s security forces to make Tehran pay for its decision to sponsor terror. Enough impunity. After Iran launched two failed UAV attacks on Israel in February 2022, Israel destroyed a UAV base on Iranian soil. In March 2022, Iran’s terror unit attempted to kill Israeli tourists in Turkey and failed. Shortly thereafter, the commander of that very unit was assassinated in the center of Tehran.

It turns out that Iran’s tyrants are softer than one might expect. They gleefully send others to die for them. But when they’re hit at home, suddenly they become timid.

The U.S. and Israel must set the clear goal of bringing down Iran’s evil regime. Not only is this possible. It is vital for the safety and security of the Middle East—and the entire civilized world.

Mr. Bennett served as Israel’s prime minister, 2021-22.

Title: NYT: Screams without words
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 29, 2023, 07:53:53 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html?fbclid=IwAR3WmHGU2sZWzqSfnpIv1TcUZjbhmXz23nTBoP7yw5sxQL-yjOQpI4JBblc



A woman links arms with a man on a gray sofa in a living room with a white wall. The couple is flanked by two younger women. A wedding portrait hangs on the wall.
Gal Abdush’s parents, center, and her sisters. The photograph on the wall shows Gal and her husband, Nagi. The couple had been together since they were teenagers.
‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7
A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel.

Share full article

855
By Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz and Adam SellaPhotographs by Avishag Shaar-Yashuv
Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella reported from across Israel and interviewed more than 150 people.

Dec. 28, 2023
At first, she was known simply as “the woman in the black dress.”

In a grainy video, you can see her, lying on her back, dress torn, legs spread, vagina exposed. Her face is burned beyond recognition and her right hand covers her eyes.

The video was shot in the early hours of Oct. 8 by a woman searching for a missing friend at the site of the rave in southern Israel where, the day before, Hamas terrorists massacred hundreds of young Israelis.

The video went viral, with thousands of people responding, desperate to know if the woman in the black dress was their missing friend, sister or daughter.

One family knew exactly who she was — Gal Abdush, mother of two from a working-class town in central Israel, who disappeared from the rave that night with her husband.

As the terrorists closed in on her, trapped on a highway in a line of cars of people trying to flee the party, she sent one final WhatsApp message to her family: “You don’t understand.”

Based largely on the video evidence — which was verified by The New York Times — Israeli police officials said they believed that Ms. Abdush was raped, and she has become a symbol of the horrors visited upon Israeli women and girls during the Oct. 7 attacks.

Israeli officials say that everywhere Hamas terrorists struck — the rave, the military bases along the Gaza border and the kibbutzim — they brutalized women.

A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.

Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.

5 mi.10 km.
© Mapbox © OpenStreetMap
Israel
By The New York Times
Four witnesses described in graphic detail seeing women raped and killed at two different places along Route 232, the same highway where Ms. Abdush’s half-naked body was found sprawled on the road at a third location.

And The Times interviewed several soldiers and volunteer medics who together described finding more than 30 bodies of women and girls in and around the rave site and in two kibbutzim in a similar state as Ms. Abdush’s — legs spread, clothes torn off, signs of abuse in their genital areas.

ImageCars — some destroyed by fire, others damaged — in a clearing among trees.
A camp area on Oct. 11 at the rave site in southern Israel.Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

Many of the accounts are difficult to bear, and the visual evidence is disturbing to see.

The Times viewed photographs of one woman’s corpse that emergency responders discovered in the rubble of a besieged kibbutz with dozens of nails driven into her thighs and groin.

The Times also viewed a video, provided by the Israeli military, showing two dead Israeli soldiers at a base near Gaza who appeared to have been shot directly in their vaginas.

Hamas has denied Israel’s accusations of sexual violence. Israeli activists have been outraged that the United Nations Secretary General, António Guterres, and the agency U.N. Women did not acknowledge the many accusations until weeks after the attacks.

Investigators with Israel’s top national police unit, Lahav 433, have been steadily gathering evidence but they have not put a number on how many women were raped, saying that most are dead — and buried — and that they will never know. No survivors have spoken publicly.

The Israeli police have acknowledged that, during the shock and confusion of Oct. 7, the deadliest day in Israeli history, they were not focused on collecting semen samples from women’s bodies, requesting autopsies or closely examining crime scenes. At that moment, the authorities said, they were intent on repelling Hamas and identifying the dead.

Image
Messages on a mobile phone screen.
Ms. Abdush’s sister showing one of the last messages Ms. Abdush sent on Oct. 7.

A combination of chaos, enormous grief and Jewish religious duties meant that many bodies were buried as quickly as possible. Most were never examined, and in some cases, like at the rave scene, where more than 360 people were slaughtered in a few hours, the bodies were hauled away by the truckload.

That has left the Israeli authorities at a loss to fully explain to families what happened to their loved ones in their final moments. Ms. Abdush’s relatives, for instance, never received a death certificate. They are still searching for answers.

In cases of widespread sexual violence during a war, it is not unusual to have limited forensic evidence, experts said.

“Armed conflict is so chaotic,” said Adil Haque, a Rutgers law professor and war crimes expert. “People are more focused on their safety than on building a criminal case down the road.”

Very often, he said, sex crime cases will be prosecuted years later on the basis of testimony from victims and witnesses.

“The eyewitness might not even know the name of the victim,” he added. “But if they can testify as, ‘I saw a woman being raped by this armed group,’ that can be enough.”

‘Screams without words’
Sapir, a 24-year-old accountant, has become one of the Israeli police’s key witnesses. She does not want to be fully identified, saying she would be hounded for the rest of her life if her last name were revealed.

She attended the rave with several friends and provided investigators with graphic testimony. She also spoke to The Times. In a two-hour interview outside a cafe in southern Israel, she recounted seeing groups of heavily armed gunmen rape and kill at least five women.

She said that at 8 a.m. on Oct. 7, she was hiding under the low branches of a bushy tamarisk tree, just off Route 232, about four miles southwest of the party. She had been shot in the back. She felt faint. She covered herself in dry grass and lay as still as she could.

Image
Two people in high-visibility vests walk along a path toward severely damaged low buildings.
Volunteers with an emergency response team at the Kfar Aza kibbutz this month. The kibbutz was among the places attacked on Oct. 7.

About 15 meters from her hiding place, she said, she saw motorcycles, cars and trucks pulling up. She said that she saw “about 100 men,” most of them dressed in military fatigues and combat boots, a few in dark sweatsuits, getting in and out of the vehicles. She said the men congregated along the road and passed between them assault rifles, grenades, small missiles — and badly wounded women.

“It was like an assembly point,” she said.

The first victim she said she saw was a young woman with copper-color hair, blood running down her back, pants pushed down to her knees. One man pulled her by the hair and made her bend over. Another penetrated her, Sapir said, and every time she flinched, he plunged a knife into her back.

She said she then watched another woman “shredded into pieces.” While one terrorist raped her, she said, another pulled out a box cutter and sliced off her breast.

“One continues to rape her, and the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road,” Sapir said.

She said the men sliced her face and then the woman fell out of view. Around the same time, she said, she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.

Sapir provided photographs of her hiding place and her wounds, and police officials have stood by her testimony and released a video of her, with her face blurred, recounting some of what she saw.

Yura Karol, a 22-year-old security consultant, said he was hiding in the same spot, and he can be seen in one of Sapir’s photos. He and Sapir were part of a group of friends who had met up at the party. In an interview, Mr. Karol said he barely lifted his head to look at the road but he also described seeing a woman raped and killed.

Since that day, Sapir said, she has struggled with a painful rash that spread across her torso, and she can barely sleep, waking up at night, heart pounding, covered in sweat.

Israel-Hamas War: Live Updates
Updated
Dec. 29, 2023, 9:15 a.m. ET2 hours ago
2 hours ago
The U.N. says Israeli forces fired on an aid convoy in central Gaza.
A strike hits sheltering civilians as Israel steps up attacks in southern Gaza.
An Israeli American thought to be taken hostage was killed during the Oct. 7 attacks, her family says.
“That day, I became an animal,” she said. “I was emotionally detached, sharp, just the adrenaline of survival. I looked at all this as if I was photographing them with my eyes, not forgetting any detail. I told myself: I should remember everything.”

That same morning, along Route 232 but in a different location about a mile southwest of the party area, Raz Cohen — a young Israeli who had also attended the rave and had worked recently in the Democratic Republic of Congo training Congolese soldiers — said that he was hiding in a dried-up streambed. It provided some cover from the assailants combing the area and shooting anyone they found, he said in an hour-and-a-half interview in a Tel Aviv restaurant.

Image
A head-and-shoulders photo of a man with a beard, wearing a black T-shirt, looking up to his left.
Raz Cohen, a security consultant, survived the Oct. 7 attacks by hiding in a dried-up streambed.

Maybe 40 yards in front of him, he recalled, a white van pulled up and its doors flew open.

He said he then saw five men, wearing civilian clothes, all carrying knives and one carrying a hammer, dragging a woman across the ground. She was young, naked and screaming.

“They all gather around her,” Mr. Cohen said. “She’s standing up. They start raping her. I saw the men standing in a half circle around her. One penetrates her. She screams. I still remember her voice, screams without words.”

“Then one of them raises a knife,” he said, “and they just slaughtered her.”

Shoam Gueta, one of Mr. Cohen’s friends and a fashion designer, said the two were hiding together in the streambed. He said he saw at least four men step out of the van and attack the woman, who ended up “between their legs.” He said that they were “talking, giggling and shouting,” and that one of them stabbed her with a knife repeatedly, “literally butchering her.”

Hours later, the first wave of volunteer emergency medical technicians arrived at the rave site. In interviews, four of them said that they discovered bodies of dead women with their legs spread and underwear missing — some with their hands tied by rope and zipties — in the party area, along the road, in the parking area and in the open fields around the rave site.

Jamal Waraki, a volunteer medic with the nonprofit ZAKA emergency response team, said he could not get out of his head a young woman in a rawhide vest found between the main stage and the bar.

“Her hands were tied behind her back,” he said. “She was bent over, half naked, her underwear rolled down below her knees.”

Yinon Rivlin, a member of the rave’s production team who lost two brothers in the attacks, said that after hiding from the killers, he emerged from a ditch and made his way to the parking area, east of the party, along Route 232, looking for survivors.

Near the highway, he said, he found the body of a young woman, on her stomach, no pants or underwear, legs spread apart. He said her vagina area appeared to have been sliced open, “as if someone tore her apart.”

Similar discoveries were made in two kibbutzim, Be’eri and Kfar Aza. Eight volunteer medics and two Israeli soldiers told The Times that in at least six different houses, they had come across a total of at least 24 bodies of women and girls naked or half naked, some mutilated, others tied up, and often alone.

A paramedic in an Israeli commando unit said that he had found the bodies of two teenage girls in a room in Be’eri.

One was lying on her side, he said, boxer shorts ripped, bruises by her groin. The other was sprawled on the floor face down, he said, pajama pants pulled to her knees, bottom exposed, semen smeared on her back.

Because his job was to look for survivors, he said, he kept moving and did not document the scene. Neighbors of the two girls killed — who were sisters, 13 and 16 — said their bodies had been found alone, separated from the rest of their family.

The Israeli military allowed the paramedic to speak with reporters on the condition that he not be identified because he serves in an elite unit.

Many of the dead were brought to the Shura military base, in central Israel, for identification. Here, too, witnesses said they saw signs of sexual violence.

Shari Mendes, an architect called up as a reserve soldier to help prepare the bodies of female soldiers for burial, said she had seen four with signs of sexual violence, including some with “a lot of blood in their pelvic areas.”

Image
A woman stands in a large metal container whose doors are open, showing wrapped bodies stacked on shelves, while a man with a gun stands looking in her direction.
Shari Mendes, an architect who was called up as a reserve soldier to help handle the bodies of female troops, in a container used to hold bodies before their removal to a morgue at the Shura military base in central Israel.

A dentist, Captain Maayan, who worked at the same identification center, said that she had seen at least 10 bodies of female soldiers from Gaza observation posts with signs of sexual violence.

Captain Maayan asked to be identified only by her rank and surname because of the sensitivity of the subject. She said she had seen several bodies with cuts in their vaginas and underwear soaked in blood and one whose fingernails had been pulled out.

The investigation
The Israeli authorities have no shortage of video evidence from the Oct. 7 attacks. They have gathered hours of footage from Hamas body cameras, dashcams, security cameras and mobile phones showing Hamas terrorists killing civilians and many images of mutilated bodies.

But Moshe Fintzy, a deputy superintendent and senior spokesman of Israel’s national police, said, “We have zero autopsies, zero,” making an O with his right hand.

In the aftermath of the attack, police officials said, forensic examiners were dispatched to the Shura military base to help identify the hundreds of bodies — Israeli officials say around 1,200 people were killed that day.

The examiners worked quickly to give the agonized families of the missing a sense of closure and to determine, by a process of elimination, who was dead and who was being held hostage in Gaza.

According to Jewish tradition, funerals are held promptly. The result was that many bodies with signs of sexual abuse were put to rest without medical examinations, meaning that potential evidence now lies buried in the ground. International forensic experts said that it would be possible to recover some evidence from the corpses, but that it would be difficult.

Mr. Fintzy said Israeli security forces were still finding imagery that shows women were brutalized. Sitting at his desk at an imposing police building in Jerusalem, he swiped open his phone, tapped and produced the video of the two soldiers shot in the vagina, which he said was recorded by Hamas gunmen and recently recovered by Israeli soldiers.

A colleague sitting next to him, Mirit Ben Mayor, a police chief superintendent, said she believed that the brutality against women was a combination of two ferocious forces, “the hatred for Jews and the hatred for women.”

Some emergency medical workers now wish they had documented more of what they saw. In interviews, they said they had moved bodies, cut off zip ties and cleaned up scenes of carnage. Trying to be respectful to the dead, they inadvertently destroyed evidence.

Many volunteers working for ZAKA, the emergency response team, are religious Jews and operate under strict rules that command deep respect for the dead.

“I did not take pictures because we are not allowed to take pictures,” said Yossi Landau, a ZAKA volunteer. “In retrospect, I regret it.”

There are at least three women and one man who were sexually assaulted and survived, according to Gil Horev, a spokesman for Israel’s Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs. “None of them has been willing to come physically for treatment,” he said. Two therapists said they were working with a woman who was gang raped at the rave and was in no condition to talk to investigators or reporters.

Image
A man with a beard and black jacket looks off to his left.
Yossi Landau, a volunteer with the nonprofit ZAKA emergency response team, said he had not taken pictures of the bodies because it was not allowed. “In retrospect, I regret it,” he added.

The trauma from sexual assault can be so heavy that sometimes survivors do not speak about it for years, several rape counselors said.

“Many people are looking for the golden evidence, of a woman who will testify about what happened to her. But don’t look for that, don’t put this pressure on this woman,” said Orit Sulitzeanu, executive director of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel. “The corpses tell the story.”

The woman in the black dress
One of the last images of Ms. Abdush alive — captured by a security camera mounted on her front door — shows her leaving home with her husband, Nagi, at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 7 for the rave.

He was wearing jeans and a black T-shirt. She was dressed in a short black dress, a black shawl tied around her waist and combat boots. As she struts out, she takes a swig from a glass (her brother-in-law remembers it was Red Bull and vodka) and laughs.

You’ve got to live life like it’s your last moments. That was her motto, her sisters said.

At daybreak, hundreds of terrorists closed in on the party from several directions, blocking the highways leading out. The couple jumped into their Audi, dashing off a string of messages as they moved.

“We’re on the border,” Ms. Abdush wrote to her family. “We’re leaving.”

“Explosions.”

Her husband made his own calls to his family, leaving a final audio message for his brother, Nissim, at 7:44 a.m. “Take care of the kids,” he said. “I love you.”

Gunshots rang out, and the message stopped.

That night, Eden Wessely, a car mechanic, drove to the rave site with three friends and found Ms. Abdush sprawled half naked on the road next to her burned car, about nine miles north of the site. She did not see the body of Mr. Abdush.

Image
A woman in a car, illuminated by an internal light.
Eden Wessely, a car mechanic, drove to the rave site looking for a missing friend but instead found Ms. Abdush sprawled half naked on the road next to her burned car.

She saw other burned cars and other bodies, and shot videos of several — hoping that they would help people to identify missing relatives. When she posted the video of the woman in the black dress on her Instagram story, she was deluged with messages.

“Hi, based on your description of the woman in the black dress, did she have blonde hair?” one message read.

“Eden, the woman you described with the black dress, do you remember the color of her eyes?” another said.

Some members of the Abdush family saw that video and another version of it filmed by one of Ms. Wessely’s friends. They immediately suspected that the body was Ms. Abdush, and based on the way her body was found, they feared that she might have been raped.

But they kept alive a flicker of hope that somehow, it wasn’t true.

The videos caught the eye of Israeli officials as well — very quickly after Oct. 7 they began gathering evidence of atrocities. They included footage of Ms. Abdush’s body in a presentation made to foreign governments and media organizations, using Ms. Abdush as a representation of violence committed against women that day.

Image
A fuzzy photograph of a woman’s body lying on the ground next to a white vehicle.
A screenshot from a video showing Ms. Abdush’s body.Credit...Eden Wessely

A week after her body was found, three government social workers appeared at the gate of the family’s home in Kiryat Ekron, a small town in central Israel. They broke the news that Ms. Abdush, 34, had been found dead.

But the only document the family received was a one-page form letter from Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, expressing his condolences and sending a hug. The body of Mr. Abdush, 35, was identified two days after his wife’s. It was badly burned and investigators determined who he was based on a DNA sample and his wedding ring.

The couple had been together since they were teenagers. To the family, it seems only yesterday that Mr. Abdush was heading off to work to fix water heaters, a bag of tools slung over his shoulder, and Ms. Abdush was cooking up mashed potatoes and schnitzel for their two sons, Eliav, 10, and Refael, 7.

The boys are now orphans. They were sleeping over at an aunt’s the night their parents were killed. Ms. Abdush’s mother and father have applied for permanent custody, and everyone is chipping in to help.

Night after night, Ms. Abdush’s mother, Eti Bracha, lies in bed with the boys until they drift off. A few weeks ago, she said she tried to quietly leave their bedroom when the younger boy stopped her.

“Grandma,” he said, “I want to ask you a question.”

“Honey,” she said, “you can ask anything.”

“Grandma, how did mom die?”

Image
A woman with her eyes closed rests her head on the shoulder of a man wearing a skull cap, looking out of a window.
Ms. Abdush’s parents, Eti Bracha, 56, and her husband, Eli, 60.

Jeffrey Gettleman is an international correspondent and a winner of the Pulitzer Prize. He is the author of “Love, Africa,” a memoir. More about Jeffrey Gettleman

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on December 29, 2023, 08:03:05 AM

no we don't need a ceasefire!

 :cry:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2023, 06:22:59 AM

https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/29/biden-netanyahu-phone-call-palestinian-tax-revenue/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=qbB3ET5WM7lKgqfDpDO2DcKcuUKtWp1pNeG5x.Bj9kdmbSr0TQb97M98vKv2dkmYtL59kch0

Title: Re: Israel takes out 11 Iranians in Syria
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2023, 06:50:25 AM

second

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/11-senior-iranian-officers-killed-in-israeli-airstrike-on-syrian-airport-report-says/ar-AA1meL1v?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=db6d12ac109d460ead182c7fd5293272&ei=14

Title: Gaza: Life is tougher when you are stupid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2023, 08:51:49 AM

The Ruined Landscape of Gaza After Nearly Three Months of Bombing
The destruction of homes, schools and other buildings resembles some of the most devastating campaigns in modern history
Gaza City’s Rimal neighborhood on Oct. 10. VIDEO: Mohammed Alaloul/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
By Jared MalsinFollow
 and Saeed ShahFollow
Updated Dec. 30, 2023 9:42 am ET



The war in the Gaza Strip is generating destruction comparable in scale to the most devastating urban warfare in the modern record.

By mid-December, Israel had dropped 29,000 bombs, munitions and shells on the strip. Nearly 70% of Gaza’s 439,000 homes and about half of its buildings have been damaged or destroyed. The bombing has damaged Byzantine churches and ancient mosques, factories and apartment buildings, shopping malls and luxury hotels, theaters and schools. Much of the water, electrical, communications and healthcare infrastructure that made Gaza function is beyond repair.

Most of the strip’s 36 hospitals are shut down, and only eight are accepting patients. Citrus trees, olive groves and greenhouses have been obliterated. More than two-thirds of its schools are damaged.


Oct. 11

Almost half of Gaza’s buildings have been damaged or destroyed.

Damaged

buildings

Jabalia refugee camp

Gaza

City

Jabalia refugee camp

Damaged

tree crops

ISRAEL

Mediterranean

Sea

GAZA STRIP

About 85% of the strip’s 2.2 million people have fled their homes, most of them to the south.

2 miles

Nov. 10

2 km

Khan

Younis

Rafah

EGYPT

Families flee to the south.

Dec. 19

More than 21,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of them women and children, according to Gaza health officials.

Mourners in Rafah bid farewell to relatives killed.

Note: Damage as of Dec. 16. Areas where tree and building damage overlap appear darker.

Sources: Corey Scher/CUNY Graduate Center, Jamon Van Den Hoek/Oregon State University (building damage); Dr. He Yin/Kent State University (tree damage); Getty Images (2 photos); Zuma Press (1 photo)
Israel says that the bombing campaign and ground offensive has inflicted thousands of casualties on its intended target, Hamas. That U.S.-designated terrorist group’s cross-border assault on Oct. 7 killed 1,200 Israelis, most of them civilians, according to Israeli officials. The attackers tortured residents and burned homes as they went.

In Israel’s response, its bombs, artillery shells and soldiers have killed more than 21,000 Palestinians, according to health officials in Gaza. The figure doesn’t distinguish between civilians and militants. Most of them are women and children, those officials said.

The destruction resembles that left by Allied bombing of German cities during World War II. “The word ‘Gaza’ is going to go down in history along with Dresden and other famous cities that have been bombed,” said Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and the author of a history of aerial bombing. “What you’re seeing in Gaza is in the top 25% of the most intense punishment campaigns in history.”

ADVERTISEMENT
Before
After
The Al-Karameh neighborhood in northern Gaza, first in May, then in October after Israeli airstrikes on the region began.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES
Three months ago, Gaza was a vibrant place. Despite decades of Israeli occupation, sieges and wars, many Palestinians enjoyed living there beside the Mediterranean Sea, where they gathered in cafes and seaside restaurants. Families played on the beach. Young men crowded around TVs in the evening to watch soccer.

Today, Gaza is a landscape of crumpled concrete. In northern Gaza, the focus of Israel’s initial offensive, the few people who remain navigate rubble-strewn streets past bombed-out shops and apartment blocks. Broken glass crunches underfoot. Israeli drones buzz overhead.

In the south, where more than a million displaced residents have fled, Gazans sleep in the street and burn garbage to cook. Some 85% of the strip’s 2.2 million people have fled their homes and are confined by Israeli evacuation orders to less than one-third of the strip, according to the United Nations.

The Israeli military said it is targeting Hamas and taking steps to avoid killing civilians, including by encouraging residents to leave areas it is attacking. The Israeli air force has said its bombing campaign is causing “maximum damage.” Israeli military spokesman Daniel Hagari said in October that “while balancing accuracy with the scope of damage, right now we’re focused on what causes maximum damage.”


A Palestinian woman in her damaged apartment on the outskirts of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip. PHOTO: MAHMUD HAMS/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Israel has accused Hamas of using civilian buildings to hide entrances to tunnels in which it stores weapons and hides commanders. “When you ask why civilian infrastructure is being damaged in Gaza, look at where Hamas built its military infrastructure, then point your finger at Hamas,” Eylon Levy, a spokesman for the Israeli prime minister’s office, said on Dec. 17 on X, formerly Twitter. The U.S. recently pressed Israel to try to limit the number of civilian casualties.

With the war zone mostly closed to the outside world, experts are surveying damage by analyzing satellite imagery and using remote sensing, which monitors physical characteristics by measuring reflected and emitted radiation at a distance. Their findings, they said, are initial and will need verification on the ground, but are likely an underestimate.

According to analysis of satellite data by remote-sensing experts at the City University of New York and Oregon State University, as many as 80% of the buildings in northern Gaza, where the bombing has been most severe, are damaged or destroyed, a higher percentage than in Dresden.

ADVERTISEMENT

Beit Lahia in northern Gaza on Dec. 26, following Israeli bombardments. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
He Yin, an assistant professor of geography at Kent State University in Ohio, estimated that 20% of Gaza’s agricultural land has been damaged or destroyed. Winter wheat that should be sprouting around now isn’t visible, he said, suggesting it wasn’t planted.

A World Bank analysis concluded that by Dec. 12, the war had damaged or destroyed 77% of health facilities, 72% of municipal services such as parks, courts and libraries, 68% of telecommunications infrastructure, and 76% of commercial sites, including the almost complete destruction of the industrial zone in the north. More than half of all roads, the World Bank found, have been damaged or destroyed. Some 342 schools have been damaged, according to the U.N., including 70 of its own schools.

An assessment by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence found that Israel dropped 29,000 weapons on Gaza in a little over two months, according to U.S. officials. By comparison, the U.S. military dropped 3,678 munitions on Iraq from 2004 to 2010, according to the U.S. Central Command. Among the weapons provided by the U.S. to Israel during the Gaza war are 2,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs designed to penetrate concrete shelters, which military analysts said are usually used to hit military targets in more sparsely populated areas.

Gaza has a rich 4,000-year history. It was a Canaanite and Pharaonic port city that served as a waypoint on trade routes between Africa and Asia. Through history, it built back from wars, sieges, plagues and earthquakes. In 332 B.C., it was the last city to resist Alexander the Great’s march to Egypt—an act of defiance that fueled a mythology of a people who would never bow. The municipality of Gaza’s symbol is a phoenix.





Saint Porphyrius Church following an Israeli airstrike in October.

Mohammed Saber/EPA/Shutterstock
A destroyed building at the Islamic University of Gaza, in Gaza City, in November.

Omar El-Qattaa/AFP/Getty Images
The headquarters of the Palestinian parliament in Gaza City was destroyed by Israeli forces during their ground operation.

Abed Sabah/Reuters
The Great Omari Mosque, one of the most important cultural sites in Gaza City, before it was destroyed.

Mahmoud Issa/Zuma Press
The majority of Gaza’s residents are either refugees themselves or descendants of those who fled land that is now the state of Israel.

Israel seized the Gaza Strip from Egypt in 1967. In 2005, a year after another Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza, it withdrew its remaining soldiers and settlements, although it maintained control over the enclave’s borders, coastline and airspace. Israel and Egypt severely restricted movement in and out of Gaza in 2007 after Hamas took control of it, ending decades in which many Gazans worked inside Israel and learned Hebrew.

A HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND GAZA CONFLICT

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in Maps
The current war hasn’t spared treasured historic sites. The Great Omari Mosque, an ancient building that was converted from a fifth-century church to a Muslim place of worship, has been destroyed, its minaret toppled. An Israeli airstrike in October hit the fifth century Church of Saint Porphyrius, killing at least 16 Palestinians sheltering there.

“The loss of the Omari mosque saddens me more than the destruction of my own house,” said Fadel Alatel, an archaeologist from Gaza who fled his home to shelter in the southern end of the strip.

The exclusive Rimal neighborhood, with its broad boulevards and beauty salons, was reduced to rubble in the opening days of the war. Israeli attacks have destroyed Gaza’s main courthouse, parliament building and central archives.

ADVERTISEMENT
Israel says many of its airstrikes have targeted Hamas’s network of tunnels underneath Gaza, which they say also hid hostages taken on Oct. 7. Those tunnels lie beneath densely populated areas in ground that contains important municipal infrastructure, making for a challenging battlefield.

“It’s not a livable city anymore,” said Eyal Weizman, an Israeli-British architect who studies Israel’s approach to the built environment in the Palestinian territories.

Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, first in May, then after Israeli airstrikes began in October.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES
Any reconstruction, he said, will require “a whole system of underground infrastructure, because when you attack the subsoil, everything that runs through the ground—the water, the gas, the sewage—is torn.”

Europe’s cities were rebuilt after two world wars. Beirut rose again after civil war and Israeli bombardment. Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Raqqa have limped back to life after U.S.-led air campaigns leveled them during the war against Islamic State, though reconstruction has been slow for both.

Gaza faces unique challenges. No one knows who will take control if Israel achieves its aim of destroying Hamas. Israel has said it opposes a U.S. plan to place the Palestinian Authority, which runs parts of the occupied West Bank, in charge of the strip.

The enclave’s unusual status as a territory with borders controlled by Israel further complicates any road to recovery. After other recent wars in Gaza, Israel has sometimes blocked the entry of construction materials, arguing Hamas could use them for military purposes. In 2015, a full year after a 2014 cease-fire, only one house had been rebuilt—not because of a lack of funds, but because cement wasn’t allowed in.

ADVERTISEMENT
An analysis by the Shelter Cluster, a coalition of aid groups led by the Norwegian Refugee Council, concluded that after the current war, it will take at least a year just to clear the rubble, a task complicated by having to safely remove unexploded ordnance.

Rebuilding the housing will take seven to 10 years, if financing is available, the group said. It will cost some $3.5 billion, it estimates, not including the cost of providing temporary accommodation.


Tents housing displaced Palestinians in December in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. PHOTO: MAHMUD HAMS/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
The level of damage in Gaza is almost double what it was during a 2014 conflict, which lasted 50 days, with five times as many completely destroyed buildings, according to the Shelter Cluster. In the current conflict, as of mid-December, more than 800,000 people had no home left to return to, the World Bank found.

“In a best-case scenario, it’s going to take decades,” said Caroline Sandes, an expert in postconflict redevelopment at Kingston University London.

Alaa Hasham, a 33-year-old mother living in Gaza City’s upscale Rimal neighborhood, used to enjoy sitting in her apartment’s rooftop garden, taking her children to a seaside resort on the weekends and playing chess with friends. She fled with her family soon after the bombing began, joining the small minority of Palestinians who were able to leave for Egypt.

Though her home is destroyed, she is clinging to hope that someday she will return to Gaza.

“People think I’m crazy for wanting to go back,” she said. “Gaza is a special place.”

Corrections & Amplifications
Israeli military spokesman Daniel Hagari said in October that “while balancing accuracy with the scope of damage, right now we’re focused on what causes maximum damage.” An earlier version of this article incorrectly quoted Hagari as saying that “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” (Corrected on Dec. 30)

Abeer Ayyoub, Anas Baba, Joanna Sugden and Suha Ma’ayeh contributed to this article.

Title: Michael Yon calls Israel "Zionstan , , , evil".
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 31, 2023, 06:44:51 AM

The Torah Graphic below came today from a small group of Jewish friends. When I first started realizing the evil from Zionstan — formerly known to me as Israel —I was compelled to speak up.

Image
And it is my business 100%.

I am American. My country is involved.

Zionstan demands my obedience, support, and sometimes silence, and pushed Death Jabs. Zionstan can go to hell. My concern was that close Jewish friends and associates would feel or think I was turning on them and not limited to Zionstan. Similar to California — I spent about two years in California and made great friends and loved California. Old California, that is. The Great Californias did millions of Great Things. But Old California morphed into Californiastan. There is New Yorkestan, Chinastan, Francestan, Germanystan…the Stans are growing.

Zionstan is hardcore Evil. Zionstan clearly was involved in the Hamas attacks on 07 October Massacre that killed over a thousand Jews. But Zionists don’t care about average Jews, and treat Christians and Muslims as their dog servants. Zionstan will do cheetah backflips to pull us into war with Iran. But have you personally met any Iranians you actually want to kill? I tend to get along very well with Iranians. A war with Iran would be catastrophic and I personally would revolt against killing random Iranians. Expect a false-flag from Zionstan. And be prepared to stand alongside true Jewish Brothers and Sisters in the massive genocides unfolding.

https://twitter.com/TorahJudaism

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/1740139340225761542

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/1740139340225761542?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Title: WSJ: Israel's Supreme Court divides and rules
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 03, 2024, 08:28:33 AM

Israel’s Supreme Court Divides and Rules
No time like a war to grab new powers and reignite old arguments.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Updated Jan. 2, 2024 6:40 pm ET

There was no good reason for Israel’s Supreme Court to rush and every reason to wait. “United we win” is the ubiquitous slogan on the Israeli home front, where even bitter rivals have formed a wartime unity government. By acting now to quash the remnant of judicial reform, the court risks plunging Israel into the peacetime squabbles of Oct. 6—and the ruinous, provocative months that preceded it.



In an 8–7 decision on Monday, Israel’s court struck down the “reasonableness” law passed in July. This is the first time the court has overturned part of a Basic Law, akin to a constitutional amendment. It isn’t too much to call this Israel’s second “judicial revolution.”

The first that went by the name, in the 1980s and 1990s, saw the Israeli court claim unusual powers to interfere in political decisions. Its architect, Chief Justice Aharon Barak, nonetheless pledged in 1992 to rule “in complete subservience to the words of the Basic Laws.” He explained that “the people are sovereign, and the Basic Laws are supreme.”

That changed on Monday. As the Times of Israel writes, the justices can now tell the Knesset “not only when its regular laws violate the rules of the game, but what the rules of the game can actually be.” Chief Justice Esther Hayut appealed to the principles of Israel’s Declaration of Independence to grab this power.

The court hurried to issue a divisive ruling, though delay and unity is surely in the country’s interest, because in two weeks the majority behind it will be no more. Justices Hayut and Anat Baron retired in mid-October and can join decisions only until mid-January. Both voted to overturn the law.

If the government had behaved this way, rushing past an institutional conflict of interest to allow outgoing members to cast significant deciding votes during wartime, the court might have deemed the action “unreasonable.”

That was the judicial doctrine at issue. After the government’s reform proposals met stiff popular resistance, only one token change passed the Knesset: no more using “unreasonableness” as the sole factor to block a government decision.

As Justice Yael Willner explains in a dissent, government decisions would still have had to meet the court’s standards of legitimate authority, valid process, good faith, pertinent considerations, proportionality, nonarbitrariness and antidiscrimination. The justices would hardly have been left defenseless against executive overreach.

Unwilling to cede an inch, Israel’s court has seized another mile. It had other options. Many of the 12 justices who claim the right to overturn Basic Laws voted against exercising it in this case, preferring to interpret the new law narrowly instead. That would have mitigated any perceived danger. But the eight in the majority chose to salt the earth.

In the short run, the court will be rewarded for its timing. Its critics have pledged to put the matter off until the war is won, lest domestic disorder undermine the war effort and encourage Hamas and Hezbollah.

In the long run, the court may find that it has harmed itself while killing a reform package that was politically all but dead. Benny Gantz, the opponent of Benjamin Netanyahu who could be Israel’s next Prime Minister, now says that after the war, “We will need to decide relations between the branches of government and legislate a ‘Basic Law: Legislation’ that will anchor the status of Basic Laws.”

Mr. Gantz could now find broad consensus—precisely what Israel’s government had lacked before and Israel’s court lacks today for its willful wartime decision.

Title: not only during a war but on December 31st
Post by: ccp on January 03, 2024, 08:40:45 AM

of a weekend holiday too:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-supreme-court-strikes-down-disputed-law-that-limited-court-oversight-2024-01-01/

 :x

libs commies - the same everywhere

Title: Why I support Israel
Post by: SWBrowne on January 03, 2024, 05:42:25 PM

Recent column


“I have a premonition that will not leave me: as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.”
-   Eric Hoffer

First of all, no I’m not Jewish. I suppose however that I’m a Zionist though I say that with some surprise as it never occurred to me to call myself such before now.

By Zionist I mean I support the right of Israel to exist, to have secure borders, to have the right to control immigration, to defend itself by all means recognized for any other state, and to retaliate against aggression by all means recognized for any other state.

Why? No seriously why? What business is it of mine?

Well for one, consider the alternative. The atrocities of Hamas are well known in sickening detail and cannot be denied because Hamas is documenting and boasting about them.

Still they are being denied, even justified by some of the vilest people one can imagine. That should be enough in and of itself.
Israel by contrast still attempts to minimize civilian casualties among a population that hates them. And one wonders why. They’re not going to affect public
opinion that way.

It appears to have something to do with Jewish ethics. And here we come to an important reason.

Israel is part of Western Civilization, is in fact historically one of the twin roots of the West. The other being ancient Athens, with the emphasis on ancient.
Us anthropologists like to classify human organization in ascending levels according to how many people they can support: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states.

We tend to forget there’s a level above states – civilizations. A civilization is a group of nations with recognized commonalities of culture, law, etc. The definition gets vague around the edges but can often be practically defined as speakers of related language families.

Isolationists do not see a level above their country. A luxury only maintainable in big powerful states such as ours.

When we play the parlor game of “When did Western Civ begin?” it’s fun to argue, was it when the democratic party of Athens swore not to take revenge on the out of power oligarchs even for the murder of their families? Was it when the Romans put the Twelve Tablet of the law in the public forum for all to read?

Or was it when the Prophet Nathan told King David, “Thou art the man!”

One moral law for king and peasant alike, what a concept! One that is not shared by every culture, even today.

I believe Western Civ has evolved some basic assumptions that are worth keeping and worth spreading for the benefit of all mankind. Such as the rights of Man, equality under the law, the dignity and worth of the individual.
x
Our civilization is under attack, from without and within by an axis of enemies united for the sole purpose of opposing the West. Israel is one front in a multi-front attack on the West. I believe Ukraine is another, and I greatly fear the opening of another front, perhaps in Taiwan – or here.

But perhaps that’s a bit tin-foil hat conspiratorial for some of my readers. So here are some practical questions I like to ask.

Who is more likely to develop…?
-   A cure for cancer?
-   Significant life extension?
-   Clean cheap sources of energy?
-   Cheap practical desalination tech? (Oops, cross that one off. Already done.)
Seven million Israelis or 700 million Arab Islamists?

And that’s why I support Israel, for my own self-interest.

Title: George Gilder wrote book on the marvel of Israel
Post by: ccp on January 03, 2024, 08:37:37 PM

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Test-Besieged-Freedom-Economy/dp/1594036128

2012

I never read it

Title: Massive Hezbollah Tunnel Network in Southern Lebanon
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 03, 2024, 08:40:04 PM

Dug by the NorKs and funded by Iran:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/report-hezbollah-terror-tunnel-network-far-bigger-and-sophisticated-than-hamass-network-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=report-hezbollah-terror-tunnel-network-far-bigger-and-sophisticated-than-hamass-network-2

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 04, 2024, 11:40:15 AM

The Nork skill set appearing here makes perfect sense; I had not thought of it.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 04, 2024, 12:01:10 PM

Wow

NK company built the tunnels and

even more in Lebanon than Gaza   :-o

And the Iranians with their underground nuc  bunkers....

gives a whole new meaning to moles....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mole_People

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2024, 07:06:56 AM

The Strategies of the Israel-Hamas War

By: George Friedman

It is difficult to understand the strategy of a country at war sitting outside the command center. However, when analyzed from the initiation of war to its conclusion, strategy becomes clear. You must understand the imperatives driving each side, the forces available to each side and the price each can pay for victory. We are now at the moment – and perhaps even past it – when the war can be understood enough to explain why certain things have played out as they have.

Israel has maintained a dominant military position since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, even if it has largely been a defensive one. Its historic enemy, the Muslim nations of the Middle East – here, we use Muslim rather than Arab because the list includes Iran, which is predominately Shia Persian – were divided into multiple factions that were forced to take the offensive if they were to engage in war, giving Israel the advantage of the defensive and putting the onus of initiation onto its enemies. This meant intelligence was the core of Israel’s position; an intelligence failure would shift the advantage to the enemy’s offensive.

Hamas, Israel’s primary enemy in the current war, had two parallel challenges. One was that the Arab factions were divided and competing with one another. The second was what it saw as the unpredictability of Israel and its ability to strike. Hamas had to dominate the Arab factions to protect itself, and it had to weaken Israel to protect and advance its position.

The key for Hamas, then, was Israel. If it defeated or weakened Israel, it would raise its standing in the Arab world, solving both its strategic challenges. It would be the dominant force in its region.

Hamas understood that for Israel, intelligence is fundamental. Israel had gone through a prior intelligence failure that had deeply traumatized it. In October 1973, Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal and, moving deep into the Sinai Peninsula, were able to threaten southern Israel. Syria had moved into the Golan Heights to threaten Israel's north. Both were supported by the Soviet Union.

Israeli intelligence had completely failed to anticipate the attack, and for several days nothing less than the survival of Israel seemed at stake. When it was clear that Israel was no longer in danger, Moscow rescinded its support. Since then, Israel’s strategy has been to detect attacks and rapidly defeat its enemies before it loses its international benefactors. Israel transformed its intelligence system into what it believed was able to detect potential dangers. And yet Hamas managed to launch a surprise attack at least partly on the belief that Israel was not expecting one, and that the government was distracted by internal political disputes.

Hamas' strategy required complete surprise. In turn, that required that the group blind Israeli intelligence to the force being built in Gaza and groomed for combat. Hamas achieved total surprise, adding to its success the capture of nearly 250 Israelis who would be held as hostages and, to some extent, would force Israel to proceed with caution in any counterattack. Hamas miscalculated what the response would be, and Israel chose the strategy of total war, which inevitably resulted in deaths on all sides. Hamas presented Israel with a fait accompli. It forced Israel to fight on Hamas’ terms and territory, and with the distant potential that the Israelis were so much off balance that Israel proper might be endangered. Unreliable intelligence and an underestimation of Hamas’ abilities left Israel with few options.

Israel’s imperative is the destruction of Hamas and the deterrence of intervention by other Arab forces. Hamas' misjudgments have given the Israelis a helping hand. The expectation that Hezbollah and others might be willing to fight under Hamas’ command failed to materialize. Since Oct. 7, Hamas has adopted a defensive posture, using hostages for protection and deploying forces to the north. The deployment there, as well as in the south, gave Israel the option of negotiation – which both parties effectively rejected. Israel had to guarantee that another surprise attack by Hamas was impossible. It could not rely on intelligence, even as it had to free the remaining hostages. The only strategic solution was an assault on Hamas, designed to guarantee the group could not repeat its success.

Israel had the choice to use heavy artillery and air power or to put boots on the ground, supported by heavy armor and air power. The latter would result in heavier casualties for Israel and possible defeat in the area. To do nothing was to admit weakness and to abandon the hostages in Gaza. Israel elected to deploy ground forces in the north in an attempt to break Hamas.

So far, neither side has achieved its imperatives. Hamas is not leading an Arab force to victory, and Israel is in this position because of a major intelligence failure. The war is not over, and fighting may continue for a long time, but Hamas’ hopes that a stunning attack would elevate it to Arab leadership failed. So too did the Israeli strategy of deterring or intercepting and pre-empting any surprise attacks.

There will be massive changes in thinking on both sides.

Title: MSM puts finger on Netanyahu
Post by: ccp on January 08, 2024, 09:09:04 AM

DNC Drudge headline:

FEARS GROW OVER ALL-OUT MIDEAST WAR
SENIOR HEZBOLLAH COMMANDER KILLED
NETANYAHU LOSING CONTROL?

What does Netanyahu have to do with this?
He can't control what the terrorist proxies of Iran do.

Title: North Gaza mostly secured
Post by: ccp on January 08, 2024, 11:25:14 AM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/01/08/netanyahu-says-months-of-war-ahead-as-israel-hamas-conflict-reaches-90-day-mark-n2633117

Title: Tom Friedman's soft jihad against Israel.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2024, 05:45:42 AM

Tom Friedman's Soft Jihad Against Israel
by A.J. Caschetta
Special to IPT News
January 11, 2024

https://www.investigativeproject.org/9355/tom-friedman-soft-jihad-against-israel

Share: Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send
 


Friedman stands with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, left, in Lebanon, circa 1984. Image Source: Time / Thomas Friedman Collection

The New York Times employs a diverse group of anti-Israel writers, such as Soliman Hijjy, who loves Hitler, and Raja Abdulrahim, who blames Israel for Palestinian suicide bombers. Occasionally their over-zealous anti-Zionists get carried away, like Jazmine Hughes and Jamie Lauren Keiles whom the Times fired in November after they signed a letter accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing," "apartheid," and genocide."

But the Times' most effective anti-Israel scribe is not a raving, knuckle-dragging "river to the sea" enthusiast. Rather, it is Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer prize-winning columnist whose polished anti-Israel rhetoric has done more damage to Israel than that of the Times' hardcore Israel haters.

As William McGurn observed in comparing Barack Obama's anti-Israel sentiments to those expressed by Rashida Tlaib, "Obama would never be so crude as to invoke river-to-the-sea language or actually come out and say that Israel is as evil as Hamas ... his argument is smooth and sophisticated. That's what makes it so pernicious."

Likewise, Friedman's appeal is his claim to have staked out a consistently moderate and objective approach to Middle East affairs. His soft jihad against Israel is more subtle and acceptable, making it dangerous precisely because it is entertained by rational people and policymakers, especially Democrats.

Friedman loves the PLO/PA

Ever since his college days at Brandeis University, where he was a leader in the so-called "Middle East Peace Group," Friedman has been an Arafat fan.

Because Friedman has been around for so long, he knows all the players. In the 1980s, as chief of the Beirut bureau of the Times, he cozied up to the PLO. In the 1990s, he cozied up to the Palestinian Authority (PA). His solution to "the Palestinian problem" has been consistent for decades now: strengthen and trust the PA, even though the PA has long demonstrated that it is not trustworthy.

In the weeks following October 7, Friedman has criticized Hamas (though not as much as he criticizes Israel) while continuing to push the PA as the alternative to Hamas. But he hasn't always objected to Hamas.

Friedman Doesn't Understand Hamas

After years of denouncing President George W. Bush for neglecting the Palestinians, Friedman welcomed the Obama administration with advice in a column on January 24, 2009, suggesting that its top priority was to "make peace between Palestinians, and build their institutions."

After nearly a decade of failed nation-building efforts, most Americans had tired of that dead end. But not Friedman, who advised Obama that "a peacemaker has to be both a nation-builder and a negotiator." Surprisingly, he argued that "Job 2 for the U.S., Israel and the Arab states is to find a way to bring Hamas into a Palestinian national unity government."

He quoted his favorite "Middle East expert," Stephen P. Cohen, formerly of the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution, to assert that, "Without Hamas as part of a Palestinian decision, any Israeli-Palestinian peace will be meaningless," and he urged the new president to "rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, [and] elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements."

The fact that in 2009 Friedman believed that Israel should not only tolerate but negotiate peace with Hamas shows that he failed to understand Hamas in 2009.

Ten years later, he still didn't understand Hamas, as his March 25, 2019 column boldly announced that, "Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel." Interestingly enough, he regularly claims that a Netanyahu government is an existential threat to Israel.

In a webinar at the Israel Policy Forum on September 13, 2023, just 27 days before the Hamas massacre, Friedman expressed his desire that the Biden administration would shoot down any Saudi-Israel peace deal unless it required Israel to make concessions so extensive that it "blows up the Netanyahu cabinet." This was a theme he returned to: "I've been really focused on just one thing: How do you blow up this cabinet?" and "How do you destroy this cabinet and get a national unity government?"

As for elections, the seasoned expert on the Middle East called for immediate elections in the West Bank, suggesting that, "if Hamas wins, let Hamas win. They will then have the burden of responsibility in negotiating."

Don't Invade Gaza?

Tom Friedman is a status quo man who wants Israel to stick to the pre-October 7 playbook – don't invade Gaza, don't wipe out Hamas, don't "overreact." He writes in his October 16 column: "If Israel were to announce today that it has decided for now to forgo an invasion of Gaza and will look for more surgical means to eliminate or capture Hamas's leadership while trying to engineer a trade for the more than 150 Israeli and other hostages whom Hamas is holding, ... it would also give Israel and its allies time to think through how to build — with Palestinians — a legitimate alternative to Hamas."

Where to start? Israel has been employing "surgical means" against terrorists in the Gaza Strip ever since PM Ariel Sharon forcibly removed all Israelis from Gaza in 2005 and allowed Hamas to establish a de facto Palestinian state on its border.

Three and a half decades have passed since the founding of Hamas, but Friedman wants more time to create a better alternative.

He still believes that "if Israel still decides it must enter Gaza to capture and kill Hamas's leadership, it must only do so if it has in place a legitimate Palestinian leadership to replace Hamas — so Israel is not left governing there forever."

Palestinians, not Israelis, are responsible for building a Palestinian government.

Still Supporting the Palestinian Authority

Friedman subscribes to the bogus view that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is a secular government, overlooking the Islamist terrorist groups it controls (Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Tanzim, for instance) and the financial incentives it offers to terrorists through its so-called "pay-to-slay" program which rewards the families of terrorist killers (whom it calls martyrs) with generous pensions, including its announcement, on October 15, 2023, that it was extending its payment program to 50 Hamas terrorists who were captured by IDF forces on October 7. He erroneously believes that there are substantial differences between Hamas and the PA/PLO, when the only real difference is that each believes it has the best plan for eliminating Israel.

Friedman told Vox News on October 16 that, "There is only one thing worse than Hamas controlling Gaza and that is no one controlling Gaza or Israel controlling Gaza." He continued, "I say to the Israelites [sic], before you go into it, show me the plan. Otherwise, be careful: Do not enter Gaza before you have a clear and precise idea of how you will get out."

His final column of the year asserts that Israel's "only exit from this mutually assured destruction is to bring in some transformed version of the Palestinian Authority – or a P.L.O.-appointed government of Palestinian technocrats – in partnership with moderate Arab states like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

In Friedman's mind, Israel will always be responsible for Gaza.

Tearing Down the Israeli Government

Friedman suffers from a virulent case of Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome, perhaps equal to his case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. He often conflates the two, making for a two-in-one target. In a column titled "Is Trump Bibi's Chump?" on January 28, 2020, Friedman (as always making rhetorical demands of politicians) told his readers that "Trump needs to ask Netanyahu: 'Will you agree right now that the remaining land will be a Palestinian state if the Palestinians agree to demilitarization and recognize Israel as a Jewish state?'"

It's Time to Ignore Tom Friedman

Friedman's December 22 column, "It's Time for the U.S. to Give Israel Some Tough Love," is overflowing with his usual bad advice, such as the need for the U.S. "to tell Israel how to declare victory in Gaza and go home."

Few people are more devoted to the idea of a two-state solution than Thomas Friedman. He wants Israel to unilaterally withdraw from what he calls the "West Bank," but the lesson of October 7 is that Gaza was a de facto Palestinian state, and it devoted all of its resources to attacking Israel. If Friedman gets his way, the "West Bank" will become another Gaza.

The October 7 Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians opened the eyes of many a Palestinian sympathizer, awakening them to the horrors of their team. But not Thomas Friedman. The three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist still advises that a two-state solution is viable, still urges Israeli restraint, and still doesn't understand that he has never understood Hamas.

Here's better advice: it's time to stop listening to Tom Friedman, stop reading his column and his books, and stop taking his soft jihad against Israel seriously. For half a century, he has played the part of Middle East roving reporter, explaining every situation as though he were commander of all the moving parts and as though he alone knew the game plan. Enough.

IPT Senior Fellow A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum where he is also a Ginsberg-Milstein fellow.

Copyright © 2024. Investigative Project on Terrorism. All rights reserved.

Title: Qatari proposal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2024, 05:54:26 AM

second

https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4782496-israel-discusses-qatari-proposal-end-gaza-war?fbclid=IwAR1aSVF-CQ8AbU4at4FcrDLUyK09AnGvLxj1XjPBqA4dYyIxNFwEfvohu34

Title: Re: Tom Friedman's soft jihad against Israel.
Post by: DougMacG on January 12, 2024, 07:19:17 AM

It doesn't seem they mention that Bibi hater, Israel hater Thomas Friedman (from the old neighborhood) is Jewish.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman

Giving up reading him was one of the easiest things I ever did.

My first taste of AI was the Thomas Friedman column generator.  These are probably better than the real thing.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/create-your-own-thomas-friedman-op-ed-column
(The actual column generator seemed to disappear from the internet.)

What I don't get is how intelligent people (liberals) I know read the Times and cite it  like it is the publication I presume it once was. It makes them think but not think outside of their own box.

Title: The International Court of (In)Justice's Jihad & Genocidal Indifference
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 12, 2024, 02:26:09 PM

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-icjs-genocide-travesty?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR03jdgpxCLxI1064EzjLQWr24fymD857IspTRa2_QenZpriNmmPw7_NSa4

People are understandably reacting with astonishment and disgust to the obscene Soviet-style show trial now under way at the International Court of Justice in which Israel is being accused of genocide against the Arabs of Gaza.

It is indeed a surreal and Orwellian spectacle. Israel is the victim of attempted genocide by Hamas and its patron, Iran, which openly declare their intention to erase every Jew from the planet and wipe Israel off the map.

Israel has gone to war in Gaza solely to prevent the genocide of its people after the depraved atrocities of October 7 and the declared intention of Hamas to repeat these again and again until Israel ceases to exist. The destruction and suffering in Gaza are indeed distressing and regrettable; but that is the inevitable price to be paid even in a just war, waged as Israel is doing purely out of defensive necessity against a vicious and fanatical aggressor. As any country is entitled to do under international law, which Israel is following by the book.

Israel goes to greater lengths than any other country to reduce the number of civilian casualties among its enemy population. It does so even at the cost of its own soldiers and even where, as in Gaza, Hamas have deliberately sited their missiles and infrastructure of genocidal warfare among Gaza’s homes, hospitals and schools. They do this in order to cause civilians to die in large number, and thus provoke the world to blame Israel for taking the only available recourse to defend its people against mass murder.

This is the cynical strategy now being deployed at the ICJ’s kangaroo court in The Hague. The argument to which the ICJ — on past form — is likely to be all-too receptive effectively casts the attempted genocide by Hamas as self-defence and Israel’s defence against that murderous onslaught as “genocide”. 

The case would bring the ICJ into total disrepute if it actually had any reputation to defend. It does not. Despite its pretensions to being a court of law, it is in fact a theatre of partisan political activism. It squats at the vortex of the legal and moral black hole that is international “human rights” culture.

Laws draw their legitimacy from being passed by nations rooted in specific institutions, history and culture. Without the anchor of national jurisdiction, laws can turn into instruments of capricious political power.

The ICJ has no such national jurisdiction but is made up of many nations. That’s why, from its inception, it was in essence a political court. That’s why it’s an existential foe of Israel — the principal target of some of the world’s many human rights abusers, who have grasped that international law provides them with a potent weapon.

Along with other supposed progressives, western “human rights” lawyers have been notably subdued since the Hamas pogrom of October 7.  In that onslaught, Palestinian Arabs murdered, tortured, raped and beheaded more than 1200 Israeli victims and took 240 hostages, more than 130 of whom remain in Gaza’s underground dungeons and who are all too likely to be enduring horrific ill-treatment — those who are still alive.

“Human rights” lawyers maintain that international laws prohibiting genocide and crimes against humanity will hold war criminals and genocidists to account, and as a result will also help prevent such atrocities from taking place. The October 7 pogrom has exposed this core belief to be a murderous fantasy. 

International law did not deter Hamas then and clearly will not deter it from repeated onslaughts in future; nor will it deter Hezbollah, Iran or any other rogue actors intent upon perpetrating evil in the world. Instead, as we can all see from the black farce being staged at the ICJ, it is being used against the Israeli victims of genocide to accuse them falsely of the very crime to which they have been subjected — in order to give the genocidal aggressors of Hamas a free pass and help them in their goal of destroying the Jewish state.

Moreover, this grotesque moral inversion is hardly a surprise in the world of “human rights,” where Israeli culpability for “oppression” of the Palestinian Arabs is a given — along with the corresponding indulgence granted to those Arabs for their murderous attacks on Israelis which is deemed to be justified “resistance”.

Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, raged yesterday:

All the UN bodies and its institutions have become weapons against Israel in the hands of Hamas terrorists. How is it possible that the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide, which was adopted after the Holocaust, is currently being used in the UN against the Jewish state, while it is serving Hamas, which is working to destroy Israel?!

How indeed. I explained here in August 2019 how “human rights” law had become such a travesty of its foundational ideals. Reflecting on the silence of the international community over the war crimes being committed by terrorist groups in Gaza which were then firing thousands of rockets at Israel and launching aerial incendiary balloons in order to murder Israel civilians, I wrote:

The failure of the United Nations to enforce international law against such brazen aggressors indicates, however, something deeper than its endemic bias in favour of its non-aligned members and its resulting tendency to side with tyrannies and rogue regimes against those they want to destroy.

International human rights law was developed by people who were appalled by the world’s paralysis in the face of antisemitic pogroms in Eastern Europe, through which several of them lived, followed by the Nazi Holocaust.

As detailed in James Loeffler’s riveting and important book, Rooted Cosmopolitans: Jews and Human Rights in the Twentieth Century, Jewish lawyers, jurists and other activists sought to fashion international human-rights law into a defence mechanism to protect powerless minorities.

The process through which it became a weapon to be used against the Jewish people is, as Loeffler recounts, a tragic history.

At its heart lay a fatal contradiction. Activists such as Hersch Lauterpacht, an eminent British lawyer who had been born in Lvov, and oil tycoon Jacob Blaustein, the legendary head of the American Jewish Committee, thought the way to save Jews and others from oppression by dictatorial regimes was to use international law to trump national sovereignty by holding oppressors to account through international tribunals.

Others, however, such as the Lithuanian-born lawyer Jacob Robinson fruitlessly warned that for the Jewish people this was a trap. He understood it was only national sovereignty that would safeguard diaspora Jews. “The basic guarantee of Jewish freedom is the democracy of the country where the Jews live,” he maintained.

He also understood that, by superseding national sovereignty, the universalist doctrine of human rights was innately hostile to Jewish particularism as expressed through the Zionist dream of recovering the Jewish national homeland.

As Loeffler relates, this fundamental flaw inevitably turned the United Nations – the designated vehicle of international human rights – into a mortal enemy of Zionism and the Jewish people.

In 1960 the Soviet Union, recognising the opportunities offered to it by “decolonisation” around the world, pushed through the United Nations a resolution that effectively turned international human rights from being a check on state power into a vehicle for anti-colonial nationalism, positioning the USSR as the leader of the global anti-colonialist movement.

This paved the way for what was described as “an all-out assault on Israel based on the theme of anti-colonialism”. In 1962, after an epidemic of swastikas appeared across Europe, an attempt to include antisemitism in the new UN anti-racism law was rebuffed by freshly independent African and Arab states.

These denounced “Zionist expansionism” as the antithesis of human rights and declared that any talk of antisemitism was a Zionist plot.

The stage was set for the increasing demonisation of Israel tied to the dominance of international human rights doctrine, marked by the milestone 1975 UN resolution declaring “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

The world body turned into this Orwellian weapon against justice and the innocent because the pioneers of international human rights law got a number of crucial things badly wrong.

They failed to grasp that the world was mainly composed of tyrannies, that these would therefore dominate the United Nations, and that antisemitism was a unique phenomenon that would never be eradicated.

They failed to grasp that the uniquely particularist Jewish people would always be in the crosshairs of a universalist ideology such as international human rights.

They failed to grasp that the key factor in any fight against tyranny or antisemitism is the will to engage in such a fight. Absent that, human rights law is worse than useless; it provides an alibi for indifference and hands evil people a lethal weapon to use against the innocent.

In other words, the foundational ideas of international human rights law have themselves acted as an incendiary balloon. They have created a global scorched wasteland of innumerable innocent victims before deflating into useless detritus, which remains unnoticed by those still blinded by a naive and self-destructive ideal.

No wonder “human rights” lawyers and activists are now so silent. The savage butchery of Israelis by Hamas, the dehumanisation of those Jewish victims by western “progressives” and now the grotesque show trial to which Israel is being subjected for trying to protect its people from further genocidal attack all constitute indeed a scorched moral wasteland to which “human rights” culture has reduced the once-civilised world. 

Title: Life is shorter when you are stupid.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2024, 11:32:16 AM

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-two-palestinians-who-broke-through-west-bank-roadblock-fired-at-troops-were-shot-dead/?fbclid=IwAR1a89M_edJC6e1TOhT49vu9uTTZD3F6B3Q0_QZ7rkH7WX5zaTt4AtnzXU0

Title: Heh heh,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 15, 2024, 09:04:59 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=p8gaEGSCAJc&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.paragonpride.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo

Title: 10/7 footage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 15, 2024, 05:03:24 PM

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/how-magazine-bans-thwart-self-defense/

Title: MSNBC morning Joe and Andrea Mitchell
Post by: ccp on January 18, 2024, 09:24:06 AM

It is all Netanyahu's fault they claim
Funny, not once during this rant the was the word "Hamas" said even once !!!!!

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/andrea-mitchell-frustrating-is-mounting-between-biden-and-netanyahu-202267205905

Title: How the Palestinians took over the world
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2024, 05:28:03 AM

https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/columnist/365220/the-inside-story-of-how-palestinians-took-over-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR24_7g4RmS2UAnVwuPJw1eq-gznpeReH4TSlVVJFXRzTsHZYB-8mE56Y_w

Title: Wherever Palistinians go , , , and the Grand Mufti
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 21, 2024, 09:23:13 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK_AUVlj5L4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JBHZo4--Ls

Title: Einsatzgruppen to Hamasholes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2024, 02:33:17 PM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20338/ss-einsatzgruppen-to-hamas

Title: Gaza's "civilian" deaths
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2024, 03:33:31 PM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20343/gaza-civilian-deaths

Title: IJC Screws the Pooch
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 29, 2024, 06:02:28 AM

Just Security has surprised me several times lately. Generally a neocon/left wing/Never Trump site that predictably if sometimes tepidly supports “Progressive” causes, here it lays bare the folly of any org, including the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide as it pursues Hamas in Gaza:

https://www.justsecurity.org/91517/why-the-icj-ruling-misses-the-mark-mitigating-civilian-harm-with-an-enemy-engaged-in-human-shielding/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-the-icj-ruling-misses-the-mark-mitigating-civilian-harm-with-an-enemy-engaged-in-human-shielding

Title: Israeli SF Disguised as Medical Staff Dispatch Hamas Leader …
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on January 30, 2024, 02:48:10 PM

… in a West Bank hospital. Don’tcha love a happy ending?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/israel-eliminates-hamas-terrorists-plotting-october-7-style-attack-while-hiding-inside-a-west-bank-hospital/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=israel-eliminates-hamas-terrorists-plotting-october-7-style-attack-while-hiding-inside-a-west-bank-hospital

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on January 30, 2024, 03:28:27 PM

not clear were they men dressed as women or women dressed as men?

 :-o

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2024, 04:09:37 PM

What do you think we are, biologists?

Title: Blinks et al. wants to "recognize" a Palestinian state
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2024, 10:51:35 AM

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/31/palestine-statehood-biden-israel-gaza-war

he is just soooo righteous. 

Title: Hamas propaganda
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2024, 03:17:16 PM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752941663046296053

Title: A major and serious panel conversation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2024, 08:54:07 AM

This convo is among people far more knowledgeable than I but I do quibble that the variable of the 600,000 or so Jews who fled Arab lands to go to Israel is quite understated here.  That said, this is a serious panel conversation:

===============================================================

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/01/magazine/israel-founding-palestinian-conflict.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Sk0.Y46T.1iog1xghysn7&bgrp=g&smid=url-share

‘The British mandate completely thwarted the possibility of a common notion of citizenship.’

— Salim Tamari, sociologist at Birzeit University in the West Bank
‘This is a national conflict with religious elements. It’s much more complicated than just ‘‘us against them.’’ ’

— Abigail Jacobson, history professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
‘I don’t think the Palestinians figure that they will have to pay for the Holocaust. Yet the world sees this as an acceptable equation.’

— Leena Dallasheh, historian working on a book about the city of Nazareth
‘As one friend of mine told me, after the war many Jewish survivors simply wanted to live with other Jews.’

— Derek Penslar, history professor at Harvard University
‘Since December 1947, no one in my family has entered our home in Jerusalem.’

— Nadim Bawalsa, historian and associate editor for The Journal of Palestine Studies
‘When you analyze the reasons for the Israeli success in the 1948 war, inter-Arab politics played a major role.’

— Itamar Rabinovich, history professor at Tel Aviv University


The Road to 1948

How the decisions that led to the founding of Israel left the region in a state of eternal conflict.
A discussion moderated by Emily Bazelon
Feb. 1, 2024
Share free access


895
One year matters more than any other for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 1948, Jews realized their wildly improbable dream of a state, and Palestinians experienced the mass flight and expulsion called the Nakba, or catastrophe. The events are burned into the collective memories of these two peoples — often in diametrically opposed ways — and continue to shape their trajectories.

If 1948 was the beginning of an era, it was also the end of one — the period following World War I, when the West carved up the Middle East and a series of decisions planted the seeds of conflict. To understand the continuing clashes, we went back to explore the twists and turns that led to 1948. This path could begin at any number of moments; we chose as the starting point 1920, when the British mandate for Palestine was established.



The Old City in Jerusalem in the early 1900s. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress
Over the following decades, two nationalisms, Palestinian and Jewish, took root on the same land and began to compete in a way that has ever since proved irreconcilable. The Arab population wanted what every native majority wants — self-determination. Jews who immigrated in growing numbers wanted what persecuted minorities almost never attain — a haven, in their ancient homeland,1
1A primary source dates the existence of a people called Israel to at least 1200 B.C. In 538 B.C., Jews built the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The Romans took the city in 70 A.D., destroying most of it, and Jews began to flee. Christians became the majority around 400 A.D. Muslims conquered Jerusalem by 638 A.D.
from the hatred and danger they faced around the world.

In the time of the British mandate, Jews and Palestinians, and Western and Arab powers, made fundamental choices that set the groundwork for the suffering and irresolution of today. Along the way, there were many opportunities for events to play out differently. We asked a panel of historians — three Palestinians, two Israelis and a Canadian American — to talk about the decisive moments leading up to the founding of Israel and the displacement of Palestinians and whether a different outcome could have been possible.

The conversation among the panelists, which took place by video conference on Jan. 3, has been edited and condensed for clarity, with some material reordered or added from follow-up interviews.

PART I: WHAT WAS THE BRITISH MANDATE?


Palestinians harvesting oranges in Jaffa during the British mandate. Khalil Raad, via the Institute for Palestine Studies


Degania Aleph, the first kibbutz, in 1912. Yaakov Ben Dov


Delegates to the third Palestinian Arab Congress in 1920. Haj Amin al-Husseini, third from the right in the last row, became the grand mufti of Jerusalem. Institute for Palestine Studies


An anti-Zionist demonstration at Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, on March 8, 1920. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress



For centuries, Palestine was an Ottoman province with no clear boundaries.2
2Palestine sometimes meant a narrow strip of coast occupied by the Philistines in the 12th century B.C. but at other times referred to a larger territory that included southern Syria.
Muslims were the majority, living alongside small Christian and Jewish communities. The Jews were almost entirely Sephardic and native to the region, with few nationalist aspirations.

The relationships among Muslims, Christians and Jews began to shift in the beginning of the 20th century as a group of young socialist revolutionaries — including founders of the future state of Israel, like David Ben-Gurion — immigrated in waves from Russia and Eastern Europe. Fleeing ghettos, impoverishment and the violence of pogroms, they believed that the only answer to the global affliction of antisemitism was Zionism3
3

Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist, founded the Zionist Organization in 1897. It held international meetings, published a newspaper and created a bank.
— the vision of a Jewish home in the land of the Hebrew Bible.

The Allied powers of the West defeated the Ottomans during World War I. Afterward, one of the first big tests for the League of Nations, established by the Allies as a worldwide body of governments, was to decide the future of Palestine. The league carved up4
4The new borders were the same as those drawn in a secret deal the British and French made in 1916 called the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
the former Ottoman lands, granting Britain two mandates to govern Palestine and Iraq and giving France one mandate for Syria and Lebanon. In the language of soft colonialism, the league’s charter directed Britain and France to govern the territories for the well-being of their inhabitants “until such time as they are able to stand alone.”

The mandate for Palestine, written in 1920, stood out for its international commitment to “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

Emily Bazelon: Why is 1920 a good place to start the story of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians?

Leena Dallasheh: The British mandate was crucial in laying the grounds for the creation of the state of Israel and the prevention of the creation of a Palestinian state. Zionism was only able to take root in Palestine because the mandate recognized Zionist organizations as representative of the Jewish population and as self-governing institutions, basically creating the structure of a quasi state. It did this by incorporating in its text the Balfour Declaration,5
5The Balfour Declaration provided no guarantees but said the British would “view with favor” establishing a national home for Jews in Palestine. It was a response to lobbying by leaders like Chaim Weizmann, then president of the British Zionist Federation.
which the British issued in 1917.

The mandate did not similarly recognize Palestinian organizations or representation. The majority, the Palestinians, were only mentioned in the negative, as “non-Jewish communities” given civil and religious rights. That meant the Palestinians were trapped, as the Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi says, in an iron cage.6
6In his book “The Iron Cage,” Khalidi argues that Palestinians felt they could not accept the mandate “without denying their own rights, their own national narrative and the evidence of their own eyes, which told them that Palestine was an Arab country and belonged to them, and to them alone.”
The structure of the mandate prevented them from being able to have national rights or sovereignty. And that set in motion the developments in 1948 and after.

Salim Tamari: The mandate period completely thwarted the possibility of a common notion of citizenship. There was a period, at the end of the Ottoman era, when the new Constitution was adopted in 1908, establishing equal citizenship for all Ottoman subjects, instead of dividing Muslims from non-Muslims. Language was a very important articulator of national identity. Arabic was not only the language of the Muslims and Christians but the language of the Jews — the language of the land. The British framework changed all of that, creating three official languages, English, Hebrew and Arabic.

Itamar Rabinovich: The British made a lot of contradictory promises during the war. To persuade the Arabs to rebel against the Ottomans, they promised Hussein ibn Ali, the sharif of Mecca, who was from an important Hashemite family, a very large kingdom.7
7

In 1921, the British made one son of the sharif, Faisal Al-Hashemi, king of Iraq. For another son, Abdullah, the British government created an emirate in 1921 in what was then called Transjordan (later, Jordan, with Abdullah as king).
But they also promised to divide up the land with France and issued the Balfour Declaration. At the end of war, they had to reckon with these contradictory promises.

It’s the mandate that creates the political entity called Palestine. Before that, it was a geographic term. And the conflict between Zionism and Palestinian Arab nationalism was over the question of what would be the nature of this entity — an Arab state, a Jewish state, a binational state or partition?

In 1920, we speak about Jews and Arabs. It’s only in 1948 that the Arabs become Palestinians and the Jews become Israelis.

Dallasheh: I don’t agree with that. The research has been quite extensive and shows that there is clear expression of Palestinian identity already by World War I, and definitely clear expressions of Palestinian nationalism in the 1920s.

In 1920, in fact, one of the first mass violent outbursts occurred during the Nebi Musa procession,8
8In April 1920, Muslim leaders made speeches denouncing the Balfour Declaration at an annual Muslim procession from Jerusalem to Nebi Musa, a shrine near Jericho. The event turned into a deadly riot, with five Jews and four Arabs killed.
where Palestinian national leadership objected to Zionist plans in Palestine.

Nadim Bawalsa: The mandate period sets a precedent for how Palestine will be handled at the international level, which is to say as an exception to the law. Britain started off as the military occupier of Palestine at the end of World War I and then unilaterally altered its own status to civil administrator, even though it didn’t have the power to do so under international law. The League of Nations then left it to the British authorities to manage Palestine however they saw fit.

Around the same time, local Muslim-Christian associations were springing up all over historic Palestine, in Haifa, Jaffa, Nablus, Jerusalem. They would convene regularly to draft grievances and submit them to the British authorities in Jerusalem.9
9The local associations convened a Palestine Arab Congress, which met between 1919 and 1928.
They always made the same demands: self-determination as part of an undivided Arab Syria and opposition to Jewish immigration and land acquisition.

So the British were very much aware of exactly what it was that the Arabs or the Palestinians wanted. But to serve their own interests, they pitted the Palestinians against one another. Right after the Nebi Musa riots, they sacked the mayor of Jerusalem and appointed Raghib al-Nashashibi in his place. He was of the Palestinian nationalist elite who opposed Zionism, but he was more obedient and agreeable to British interests. The British also created the Supreme Muslim Council to oversee Islamic property, endowments, schools and courts and appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini, from a rival elite family, to head the council as the grand mufti of Jerusalem.10
10

Al-Husseini was chosen for mufti by the British high commissioner of Palestine after he stated his “earnest desire to cooperate with the government and his belief in the good intentions of the British government towards the Arabs,” according to Rashid Khalidi. A mufti can issue rulings based on Islamic law.
He was seen as more of a people’s leader, but he also collaborated with the British. The point is that during the 1920s and early ’30s, Palestinian nationalists could oppose Zionism all they wanted so long as they didn’t get in the way of Britain’s goals.

And of course, all of this falls short of actually giving the Palestinians national and territorial rights.

Derek Penslar: Many Zionists wanted to believe that they represented progress — they would come with their technology and electricity, with better farm machinery, and improve everyone’s lives. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, whose version of Zionism was the precursor to Likud, the party of Benjamin Netanyahu, had a more realistic vision. He said: Don’t condescend to the Arabs. They have every reason to oppose Zionism, and they will do so, until they are met with overwhelming force.11
11

In his 1923 essay “The Iron Wall,” Jabotinsky wrote, “As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people.”


Rabinovich: In 1923, the British offered to have a legislative council in which the Arabs would have had a larger share than the Jews, but they boycotted the elections for it. And this is a theme I think that we need to follow all the way from 1920 to 1948 — the theme of missed opportunities, mostly by the Palestinians.

Dallasheh: This council12
12The British planned a council with 22 members, including 10 British officials and two Jewish and two Christian seats, according to the historian Nimrod Lin. The British proposed councils at future points in the mandate period. Jews asked for parity with Arabs rather than proportional representation, and no council was formed.
was not supposed to be proportional or truly representative. The Zionist movement was never willing to accept that because until 1948, any such voting body would have meant a decisive Palestinian majority.

PART II: REVOLT


Jewish families fleeing the Old City during the 1929 unrest. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress


In 1929, Jews desecrated graves in the Nebi Akasha Mosque in Jerusalem. Sepia Times/Universal Images Group, via Getty Images


In 1929, Arabs desecrated the Avraham Avinu Synagogue in Hebron. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress


British troops marching in Jerusalem to quell the 1929 unrest. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress


A rally of Palestinians during the Arab revolt of 1936-39. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress



In 1929, Palestinians rebelled. Violence first broke out over control of the holy sites in Jerusalem and spread to cities including Hebron and Safed, where Arabs massacred Jews. As Palestinian uprisings continued for a decade, the main sources of tension became the mandate policies that allowed for increasing Jewish immigration and land purchases. The mounting frustration among Palestinian farmers and laborers pressured elite nationalist leaders to finally challenge British rule directly.

Amid the violence, Sephardic Jews, who had often been critical of Zionism for dividing Jews from Arabs, moved toward the Zionists, drawn by the need for self-defense against Arabs who had begun attacking them. As the Nazis took power, meanwhile, rising antisemitism in Europe spurred the mass flight of Jews and the Zionist call to gather them in Palestine. As Jewish immigration rose, so did Palestinian opposition to it.

Penslar: The historian Hillel Cohen calls 1929 Year 0 in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This part of the story begins in Jerusalem and in particular the small area known as the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif, with the al-Aqsa Mosque (the Dome of the Rock) and, below the Mount, the Western Wall. The 1929 disturbances began over a dispute in the previous year over something that seemed small — whether Jews had rights to install a screen at the Western Wall to separate men and women praying.

But there were also rumors that Jews were attempting to buy up the Temple Mount and would even destroy it. This notion that al-Aqsa is in danger — a slogan we still hear — goes back to this time. For years, stories circulated about pictures of the Dome of the Rock with a menorah or a Star of David above it. Muslims thought this meant that the Jews were planning to take over the Temple Mount. It’s true that there were attempts by Jews to purchase land in the Western Wall compound, though not to acquire the Temple Mount. The whole thing failed. But the point is the combination of religious and nationalist sentiments. One cannot separate the two.

Tamari: The 1929 clashes were clashes over turf. They took the form of a religious conflict, but behind that lurked the land question.13
13Despite the Palestinian nationalist opposition to land sales, landowners continued to sell to Zionist organizations for profit. “Oof, what can we do?” a journalist and activist, Akram Zu’itar, wrote in his diary, according to the book “Army of Shadows,” by Hillel Cohen. “A member of the Supreme Muslim Council sells land to the Jews and remains a respected personage.”


The Zionists also had a principle of hiring Hebrew labor, at the exclusion of Arab labor. The idea that Jews would work the land was central to a new Jewish identity different from the intellectual or businessman of the diaspora. The Zionists also didn’t want to be the colonial masters of the Palestinians by employing them. In order to “not exploit the Arabs,” they expelled them from the land, and that of course led to immediate clashes with the farmers.

Rabinovich: It’s also significant that Sephardic Jews in Hebron and other cities were killed by their Arab neighbors. They thought that they would be a bridge between Jews and Arabs. They ended up being victims in 1929.

Abigail Jacobson: The Jews from the Middle East, feeling connected to Arab culture and language, often sought to mediate between Zionist leaders and the Palestinians. For example, they were hired to teach Arabic and to write and translate articles from the Arabic press, about what was happening among the Arabs, for Hebrew-language newspapers.

Often, we think about the history of the mandate through points of violence. It’s also important to remember that there were peaceful periods in between those moments when people shopped together, sat in cafes, lived alongside each other.

Bazelon: In the in-between times, what happens?

Rabinovich: One answer is about the power of building the institutions of a state. The Jewish community in Palestine did this very successfully in the 1920s and much more so in the ’30s, as large waves14
14Jewish immigration increased from a high of 6,000 per year in the 1920s to as many as 60,000 annually between 1933 and 1936. Most of these immigrants fled instability in Poland. Others left Germany because of the rise of the Nazis. The Jewish share of the population in Palestine rose to about 30 percent of roughly 1.5 million in 1939 from about 10 percent of roughly 700,000 in 1920.
of Jewish immigrants arrived from Germany and Eastern Europe. They built an economic system, a health system and the Jewish Agency, which had practically the functions of a state in embryonic form. There is also the project of setting the boundaries of the state by building kibbutzim in the north, sensing that as you settle the land, you establish the facts that eventually would lead to statehood in a given territory.

There was always the issue of how explicit the Jewish leadership wanted to be about their ultimate goal. They made efforts to negotiate with Arab leaders, not the mufti, but others, to see whether compromise was feasible.15
15

In 1934, Ben-Gurion went to see Musa Alami, a politician with ties to the al-Husseini family and the British. Ben-Gurion said that when he tried to persuade Alami that Zionism would benefit Palestinians, Alami responded, “I would rather have Palestine remain poor and barren for even 100 more years, until we, the Arabs, have the power ourselves to make it bloom and develop.”
The Jewish side did not say, “We want a state over the whole country.”

Dallasheh: To Palestinians, the problem is outsiders are coming in and saying, “We want to be the owners and leaders on land where Palestinians have been the majority for centuries.” As a significant percentage of Palestinians become landless, the tension comes to a head in 1936 with a six-month strike.

Bawalsa: This is the first mass popular uprising of the Palestinian people — the first proper intifada. It was led not by the nationalist elite in Jerusalem but by the fellahin, the farmers, in the countryside, who were the ones suffering from loss of land. Then the elite nationalists, including the mufti, jumped on the bandwagon. The lead-up to the revolt is also when the first armed resistance groups formed — chiefly the Qassamites,16
16They were named for Izz al-Din al-Qassam, a preacher in Haifa who urged Muslims that only their guns would save them from the British turning their land into a Jewish homeland.
who played a big role in the uprising.

Rabinovich: The Palestinians were also responding to developments in the region. The French signed a treaty for gradual independence in Syria and Lebanon in 1936. That same year, the British signed a treaty with Egypt. The Palestinian Arabs said that they were being left behind. And that was part of the bitterness that led to the 1936 revolt.

Dallasheh: 1936 was a clear shift in terms of the public demands of the Palestinians, which very clearly said we are opposed to both the British colonial structure and Zionism. But the Palestinian strike ended in October 1936 with the intervention of neighboring Arab countries — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Transjordan — which were still basically clients of the British colonial regime.

Penslar: By this point, the British were worrying about maintaining a strong relationship with the Arab world in the event of another world war. In 1936, the British sent the Peel Commission17
17

In hearings held by the Peel Commission in November 1936, the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann testified about the six million Jews of Europe, “for whom the world is divided into places where they cannot live and places where they cannot enter.” Al-Husseini continued demanding an end to Jewish immigration to Palestine.
to Palestine to investigate the causes of the Arab revolt and suggest a solution. The next year, the commission recommended partition, an idea the British had in mind from Ireland. Now it was officially on the table in Palestine. It was a complicated proposal: a Jewish state on 17 percent of the land, with Jerusalem and a zone to the sea remaining in British hands, and a Palestinian state on the rest of the territory, linked with Transjordan under King Abdullah, whom the British trusted much more than the mufti, al-Husseini.

The Zionists split over the proposal. Some said that a small state in part of Palestine would be constantly beleaguered and at war. More pragmatic Zionists accepted partition in principle but rejected the Peel Commission’s proposed boundaries because they made the Jewish state so small.

Palestinians rejected partition out of hand as a theft of Palestinian land and demanded that Palestine as a whole become an Arab state.

Dallasheh: With the failure of the Peel Commission, the Arab revolt breaks out into a full-on insurgency, which the British brutally crushed.

Bawalsa: This kind of British oppression hadn’t been seen before in Palestine. It included exiling nationalists and widespread detentions as well as torture and executions. British forces seized Palestinians’ property and demolished entire villages.

Jacobson: A lot of the Palestinian leadership ended up either leaving or being exiled, including al-Husseini.18
18He fled a British arrest warrant in 1937 and went to Lebanon and then Iraq.
When the revolt ended in 1939, the Palestinians were in a very weak position, economically and politically, with many of the internal fractures in the society between Muslims and Christians, and villagers and city dwellers, exposed.

Following the revolt, the Jews who were native to the Middle East went through a major shift, too. Some of the younger generation, for example, raised in the shadow of violence, now tried to position themselves as loyal to the Zionist movement and were recruited to do intelligence work for the Jewish paramilitary forces. They start using their common cultural identity and their language skills in Arabic for purposes of security.

Penslar: The Jewish defense forces grew between 1936 and 1939, with the Haganah as the primary militia. The Haganah collaborated with the British in suppressing the Palestinian revolt; this was important in strengthening the Haganah.

This process continued into the 1940s during the Second World War. The British, who have a long history of getting colonials to do their fighting for them, were quite happy to accept Jews into the ranks of the British Armed Forces. There were a fair number of Palestinians who joined as well — between 9,000 and 12,000 Palestinians fought for the Allied forces in World War II. The number of Jews from Palestine was about 30,000. Many Jews became lower-level officers during World War II, and they brought their new military expertise to the 1948 war.

PART III: THE PATH TO PARTITION


A British soldier guarding Palestinian prisoners in Jerusalem in the late 1930s. Fox Photos/Getty Images


In 1946, the Irgun, a Zionist paramilitary group, bombed British headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress


A British police officer searching a Jewish man in Jerusalem as the threat of World War II loomed. Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress


Women plowing fields on a kibbutz in 1935. Hulton Archive/Getty Images



The threat of World War II scrambled the geopolitics of the Middle East. To bolster support in the Arab world for the campaign against the Nazis and their allies, the British largely closed the gates of Palestine to Jewish refugees in 1939, at a time when they were also being turned away from the United States and other countries. Britain’s policy shift created an opportunity for leaders like al-Husseini to push for a representative legislative council, or an Arab Agency, like the Jewish Agency, that would provide an independent institution for their nationalist ambitions. But those leaders were weakened by British suppression19
19More than 10 percent of Palestinian men were “killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled” between 1936 and 1939, according to Rashid Khalidi. He writes that supporters of the Nashashibi family rooted out supporters of the al-Husseini family and were then killed in retaliation.
of the Arab revolts. Then the Holocaust scrambled everything once again.

Penslar: As the world headed toward the Second World War, in May 1939, the British promulgated a white paper, which proclaimed that a single state, which will have an Arab majority, will be established in Palestine. This represented a major shift toward the Palestinians. The white paper also effectively throttled Jewish immigration, which was always the single largest thorn of contention between Jews and Palestinians. If they ever agreed to joint administration of the land, who would decide yes or no on allowing Jewish immigration?

During the first couple of years of the war, the Jews of Palestine were absolutely terrified as the German forces marched across North Africa. We can’t understand the period of the Holocaust in Europe without also understanding the Jews’ sense of imminent destruction in Palestine. David Ben-Gurion, the chief Zionist leader in Palestine, said, “We shall fight in the war against Hitler as if there were no white paper, but we shall fight the white paper as if there were no war.”

In May 1942, Zionists held an emergency meeting in New York City at the Biltmore Hotel. A few months later, the scale of the Nazi genocide became clear. The reaction was public mourning and despair.

Bazelon: What were the Palestinian responses to World War II and the Holocaust?

Dallasheh: As Derek mentioned earlier, a significant number of Palestinians fought in the British Army against the Nazis. But the mufti made a visit to Hitler, which is often used against the Palestinians.20
20

Al-Husseini aided a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad. When it failed, he fled to Berlin. His meeting in 1941 with Hitler was captured in a propaganda reel. Hitler told him that the “struggle against a Jewish homeland in Palestine” would be part of the Nazi campaign against the Jews.
He basically followed a simple yet morally and politically questionable philosophy: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In siding with Hitler, the mufti was not representative of the Palestinian community. Many people rejected Nazism.21
21In his book “The Arabs and the Holocaust,” Gilbert Achcar notes articles in the Arab press that denounced Nazi brutality and fascism.


Tamari: By allying with Hitler, the mufti completely undermined himself with the British and with the European states.

Rabinovich: At the end of the war, the question is, Whose side were you on? He made a bet on Hitler, and he lost. He could not go back to Palestine as a result, even though he remained the most important Palestinian leader. When you look at sources of strengths and weaknesses for Palestinians, the mufti at that point is a deficit.

Penslar: Counterintuitively, the Holocaust both justified and weakened the case for the creation of Israel. The whole purpose of Zionism, at least as it was presented to the international community, was to establish a place for Jews who are refugees. Early in the war, the idea was that millions of Jews would survive in Europe, impoverished and persecuted, and they would need a place to go. At the end of the war, two-thirds of those Jews have been slaughtered. So where was the reservoir of Jewish humanity that would come to this future Jewish state?

There were still hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors in Europe who needed a home. But the focus also grew to include the persecution of Jews in Middle Eastern countries. There were about a million of them, and their situation was also precarious. In other words, the Zionists retooled.

PART IV: THE U.N. PLAN


Jewish refugees in Haifa awaiting deportation to Cyprus by British authorities in 1947. Hans Pinn/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


The Palestinian militia leader Abd al-Qadir al-Husseini with officers on the day he was killed, April 8, 1948. Chalil Rissas


Jewish children rescued from Auschwitz arriving in Haifa in 1945. Zoltan Kluger/GPO, via Getty Images


Palestinian bombers destroyed buildings on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem in March 1948. Hugo H. Mendelsohn/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


Refugees leaving Jenin, in the West Bank, in 1948. John Phillips/The LIFE Picture Collection, via Shutterstock



In the wake of World War II, it was the Zionists who took up arms against the British, who were intercepting ships filled with Jews displaced by the Holocaust. Zionist militias first blew up railways and bridges but escalated to killing British soldiers. To quell the violence, the British arrested more than 2,700 Jewish political leaders and fighters. But when the attacks became more deadly,22
22In July 1946, bombs planted by the Irgun, a Zionist guerrilla group, killed 91 people at British headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion and others condemned the attack, and the Irgun went underground.
the British planned to leave Palestine.

In February 1947, the government announced that it wanted to end the mandate, submitting what it called “the problem of Palestine” to the United Nations, established two years earlier as the successor to the League of Nations. The U.N. set up the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), asking it to recommend a solution. The future of the land and its peoples — at this point, about 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Palestinians — was back in international hands.

Bazelon: In the summer of 1947, the UNSCOP delegates, who were from 11 countries, traveled to Palestine, held hearings and then recommended a partition plan with two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. The U.N. General Assembly adopted the plan by a vote of 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions in November. Why did partition gain support?

Rabinovich: If you ask yourself how the state of Israel was created, one answer is that it had a leader — Ben-Gurion — who wanted statehood at any cost and knew how to get there. Another answer is that the world felt that it owed the Jewish people after the Holocaust. The basic argument of Zionism — that the Jews are not safe — was vindicated by the death of six million.

Dallasheh: I think there is a need to be very critical of this idea of the world owing Jews, because, yes, the world owed Jews. The Holocaust was a horrible massacre committed by Europeans and witnessed and not responded to by the U.S. and others. But I don’t think the Palestinians figure that they will have to pay for it in 1946 and ’47.

Yet the world sees this as an acceptable equation. Orientalism and colonial ideology were very much at the heart of thinking that while we Europeans and the U.S. were part of this massive human tragedy, we are going to fix it at the expense of someone else. And the someone else is not important because they’re Arabs, they’re Palestinians and thus constructed as backward, as not important, as people who do not have rights, as people whose catastrophe subsequently becomes insignificant.

It is important to highlight that this narrative is structured precisely by the rejection of Palestinian humanity that continues to be a part of the discourse in some circles today.



The United Nations partition plan, 1947. United Nations
Tamari: Sending the Jewish refugees to Palestine was a byproduct of European guilt, but a hypocritical kind of guilt because they did not want to bear the social and economic cost of absorbing the refugees themselves. The vast majority of Jewish refugees who came were not Zionists. They did not have a choice about where to go.

Penslar: It’s true that European countries did not want Jews to come back, and those who returned to Poland were persecuted and even killed. The U.S. would only take a portion of them.

A small minority of Jews who left the displaced-persons camps for Israel tried very hard to get to the U.S. But the dominant sentiment of the refugees was in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. One did not have to be ideologically Zionist to feel this way. As one friend of mine who lost her parents in the Holocaust told me, after the war many Jewish survivors simply wanted to live with other Jews.

Bazelon: Was the Holocaust the deciding factor in UNSCOP’s recommendation of partition?23
23The Zionists made sure that the UNSCOP delegates would see for themselves the dilemma for Holocaust survivors by bringing members to witness the arrival in Haifa of the Exodus 1947, a ship carrying 4,515 Jewish refugees from Europe. British war boats surrounded the ship, and three people onboard were killed.


Penslar: The Holocaust was actually not in UNSCOP’s brief. The delegates were specifically told: Here’s the problem. There are two communities, Jewish and Arab, in Palestine, and they are at each other’s throats. The British have thrown the Palestine question into the lap of the U.N. for that reason and also because Jewish guerrillas were killing their soldiers. Neither the British nor UNSCOP were thinking primarily about the Holocaust. They were thinking about what to do on the ground in Palestine.

There were two representatives from countries with large Muslim populations on UNSCOP: India and Iran. There were representatives who were sympathetic to Zionism and many who were not. When you read the transcripts of the meetings of this committee, you see that they were profoundly aware of the Palestinian as well as the Jewish viewpoint. Although the official Palestinian position was to boycott24
24The mufti instructed Palestinian nationalist leaders from Cairo, where he went after the war, not to cooperate with UNSCOP. He and other leaders saw the U.N. as an illegitimate institution, dominated by colonial powers.
the committee, its members spoke with Palestinians25
25

UNSCOP delegates, for example, privately met with the former mayor of Jerusalem, Hussein al-Khalidi (a relative of Rashid Khalidi, the historian).
and representatives from throughout the Arab world. The committee members knew very well that the Palestinians thought they should not pay the price for the Europeans’ outrageous antisemitism. The committee was faced with three choices: a unitary state in which the Jews would be dominated, a federated state or confederation, which is what India and Iran and Yugoslavia wanted, or partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The majority of the committee rejected the first option as unjust and the second option as unworkable. That left the third — partition.

UNSCOP considered it to be the least bad option. They did the best they could under terrible circumstances.

Rabinovich: To win votes in the U.N., there was a huge diplomatic effort by the Zionist movement, pre-state Israel, all the way from European countries to Latin America. They were very skillful at finding individuals who had relationships that could help them, like Eddie Jacobson, an American Jew who owned a haberdashery store with President Truman years earlier and helped the Zionists make their case to his friend the president in 1948. There are streets in Israel named after the foreign minister in Guatemala, Jorge García Granados, who organized a bloc of Latin American ambassadors to the U.N. to vote for partition.

Tamari: The Truman administration used very strong tactics to bring together many states. And by that time the Arabs were helpless to oppose this plan. Remember that the Palestinian militias and fighters who were involved in the rebellion in 1936 to ’39 were substantially disarmed, and the leadership continued to be exiled in 1947 and ’48.

The British were largely complicit in the Arab defeat. When the war started26
26After the U.N. vote on partition in November 1947, in the months before British withdrawal in May 1948, civil war, in effect, broke out between Jews and Palestinians.
at the end of 1947 between the Zionist forces and the Palestinians, the Arab Palestinians were not able to confront the new situation. It was an extremely unequal fight, and this is often forgotten in discussing the nature of the 1948 war.

Bazelon: Ben-Gurion accepted the 1947 partition plan on behalf of the Jewish community. Palestinian leaders rejected it.27
27According to the 2019 documentary “Tangled Roots,” Zalman Shazar, a Zionist author who became president of Israel, said of partition that “a nation that aspires to a life chooses independence and compromiseson territory.” Al-Husseini, by contrast, said that “a nation that aspires to a life does not accept the partition of its homeland.”
Why?

Jacobson: It’s often argued against the Palestinians, How come you didn’t accept partition? But it’s important not to read history retrospectively. When you look at the demographic realities of 1947 and the division of the land, it was 55 percent for the Jewish state and 45 percent for the Palestinian state even though there were double the number of Palestinians as Jews at that point. If you were a Palestinian in 1947, would you accept this offer? One needs to remember, of course, that the Palestinian national movement was ready to accept the Jews as a minority within an Arab state.

Tamari: Partition was certainly rejected by much of the Palestinian leadership, but there was no plebiscite for the people. They were not asked whether they wanted to have their own state, two states or no state. And within the Palestinian community there were two important forces, constituting at least half the Palestinian political class, which were leaning in favor of the partition. The Defense Party, headed by the Nashashibi family, saw partition as the least-bad option. The Palestinian federation of labor, which was a social democratic organization comprising the bulk of the labor movement, had two wings. One was allied with the British Labor Party and the second with the Communist Party, which followed the Soviet position in favor of partition.

Bazelon: At the end of 1947, as fighting escalated, Palestinians streamed across the partition borders, leaving the Jewish state. For decades, the Zionist narrative was that Palestinians left their homes at the urging of Arab governments, which promised they could return after a successful invasion. Arab scholars said this was false. Since 1988, Israeli academics28
28The Israeli historian Benny Morris showed that the evidence suggested Israel bore responsibility for expulsions and mass flight as a result of the war. Other so-called New Historians have contributed revisionist scholarship about 1947 and 1948.
have also written a lot about the flight and forced expulsion of the Nakba, as it’s called. How did it happen?

Bawalsa: Maybe it would be helpful if I shared my family’s story of fleeing Jerusalem in December 1947. In any war, you do your best to avoid putting yourself and your children in harm’s way. My mother’s family from Jerusalem left their home in Talbiya, in what is today West Jerusalem, and went to Cairo where they had family. They went just thinking that they would wait it out.

But in the early months of 1948, Zionist forces terrorized Palestinians. They massacred more than a hundred people in the village of Deir Yassin.29
29In April 1948, Jewish paramilitary groups killed more than a hundred of the roughly 600 residents of the village Deir Yassin, including whole families.
They destroyed Qatamon, an affluent Palestinian neighborhood near Talbiya, where many friends of my grandparents lived. There were very intense intimidation campaigns. A couple of months ago, my mother heard on the news that some of the radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank were dropping fliers in Palestinian villages and towns telling people to leave, to go to Jordan or face another Nakba. She was shaken because it reminded her of stories her parents told about Zionists using the radio or loudspeakers to threaten Palestinians to leave Jerusalem or their fate would be similar to Deir Yassin.

My grandparents didn’t expect to stay in Cairo. But since December 1947, no one in my family has entered our home in Jerusalem. My grandparents were able to briefly return to Palestine with their children to live with my grandmother’s family in Ramallah during the period of Jordanian rule until 1967,30
30From the end of the 1948 war to 1967, Jordan controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
but they were not allowed to go to the west side of Jerusalem. Following 1967, we’ve only been able to go back as U.S. citizens — tourists.

Dallasheh: Deir Yassin becomes a focal point. A few survivors were put on a truck and paraded around Jerusalem, and the terror factor is significant in causing people to flee.

Plan Dalet31
31The Haganah finalized this plan in March 1948 to take control of Palestinian towns and villages within the territory of the Jewish state as defined by the U.N. partition plan. If Palestinians resisted, they were to be expelled outside the proposed borders, the plan said.
in 1948 is also one of the most controversial aspects of the war. It was a military plan that mentioned expelling the population of Palestinian towns and villages along roads that the Haganah, the Jewish defense force, was trying to control. It’s the one document that offers a kind of blueprint for expulsion, and people argue over whether it was in fact a blueprint. But to me, it’s only one factor among many that leads to the conclusion that Israel caused the crisis of Palestinian refugees, including preventing their return.

Rabinovich: Atrocities were perpetrated on both sides,32
32In April 1948, for example, Palestinian militia forces attacked a convoy of ambulances and supply trucks headed to Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, shooting to death nearly 80 of the passengers, who were doctors, nurses, medial students and professors.
just to remember that.

Penslar: Public memory is still not resolved about the nature of the Palestinian flight and dispossession. The Haganah itself, at the end of June 1948, produced a document saying that the most important reason for the flight was Israeli military action. They didn’t hide this. The document is available online in Hebrew and in English.

This question really shouldn’t be a subject of ongoing debates. But it is because for many people who are attached to Israel, it’s hard to confront the fact that Palestinians were forcibly dispossessed.33
33Issues like these have been especially divisive at some U.S. universities since the Hamas attack on Israel of Oct. 7. Three critics of Harvard since then — the former Harvard president Larry Summers, the hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and Representative Elise Stefanik — criticized the university’s choice of Penslar to co-chair a Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Semitism. Summers said that he “publicly minimized Harvard’s anti-Semitism problem.” In response, the Association for Israel Studies and the American Academy for Jewish Research expressed support for Penslar, and more than 400 scholars of Jewish, Israel, antisemitism and Holocaust studies have signed a letter praising Penslar as “perfectly suited” to lead the task force.


PART V: THE LEGACY OF 1948


Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (foreground, second from left) seeing off the last British troops in July 1948. Bettmann/Getty Images


A Palestinian refugee cut off from her home by the border established after the 1948 war. United Nations


Jewish refugees from Iraq arriving at Tel Aviv’s Lod Airport in 1951. Ruth Orkin


Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in 1949. United Nations


A kindergarten protected by sandbags in 1953, in Kibbutz Eyal in northern Israel. David Seymour/Magnum Photos


In 1952, an estimated 6,000 Palestinian refugees lived in the Nahr el Bared camp in Lebanon. S. Madver/UNRWA



On May 14, 1948, Israel declared itself a state. The next day, the British began leaving, and Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq attacked the new state, later joined by Jordan. The internal battle between Israelis and Palestinians became a regional war. Israel fought for its survival, and the Arab countries said they were fighting to liberate Palestine. But they did not effectively deliver on their promises of military and economic support to the Palestinians.

Bazelon: How did the Israeli military win the war?

Tamari: I think the Arab defeat was almost a foregone conclusion. The neighboring Arab states were still semi-protectorates under British or French control. The only real fighting forces at the time within Palestine were under the command of Abd al-Qadir al-Husseini34
34

He was from the same family as the mufti and had broad appeal among Palestinians. His death in battle in April 1948 was a major blow to the Palestinians.
and a small militia in Jaffa called al-Najjadah. The volunteers who came from Syria and Lebanon, the Arab Liberation Army, were confined to the Galilee. They were easily crushed by the Zionist forces despite heavy resistance.

Penslar: There are a couple of mythological narratives. One is the old narrative: The Zionists were badly armed, poorly trained, and it was just miraculous that they were able to defeat the Palestinians and then the Arab armies. But then there’s a counternarrative, which I think is also mythological, which we’ve heard a little bit today, which is that the Zionists crushed the Palestinians and the Arab armies, and it was inevitable that they would win.

But in fact, nobody fought well in 1948. The Arab states, for the most part, could not field effective armies. Jordan had a good army, but that was about it. The Zionist forces were not well armed. They were not that well trained.

Early in the war, the Palestinians actually had the upper hand. In the winter of 1948, they controlled the roads and rural areas. All the more so when the Arab-state armies invaded in May. The first month of fighting was very difficult for Israel, and it wasn’t clear they were going to survive.

It was only when the Zionist forces were extremely aggressive in the spring of 1948, and began dispossessing the Palestinians in earnest, that the Jewish defense forces gained the upper hand.35
35The Israeli Army destroyed about 400 to 500 Palestinian villages. All told, more than 700,000 people fled or were expelled in 1947 and 1948.


The rest of the war was very much in Israel’s hands. But there’s a difference between understanding how Israel was able to win the war and arguing that that victory was inevitable. It wasn’t.

Jacobson: We should remember that the Arab countries that invaded Palestine had their own interests as well. They were not there genuinely out of an interest to help and secure and support the Palestinians only.

Rabinovich: By now you have a system of Arab states, and it has a number of dividing lines. The most important one was the rivalry between the two Hashemite kingdoms — the ones created in the early 1920s in Iraq and Transjordan or Jordan — and the Egyptian-Saudi axis. When you look at the pattern of the war, you see how it plays out. King Abdullah of Jordan was the archenemy of the mufti, and in 1948 he played a dual role,36
36In his 1988 book “Collusion Across the Jordan,” the historian Avi Shlaim writes about secret negotiations in 1947 over partition between King Abdullah and Zionist representatives.
pushing for war while in practice accepting the U.N. partition plan.

But when war broke out in 1948, he saw his chance to occupy Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank so he could extend his emirate in the desert into a real kingdom.

The Egyptians were determined to deny that. At some point, an Egyptian military column moves north from Egypt through the Gaza Strip to 30 kilometers south of Tel Aviv in Ashdod. In military terms, they should have proceeded toward Tel Aviv. Instead, they take a right and go in the direction of Jerusalem, because they are worried that Abdullah, their rival in Arab politics, could take over. When you analyze the reasons for the Israeli success and the Palestinian Arab failure in the war, inter-Arab politics played a major role.

Bazelon: Before the war, there were around 500,000 Jews and 450,000 Palestinians on the 55 percent of the land that the U.N. designated for a Jewish state. When the war ended in July 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of the territory, and the population was mostly Jewish, with only 155,000 Palestinians. Around this time, hundreds of thousands of Jews came to Israel from countries with Muslim majorities, including Iraq, Yemen and Libya, some voluntarily and some because they were pushed out.

In other words, war, flights and expulsions transformed the demographics of Israel. What were the arguments about a Palestinian right to return after the war?

Penslar: As the war wore on, the Israeli government issued a decree not to allow the refugees to return. They did this for a variety of reasons, including fear that there would be militants among them and fear that the Palestinians would constitute a fifth column — civilians who would undermine national security.

Dallasheh: The Israeli authorities passed a law appropriating the property of people who left, destroyed their homes so they couldn’t return and used the stones to build new settlements. This was done with complete disregard for U.N. Resolution 194,37
37The resolution, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1948, said that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” It also said compensation should be paid for the loss or damage of property.
which provided for the right of return in 1948 to Palestinians who wished to go back, and in order to circumvent this possibility.

Bazelon: What other choices did the new government of Israel led by Ben-Gurion make that have an impact today? Were there other, perhaps better, alternatives?

Rabinovich: I wrote a book called “The Road Not Taken.” It deals with the question of why the war did not end in a peace agreement. I would say Ben-Gurion’s logic, and I’m not justifying or denouncing it, but his logic was there was a partition plan. We accepted it, they rejected it, they fought against us. The Arab states invaded us. We barely survived. And therefore, at the end of the war we want more territory and fewer Arabs.

Jacobson: Following partition, there were different paths that could have been taken. The Palestinian Communists were a very small group, but visionary. Together with the Jewish Communist Party, they did accept the partition plan.

The 155,000 Palestinian citizens who remained in Israel following the war were granted citizenship but also placed under military rule38
38Palestinians in Israel had a right to vote beginning in 1949. But military rule subjected them to curfews and restricted them from moving freely or holding political meetings. They could be detained or deported for breaking the rules.
until December 1966. This was an extremely traumatic period for the Palestinians, given the restrictions on their civil and political rights, and it is still very much present in the national memory of Palestinian citizens in Israel. In the Jewish Israelis’ memory, on the other hand, this period was pretty much erased. The exception is the Kafr Qasim massacre39
39On the eve of a military campaign in the Sinai Peninsula, the Israeli authorities imposed a 5 p.m. curfew on Palestinian villages near the Jordanian border. People who worked out of town did not receive notice of the curfew. Nearly 50 Palestinians were shot to death on their way home to the village Kafr Qasim.
of October 1956, which exposed the Israeli public to the realities of military rule.

Dallasheh: Historians refuse to accept inevitability. History develops as a result of human agency. But I think a lot of alternatives were foreclosed in the aftermath of the Nakba, in the aftermath of the violence, in the aftermath of the Israeli insistence not only on preventing the return of the refugees but on dispossessing Palestinians all the way through the mid-1960s. Not only did the Israeli authorities continue expelling Palestinians,40
40In 1950, Israel forced nearly 2,500 Palestinian residents of the city al-Majdal, in southern Israel, into Gaza.
they also confiscated the vast majority of Palestinians’ lands.

Penslar: I know people like to talk about alternative histories, but I would focus on a different point of view. We can look at the story of Israel/Palestine from within, but if we look at it from without, we see just how dependent all of these players are on the great powers and on the international community. I mean, in 1947 and ’48, things could not have turned out the way they did without the support of the Truman administration or the Soviet Union. In May of 1947, the Soviets suddenly adopted41
41Soviet Communists denounced Zionism as a form of bourgeois nationalism (rather than class-based solidarity). But in 1947, the Soviet Union supported the establishment of Israel to diminish British influence in the Middle East and in hopes that the new state would be socialist.
a pro-Zionist position and approved of the creation of a Jewish state. And where the Soviet Union went, the Soviet bloc states were bound to follow. The Soviets also authorized the Czech government to sell to Israel a vast amount of newly manufactured weaponry. Without that materiel, it would have been much harder for Israel to win the 1948 war.

There’s a similar dynamic now in the war in Gaza, on both sides. Israel depends on the United States, and Hamas is funded by Qatar and Iran. To the extent that we can imagine roads not taken or roads to take in the future, we have to think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict much more globally and less regionally.

Rabinovich: I want to speak about the destructive power of nationalism. What we have here is the collision between two national movements that were born at about the same time. In 1905, the Lebanese intellectual Najib Azoury published a book in which he said these two national movements would have a destructive effect on the whole region. At the end of World War I, three multinational empires collapsed, the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian and the Russian. None of them was great at that point. But look at what they were replaced by — mostly ethnic conflicts and the collision between national movements in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Levant.

Dallasheh: It is important to remember the role the U.S. has played by giving almost unwavering support to the Israeli side at the expense of the Palestinian national project. If history is helpful, it’s to make us more aware of how these dynamics work.

Jacobson: It is also important to understand that this is a national conflict with religious elements fused into it. And that history is not dichotomous and binary. It’s much more complicated than just “us against them.”

Tamari: The Palestinians were not able to rely on the U.S., Europe or the Soviet Union to stop the impending catastrophe in 1948, and that is also true for the current war in Gaza. There are important differences, however. World public opinion and significant political parties have shifted in favor of the Palestinians, despite early sympathies with Israel following the Hamas attack of Oct. 7. There is continued international support for a two-state solution, but the current Israeli government insists on maintaining control over the West Bank under the guise of security. In the short run, this prolongs the life of that regime, but in the long run it will bring its own undoing.

Bawalsa: Any real discussion of what is going on today has to start with a century ago, with World War I, when Western powers redrew the Middle East for their own interests. We who live here are known as Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Israelis because of the war. And in so many other ways, we continue to feel its effects.



The Panelists:

Nadim Bawalsa is a historian of modern Palestine and the author of the 2022 book “Transnational Palestine: Migration and the Right of Return Before 1948.” He is the associate editor for The Journal of Palestine Studies.

Leena Dallasheh is a historian of Palestine and Israel who has held academic positions at Columbia University, New York University and Rice University. She is working on a book about the city of Nazareth in the 1940s and 1950s.

Abigail Jacobson is a historian in the department of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her latest book, written with Moshe Naor, is “Oriental Neighbors: Middle Eastern Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine.”

Derek Penslar is a professor of Jewish history and the director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Harvard University. His latest book is “Zionism: An Emotional State.”

Itamar Rabinovich is a history professor and emeritus president at Tel Aviv University. His books include “The Road Not Taken: Early Arab-Israeli Negotiations.” He was the Israeli ambassador to the United States from 1993 to 1996.

Salim Tamari is a sociologist at Birzeit University in the West Bank and a research associate at the Institute for Palestine Studies. His latest book is “The Great War and the Remaking of Palestine.”

Emily Bazelon, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, moderated the discussion.



Top image: In the war that followed Israel’s declaration of independence as a Jewish state, Arab forces attacked the Old City of Jerusalem on June 15, 1948. Photograph by John Phillips/The LIFE Picture Collection/Shutterstock

Title: Friedman: The Real War Has Not Even Started
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2024, 04:04:11 PM

!!!


https://www.thefp.com/p/matti-friedman-israel-hezbollah-war?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR3isRVZrq4ZqJ-0bXjWvRd4QcYMlDsFXzGhx_O8ZUNsz8sn9XBl_9Wam10

Title: Re: Friedman: The Real War Has Not Even Started
Post by: DougMacG on February 04, 2024, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2024, 04:04:11 PM

!!!


https://www.thefp.com/p/matti-friedman-israel-hezbollah-war?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR3isRVZrq4ZqJ-0bXjWvRd4QcYMlDsFXzGhx_O8ZUNsz8sn9XBl_9Wam10

I hate being negative but I've had that same thought.  First I've been saying covid-19 was a practice round, not the big one, and now this.    The Hamas attack was so well organized and so brutal, then stopped so suddenly. Ok all I really know is when the coverage stopped but it's hard to believe a number of things.  Hard to believe Iran and Hamas didn't know this is exactly how Israel would respond, so therefore wanted them to.  And hard to believe the enemy is out of money, out of terrorists, out of motive, or out of ideas on how to attack Israel, or us.

Title: WSJ: Israel is winning!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 06, 2024, 08:41:19 AM

You may have missed it amid the media defeatism, but Israel is winning its war in Gaza. Hamas’s losses are mounting, and support for the Israeli war effort has endured around the world longer than Hamas expected.

The war is far from over, but Hamas’s southern stronghold of Khan Younis is falling. Civilians have streamed out and Hamas’s remaining forces in the city’s west are encircled. They face an Israeli advance on all sides, and Israel is now fighting below ground in force.

Biden Administration restrictions and Israeli caution have slowed the war, but consider that the 2016-17 battle of Mosul against ISIS took nine months. “Mosul,” writes John Spencer, chief of urban warfare studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute, “was one battle, in one city against 3 to 5k militants with limited defenses. Israel is fighting multiple battles in 7 cities against 30k militants with military grade underground cities built under civilian areas.”

Israel needs time to achieve victory, and Hamas is counting on Western powers to deny it that time. The 2009 Gaza war was brought to an end after three weeks, the 2014 war after six weeks. The “CNN strategy” of using human shields to gain media sympathy has worked every time for Hamas.

So far not this time. Oct. 7 was too brutal. This war has passed 120 days, and the U.S. and Europe refuse to call for a cease-fire.

Israel says it has killed, incapacitated or arrested some 20,000 of Hamas’s 30,000 men and dismantled 17 of Hamas’s 24 Gaza combat battalions. The losses have prevented Hamas from mounting military maneuvers and quieted its rocket fire, down more than 95% from the war’s early days.

Israel has freed 110 hostages, but its leaders are under pressure at home while 132 are still captive. The Biden Administration is using that domestic pressure as diplomatic leverage to promote a hostage deal and long pause in the war that it hopes will become a cease-fire. Never mind that leaving Hamas in control of territory is the definition of Israeli defeat. No matter the length of the pause, Israel would likely have to resume fighting afterward.

That may be why Hamas has resisted the U.S. pause and hostage-deal proposal and instead demands a cease-fire guarantee that Israel can’t give. Recall that Hamas consented to the first hostage deal after Israel took Gaza City faster than anticipated. An Israeli advance now could push the terrorists to Rafah, Hamas’s last major refuge, at the edge of Gaza.

Once Hamas’s last brigades are defeated, it will take time to sweep Gaza for terrorist cells and infrastructure. Israel is clearing urban terrain and tunnels at a “historic pace,” Mr. Spencer writes, but the tunnels are vast and soldiers find munitions in home after home.

Israel’s task for 2024 is to finish the job, but will U.S. political support hold? The Biden Administration, despite its second-guessing, continues to provide munitions and diplomatic cover that it would have a hard time withdrawing. The latest Harvard CAPS-Harris poll finds that large majorities of Americans support Israel and its war aims.

Europe’s elected leaders are also holding the line, and no Arab state has quit the Abraham Accords. Only Iran, which has escalated its regional war against the U.S., applies pressure. Even the United Nations International Court of Justice balked at ordering a cease-fire.

Winning the war doesn’t guarantee winning the peace afterward, but it is essential for a secure Israel and a chance for Palestinians to have a normal life in Gaza.

Title: GPF: No one wants to Pals
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 06, 2024, 08:43:07 AM

Joking aside, this would be super bad!

Sending a message. Egypt has reportedly signaled to Israel that it would consider their peace agreement canceled if Palestinians from Gaza move into Sinai. The message was reportedly conveyed during a series of recent contacts between senior Egyptian and Israeli officials.

If Israel continues to succeed as it drives south, it seems plausible that the Pals could burst over Egypt's wall , , ,

Title: GPF: Israel, and Egypt's indecisiveness
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 06, 2024, 09:00:24 AM

Third

All this while Egypt's Suez revenues are down some 50% (a number relayed by a friend) due to the Houtis.

February 6, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Israel-Hamas War Underscores Egypt’s Indecisiveness
Cairo is walking a tightrope, unwilling to either categorically condemn or support Hamas’ attack.
By: Hilal Khashan

Like many other states, Egypt was caught off guard by the Israel-Hamas war. The magnitude of Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7 left Egypt little room to mediate a cease-fire between Israel and the militant group, as it had done many times in the past. Cairo’s response underscores its pattern of indecisive decision-making. Rather than demand that the fighting stop, Egyptian officials merely urged against the expansion of the war into other parts of the Middle East. Egypt was essentially walking a tightrope, unwilling to either categorically condemn or support Hamas’ attack. President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi isn’t concerned about the fate of Hamas, which is a close ally of his arch enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood. Rather, he’s worried about the far-reaching implications of creating a new regional reality – especially at a time when the Israel-Palestine conflict appeared to be easing and when more Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, appeared to be accelerating peace talks with Israel.

Attitudes Toward Gazans

Egyptians have developed a perception of Palestinians as troublemakers who require continuous scrutiny by the country’s intelligence services. This attitude is the result of a number of high-profile incidents involving Palestinian groups. In 1978, members of the ultraradical Palestinian Abu Nidal Organization assassinated Egypt’s minister of culture. In 1985, members of the same organization hijacked an Egyptian airliner on its way to Malta. In an effort to rescue the passengers, an Egyptian commando force launched an operation that killed 56 hostages in the crossfire. In 2012, unknown attackers killed 16 Egyptian soldiers near the Kerem Shalom crossing in North Sinai Governorate. Many Egyptians accused Hamas of perpetrating the attack, which it vehemently denied.

Palestinians attempting to flee Gaza into Egypt have also faced discrimination and mistreatment. Palestinian travelers trying to enter Egypt through the Rafah crossing have long endured harsh humanitarian conditions, including shortages of drinking water and food, not to mention astronomical prices for basic necessities and a lack of public bathrooms. Those stranded at the border, including children, older people and those seeking medical treatment, must wait days to cross. Travelers have described their journeys as agonizing and humiliating.

When the crossing is open, Egyptian immigration officers approve just a small number of applications to leave Gaza. To have their applications accepted, travelers must pay $3,000 to agencies that work with a mafia of Egyptian officers and intelligence personnel. In times of crisis, bribes of up to $10,000 per person – more than 90 percent of which goes to Egyptians – are commonplace. Many people have fallen victim to scams that promise them passage if they pay bribes, only to find that their names have been left off the lists of approved applications.

These mafias have no mercy for the injured seeking treatment outside Gaza, as even they must pay $5,000 to enter Egypt. One Palestinian woman who accompanied her injured relative to a hospital in Cairo said hospital personnel prohibited wounded Palestinians from buying SIM cards or accessing the internet. They and their accompanying relatives also could not enter the cafeteria in the hospital and had to buy food from security personnel, who charged them exorbitant prices. After being attacked by el-Sissi’s supporters, she deleted her tweet and explained that she did not deny that Egypt was helping Palestinians.

Egyptian border guards charge Hamas $5,000 for each truck entering Gaza. Hamas covers the cost of food coming from Egypt, most of which is expired or nearly expired. Many Gazans report that they must pay Hamas for the food it provides them, whether donated by other countries or purchased from Egypt. Prices for all food products have skyrocketed. The price of salt, for example, soared from 10 cents per pound to $5.

Jordan’s King Abdullah has urged el-Sissi to open the Rafah crossing to bring in humanitarian aid. El-Sissi does not seem to want to antagonize the Biden administration, though Abdullah believes Washington would give the green light for the move, especially after the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take steps to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid to Gazans.

Reluctance to Help

Egypt’s reluctance to open the border is part of its pattern of unassertive actions. After withdrawing from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel signed a deal with Egypt that would govern management of the Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow buffer zone along the Gaza-Egyptian border. Under the agreement, Israel handed over responsibility for border control on Gaza’s side of the corridor to the Palestinian Authority. The security situation in Gaza changed when Hamas expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization from the strip, and Israel and Egypt imposed a crippling blockade. Due to the movement of large numbers of Gazans to north Sinai in search of food and basic supplies, Egypt took control of the Palestinian side of the corridor. The last thing Egypt wanted was a heavily armed extremist group with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood on its doorstep. Cairo even sent troops to the United States for training on locating and destroying tunnels used for smuggling weapons and other goods to Gaza. After President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011, Egypt eased its restrictions. But following the 2013 coup against President Mohamed Morsi, Cairo again imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Gaza residents to Sinai. Egyptian workers bulldozed homes on the Egyptian side of Rafah City to create a buffer zone with Gaza. They also flooded the tunnels through which consumer items, weapons and militants were smuggled.

Israeli leaders now say they want to reimpose control over the corridor, angering Egypt, which argues that their bilateral agreement requires parties to obtain permission from the other party before carrying out any military action. Egypt also says Israel’s seizure of the Philadelphi Corridor would constitute a threat to its sovereignty and violate the 1978 Camp David Accords. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu downplayed the deterioration of relations with Egypt, stressing the depth of ties with el-Sissi and hinting that the leaks about his dissatisfaction with Israeli behavior are only for local consumption.

Indeed, Egypt cooperated with Israel in all of its previous wars against Hamas. For example, during the 2014 war in Gaza, several Israeli observers expressed astonishment at Egypt’s subtle approval of the conflict, which lasted 51 days. At the time, a political commentator for Israel’s Channel 13 broadcaster went so far as to say that anyone who would hear el-Sissi’s position would believe that he is a member of a Zionist movement and suggested that his stance stemmed from Hamas' being a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egyptian officials say Israel’s attempt to control the Philadelphi Corridor will jeopardize bilateral relations, while the Israelis believe their close ties, fostered over decades since Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem in 1977, will survive the temporary occupation of the corridor. The most Egypt can do if Israel takes control of the corridor is freeze bilateral security coordination without severing diplomatic relations. Since the significant Israeli operations north of Gaza Sector and the city of Khan Younis are nearing an end, the Israeli military will soon turn to Rafah. Given that more than half the population of Gaza has taken refuge near the Egyptian border, an Israeli assault on the third and final part of the strip will force Palestinians into northern Sinai.

Lack of Interest

Egyptian attitudes toward Palestinians aren’t unique in the Arab world. Arabs often accuse the Palestinians of selling their land to the Jews and fighting among themselves while asking Arab countries for help. They frequently tell the Palestinians to try to solve their problems on their own before asking for assistance. Arab leaders and citizens, especially in Egypt, say they have given generously to the Palestinians and sacrificed thousands of their youth for the Palestinian cause. To rationalize their own failure to confront Israel, they blame the Palestinians, describing them as ungrateful traitors. They view the presence of Palestinians in any country as a bad omen for its people. Egyptians have detached themselves from the question of Palestine, viewing it as a matter for the Palestinian people to resolve. They argue that Egypt, caught in a maze of poverty, must focus on its economic development and extricate itself from foreign issues.

Title: Yellow Journalism
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on February 08, 2024, 10:25:24 AM

Hamas commander lays down arms and waits for Israeli troops in south Gaza.

Guess if there are no civilians to hide behind their instestinal fortitude goes into hiding, too:

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/r133pvgjt?fbclid=IwAR1hYkNJisrp2WMqNCnc23pSwXJvJoIvN6dydpUbAw8t1Z5tm308Rl2HOmo#autoplay

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 08, 2024, 02:42:56 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!

Some potent propaganda likely to come out of this.  This is very eloquent!

Title: What Arabs Really Think
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 08, 2024, 07:36:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRn3gvAMVBY

Title: WSJ: Ghost Town on the Gaza Border
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 10, 2024, 01:55:44 PM

Ghost Town on the Gaza Border
Residents of the Nir Oz kibbutz once welcomed Palestinians into their homes. Now, Amit Siman Tov says, ‘Our trust has gone. Completely gone.’
By Tunku Varadarajan
Feb. 9, 2024 1:51 pm ET

Nir Oz, Israel

There was life once in this little kibbutz, in a corner of the Negev—life in its most adamant form. Many would also say that there was sweetness in this place, whose name means “Field of Strength” in Hebrew.

Men and women grew wheat and potatoes on the farmland that stretches over a mile and a quarter toward the fenced frontier of Israel. The crops, now abandoned, stop just short of Gaza, which is visible from the outer ring of the kibbutz and from the modest Jewish homes that were neat, lived in and loved. There were around 150 houses in Nir Oz, including those that were burned down, and every one is empty now, its residents dead, kidnapped or living elsewhere as “internally displaced persons”—IDPs in refugee-speak. Only four houses remain undamaged.

There is beauty amid the destruction, a reminder of a paradise lost. Flowers, glossy in the rain, bloom alongside charred houses. A magnificent ficus tree, chock full of parrots, stands unharmed. Yet abandoned tricycles and strollers tell of a place that was full of children. A soccer ball sits punctured in a yard. A young boy’s saxophone lies blackened in the rubble. Ravenous cats emerge as if from thin air as you walk by. The household bins from which they once scavenged are now empty. The “Cat Man,” a resident who put food out for them at stations around the kibbutz, is dead.

image
The burned out house of a young family. PHOTO: TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Also dead is the two-state solution—the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which would give sovereignty to the people from whose midst came those who laid waste to this kibbutz on Oct. 7. For eight hours they hunted down the kibbutzniks, murdering 46 people and abducting 71, amounting to well over a quarter of those who lived here, making Nir Oz proportionately the hardest-hit of the kibbutzim that Hamas invaded.

No Israeli politician of consequence speaks today of a Palestinian state, except to dismiss the idea as insane. To speak of a two-state “solution”—a word that sounds incongruous and obscene after Oct. 7—is to earn the wrath of women like Amit Siman Tov, 40, who walked me around her ghostly quiet kibbutz. She’s now an IDP in Kiryat Gat, 40 miles northeast, a city of 60,000—150 times as many people as Nir Oz. “It’s concrete,” she says. “No birds, no bicycles, no rosemary bushes.” She tells me her children, still traumatized, say they “feel safer in a building.”

Like everyone else on the kibbutz, Ms. Siman Tov lived with her family in a single-story house. Like her neighbors, she wished the Gazans well. She recalls farmhands from the strip working the fields with her father, who raised her on the kibbutz: “He was their good friend. They used to have coffee in our house. The relationship was positive.” Construction workers from Gaza would help build houses at Nir Oz. “They used to joke sometimes, ‘Oh, I’m building this for myself.’ But they were smiling, and we were smiling.” Before Oct. 7 Ms. Siman Tov would point to Gaza during bike rides and tell her kids: “There are children and women living there, just like me and you.” She wouldn’t say that now. “Our trust has gone. Completely gone.”

She escaped with her life on Oct. 7, surviving three separate raids on her house over eight hours. The family was barricaded in their safe room—or, in Hebrew, mamad, a word that is on everyone’s lips in Israel. “You should add it to the English language,” she says.

“The third time they came, we felt we were going to die.” The terrorists, having failed to break down the mamad’s door, set the house on fire. Ms. Siman Tov, her husband, their 11-year-old daughter and sons age 9, 6 and 2 laid down urine-soaked sweatshirts at the foot of the door to stop smoke from seeping in. “My daughter was pleading with me. ‘Mom, open the door. Let them shoot me. I don’t want to be burned to death.’ ”

image
Terrorist bullet holes on the door of a safe room. PHOTO: TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Barricaded at home, Ms. Siman Tov didn’t know the terrorists had killed her mother, brother, sister-in-law, 5-year-old twin nieces and 2-year-old nephew. She takes me to their house, her composure remarkable as we enter her brother’s breached mamad. We’re joined by Mor Tzarfati, 41, Ms. Siman Tov’s neighbor and best friend, who also survived the attack with her family when the terrorists failed to break down the door to their safe room. Ms. Tzarfati points to the bullet holes in the brother’s mamad, where he and his wife died of gunshot wounds and their three children were asphyxiated by smoke. There was blood on the walls—“spritzed,” as Ms. Tzarfati describes it.

Ms. Tzarfati and her family were lucky. The terrorists gave up after trying to batter down their reinforced door for hours. She was in her safe room with her husband, three young kids and dog, whose snout she had to clench shut with her fist to keep it from barking. After the first two waves of attacks, she heard women and children speaking in the house: “They were taking things. Helping themselves to my fridge.” The invading Gazans left shoes behind, making off with footwear stolen from kibbutzniks.

“I don’t want Israel to have any connection with Gaza,” Ms. Tzarfati says when asked what should happen next. “Our attitudes have changed.” Both she and Ms. Siman Tov—like nearly every Israeli, right or left—want Hamas destroyed.

Title: Badass hostage rescue
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2024, 05:39:17 PM

https://nypost.com/2024/02/12/world-news/israeli-police-shielded-two-hostages-from-heavy-gunfire-in-daring-rescue/?fbclid=IwAR3QtZkL0Vn71Zt_up0gsJBvtPo88S2FYD-78eW6nssz9gRRkCmjNq7ePvQ

Title: Newsweek on "secret" peace plan
Post by: ccp on February 13, 2024, 06:57:10 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/secret-peace-talks-are-underway-for-israelis-and-palestinians-here-s-what-s-on-the-table-opinion/ar-BB1id9J5?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=2e1dfc3215ca4f8d8906543aa3468dde&ei=27

Obama Sullivan Blinken at work...

Title: IRan equip found under UNWRA HQ
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2024, 08:52:45 AM

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/385452?fbclid=IwAR0A6Stkiw-PqH8bqhAEH1eJpZHrSXhNghkDl68h_ghejM_kCKluqRnW4J8

Title: Newsweek: Gaza War is unique
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2024, 09:00:20 AM

I have had Newsweek filed in my mind as a predictable eye roll generator, but this piece is thoughtful and intelligent.

https://www.newsweek.com/memo-experts-stop-comparing-israels-war-gaza-anything-it-has-no-precedent-opinion-1868891?fbclid=IwAR0JVH_F4ST-PCkOO8Phx9nYNIQkjrNMBDJr12nGN99gZH8z5QoFxY6MoQI

Title: Overland supply chain to Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2024, 09:03:07 AM

second

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240214-mundra-port-in-india-serves-as-alternative-route-for-israel-amid-red-sea-threats/?fbclid=IwAR1nr8frmJDtzp34hS8oAzsE3EmE-hFKvVA608LdhZ0PJb8BjvNPSa4hqJk

Looks like Arabs are still doing business with Israel.

Title: Re: Newsweek: Gaza War is unique
Post by: DougMacG on February 20, 2024, 09:59:40 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2024, 09:00:20 AM

I have had Newsweek filed in my mind as a predictable eye roll generator, but this piece is thoughtful and intelligent.
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

The magazine we knew as Newsweek closed over a decade ago.  The brand name bounced from Daily Beast (far Left?) to whatever it is today. Now they are essentially a newer internet news and opinion site carrying the brand name.  I have seen good conservative and objective articles, but on balance I think they lean Left.  Not nearly as left as Daily Beast days. 

If they are tried to cover world and national stories objectively and cover both left and right opinions, that is a good sign.  If so, it is much needed.

BTW, the Gaza war is unique.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2024, 12:55:04 PM

Story: 

IIRC:  Dick Harman, of Harman Electronics and the December husband to July bride and my 1992 Congressional opponent Jane Harman (she won haha) bought Newsweek for one dollar.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on February 20, 2024, 02:33:36 PM

"December husband to July bride and my 1992 Congressional opponent Jane Harman"

  - And you said, you must be very proud of your daughter.  ))

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2024, 02:45:25 PM

 :-D :-D :-D

Title: Mosab Hassan Yousef
Post by: ccp on February 21, 2024, 03:13:26 AM

A courageous man well worth noting and remembering:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/20/hamas-founders-son-egypt-must-permit-gazans-through-border-allow-idfs-total-destruction-hamas/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef

Title: Has the Right and Left in Israel both moved centrist?
Post by: ccp on February 22, 2024, 02:23:22 AM

https://spectator.org/israel-unifying-around-the-center/

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 22, 2024, 04:40:13 AM

I found that to be a very thoughtful piece.   Nice find.

Title: Some Gazans turning on Hamasholes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 24, 2024, 05:59:28 PM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20416/palestinian-leaders-nakba

Title: yemen
Post by: ccp on February 25, 2024, 07:54:34 AM

A bit larger then California and with 34 million people.

Judaism was the predominate religion of the pre existing Himyarite Empire in what is now Yemen!!! :-o :-o :-o

circa ~400BC  ; from Wikipedia :

The Himyarites originally worshiped most of the South-Arabian pantheon, including Wadd, ʿAthtar, 'Amm and Almaqah. Since at least the reign of Abikarib Asʿad (c. 384 to 433 CE), Judaism was adopted as the de facto state religion. The religion may have been adopted to some extent as much as two centuries earlier, but inscriptions to polytheistic deities ceased after this date. It was embraced initially by the upper classes, and possibly a large proportion of the general population over time.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himyarite_Kingdom

Could one say that Muslim colonialism displaced the Jews. ?

Title: Ben Shapiro on Aaron Bushnell&Left's response
Post by: ccp on February 29, 2024, 04:06:58 AM

https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/02/24/when-radicals-cheer-self-immolation

Title: Them Dastardly Right Wing Extremist Are At It, Again
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 01, 2024, 09:12:25 AM

Never ceases to amaze me what one trick ponies “Progressives” are, with “right wing extremists are gonna get you if we don’t watch out” gross exaggerations being a favorite trick. This piece examines that habit in the context of the Israeli/Hamas war:

The terror of the right
It's so much easier to construct bogeymen than face up to murderous reality

MELANIE PHILLIPS
MAR 1, 2024

Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon
There’s a fixed belief in progressive circles that if only Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, were to be removed from office, there would be at least a sporting chance of peace in the Middle East.

On Monday night, in an appearance on an NBC show, US President Joe Biden said that Israel must make peace with the Palestinians to survive. He warned that Israel’s “incredibly conservative government,” which includes the ultra-nationalist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and others, was “going to lose support from around the world. And that is not in Israel’s interest”.

American officials repeat, like a steady drumbeat, that the reason the Israelis are so resistant to the imposition of a Palestinian state and insistent on mounting an attack against the last bastion of Hamas in Rafah, contrary to American instructions, is that Netanyahu is in hock to “right-wing extremists”.

Some believe that the Biden administration is working to replace Netanyahu with a more pliable alternative, such as war cabinet member Benny Gantz. Isn’t such interference in another sovereign state by seeking to lever out its democratically elected prime minister the kind of thing that the left routinely denounces as US “imperialism”?

It’s apparently fine, however, for the Biden administration to do this to Israel because Netanyahu is, after all, leading a “right-wing extremist” government, which seems to mean he has no basis to be in power at all.

Of course, Biden is trying to appease the virulently anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, which is causing him a major election-year headache.

More fundamentally still, his administration won’t permit Israel to derail US strategy for the region. Astonishingly, this involves empowering Iran, and ludicrously asserts that the solution to the Iranian war being waged against Israel and the west by using Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis as proxy terrorist armies is to impose a Palestinian state.

Biden wants Netanyahu gone because the Israeli prime minister is refusing to bend to American pressure and is standing in the way of the administration’s treacherous policy goals.

The “right-wing” meme is a potent weapon because it damns everything at which it is directed. To be “right-wing” in the circles that control western culture is to be utterly beyond the pale. Everything bad is “right-wing,” and everything “right-wing” is bad.

In Britain, even newspapers that are relatively well disposed towards Israel frame the conduct of the war as disproportionately belligerent because, well, Netanyahu runs an “extremist ultra-right” government.

In Israel, the left-wing press pounds out daily the message that absolutely everything Netanyahu is doing in this war is bad because it’s designed to save his skin and keep himself in power.

Since both the “settlers” and the “right-wing” are demonised as evil by so-called progressives, any opposition to a Palestinian state is also demonised as evil.

All this ignores a number of facts. Since the genocidal pogrom of October 7 — and with Hamas threatening to mount such atrocities over and over again until Israel is destroyed — Israelis are united as never before in opposition to a Palestinian state. They are also overwhelmingly committed to continuing with the war until Hamas no longer has the capacity to mount such attacks ever again.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the “settlers,” Ben-Gvir or Netanyahu’s desire to save his own skin. It is due to the fact that the vast majority of Israelis understand that they are fighting for their lives.

People may detest Netanyahu, but they don’t detest his conduct of the war. They may hold him ultimately to blame for the systemic mistakes behind the catastrophic failure to anticipate the October 7 attack. They may think that he should no longer be in office. They may believe that he is unprincipled, devious, hypocritical, narcissistic, power-crazed, corrupt and with a dangerous messiah complex, as he is painted by his enemies.

Yet none of that means that they think the war should be waged in any other way. None of their dismay at Netanyahu as prime minister means they believe that anyone else would or should prosecute this war any differently.

They understand that making peace depends not on Israel, as Biden insists, but on its Palestinian Arab aggressors. They understand that if Biden gets his way and Hamas survives as a military force, there will be more October 7-style atrocities. They understand that the Palestinian state Biden is threatening to impose upon Israel will deliver October 7-style atrocities on steroids.

And so the more Biden applies the thumbscrews to Israel, the more he will actually increase Israeli support for Netanyahu, who will be applauded for standing up to such an unconscionable betrayal and defending Israeli lives.

Some people dismiss the realities of Israeli opinion about the war and the “two-state solution” because all they can see is the apparently demonic figure of Netanyahu. Such people are obsessed with him. Many Israeli journalists see nothing but this hate-figure looming in front of them. He fills the entire visual space between the hater and the political horizon.

But it’s perfectly possible to dislike Netanyahu and want to see him gone from office, and yet support his determination to destroy Hamas or oppose the imposition of a Palestinian state on the grounds that there is no alternative strategy that would protect Israelis against further genocidal attack.

So why are so many unable to distinguish between the man and the measures?

For a start, it’s so much easier to blame a man who can be removed from office rather than face up to a terrifying reality that’s far harder to address, such as the Palestinian Arabs’ implacable and brainwashed hatred of the Jews.

For exactly the same reason, it’s so much easier to believe that a Palestinian state would end that enmity, rather than face up to the actual evidence of a century of murderous Palestinian rejectionism that continues without end.

There’s also another reason, a clue to which was provided by certain reactions to the October 7 pogrom both in Israel and abroad.

Among many “progressives,” the atrocities produced a profound sense of disorientation. This was because the Palestinians — people whose cause they had promoted as the acme of conscience and enlightenment — turned out to be barbaric savages.

Even worse, people the progressives had opposed and stigmatised as the “far-right” because they had regarded the Palestinians as murderous foes turned out to have been correct all along.

Worse yet again, some people on their own side actually turned on them for supporting Israel against Hamas. This was a terrible and destabilising shock. That’s because the left is governed by a herd mentality. Their views have to conform to the opinion of similarly “enlightened” people. Anyone who isn’t part of the progressive herd is “right-wing” and wrong about everything.

Moreover, since progressives believe that they embody virtue itself, right-wingers aren’t just wrong but evil. Yet the October 7 massacre revealed that the people supported by the progressives were evil.

This put progressives in a terrible bind. They couldn’t accept anything that revealed their own narrative to be so morally bankrupt.

So they exaggerated the plight of Gaza civilians in the war, for which they blamed Israel not Hamas. In response to the tsunami of antisemitism consuming the west as a result of the Palestinian cause they themselves promoted, they focused instead on the evils of “Islamophobia”. And they redoubled the attack on Netanyahu as their scapegoat.

As a result, both the Biden administration and others who demonise “the right” are supporting the insupportable. If they have their way, more Israelis will be murdered, raped, beheaded and taken hostage; there will be more Islamist intimidation, subversion and violence in Britain and America; and the west will find itself in a terrible war for its survival not against “right-wing” bogeymen, but against truly sinister enemies whom western folly has so catastrophically empowered.

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-terror-of-the-right?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR2badn9tX3mcgUYS9MX-CcKO1f3psi9a8rbv21YRnkmUb03EtxYwuUgWas&triedRedirect=true

Title: "Zionist case for ceasefire"
Post by: ccp on March 02, 2024, 12:42:31 PM

I don't agree but still worth the other view point:

https://www.readtangle.com/zionist-case-for-ceasefire-gaza-israel-palestine/?ref=tangle-newsletter

Title: Re: "Zionist case for ceasefire"
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 02, 2024, 06:10:25 PM

Quote from: ccp on March 02, 2024, 12:42:31 PM

I don't agree but still worth the other view point:

https://www.readtangle.com/zionist-case-for-ceasefire-gaza-israel-palestine/?ref=tangle-newsletter

Because rewarding your enemy by allowing his human shield strategy will show all doing so will allow the “humanitarian” card to be played at some point.

I know you don’t agree, but ye gods, how many times does Lucy have to hoist the football before Israel is allowed to not fall for it?

Title: Captain Obvious Makes a U.N. Appearance
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 06, 2024, 05:57:25 PM

About bleeping time. Too bad this conformation doesn’t appear to inform other thinking:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/un-report-sexual-violence-occurred-during-the-7-october-attacks-in-multiple-locations-including-rape-and-gang-rape/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=un-report-sexual-violence-occurred-during-the-7-october-attacks-in-multiple-locations-including-rape-and-gang-rape

Title: Israel-hostile source with interesting intel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2024, 08:27:21 AM

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-342024-rifts-in-bibis-camp?publication_id=1351274&post_id=141808322&isFreemail=false&r=379fkp&triedRedirect=true

Title: Hamas Casualty Numbers Game
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 08, 2024, 06:49:19 AM

Killed figures don’t add up:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers?fbclid=IwAR16PZZfH-0FdpAI0ggEvI9_u-n0Cy44KcwJg9FLEQKJYcq0xHBWunhb-fY

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2024, 05:16:16 AM

Nice to have a proper breakdown of these numbers.

Also, the piece makes a very important point Biden, Austin et al are using Hamas's numbers!  And using them to justify funding Hamas under the rubric of humanitarian add!

Speaking of rubric, Biden's true "two state solution" is Michigan and Minnesota.

Title: Makes sense to me , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2024, 05:40:08 AM

second

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13176279/Israelis-block-aid-reaching-starving-Gaza-Hamas-releases-hostages.html

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: DougMacG on March 09, 2024, 06:08:21 AM

"Biden's true "two state solution" is Michigan and Minnesota.'"

  - Ouch!!  I will get a little mileage out of that this morning.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2024, 08:56:11 AM

 :-D :-D :-D

I must confess this bit of wit is not mine, I but play it forward in the same spirit as yours.

Title: Bibi's red line
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2024, 10:56:51 AM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13183125/netanyahu-biden-gaza-red-line-hamas-israel.html

Title: Jerusalem Post
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2024, 04:02:17 AM

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-790880?fbclid=IwAR1ruaEutgVkl_l6mDKXlawRiWxPkEHXJrixbUZEM2BdE7eiQKKW_lomCPM

Title: Born Jewish Bernie leads the charge to cut off Israel's aid
Post by: ccp on March 12, 2024, 01:24:47 PM

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/senate-bernie-sanders-joe-biden/2024/03/12/id/1156968/

Jewish

---->

Communist => fool

Agree with Michael Savage - it does sound like Bernie is talking with a corn beef sandwich in his mouth

Title: GPF: Back up port in Cyprus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2024, 04:08:20 PM

Backup port. Israel plans to build a temporary pier in Larnaca, southern Cyprus, as an alternative to Haifa in case of war with Hezbollah, the Israel Hayom newspaper reported. Israelis would operate the port and conduct security checks.

Title: WSJ: Monsour Abbas is Arab and Proud Israeli
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2024, 04:25:36 PM

second

Mansour Abbas Is an Arab and a Proud Israeli
The Knesset member’s conciliatory attitude has earned him admirers—and enemies on both sides.
By Tunku Varadarajan
March 12, 2024 5:56 pm ET


Many Arab politicians in the Middle East and beyond were equivocal in criticizing Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Not Mansour Abbas. “The massacre,” Mr. Abbas said on Nov. 6, “is against everything we believe in, our religion, our Islam, our nationality, our humanity.” He has also rejected the idea that Israel practices “apartheid” and has declared that “the state of Israel was born as a Jewish state, and it will remain one.”

Mr. Abbas, 49, heads the United Arab List, a political party that holds five seats in the Israeli Knesset. Mr. Abbas is a retail politician. What he wants most is a better life for Israel’s 1.9 million Arab citizens. He wants Bedouin villages in the Negev “regularized,” their houses fitted with “Israeli levels” of electricity and sanitation. He wants money for Arab schools and hospitals and, most of all, for measures that would reduce crime. In 241 of the 299 nonterrorist murders committed in Israel in 2023, both victim and perpetrator were Arab.

Mr. Abbas made history in June 2021, when he became the first Arab to join an Israeli governing coalition. After an indeterminate election left Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unable to form a government, the United Arab List’s support enabled the conservative Naftali Bennet and liberal Yair Lapid to establish a coalition, which governed until December 2022.

Mr. Abbas had earlier discussed joining a coalition with Mr. Netanyahu, but the Religious Zionist Party of Bezalel Smotrich balked at joining a partnership with Arabs, and Itamar Ben-Gvir called Mr. Abbas a “mechabel,” a terrorist. Messrs. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are now finance minister and national security minister, respectively. Mr. Abbas has soured on Mr. Netanyahu and wants him to resign.

“I’m trying to be part of the political system in Israel as a representative of the Arabic citizens,” Mr. Abbas says in an interview in his Knesset office. He describes himself as having a “national identity” as an “Arabic Palestinian” and a “civil identity as a citizen in Israel.” He says fellow Israeli Arabs should “actively implement their Israeli citizenship” and become “part of the solution of the problems they face, and not just be the opposition.”

Mr. Abbas, a chubby former dentist, is an unlikely game-changer. “I used to do crowns, fillings, and root canals,” he says almost sheepishly. Making him yet more improbable as a catalyst for reconciliation, his politics are Islamist. His party represents the moderate and democratic “southern branch” of the Islamic Movement in Israel. The movement, founded by his mentor, Sheikh Abdullah Nimar Darwish (1948-2017), split in two in 1996, the “northern branch” continuing on a path of militant anti-Zionism. Darwish, who once sought to establish an Islamic state in Israel, spent time in prison for acts of terrorism in the early 1980s. After his release in 1985, his politics evolved rapidly toward nonviolence, culminating in an acceptance of the Oslo Accords.

Mr. Abbas’s conciliatory attitude has earned him enemies on both sides. The Palestinian Authority’s ruling Fatah faction accuses him of “throwing himself into the arms of Zionism.” The Jewish hard right views him as an Islamist Trojan Horse intent on subverting Israel from within the Knesset. Mr. Abbas says that’s bunk. “We are a local movement,” he says, “based in Israel. We consider ourselves citizens of Israel, and we’re working in Israel between two systems of rules—the rules of Islam, and the rules and laws of Israel, as a country and as a state.” (Fidelity to Islam can be seen in the list’s fierce opposition to gay rights.)

His party is “committed to Israel’s Knesset,” and he says, “At least 2,000 Jewish citizens voted for me in the last election. I hope there will be more in the coming elections.” In November Mr. Abbas called on one of his own legislators—Iman Khatib-Yassin, the first hijab-wearing woman in the Knesset—to resign after she denied that Hamas raped women and murdered babies on Oct. 7. She apologized and kept her seat.

To his admirers, Mr. Abbas is the most gutsy, pragmatic and stable home-grown Arab politician in Israeli history. A prominent professor who has served as a back-room adviser to several Israeli prime ministers says: “Abbas is the genuine article. Arab politicians usually speak with seven corners of their mouth”—a local idiom for untrustworthiness—“but with him, what you see is what you get.”

On Gaza, he sounds like a mainstream Western politician: “We want to see the war stopped, a prisoner exchange deal completed, and the kidnapped persons returned to their families.” There must be “international recognition” for an “independent, sovereign Palestinian state that gives hope to the Palestinians and works to rebuild the Gaza Strip and address the phenomenon of the spread of weapons among Palestinian factions.” He would entrust security in the strip to Arab countries.

Israeli Arabs, for their part, “have to be careful in choosing our words,” Mr. Abbas says. “You have to be careful not to make a link between the events of Oct. 7 and the historical conflict itself. . . . If you say the word ‘but’—‘but there is a conflict and the Palestinians are under occupation, et cetera, et cetera’—this will be understood as a justification for the criminal actions of killing people, of kidnapping people.”

“This is not just a tactical position,” he says. “When we talk of Oct. 7, ‘but’ is not an ethical word.”

Title: Blinken fux with the Israelis even more
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2024, 08:16:49 AM

https://www.janglo.net/item/JXMIvEeQrTx?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=JANGLO%20WAR%20UPDATES%3A%2071_%20of%20Jewish%20teens%20have%20experienced%20antisemitism%20%7C%20Biden%20admin%20to%20sanction%20entire%20Jewish%20outposts%20%7C%20%20Blinken%3A%20Israel%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98job%20No_%201%E2%80%99%20is%20protecting%2C%20aiding%20Gazans&utm_campaign=20240314_m180068004_JANGLO%20WAR%20UPDATES%3A%2071_%20of%20Jewish%20teens%20have%20experienced%20antisemitism%20%7C%20Biden%20admin%20to%20sanction%20entire%20Jewish%20outposts%20%7C%20%20Blinken%3A%20Israel%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98job%20No_%201%E2%80%99%20is%20protecting%2C%20aiding%20Gazans&utm_term=%20Blinken_3A%20Israel_E2_80_99s%20_E2_80_98job%20No_%201_E2_80_99%20is%20protecting_2C%20aiding%20Gazans&fbclid=IwAR0EIqBsARxjSjkz3YL38KzcJBvqVzYqe50gWptxsfzXAJRBiDcrurJ2Ktc

Title: Israel will defeat Hamas in Rafah
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2024, 09:32:22 AM

Israel Will Defeat Hamas in Rafah
We’ve incapacitated most of the terror group. Rafah is its last stronghold, and we must win there too.
By Ophir Falk
WSJ
March 14, 2024 5:39 pm ET


Mounting international pressure to end the war won’t weaken Israel’s resolve to accomplish its mission of destroying Hamas, freeing the hostages and guaranteeing that Gaza will never pose a threat to Israel again. Detractors dismiss total victory as implausible, but the facts on the ground indicate otherwise.

Israel has already dismantled 18 of Hamas’s 24 battalions, incapacitated more than 21,500 Hamas terrorists—about two-thirds of its force, including two of the top four leaders—and destroyed significant terror tunnels. By contrast, it took U.S. military forces nine months to take out 5,000 ISIS fighters in Mosul.

John Spencer, chairman of urban warfare studies at West Point, described Israel’s achievements as “unprecedented,” especially given the complex combat conditions above and below ground. Mr. Spencer says that Israel is setting the “gold standard” for avoiding civilian casualties.

Israel doesn’t need prompting to provide humanitarian aid or to act with caution. According to retired British Col. Richard Kemp, the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio in Gaza is about 1 to 1.5. This is astonishing since, according to the United Nations, the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio in urban warfare has been 1 to 9. Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas seeks to maximize civilian casualties and use them as a propaganda tool. We cannot let Hamas’s strategy pay off.

Hamas has four terror brigades in Rafah. That city is Hamas’s last stronghold, and its defeat is a prerequisite for victory. Whoever pressures Israel to refrain from entering Rafah is preventing the destruction of Hamas and the freeing of Israel and Gazan civilians from Hamas’s stranglehold. Gen. David Petraeus, who led the 2007 American surge in Iraq, said last week that the “key now is to not stop until Hamas is fully destroyed.”

Asking Israel to stop the war now is akin to telling the Allies to stop halfway to Berlin in World War II. If Hamas isn’t eradicated, genocidal terrorists will continue to emerge. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told new Israel Defense Forces cadets last week, “when we defeat the murderers of October 7, we are preventing the next 9/11.” Global leaders should take note.

High-intensity combat will wind down after Rafah, humanitarian aid will no longer be hijacked by Hamas, and safety for civilians can be realized. Total victory is within reach. Israel will finish the job. Anything less will endanger the rest of the civilized world.

Mr. Falk is an adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Title: Zeihan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2024, 07:09:50 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fagtI6MOCUo

Title: George Friedman: This is not 1973
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2024, 03:59:48 PM

For the US, 2024 Isn’t 1973
By: George Friedman
The culture of the Israeli military was shaped in October 1973, when Egypt and Syria attacked without warning. Importantly, the assault represented a direct threat to American interests. Egypt and Syria were both armed by the Soviet Union, so an Israeli defeat might have given Moscow control over the Suez Canal and, through a Syrian occupation, access to Saudi oil. The situation quickly manifested itself with the Arab oil embargo, generating an economic crisis in the U.S. and the rest of the West. Thus, Washington rushed material support to Israel and launched a diplomatic process that benefitted itself and its Middle Eastern ally while blocking the Soviets.

It is easy to draw parallels, even unconscious ones, from moments in which the United States sees itself in profound danger. In looking at the Israeli position now, I think that that is what it has done, albeit mistakenly.

Deep in the Israeli psyche is the notion that the United States will not abandon Israel in extremis. But there is a saying that nations have no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. In 1973, the Israeli interest was to protect the whole of Israel – and that was absolute. The U.S. had what you might call a sentiment interest in Israel, but building strategy on sentiment is dangerous. What really mattered to Washington was the Soviet Union.

Israel is now engaged in a war with some similarities. There is the incompetence of Israeli intelligence and the belief that only a decisive defeat of the enemy will ensure national security. Its strategy, not to mention its political rhetoric, clearly assumes the United States shares Israel's interest in waging a political and financially expensive operation against Hamas. The war in 1973 lasted a few weeks, not a few months. This operation will incur costs without the obvious benefits of 1973. The theory is that a massive blow will obliterate Hamas and eliminate the threat of radical Islamism. It’s a far-fetched idea. Unless dealt with politically, this threat is a permanent reality. In 1973, massive blows shifted Egyptian policy. But this is not 1973, and Egypt’s perceptions of reality and Hamas are not the same. Nor are Iran’s. Israel dreams of another Battle of the Chinese Farm, where the Israelis crossed the Suez Canal and redefined the war in its favor. This year’s war is different, and a decisive battle is hard to imagine.

Most important is that in this war the U.S. does not have an overwhelming interest at stake, and what sentiment there is is marked by bitter division. What the two wars have in common is a massive intelligence failure. Even a defeat of Hamas only sets the stage for the next war, and Israel must deal with the possibility of the next intelligence failure.

War is not an arena of right and wrong. It is the sphere of intelligence and weapons.

The Israelis are fighting in highly constrained circumstances with a strategy in which they continue to engage serially Hamas concentrations. This is a very long path and a dangerous one. This is not 1973.

=================

MARC: America's strategic concern here should be Iran, but Biden has taken out his dentures to give the mullahs fellatio.​

Title: 71% of Palestinians support the massacre
Post by: DougMacG on March 20, 2024, 09:40:02 PM

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/387091

71% of Palestinians support the massacre

93% do not believe terror organization committed war crimes.

I won't write on the internet where I think these people should be resettled.

Title: Shifa hospital raid; Houthis hit Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 22, 2024, 06:27:52 AM

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-90-hamas-gunmen-killed-160-suspects-nabbed-in-raid-at-gazas-shifa-hospital/?fbclid=IwAR1fsGZY9UxS3UewVrXcYsxYZmjvGZ87CFh9LvbMd9zpeY1Fe_FH8sWf4uk


https://www.newsbreak.com/news/3373962780150-houthi-cruise-missile-hits-israel-in-ominous-first?_f=app_share&s=i1&pd=0DqmT5zR&lang=en_US&send_time=1710966982&trans_data=%7B%22platform%22%3A0%2C%22cv%22%3A%2224.11.0.27%22%2C%22languages%22%3A%22en%22%7D

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 22, 2024, 07:54:29 AM

problem is what does Israel do with the Hamas prisoners.

they would have to be stored somewhere for life.

and ~70% palestinians want them back to control Gaza......

what say you Blinks Sullivan and the rest -

Title: David Brooks tries to explain Hamas war to NYT readers
Post by: DougMacG on March 25, 2024, 09:38:46 AM

https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fgaza-israel-war.html

Hopefully this link gets around the pay wall.

Brooks goes to great research and great effort to explain what is readily obvious to us. There is no alternative and there is no easy way to defeating Hamas.

I can't get into the thousands of comments but I imagine their readership is appalled.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 25, 2024, 09:50:14 AM

I am shocked the NYT editors allowed this piece to be published.

conclusion as Doug points out is obvious.

how many civilians were in Berlin when the US and Russia crushed it in 1945?

in answer to my own question I google this:

"2,807,405
The population of Berlin in August 12, 1945 was 2,807,4051and only 2.8 million of the city’s original population of 4.5 million still lived in the city"

Title: What would you have Israel do?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2024, 02:45:44 PM

Saving this

There seems to be a broad consensus atop the Democratic Party about the war in Gaza, structured around two propositions. First, after the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel has the right to defend itself and defeat Hamas. Second, the way Israel is doing this is “over the top,” in President Biden’s words. The vast numbers of dead and starving children are gut wrenching, the devastation is overwhelming, and it’s hard not to see it all as indiscriminate.

Which leads to an obvious question: If the current Israeli military approach is inhumane, what’s the alternative? Is there a better military strategy Israel can use to defeat Hamas without a civilian blood bath? In recent weeks, I’ve been talking with security and urban warfare experts and others studying Israel’s approach to the conflict and scouring foreign policy and security journals in search of such ideas.

The thorniest reality that comes up is that this war is like few others because the crucial theater is underground. Before the war, Israelis estimated Hamas had dug around 100 miles of tunnels. Hamas leaders claimed they had a much more expansive network, and it turns out they were telling the truth. The current Israeli estimates range from 350 to about 500 miles of tunnels. The tunnel network, according to Israel, is where Hamas lives, holds hostages, stores weapons, builds missiles and moves from place to place. By some Israeli estimates, building these tunnels cost the Gazan people about a billion dollars, which could have gone to building schools and starting companies.

Hamas built many of its most important military and strategic facilities under hospitals, schools and so on. Its server farm, for example, was built under the offices of the U.N. relief agency in Gaza City, according to the Israeli military.

Daphne Richemond-Barak, the author of “Underground Warfare,” writes in Foreign Policy magazine: “Never in the history of tunnel warfare has a defender been able to spend months in such confined spaces. The digging itself, the innovative ways Hamas has made use of the tunnels and the group’s survival underground for this long have been unprecedented.”

In other words, in this war, Hamas is often underground, the Israelis are often aboveground, and Hamas seeks to position civilians directly between them. As Barry Posen, a professor at the security studies program at M.I.T., has written, Hamas’s strategy could be “described as ‘human camouflage’ and more ruthlessly as ‘human ammunition.’” Hamas’s goal is to maximize the number of Palestinians who die and in that way build international pressure until Israel is forced to end the war before Hamas is wiped out. Hamas’s survival depends on support in the court of international opinion and on making this war as bloody as possible for civilians, until Israel relents.

The Israelis have not found an easy way to clear and destroy the tunnels. Currently, Israel Defense Forces units clear the ground around a tunnel entrance and then, Richemond-Barak writes, they send in robots, drones and dogs to detect explosives and enemy combatants. Then units trained in underground warfare pour in. She writes: “It has become clear that Israel cannot possibly detect or map the entirety of Hamas’s tunnel network. For Israel to persuasively declare victory, in my view, it must destroy at least two-thirds of Hamas’s known underground infrastructure.”

This is slow, dangerous and destructive work. Israel rained destruction down on Gaza, especially early in the war. Because very few buildings can withstand gigantic explosions beneath them, this method involves a lot of wreckage, compounding the damage brought by tens of thousands of airstrikes. In part because of the tunnels, Israel has caused more destruction in Gaza than Syria did in Aleppo and more than Russia did in Mariupol, according to an Associated Press analysis.

John Spencer is the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, served two tours in Iraq and has made two visits to Gaza during the current war to observe operations there. He told me that Israel has done far more to protect civilians than the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Spencer reports that Israel has warned civilians when and where it is about to begin operations and published an online map showing which areas to leave. It has sent out millions of pamphlets, texts and recorded calls warning civilians of coming operations. It has conducted four-hour daily pauses to allow civilians to leave combat areas. It has dropped speakers that blast out instructions about when to leave and where to go. These measures, Spencer told me, have telegraphed where the I.D.F. is going to move next and “have prolonged the war, to be honest.”

The measures are real, but in addition, Israel has cut off power in Gaza, making it hard for Palestinians to gain access to their phones and information and, most important, the evacuation orders published by Israel. Israel has also destroyed a vast majority of Gaza’s cellphone towers and on occasion bombed civilians in so-called safe areas and safe routes. For civilians, the urban battlefield is unbelievably nightmarish. They are caught between a nation enraged by Oct. 7 and using overwhelming and often reckless force and a terrorist group that has structured the battlefield to maximize the number of innocent dead.

So to step back: What do we make of the current Israeli strategy? Judged purely on a tactical level, there’s a strong argument that the I.D.F. has been remarkably effective against Hamas forces. I’ve learned to be suspicious of precise numbers tossed about in this war, but the I.D.F. claims to have killed over 13,000 of the roughly 30,000 Hamas troops. It has disrupted three-quarters of Hamas’s battalions so that they are no longer effective fighting units. It has also killed two of five brigade commanders and 19 of 24 battalion commanders. As of January, U.S. officials estimated that Israel had damaged or made inoperable 20 to 40 percent of the tunnels. Many Israelis believe the aggressive onslaught has begun to restore Israel’s deterrent power. (Readers should know that I have a son who served in the I.D.F. from 2014 to 2016; he’s been back home in the States since then.)

But on a larger political and strategic level, you’d have to conclude that the Israeli strategy has real problems. Global public opinion is moving decisively against Israel. The key shift is in Washington. Historically pro-Israeli Democrats like Biden and Senator Chuck Schumer are now pounding the current Israeli government with criticism. Biden wants Israel to call off its invasion of the final Hamas strongholds in the south. Israel is now risking a rupture with its closest ally and its only reliable friend on the U.N. Security Council. If Israel is going to defend itself from Iran, it needs strong alliances, and Israel is steadily losing those friends. Furthermore, Israeli tactics may be reducing Gaza to an ungovernable hellscape that will require further Israeli occupation and produce more terrorist groups for years.

Hamas’s strategy is pure evil, but it is based on an understanding of how the events on the ground will play out in the political world. The key weakness of the Israeli strategy has always been that it is aimed at defeating Hamas militarily without addressing Palestinian grievances and without paying enough attention to the wider consequences. As the leaders of Hamas watch Washington grow more critical of Jerusalem, they must know their strategy is working.

So we’re back to the original question: Is there a way to defeat Hamas with far fewer civilian deaths? Is there a way to fight the war that won’t leave Israel isolated?

One alternative strategy is that Israel should conduct a much more limited campaign. Fight Hamas, but with less intensity. To some degree, Israel has already made this adjustment. In January, Israel announced it was shifting to a smaller, more surgical strategy; U.S. officials estimated at the time that Israel had reduced the number of Israeli troops in northern Gaza to fewer than half of the 50,000 who were there in December.

The first problem with going further in this direction is that Israel may not be left with enough force to defeat Hamas. Even by Israel’s figures, most Hamas fighters are still out there. Will surgical operations be enough to defeat an enemy of this size? A similar strategy followed by America in Afghanistan doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

A second problem is that the light footprint approach leaves power vacuums. This allows Hamas units to reconstitute themselves in areas Israel has already taken. As the United States learned in Iraq, if troop levels get too low, the horrors of war turn into the horrors of anarchy.

Another alternative strategy is targeted assassinations. Instead of continuing with a massive invasion, just focus on the Hamas fighters responsible for the Oct. 7 attack, the way Israel took down the terrorists who perpetrated the attack on Israeli Olympians in Munich in 1972.

The difference is that the attack on Israelis at Munich was a small-scale terrorist assault. Oct. 7 was a comprehensive invasion by an opposing army. Trying to assassinate perpetrators of that number would not look all that different from the current military approach. As Raphael Cohen, the director of the strategy and doctrine program at the RAND Corporation, notes: “In practical terms, killing or capturing those responsible for Oct. 7 means either thousands or potentially tens of thousands of airstrikes or raids dispersed throughout the Gaza Strip. Raids conducted on that scale are no longer a limited, targeted operation. It’s a full-blown war.”

Furthermore, Hamas’s fighters are hard to find, even the most notorious leaders. It took a decade for the United States to find Osama bin Laden, and Israel hasn’t had great success with eliminating key Hamas figures. In recent years, Israel tried to kill Mohammed Deif, the commander of Hamas’s military wing, seven times, without success.

The political costs of this kind of strategy might be even worse than the political costs of the current effort. Turkey, a Hamas supporter, has made it especially clear that Israel would pay a very heavy price if it went after Hamas leaders there.

A third alternative is a counterinsurgency strategy, of the kind that the United States used during the surge in Iraq. This is a less intense approach than the kind of massive invasion we’ve seen and would focus on going after insurgent cells and rebuilding the destroyed areas to build trust with the local population. The problem is that this works only after you’ve defeated the old regime and have a new host government you can work with. Israel is still trying to defeat the remaining Hamas battalions in places like Rafah. This kind of counterinsurgency approach would be an amendment to the current Israeli strategy, not a replacement.

Critics of the counterinsurgency approach point out that Gaza is not Iraq. If Israel tried to clear, hold and build new secure communities in classic counterinsurgency fashion, those new communities wouldn’t look like safe zones to the Palestinians. They would look like detention camps. Furthermore, if Israel settles on this strategy, it had better be prepared for a long war. One study of 71 counterinsurgency campaigns found that the median length of those conflicts was 10 years. Finally, the case for a full counterinsurgency approach would be stronger if that strategy had led to American victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, which it did not.

A fourth alternative is that Israel should just stop. It should settle for what it has achieved and not finish the job by invading Rafah and the southern areas of Gaza, or it should send in just small strike teams.

This is now the official Biden position. The national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, has argued that Israel can destroy Hamas in Gaza without a large invasion but “by other means” (which he did not elaborate on). The United States has asked Israel to send a delegation to Washington to discuss alternative Rafah strategies, which is good. The problem is that, first, there seems to be a budding disagreement over how much of Hamas needs to be destroyed to declare victory and, second, the I.D.F. estimates that there are 5,000 to 8,000 Hamas fighters in Rafah. Defeating an army that size would take thousands of airstrikes and raids. If you try to shrink the incursion, the math just doesn’t add up. As an Israeli war cabinet member, Benny Gantz, reportedly told U.S. officials, “Finishing the war without demilitarizing Rafah is like sending in firefighters to put out 80 percent of a fire.”

If this war ends with a large chunk of Hamas in place, it would be a long-term disaster for the region. Victorious, Hamas would dominate whatever government was formed to govern Gaza. Hamas would rebuild its military to continue its efforts to exterminate the Jewish state, delivering on its promise to launch more and more attacks like that of Oct. 7. Israel would have to impose an even more severe blockade than the one that it imposed before, this time to keep out the steel, concrete and other materials that Hamas uses to build tunnels and munitions, but that Gazans would need to rebuild their homes.

If Hamas survives this war intact, it would be harder for the global community to invest in rebuilding Gaza. It would be impossible to begin a peace process. As the veteran Middle East observers Robert Satloff and Dennis Ross wrote in American Purpose, “Any talk of a postwar political process is meaningless without Israel battlefield success: There can be no serious discussion of a two-state solution or any other political objective with Hamas either still governing Gaza or commanding a coherent military force.”

So where are we? I’m left with the tragic conclusion that there is no magical alternative military strategy. As Cohen wrote in Foreign Policy: “If the international community wants Israel to change strategies in Gaza, then it should offer a viable alternative strategy to Israel’s announced goal of destroying Hamas in the strip. And right now, that alternate strategy simply does not exist.”

The lack of viable alternatives leaves me with the further conclusion that Israel must ultimately confront Hamas leaders and forces in Rafah rather than leave it as a Hamas beachhead. For now, a cease-fire may be in the offing in Gaza, which is crucial for the release of more hostages.

Israel can use that time to put in place the humanitarian relief plan that Israeli security officials are now, at long last, proposing (but that the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has not agreed to so far). Israel would also have to undertake a full-scale civilian evacuation of Rafah before any military operation and then try to take out as much of Hamas as possible with as few civilian casualties as possible. Given the horrors of this kind of tunnel-based urban warfare, this will be a painful time and painfully difficult. But absent some new alternative strategy, Biden is wrong to stop Israel from confronting the Hamas threat in southern Gaza.

Finally, like pretty much every expert I consulted, I’m also left with the conclusion that Israel has to completely rethink and change the humanitarian and political side of this operation. Israel needs to supplement its military strategy with an equally powerful Palestinian welfare strategy.

Israel’s core problems today are not mostly the fault of the I.D.F. or its self-defense strategy. Israel’s core problems flow from the growing callousness with which many of its people have viewed the Palestinians over the past decades, magnified exponentially by the trauma it has just suffered. Today, an emotionally shattered Israeli people see through the prism of Oct. 7. They feel existentially insecure, facing enemies on seven fronts — Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. As Ross has noted, many often don’t see a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinians. Over 80 percent of West Bank Palestinians told pollsters they supported the Oct. 7 attack.

As the columnist Anshel Pfeffer wrote in the Israeli paper Haaretz, “The very idea that Israel needed to take any responsibility whatsoever for the place from which those who had murdered, raped and pillaged had emerged was seen as a moral abomination.”

Pfeffer continued that because of this attitude, “the government’s policy on humanitarian supplies to Gaza is a combination of vengeance, ignorance and incompetence.” He quoted unnamed I.D.F. officials who acknowledged that of course Israel is responsible for the welfare of the people in the area it controls but that the civilian leaders refuse to confront this.

On occasions when Israel has responded to world pressure and shifted policy, it has done so in secret, with no discussion in the cabinet.

An officer whose duties specifically include addressing the needs of civilians told Pfeffer that he didn’t have much to do except for some odd jobs.

Israel is failing to lay the groundwork for some sort of better Palestinian future — to its own detriment. The security experts I spoke with acknowledge that providing humanitarian aid will be hard. As Cohen told me: “If the Israeli military takes over distributing humanitarian aid to Gaza, they will likely lose soldiers in the process. And so Israelis are asking why should their boys die providing aid to someone who wants to kill them. So the United States needs to convince Israel that this is the morally and strategically right thing to do.”

For her book “How Terrorism Ends,” the Carnegie Mellon scholar Audrey Kurth Cronin looked at about 460 terrorist groups to investigate how they were defeated. Trying to beat them with military force alone rarely works. The root causes have to be addressed. As the retired general David Petraeus reminded his audience recently at the New Orleans Book Festival, “Over time, hearts and minds still matter.”

Israel also has to offer the world a vision for Gaza’s recovery, and it has to do it right now. Ross argues that after the war is over, the core logic of the peace has to be demilitarization in exchange for reconstruction. In an essay in Foreign Affairs, he sketches out a comprehensive rebuilding effort, bringing in nations and agencies from all over the world, so Gaza doesn’t become a failed state or remain under Hamas control.

Is any of this realistic given the vicious enmity now ripping through the region? Well, many peace breakthroughs of the past decades happened after one side suffered a crushing defeat. Egypt established ties with Israel after it was thoroughly defeated in the Yom Kippur War. When Israel attacked Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006, the world was outraged. But after the fighting stopped, some Lebanese concluded that Hezbollah had dragged them into a bloody, unnecessary conflict. The Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was forced to acknowledge his error, saying he didn’t know Israel would react so violently. The Lebanese border stabilized. Israel’s over-the-top responses have sometimes served as effective deterrents and prevented further bloodshed.

Israel and the Palestinians have both just suffered shattering defeats. Maybe in the next few years they will do some difficult rethinking, and a new vision of the future will come into view. But that can happen only after Hamas is fully defeated as a military and governing force.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.

David Brooks has been a columnist with The Times since 2003. He is the author, most recently,  of “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen.” @nytdavidbrooks

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 22 of the New York edition with the headline: What Would You Have Israel Do to Defend Itself?. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Title: Who were the 1948 Arab Migrant refugees?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2024, 02:57:36 PM

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/06/06/who-were-the-1948-arab-refugees/?fbclid=IwAR10wwOpwnXnQ78TiIgOeHTMIKCXQ2-rFz9ptGEuO8Vpmdz_vZxMaIdEEi4

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on March 25, 2024, 04:03:41 PM

" Who Were the 1948 Arab Refugees?"

interesting
so here all along I am thinking they are descendants of the Philistines of David and Goliath and Samson lore...... and thus long term non Jewish
Semites of Canaan Judea Palestine Israel etc

Title: Bernard-Henri Levy: What if Biden helps Hamas Win?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2024, 05:54:06 PM

What if the U.S. Helps Hamas Win?
The path Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer have chosen means the end of any hope of peace.
By Bernard-Henri Lévy
March 26, 2024 4:08 pm ET


Let’s imagine that Israel yields to the pressure. Pushed by an American president already under fire from a segment of the electorate that objects to his support for a “genocidal” state, Israel refrains from entering Rafah to finish off Hamas’s four surviving battalions. Israel agrees to the general cease-fire of indeterminate duration that the U.S. administration seems to push amid increasingly virulent antisemitism.

The idea that Washington unconditionally supports Israel is a longstanding myth. While the U.S. often vetoes anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council, the one that passed Monday was far from the first exception. Recall Resolution 1701 (2006) to halt Israel’s Lebanon offensive at the Litani River—thus sparing what remained of the Hezbollah units.

So the supposition that the U.S. pushes Israel into capitulating isn’t implausible. It is the path forward that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who styles himself the Jewish state’s shomer, or protector, has chosen. It isn’t hard to picture an Israel that is sermonized, impeded and prevented from dealing with Hamas the way the U.S. dealt with Al-Qaeda and ISIS a few years back—an Israel forced into defeat.

If that came to pass, what would happen? Hamas would declare victory—on the verge of defeat, then the next minute revived. These criminals against humanity would emerge from their tunnels triumphant after playing with the lives not only of the 250 Israelis captured on Oct. 7, but also of their own citizens, whom they transformed into human shields.

The Arab street would view Hamas terrorists as resistance fighters. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—nations that signed the Abraham Accords or were leaning toward doing so—Hamas’s prestige would be enhanced. In the West Bank as in Gaza, Hamas would quickly eclipse the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Authority, whose image would pale next to the twin aura of martyrdom and endurance in which Hamas would cloak itself.

After that, no diplomatic or military strategy would prevail against the iron law of people converted into mobs and mobs into packs. None of the experts’ extravagant plans for an international stabilization force, an interim Arab authority, or a technocratic government presiding over the reconstruction of Gaza would stand long against the blast effect created by the last-minute return of this group of criminals adorned with the most heroic of virtues.

Hamas would be the law in the Palestinian territories. It would set the ideological and political agenda, regardless of the formal structure of the new government. And Israel will never deal with a Palestinian Authority of which Hamas is a part. Goodbye, Palestinian State. Hope for peace harbored by moderates on both sides will be dead.

This is why the world has one choice. Instead of putting all their energy into trying to get Israel to bend, leaders should push Hamas to surrender. The Biden administration should redirect the time it is spending in useless negotiations with the Qataris—experts in double-dealing—to calling the Qataris’ bluff by demanding that they push the “political” leaders of Hamas, whom they host and protect, to live up to their responsibilities.

Those who portray themselves as praying for the end of this war and a negotiated peace on “the day after” must recognize there is only one path to that end. First, the release of all hostages. Next, the evacuation of civilians from the zone of imminent combat. When will the world recognize that Israel, having been forced into this war, is doing more than any army ever did to prevent civilian deaths?

And finally, in Rafah, the destruction of what remains of Hamas and its death squads. Without this military victory, the endless wheel of misfortune will begin to spin yet again, though faster. This is the terrible truth.

Mr. Lévy is author of “The Will to See: Dispatches From a World of Misery and Hope” and author and director of the documentary “Slava Ukraini.” This article was translated from French by Steven B. Kennedy.

Title: for the hundred thousanth time US Israel talks
Post by: ccp on March 27, 2024, 01:18:28 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/defense-secretary-meets-with-israeli-counterpart-as-tensions-grow/ar-BB1kAqDe?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=066673229ef847fabb8d6bae09add543&ei=21

how many times does the Biden admin. have to talk in circles?

God how annoying.
Let Israel do its job to defend itself and do the best they can to rid of Hamas
for God's sakes.

Can Israel get arms from other countries ?

Title: I call for a Russia-ISIS Ceasefire!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2024, 03:21:04 PM

Russia must respect international law.

Isis must get a State on Russia's border.

Russia must feed ISIS and give it fuel.

Title: Israel, Biden official resigns, risking future of her one year career
Post by: DougMacG on March 28, 2024, 06:34:23 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/opinions/gaza-israel-resigning-state-department-sheline/index.html

Here is the depth of one of those government workers making way more than productive sector workers.

What was she paid to do, make sure Hamas has everything they need?

Title: Israel's Kid Gloves
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 28, 2024, 07:17:36 AM

Piece explores Israel's unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties:

https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286

Title: Israel's New Labor Force
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 01, 2024, 05:16:55 AM

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes: Palastinian work force (apporox 18,000 work permits issued) will be replaced by workers from India and Sri Lanka:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/indians-set-to-replace-palestinian-workers-from-gaza-west-bank-in-israeli-jobs-after-october-7-massacre/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=indians-set-to-replace-palestinian-workers-from-gaza-west-bank-in-israeli-jobs-after-october-7-massacre

Title: Israel hits Iranian consulate in Damascus, kills two generals
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2024, 02:22:18 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/israeli-airstrike-on-iranian-consulate-in-damascus-kills-irgc-commander

Title: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Post by: ccp on April 02, 2024, 01:07:38 PM

ttps://blogs.timesofisrael.com/american-jews-pathetic-and-pitiable-must-reclaim-their-power/

my only thought to add is I am not sure Rabbi Boteach understands for most American Jews
the Democrat Party is what they pray to.

not God. 

Title: Re: Israel hits Iranian consulate in Damascus, kills two generals
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 02, 2024, 02:37:10 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2024, 02:22:18 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/israeli-airstrike-on-iranian-consulate-in-damascus-kills-irgc-commander

Can’t help but suspect there is more here than meets the eye. Between touching high up the Iranian food chain in Syria, or making this strike given the current state of US/Israel relations, my take is that Israel is comprehensively thumbing its nose.

ETA: Just found this cogent analysis that I believe is spot on:

I pitched my analysis on why #Israel has just checkmated Islamist #Iran in #Syria strike that killed top IRGC officer Zahedi. US media editors wanted something else: How Israel is dragging the world into World War III by attacking Iran.

This is why I think Israel has thrown Khamenei off balance, and there is little Khamenei can do about it:

1- #Iran has instigated, funded and armed half a dozen of its proxy militias in #Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, #Yemen and #Iraq to launch a war of mass distraction on Israel with the hope of bogging down the Jewish state in wars that keep it busy and away from stopping Tehran from dashing to the nuclear bomb. To Khamenei's misfortune, Israel seems to have many more eyes and arms than two, and has engaged in at least four simultaneous fronts -- Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria while sensitive Iranian targets keep "mysteriously" blowing up every now and then.

2- While Iran was happy to see Arabs die and force attrition on Israel, it stayed out of all wars since end of its war with Iraq in 1988. Islamist Iranian officials always deliver statements in English on how they seek regional and world peace, while in Arabic thumping their chests and promising to destroy Israel.

3- Israel wants to keep the option of attacking Iran's nuclear program open, but without being blamed for starting war with Iran. Now that Israel has killed top IRGC officer in Syria, all Arab Shia partisans of Iran (see attached post from top Hezbollah anthem singer) are expecting Tehran to respond directly by attacking Israel. All Iran's proxies are now asking: Why do we all have to fight Israel and die except for Islamist Iran?

4- Islamist Iran is so embarrassed that Khamenei himself had to promise revenge against Israel for killing of Zahedi (see attached post). Now this is why Khamenei is in a pickle: If he throws missiles from Iran on Israel, that will justify any Israeli retaliation against Iranian territory, opening the way for Israel to hit whatever target inside Iran, including nuclear program targets.

5- Other than "face-saving" responses, Islamist Iran feels its weakness vs Israel. The Jewish state has infiltrated the Iranian regime to its very core. Israel has decimated most of the top leadership, and can do more damage. All Iran can do is either have proxies respond, which is now backfiring on Iran, or attack Israelis in third party countries, and that'll put Iran in trouble with these countries and with international law.

Conclusion: Judging by similar incidents in the past, Iran will swallow its pride and let this one pass. In the past, Iran repeatedly stood down, "swallowed the poison" whenever it felt weaker. Wish its Arab proxies understood these Iranian lessons of the balance of power. But proxies are proxies, they are mercenaries who do the bidding of the highest bidder while their countries are in free fall.
@Hussain abdul-Hussain

Title: Afghan Weapons Used by Terrorists in Israel
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 03, 2024, 07:22:08 AM

While the Biden admin refuses to supply Israel with American small arms lest they be used by "right wing" communities ... like some of those attacked 10/7:

Iran Smuggles US Weapons from Afghanistan to Terrorists in Israel
The weapons denied by Biden to Israel are instead going to terrorists backed by Biden.
April 2, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield 35 Comments

[Pre-order a copy of Daniel Greenfield’s first book, Domestic Enemies, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on April 30th.]

In December, the Biden administration blocked a shipment of M4 rifles to Israel. The rifles were meant to be used by local community self-defense units of the kind that had served as the front line of defense against the Hamas attack on Oct 7. However the Biden administration claimed that it was concerned that the self-defense units might be Jewish “right-wing extremists”.

The Islamic terrorists attacking them however had no trouble finding M4 rifles. They just expected theirs to come by a more complicated road from Afghanistan, by way of Iran’s terror operatives, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan via a drug smuggling route, and then inside Israel.

The M4 rifles were part of a package that included grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles, anti-tank landmines, RPGs, C4 and Semtex explosives, and hand grenades.

A number of those were clearly American weapons including the M4s and the M203 grenade launchers: both in use in Afghanistan. The Alma Center, founded by IDF Lt Col (Res.) Sarit Zehavi, believes that the M4s are likely “spoils from Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan.”

If U.S. weapons from Afghanistan made their way to Islamic terrorists in Israel, it would not be the first time. Islamic terrorists in Gaza had been previously spotted with M4 and M16 rifles, including during the Oct 7 attacks. Rep. James Comer had dispatched a letter after the Hamas attacks to the Department of Defense asking it to explain the M4A1 Carbines, which were “specially designed for U.S. Special Operations Forces” in the hands of the terrorists.

“The surprise terror attacks by Hamas into Israel were made possible, in part, because of U.S. arms left behind in Afghanistan by the Biden administration,” Larry Keane, the Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote at the Firearm Industry Trade Association.

The weapons package now intercepted by Israel shows how Iran may have tapped into the weapons left behind in Afghanistan. The weapons shipment appears to be a ‘sandwich’ with Iran moving American weapons to the Islamic terrorists backed by the Biden administration.

While the weapons were being smuggled by Iran through its IRGC terror arm, the key player was Munir Makdah, a top figure in the Fatah movement which controls the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority is a major recipient of American foreign aid and the Biden administration has been pressuring Israel to put its terrorists in charge of Gaza.

Even as the Biden administration was demanding that Israel allow Fatah terrorists to run Gaza, a top Fatah leader was recruiting terrorists to attack Israel. The anti-tank weapons, mines and RPGs suggest that the goal was a significant assault on Israel in order to open a second front in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, to relieve the pressure on Hamas in Gaza. .

Munir Makdah serves as a deputy commander of Fatah in the Ein al-Hilweh terrorist settlement in Lebanon. Misleadingly described by the UN as a refugee camp, it’s actually a major city of over 100,000 which various Islamic terrorist groups have been fighting over since at least the 1980s. While Ein al-Hilweh is often described in the media as a “Palestinian refugee camp”, large numbers of Syrian Islamists fled there after losing their civil war, and have been fighting with Fatah for control of the city using heavy weaponry including rockets.

The weapons were intended for the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah terrorist arm, sanctioned by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for its numerous bloody attacks.

Even as Al Aqsa has gone on murdering Israelis, Marwan Barghouti, its founder, in prison for his involvement in multiple murders, including that of a Greek monk, has been promoted as a future president of the Palestinian Authority.

The New York Times ran an op-ed by Barghouti while failing to identify him as a terrorist. The Washington Post recently claimed that the Biden administration had “raised the treatment of Marwan Barghouti” with Israel. The International Red Cross, which has failed to visit any of the Jewish and non-Jewish hostages held by Hamas, has been clamoring to visit him.

“The Biden administration should make it very clear to the Netanyahu government that if Barghouti is harmed or killed in prison, it would throw gas on a raging fire,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, notorious for his promotion of Iranian agendas, warned.

While the Biden administration and Iran Lobby adjacent figures like Van Hollen were lobbying for Barghouti, the terrorist’s men appeared to be preparing to unleash a major attack on Israel.

And who was behind the attack? Iran.

Apart from being a top Fatah terrorist, Munir Makdah has also been identified as an operative with Iran’s Hezbollah terrorist movement in Lebanon and the IRGC. After consolidating its control over Hamas and Al Qaeda, Iran is gaining a deeper foothold in the Palestinian Authority.

And the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist operation subsidized by American taxpayers.

The weapons, including the M4 rifles, had come by way of Iran’s terror operatives, including those in Syria, who would have been in a position to move them through Jordan into Israel.

Captagon, the amphetamine used by the Hamas terrorists on Oct 7, is manufactured under the protection of the Assad family, an Iranian client, smuggled out of Syria and into Jordan, where it’s then trafficked to Iran’s enemies in Saudi Arabia, but also into Muslim areas in Israel.

Iran’s global drug smuggling empire provides wealth, but it’s also used by the terror regime to piggyback terror operatives and weapons like those that were meant for the Fatah terrorists.

Opiates and weapons from Afghanistan make their way to Iran, and from there to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and to Gaza and now even the West Bank. In 2022, Israel had detected a significant increase in both drugs and weapons being smuggled into the country. This was likely part of the prep for the Oct 7 attacks which employed both drugs and weapons.

Iran’s drug network is also a terror network and the terrorists are also its clients. Gaza has an estimated 150,000 drug addicts from a population of only a few million.

After Biden turned over Afghanistan to the Taliban, along with its drug trafficking operation, Iran boosted a pipeline of weapons and drugs that are used to bind its allies and attack its enemies.

Weapons left behind in Afghanistan have made their way into Israel. But this time they were intended for the Palestinian Authority terrorists backed by the Biden administration.

While the terrorists want the M4s left behind in Afghanistan, Israel is pivoting away from the rifles denied to it by the Biden administration and shifting over to local manufacturing. After the Biden administration began moving arms from Israel to Ukraine, and then began cutting off weapons to stop Israel from finishing off Hamas, the Israeli government is going local.

Under Biden, Islamic terrorists can still count on American weapons, Israelis however can’t.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/iran-smuggles-us-weapons-from-afghanistan-to-terrorists-in-israel/?fbclid=IwAR2MMME6sTEHL7kD_3oPSGtpA4c9bLkX1qWSWSGxfq5KvZV9SRue7tsLCdk

Title: Accountability for mistaken drone strike
Post by: ccp on April 05, 2024, 06:35:05 AM

accountability BTW we NEVER see in the Biden administration.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israeli-military-fires-two-senior-officers-as-report-finds-strike-on-aid-workers-was-in-serious-violation-of-commands/ar-BB1l7vVP?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=418fe14b0c534d539e505058e6464923&ei=19

Title: Big mouths criticizing Israel
Post by: ccp on April 06, 2024, 11:21:04 AM

No exit strategy!
No post war plans!

Making more Jew haters and situation worse!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/six-months-into-the-war-in-gaza-israel-has-no-exit-strategy-and-no-real-plan-for-the-future/ar-BB1l9OoB?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=6c465475397445b4b1739fe66197b568&ei=24

In comparison, the US was extremely successful in democratizing Haiti.   :roll: :wink:

Were is all the critics there? They have such big mouths.
We did great with the Taliban too!   :wink:

The only difference is Haitians do not want to kill all of us and have ocean in between.

PS :  what is Zelensky's exit plan?  no mention from the LEFT on that.
        odd, no?

Title: F35s completed their mission and have been withdrawn in the middle east
Post by: ccp on April 07, 2024, 02:14:34 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/f-35-jets-withdraw-from-middle-east-signaling-us-readiness-for-swift-action-on-oct-2023/ar-BB1lbY8C?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=cfc1fbca42be44cbbcd3a50b205935ea&ei=25

just as alerts are sky high with Iran threatening to make attacks.

 :wink:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2024, 05:11:46 AM

Is that article from Oct 2023 or now?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: ccp on April 07, 2024, 07:13:00 AM

good question
I just saw it on news yesterday.
but only dates I see are 2024 so likely is old
 :|

Title: Israel losing war by caring what enemies think
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 08, 2024, 05:23:58 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2024/04/08/israel-is-risking-losing-this-war-by-caring-what-people-who-hate-it-think-n2637467

Title: Re: Israel, Gaza, WHAT has gone on too long?
Post by: DougMacG on April 08, 2024, 10:57:14 AM

Relating to Israel and to our foreign policy -

This point in response is so obvious it seems no one says it.

THEY'RE STILL HOLDING HOSTAGES.

The fight back from Israel is NOT what has gone on too long.  Those who raped and murdered are STILL holding hostages.  133 by latest report. 6 of them American.
-----------------

It's hard to agree on what Israel's response needs to be, when 40% (UK study) think the attacks of October 7 didn't happen.  (Must be reading George Orwell media.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13281219/Three-four-British-Muslims-dont-believe-Hamas-committed-murder-rape-Israel-October-7-shocking-poll-claims.html

It happened, and it was worse than any of us can imagine.
-----------------

The human shield 'civilians' have their own responsibility (in my view) for the overthrow from within of these terrorists.  If they had done that, immediately, the war would be over.  Instead a majority of them (reportedly) supported the attacks.
-----------------

Why are we negotiating the release of some of the hostages, and worrying about the plight of those holding them are you kidding?  Why are we negotiating with terrorists at all.  Why are we tying the hands of those fighting back (while we do nothing except further damage).  What parts of disproportionate response and deterrence of future attacks don't we understand?

Talk about blood on our hands.  Do we want to be complicit enabling future attacks?

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 08, 2024, 04:19:46 PM

AGREED.

Title: Hamas worse than we can imagine
Post by: DougMacG on April 09, 2024, 05:51:16 AM

https://www.samizdata.net/2024/04/a-palestinian-writer/

"...she skips over some relevant details in that brief word “killed”. Daqqa and his PFLP comrades did not just kill Moshe Tamam, they tortured him to death. They gouged out his eyes and castrated him. Then they murdered him."

Title: Democrat consultant who voted for Biden is disapointed
Post by: ccp on April 10, 2024, 08:26:36 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/could-never-again-happen-again-if-hamas-is-not-wiped-out/vi-BB1lbGBf?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=9f1c882efb3f44e4870715ef155f8d31&ei=32

says this could cost Biden Jewish voters - I will believe only when I see it.

states he is disappointed because he voted for Biden but stil undecided if he would vote for him again

meaning he will
because he will not vote R.

 :roll:

but he does make good point:

the civilian casualty rate in Gaza is far lower then in Mosul  (assuming he is correct)

But Blinks.Biden/Sullivan/Rhodes are "outraged"

nonetheless

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2024, 09:10:53 AM

It would be a potent bullet point if we could verify this:

"the civilian casualty rate in Gaza is far lower then in Mosul  (assuming he is correct)"

Title: Complicity
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2024, 10:26:18 AM

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/three_short_videos_reveal_how_gaza_s_islamic_jihad_works_and_the_west_s_complicity_with_its_lies.html

Title: Hamas leader thanks God his children died as martyrs
Post by: ccp on April 11, 2024, 04:43:58 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-leader-reacts-to-3-sons-being-killed-thank-god/ar-BB1lpzn2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ed5ba2255cf9497aac3d6593c0fa7bca&ei=12

quadruple billionaire (I wonder how he  got that money!)  According to Wikipedia the guy never did anything other then activism

this is the best example yet of explaining why one cannot make a deal with Hamas and they must be destroyed.

Assuming right off that the vacuum will be filled with more Jew haters is likely but not definite.

Title: second post
Post by: ccp on April 11, 2024, 07:01:58 AM

incapacitating agent gas to use in tunnels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitating_agent

nothing safe enough.

Title: Russian propaganda? True? Or?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 14, 2024, 05:34:25 PM

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/iran-breaches-anglo-zionist-defenses?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=143567052&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Title: Did Biden green light Iranian attack?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 14, 2024, 05:35:06 PM

second

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/04/14/new-joe-biden-green-lit-irans-attack-on-israel-n2172744#google_vignette

Title: Russia threatens to join Iran in war if US joins attacks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2024, 06:17:22 AM

https://amrron.com/2024/04/14/israel-iran-war-update-14-april-2024-0400z-amcon-2/

Title: Hamas' victory
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2024, 10:06:00 AM

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20569/hamas-destroys-gaza-victory

Title: WSJ: Israel has no choice but to
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2024, 11:10:04 AM

second

Israel Has No Choice but to Strike Back Against Iran
Those urging restraint after Tehran’s attack are following the same failed strategy that produced catastrophe on Oct. 7.
By Elliot Kaufman
April 16, 2024 12:55 pm ET


What if the Oct. 7 invasion had been “intercepted”? Imagine the same Hamas attack but better Israeli defense, with more than 90% of the terrorists stopped before the border or shortly thereafter, and only minor Israeli casualties. President Biden would probably have done then what he is doing now, in the aftermath of Iran’s intercepted attack: urge Israel not to respond in any serious way. Let Hamas live to try it again.

To learn the lessons of Oct. 7 is to reject that advice after the long night of April 13. Israel will respond to Iran, it announced Monday. It has learned the hard way that air defenses don’t relieve you of the duty to subdue a determined attacker. Hamas’s intent to slaughter Israelis was hardly a secret, but Israel allowed it to survive and grow stronger because its rockets could be intercepted.

It was no harm, no foul. Israel agreed to “take the win” against Hamas—as Mr. Biden now advises with regard to Iran—all the way to catastrophe.

Rocket fire from an Iranian proxy became normal, not worth a response in most cases, until it was too late. It’s the same story with Hezbollah, whose expanding arsenal and occasional rocket fire became facts of life in northern Israel. Another war would have been costly, and what damage were the rockets really doing in the meantime? As the smart set says about Iran today, Hezbollah’s attacks were merely “symbolic.”

Israel never stopped the trickle, so it became a flood. Hezbollah has fired on Israel more than 3,000 times since Oct. 7, depopulating the country’s north. Yet this, too, has become normal. “Man is a creature who can get used to anything,” writes Dostoevsky, and all the more so if it’s the other guy who has to live with the consequences. Biden administration officials now regularly implore Israel not to “escalate” with Hezbollah—that, they say, would cause a war.

The miracle of Iron Dome air defenses for years led Israel to tolerate what no other nation would. Worse, other nations demanded that Israel tolerate it, because Israel suffered little damage. When Hamas crossed a line and Israel responded, as in 2008 and 2014, the world quickly came to demand a cease-fire, no matter how strong and unbowed Hamas remained. Better to restore calm. Better to have peace and quiet.

Amid unprecedented economic growth, Israelis themselves came to worship calm. Politicians and generals rationalized allowing Qatar to send aid money to Gaza, knowing that much of it was being diverted to Hamas. Why? To maintain stability.

The Biden administration does much the same with Iran by issuing $10 billion sanctions waivers and not enforcing oil sanctions. This is money to grease the peace, even though everyone knows Iran uses it to spread war.

For Israel, it all worked until it didn’t. Hezbollah now diverts Israeli troops from Gaza, holds a region of the country hostage and is strong enough to deter a substantial reply. The Houthis in Yemen, another Iranian proxy, have shut down the Red Sea and barely paid a price. You think this will be the last time they do it?

The war in Gaza is now fought on Hamas’s terms, following Hamas’s greatest success, waged in the tunnels Hamas has spent 16 years preparing. It should have been fought after the very first rocket.

Easy for me to say now, but that’s the point. After Oct. 7, Israelis vowed never again to fall victim to such a conceptzia. Israel, and America, has a chance to learn from experience.

Today many restrainers assure us that Iran’s attack on Israel was a mere demonstration, nothing demanding a reply. Never mind that it was the largest drone attack in history, plus 150 or so ballistic and cruise missiles. When it wanted to put on a show in January, after Israel had killed a different Iranian terror kingpin, Iran fired 11 missiles at an Iraqi businessman’s family home and called it a Mossad base. This wasn’t that.

The Biden view of the attack is convoluted: “Iran’s intent was clearly to cause significant destruction and casualties,” spokesman John Kirby says, but no need for an Israeli reply. Claim victory to mask fear.

Telegraphing its intentions but firing a massive barrage suggests Tehran wanted to do as much damage as it could get away with. Bizarre public negotiations, conducted through leaks to third parties in the lead-up to the strike, helped Iran calibrate what it could shoot while securing Mr. Biden’s pressure on Israel not to respond.

The administration is proud of its back-channel work, but it shouldn’t be. Instead of reassuring Iran that it could attack Israel within parameters, Mr. Biden should have left Ayatollah Ali Khamenei fearing how the U.S. would reply.

In telling Israel to move on, Mr. Biden is asking it to recognize Iran’s right to respond to pinpoint strikes in Syria with war on the Israeli homeland. As the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Sunday: “From now on, if the Zionist regime anywhere attacks our interests, assets, figures and citizens, we will reciprocally attack it from Iran.”

If those are allowed to become the rules of the game, would Israel be deterred from disrupting Iran’s command and supply hub in Syria, from which it arms Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank? A small Israeli surrender in Syria, coerced by a Biden administration desperate for calm, could seed the next war.

Israel is being told again to let the problem fester and accept a tit-for-tat equation, but on worse terms than ever. “It’s only 100 ballistic missiles” is only the latest gruel to swallow, while Mr. Khamenei releases ravings, such as on April 10, about Israeli normalization with Muslim states: “The Zionists suck the blood of a country for their own benefit when they gain a foothold.” The world brushes off the antisemitism. The media doesn’t even report his statements.

Mr. Biden asks Israel to put its faith in deterrence while its enemies become stronger and Israel is the one deterred. When the president threatens that Israel will be isolated, on its own if it defends itself properly, he is asking it to stick to the strategy that left it fatally exposed on Oct. 7 and that it swore off the same day.

Title: Israeli newspaper: The Sky is Falling
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2024, 04:07:26 PM

https://archive.ph/Fc4nx

Title: Iron Dome Coordination During Irani Attack "a Miracle?"
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 18, 2024, 12:21:15 PM

It does seem an unlikely outcome given the complexity of the multifaceted attack. And some sort of spook stuff could always have played a hand:

Professor of physics, Maximilian Abitbol,  who is also an expert on the defense industry had this to say about the events of Saturday night.

This is a must read.

“I wanted to share something that is much more than a feeling.  Something that comes from a real calculation:  What happened in Israel on last Motzaei Shabbat was not less than the scale of the splitting of the Red Sea.

I am a Professor of physics and I worked for several years in the defense industry in Israel, in projects that are still the cutting edge technologies of the defence of the State of Israel.

When I look at what happened on Motzai Shabbat, on a scientific level - it simply cannot happen!! Statistically.

The likelihood that everything, but really *Everything* works out, does not exist in complex systems  Like the defense systems that were used to defend Israel from the massive Iranian attack.

These systems have never, *but never*, not only in the State of Israel, been tried in real time!!

I took a pencil and dived into the calculations to check the statistic probability that such a result would materialize. 

The large number of events that had to be handled, when each missile or UAV is handled independently (that is, human error or some deviation of one operation, is not offset by other successful operations), compounds the chance of making a mistake.

With all the high technologies, a breach was expected  In the defense of the skies of the State of Israel.

Even if we got 90% protection it would have been a miracle!!

What happened is that everyone, but everyone - the pilots, the systems operators and the technology operators acted as one man, at one moment in total unity.  If this is not an act of G-d, then I no longer know what a miracle is.

It is Greater than the victory of the Six Day War or the War of Independence.  Those wars can also be explained through natural events.

BUT

The rescue that took place for the people of Israel on Motzai Shabbat  is simply impossible naturally.  I believe that this miracle saved the lives of many people from Israel.

If the defense system had failed to intercept a number of cruise missiles, the result would have dragged us into a very complex war.

I wouldn't bet that next time it will work like this without Divine supervision.
The simple proof of what I said is that the managers of the defense industries, who develop and manufacture these systems guarantee no more than 90% success!

And we all saw, with our own eyes  99.9% !!!

Thank You Hashem!!”

M.  Abitbol

https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1780642231604466027

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 18, 2024, 02:03:44 PM

Or maybe we are being lied to?

Anyway, here's Zeihan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4W0FHJ8A0o

Title: NR: Bibi correct Biden wrong
Post by: ccp on April 19, 2024, 09:27:04 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-is-right-to-reject-biden-s-bad-advice/ar-AA1niW4b?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=7cb7f34c5d4d4ad5f3eb2572a88fb266&ei=40

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 19, 2024, 02:14:51 PM

Well stated!

Title: David Harsanyi logical look at Israel response
Post by: ccp on April 21, 2024, 12:55:01 PM

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/106132-the-world-is-paying-a-deadly-price-for-barack-obamas-foreign-policy-legacy-2024-04-19

"Axois reports that Netanyahu was reluctant to strike back, while his cabinet wanted to move immediately. The “war hawk” perception of him is a myth, created by the Left because of the prime minister’s open opposition to Obama’s mullah bootlicking."

Title: Israel is a neocolonialist/ conqueror/ occuppier
Post by: ccp on April 22, 2024, 12:25:52 PM

says the Palestinians and Jihadists and the campus leftist loons :

This is very obvious from this map:

https://cdn.britannica.com/56/67356-050-D67FCB0B/World-distribution-Islam.jpg

you might want to use a magnifying glass to make out the aggressor's massive ill-gotten conquered land gains.

 :wink:

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2024, 03:48:32 AM

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4qZqu1tMaT/?igsh=MWRuNW1sZHdvdDhoaw==

Title: speaker Johnson holds ground against ambush Burnett
Post by: ccp on April 25, 2024, 06:30:54 AM

The usual ambush interview that occurs when a Patriotic R goes on CNN:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics/video/house-speaker-mike-johnson-protests-columbia-university-israel-hamas-war-ebof-digvid

She tries to shame him while at same time never mentions the name : *HAMAS*

Title: Bill O'Reilly: who is behind the Palestinian protests
Post by: ccp on April 26, 2024, 05:20:12 AM

Listen from minute 19:55 to 25:00


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-tabloid-publisher-to-face-more-questions-in-trump-hush-money-trial/ar-AA1nIjKN?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=04a36b6ef50c4ef4d1bfbc4778937724&ei=18

Amazing.
Every single radical anti American anti conservative organization has SOROS fingerprints all over it.
He should be tried for treason. And his sons.

Arab countries also funding this, of course.

Title: Re: Israel, and its neighbors
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2024, 08:41:26 AM

I'm seeing an article but not any video or audio of that length.

Title: I posted wrong link ; try this one OReilly
Post by: ccp on April 26, 2024, 09:56:10 AM

minute 19:55 to 25:00
for who is backing the protestors:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-divided-republican-party-bidens-capital-gains-tax/id1126543994?i=1000653632706